I disagree: multi-member, proportional systems do not ensure "majority
rule with minority representation." Instead, they split the majority,
create a plurality situation with small factions putting their support
up for bid, and end the two-party system.
In addition, as long as there are any districts drawn -- multi-member or
single-member -- there is the opportunity for gerrymandering.
There are many other good ways to limit partisan gerrymandering without
ending the two-party system. (Of course, if ending the two-party system
is one's goal, the issue of gerrymandering is a useful arrow in your
quiver.)
- Doug
Douglas Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Dan
Johnson-Weinberger
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 10:34 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: message from John Gear
I wonder if others agree with John Gear's long-term remedy to
gerrymandering: multi-member districts with proportional representation,
as
used in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Ireland.
Dan
From: "Michael McDonald" <mmcdon@gmu.edu>
To: "election-law" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Subject: RE: message from John Gear
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:48:23 -0600
I couldn't agree more with the analysis here, which is why I applaud
the efforts of the campaign finance reformers, but realize reform must
also come to the redistritcing process. I hope that those who believe
the "self-regulating" partisan gerrymander is the solution to this
problem will at least take a pause at what the Michigan partisan
gerrymander (in this case Republican, but both parties are guilty
elsewhere) has wrought. My only criticism is that the Iowa system is
not the model for reform advocated
by Common Cause and League of Women Voters -- it is the Arizona model
with
some modifications, such as immediate state Supreme Court review. It
is
this model that these groups have offered to the Colorado voters. I've
posted a working essay on redistricting reform recommendations at:
http://elections.gmu.edu/enhancing.htm.
=======================
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Assistant Professor
George Mason University
elections.gmu.edu
mmcdon@gmu.edu
703-993-4191
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 8:40 AM
To: election-law
Subject: message from John Gear
John Gear writes:
THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE DOLLAR
by John Gear
The March 2003 issue of "Campaign Finance Talk," produced by the
Michigan Campaign Finance Network contains a revealing and fascinating
article called "Costliest Seats in the Michigan Legislature," which is
about the role of money in determining the winners of seats in the
Michigan Legislature.
The article concludes that "When it comes to winning elections, money
matters." The article asserts that "money won 92% of the time" and
urges readers to pay particular attention to "the degree to which these
races are funded by parties and caucus PACs."
But, rather than showing that money determines the winning side the
Michigan elections, MCFN's data actually show something else entirely:
that money has very little to do with the outcome of elections to the
Michigan Legislature. A reanalysis of the MCFN's data show that money
is at most a second-order variable. The primary variable -- the one
that mainly determines the outcome of the race -- is the district
composition: the way the district is drawn (gerrymandered) by the party
in power in Lansing to produce a certain result.
That is to say that the pen --the district-drawing pen wielded by the
party controlling the redistricting process -- is far mightier than the
dollars from campaign contributors. MCFN's own data from the article
-- for the nine most expensive Senate and twelve most expensive House
races -- show it clearly. By entering the data in a spreadsheet and
sorting the races according to the margin of victory instead of the
total spending, it becomes clear that money is simply not deciding who
wins or by how much.
Let's start with the nine Senate races MCFN examined, where the nine
most expensive races ranged from total spending of $517,000 to
$1,194,000. These races all show that, rather than determining the
winner, we see that contributors give money where they can tell that
the the shape of the district has already determined the outcome of the
race. Of these nine races, three were won by Democrats. These three
were outspent by $500, $1,000 and $115,000 -- but they won their races
with margins of 10.2, 21.0, and 7.0 percent respectively. The four
most expensive races, all won by Republicans, were won by margins of
2.2, 9.1, 11.4, and 1.2 percent -- even as they outspent their
opponents by $752,000, $49,000, $498,000, and $215,000. The other two
races of the nine most expensive were also won by Republicans, who
spent between $425,000 and $600,000 more than their opponent to win by
12.6 and 8.4 percent. This wide variation in margins and spending --
and the fact that winners can be outspent but still win anyway --
clearly shows that there is no way that the races MCFN chose to analyze
support the conclusion that "money wins."
In the House, the same result: where the district is drawn to elect a
Democrat, even substantially outspent Democrats win. Those districts
drawn to favor Republicans produce Republican winners, with the margins
of victory totally unrelated to the spending on the race. The clincher
is the one race of the twelve where the Republican was outspent: the
2-1 money advantage the Democrat enjoyed in House District 108 did not
produce a Democratic winner. Of the four races among the twelve where
Democrats won, they were outspent by $87,000, $89,000, $71,000, and
$44,000, while managing winning margins of 1.0, 1.4, 2.3, and 5.0
percent respectively. The Republican victory margins varied from 1.5
percent (spending margin $98,000) to 25 percent ($134,000) in races
where they outspent their opponents by between $12,000 (victory margin
6.0%) and $242,000 (6.4%).
This reanalysis shows that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, PACs
and party caucuses do not sway the outcomes of election campaign in
Michigan. Rather, the data show a much more serious assault on
democracy in Michigan: the gerrymandering that renders voters all but
irrelevant in nearly every district in the state. Rather than focusing
on campaign finance, we must turn our attention to the redistricting
process that allows a tiny handful of political operatives to determine
the composition of the Michigan Legislature for a decade at a time --
or worse, every time majority party in Lansing decides it could
increase its majority through a redistricting, if the recent trend from
Colorado and Texas comes here.
In the long term, multi--member districts and proportional
representation systems are the solution to insure voter empowerment, so
that we have majority rule with minority representation all across the
state. That's a long-term fix. In the meantime, we should emulate
Iowa and its rigorously nonpartisan redistricting system, which is not
even allowed to consider party affiliation when drawing district lines.
Voter turnout continues to decline because voters intuitively
understand that they have been locked out of the process and herded
into districts where their only real choice is whether to cast a
redundant vote for the sure winner or a protest vote for the sure
loser. The consequences of this decline plays out in Lansing every
day, because the Legislature is full of elected officials who only face
a serious challenge in the primary if at all, which rewards ever more
extremism. It is not too soon to begin thinking about whether to call
a constitutional convention in 2010, because it may require nothing
less to rescue democracy in Michigan from the partisan gerrymander
artists whose only goal is power and privilege for their party and the
annihilation of all other parties.
_________________________________________________________________
Expand your wine savvy - and get some great new recipes - at MSN Wine.
http://wine.msn.com