[EL] More on How Gerrymandering Did Not Cause the Shutdown

[Rob Richie]

I find it remarkable that the debate over this issue (such as the items
linked by Rick below) narrow our choices seemingly to three:

* Many non-academic editorial writer sorts will suggest gerrymandering is
the key reason for safe congressional seats and partisan bias.The 2011
redistricting was an appalling example. So let's push for commissions -
-we'll worry about how those commissions can juggle competing criteria
 later.

* A lot of academics (if not all) answer that gerrymandering isn't the real
reason for safe seats nor partisan bias. Safe seats and partisan bias
indeed are a core problem in our current politics, but they are more
related to growing polarization and the "big sort." There's no real reform
solution, so just wait it out over the next couple decades.

* Gerrymandering and open primaries aren't the problem, so blame goes to
James Madison and the Constitution. It's time to leapfrog the structure of
government we have in every state and a majority of our big cities, accept
the reality of our parliamentary-type parties, and enact a parliamentary
system (ideally with a list system of proportional representation).

But.... there's another possibility that FairVote believes will get more
and more attention. Our argument basically is this.

* Electoral rules ARE the core reason for the shutdown politics and the
clashing mandate of an electorate that in 2012 elected Barack Obama by
nearly five million votes and also elected a House  majority from
congressional districts that mostly went to anti-Obamacare Mitt Romney. See
my prophetic "clashing mandate" analysis from Nov. 20, 2012:
http://www.fairvote.org/clashing-mandates-and-the-role-of-voting-structures<http://www.fairvote.org/clashing-mandates-and-the-role-of-voting-structures#.UlgOhNJ1ySo>

* But the electoral rule to blame is the statute mandating use of
single-member districts for the House. We had multi-seat House districts as
recently as the 1960s, and in the early decades of the nation, more than a
quarter of House  Members were elected in multi-member districts. Many
states still use multi-member districts, and a few decades ago, more than
half of state legislators represented multi-member districts. There's
nothing magic about single-member districts. See a U-Richmond law review
article my colleague and I wrote this year addressing this history:
http://www.fairvote.org/fairvote-s-2014-congressional-analysis<http://www.fairvote.org/fairvote-s-2014-congressional-analysis#.UlgLqtJ1ySo>

* We have some 100 localities already using non-winner-take-all system
systems based on voting for candidates (not parties) in multi-seat
districts We have an important model of a non-winner-take-all system in
state legislative elections in Illinois' experience with cumulative voting
that most wise-heads in the state strongly wish was back in place for
sensible reasons. See this summary of the case that was the product of a
2001 commission co-chaired by former Republican governor Jim Edgar and
former Democratic House Member and federal judge Abner Mikva:
http://www.fairvote.org/assets/2012-Redistricting/IllinoisCumulativeVoting.pdf

* With such a system done nationally in larger districts of no more than
five seats (with our choice being ranked choice voting, or the "single
transferable vote"), we would have shared representation by both major
parties in every single district in every state with at least three seats.
With the system used in the primary as well, nominees would be more broadly
represented, helping to ensure regularly representation of the left, center
and right of the spectrum. See hard numbers and maps here (
http://www.fairvote.org/fair-voting-solution<http://www.fairvote.org/fair-voting-solution#.UlgMH9J1ySo>
),

* We have a confluence of interests who would directly  benefit from such a
change in congressional elections, which could be done by law. That list
includes those who want more racial minorities to have a secure way to
elect preferred candidates, want more women to run and win, and want all
voters to have more choice and better representation. Democrats have an
obvious self-interest, but so do Republicans who think their party would be
stronger in statewide races if able to compete in all districts.

This last will be the test of whether are nation can debate meaningful
change and actually act on it We expect to see a bill in Congress soon, and
stay tuned for our update of the fair representation flashmap and
associated analyses this month and check out our new video at
http://www.Reform2020.com.

But whenever someone says *redistricting *isn't the reason for  problem,
keep in mind that we can make a rather airtight case that the problem is *
districting* - -and that tested reforms of such districts are a heckuva lot
easier and more consistent with our nation's history than a parliamentary
system and a whole lot more satisfying than doing nothing.

Rob.


############
More on How Gerrymandering Did Not Cause the
Shutdown<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55898>
**
Posted on **October 10, 2013 9:05 pm** <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55898>
 by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
**

Seth Masket<http://mischiefsoffaction.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-complicated-relationship-between.html>

McCarthy, Poole, and
Rosenthal<http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-09/gerrymandering-didn-t-cause-the-shutdown.html>


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"

Rob Richie
Executive Director, FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616

Website: http://www.fairvote.org
Advocacy: http://www.fairvoteaction.org
Campaigns: http://www.promoteourvote.com http://www.representation2020.com
http://www.instantrunoff.com http://www.nationalpopularvote.com

*Donations appreciated*: Consider making a tax-deductible donation at
http://fairvote.org/donate. (For federal employees, our Combined Federal
Campaign number is 10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131011/abbdf144/attachment.html>