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

Fri Oct 11 08:12:24 PDT 2013

Gerrymandering has been going on for as long as I can remember, and that has
become a very long time. It was going on even before I remember. I remember
learning about that in school. And that was a very long time ago. And until
the last several years it never caused a shutdown. It cause lots of other
things. But the shutdown(s) I believe are a fairly recent device for
imposing one's will on the process. What did cause this shutdown? My answer
would turn into a political rant. So, I'll not go there.

Larry

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Justin
Levitt
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 8:06 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] More on How Gerrymandering Did Not Cause the Shutdown

In addition to Rob's critique, it's also useful to remember that for complex
systems like governance, phenomena rarely have a single cause.  And while
there may certainly be value in aiming at the single largest causal factor,
there may also be value in aiming at contributory causes that offer
substantial leverage toward improving, even if not perfecting, outcomes.
(Whether any given policy improves outcomes, or is worth the cost to get
there, is a separate question.)

For many Americans, it's probably safe to say that lack of exercise will not
be the "real" cause of death.  That doesn't mean that those interested in
health should ignore exercise entirely.

-- 
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321

On 10/11/2013 7:48 AM, Rob Richie wrote:

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.p
df

* 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 <tel:%28301%29%20270-4616>  

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!

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131011/9c7f8a72/attachment.html>