A huge congratulations to Michael, Micah and the rest of the folks who
made this happen -- it's really terrific to see, and indeed looks like
a smashing success.
Given that this is primarily a thought experiment, however, I wanted
to share a potentially valuable insight on just what it would mean to
expand our imaginations to include modest, multi-seat district plans
using alternatives to winner-take-all elections. FairVote will be
having interns do something similar with the plans that have been
submitted, but here was an analysis of two potential US House district
plans based on about 30 minutes of work with the 2010 census data
layered into the current US House districts (as provided on Mike's
site). Because current House districts no longer have equal
population, this was an imperfect exercise and quite limiting in my
options. Still, it was very telling.
By creating modest multi-seat US House districts of 3 seats, 3 seats
and five seats, Virginians would create two clear opportunities for
African American voters (rather than just one) to have the power on
their own to elect candidates of choice if using a non-winner-take-all
system like choice voting (STV) or cumulative voting. It would put the
remaining African Americans (in the 5-seat district) in an influential
position to join with non-black voters to help elect someone.
Furthermore, each of these districts would have politically balanced
representation by major party -- 2-1, 2-1 and 3-2, with a real chance
to swing the "middle' seat" in any given election. The state would
show its true "purple" colors, and every voter in every election would
have competitive choice. With finetuning at the the precinct level,
you also could make them the districts a lot more compact and keep far
more counties intact than in any possible plan based on using one-seat
districts. Usng the same approach of putting together current
districts, a three-seat state house district (38, 46 49) in the
Arlington-Alexandria area would create a clear opportunity for Latino
voters to elect a candidate of choice.
This need not be considered farfetched. Note that Illinois used a
three-seat district plan with cumulative voting for legislative
elections from 1870 to 1980, and a few years ago a commission led by
former Republican governor Jim Edgar and former Democratic Congressman
and White House counsel Abner MIkva strongly recommended bringing the
system back. This recommendations was part of the reform platform of
the narrowly defeated Republican nominee for governor in Illinois last
year, and in 2001-2002 then-state senator Barack Obama was the prime
sponsor of legislation to allow Illinois voters to consider the
recommendation in a state referendum.
Below is the data for my three proposed congressional districts
(again, bound the limitations of the existing districts -- we'll soon
post our new plans that will have appropriate population equity.
Rob Richie, FairVote
###################
Multi-Seat US House Districts, Virginia
(2 plans - limited by working with 2010 data in current districts)
Combined Threshold to Black Population
Districts win 1 seat VAP per seat
Partisanship
2,4 5 25% +1 25.89% 690,227
47.15%
1,3,11 25% + 1 28.54% 747,241
57.07%
6,7,8,9,10 16.67% 10.88% 737,724
49.06%
Combined Threshold to Black Population
Districts win 1 seat VAP per seat
Partisanship
4 5,7 25% + 1 24.33% 727,472
45.90%
1,2,3 25% + 1 31.97% 698,604
54.85%
6,8,9,10,11 16.67% 9.76% 744,560
51.14%
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Michael McDonald <mmcdon@gmu.edu> wrote:
The Virginia League of Women Voters hosted an awards ceremony for the
Virginia Redistricting Competition yesterday (Tuesday, March 23rd).
Approximately 150 students organized into 15 teams from 12 Virginia colleges
and universities participated in the competition. The students'
congressional and state legislative plans created using the Public Mapping
software -- and the winning submissions -- can be found at:
http://www.varedistrictingcompetition.org/results
The competition judges, Thomas Mann at the Brookings Institution and Norman
Ornstein at the American Enterprise Institute, published an overview of the
competition in a Washington Post op-ed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rigged-redistricting-process/2011
/03/18/ABmFxAs_story.html
Micah Altman and I are extremely pleased that our vision of opening the
redistricting process to the public was such a huge success, which is a goal
of the Public Mapping Project (http://www.publicmapping.org). As I spoke
with the students who presented their plans at a reception before the
ceremony, it was clear that they learned much about the redistricting
process, the difficulties of balancing competing goals, and what it means
for people to be represented by officials elected from districts. And they
enjoyed drawing districts, to boot. While the competition was a learning
experience for the students, they also put a human face on the redistricting
process, creating a human interest story that enabled reporters to discuss
redistricting complexities in a way that has never been done before. It is
one thing to ask an elected official, consultant, or academic for a quote
about redistricting. It is quite another to ask a student to explain how
they wrestled with it, as was done in this USA Today story (among many other
local Virginia newspapers). In this manner, we educated the public about a
process issue that heretofore has been difficult to convey in a compelling
manner.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-21-redistricting21_ST_N.htm?
csp=34news
The substance of the students' submissions were also very informative. The
students' plans more compact, respect more political boundaries, were more
politically fair, and had more competitive districts than the current plans.
Further, the students discovered ways to enhance minority representation. A
configuration of the 3rd congressional district created by the William and
Mary Law School team produced a more compact voting rights district that
arguably better ties together minority communities of interest in the
Virginia Tidewater region than the current 3rd district. Further, because
this district does not advance into Richmond, splitting the minority
community in that area as the current 3rd district does, it enables the
creation of a very compact Richmond district with 33% black voting-age
population (I have not investigated increasing this value, but I believe it
is possible to do so). Thus, as the Virginia state legislative Black caucus
announced yesterday as their desire, this student team shows how it may be
possible to create a minority-majority congressional district and an
minority influence district in the Commonwealth. An undergraduate team from
the University of Virginia discovered a redistricting plan with 6
majority-minority state Senate districts (currently there are 5) that is
worthy of further exploration. And although I was not part of a student
team, I've discovered in my work for the Governor's advisory redistricting
commission a redistricting plan with 13 majority-minority House of Delegates
districts (currently there are 11 using the 2010 census, though there were
12 using the 2000 census and it is generally agreed the new plan will have
at least 12 districts). These alternative configurations have
minority-majority districts that are compact and generally respect political
boundaries.
These examples demonstrate that the voting rights and reform communities
goals are more consistent with one another than at odds. A new set of eyes
on a problem may discover approaches that others have been blind to, such as
these opportunities to enhance minority representation. And because we are
so far from optimal on the goals of compactness, respecting political
boundaries, political fairness and competition, that it is easy to
simultaneously significantly improve the current districts on reformers
goals while protecting or even enhancing minority representation.
Congratulations to all the students who participated in the Virginia
competition! They have shown the way for future competitions planned for
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and maybe others...stay tuned.
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org rr@fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations --
see http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider
a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC
number is 10132.) Thank you!
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law