Saturday, November 12, 2005
Failure of California Proposition 77 (Redistricting)
Why did California voters reject Proposition 77 that would have established a commission to redraw election district lines, rather than have them drawn by the State Legislature? Legislatures tend to create boundaries that make districts safe for the incumbents. Good government advocates favor creating competitive districts, rather than safe ones. It seemed to be a very good idea; why did the voters reject it, along with all the other propositions on the ballot earlier this week?
I can think of a few reasons without spending much time in thought. First, most voters realize, whether they agree with him or not, that Mr. Schwarzenegger is a very partisan Republican and was using the election to weaken his Democratic opponents. Schwarzenegger has discarded the mantle of “non-partisan reformer” that he wore during and for a time after the recall election of two years ago. Hence, many voters ignored the TV and radio ads for and against the proposition and voted their party preferences. Democrats outnumber Republicans in California.
Second, the average voter in this State is not greatly bothered by living in a gerrymandered district. Voters may despise the legislature generally and other members of it, but they love their own representative. In particular, they like being represented by a member of their own Party. Hence, the members of whichever party is in the majority in the district are willing to accept the gerrymander.
A third, more subtle reason, has to do with why gerrymanders are created in the first place. A famous (or infamous) redistricting took place a number of years ago when the Democrats had, for the first time in years, a majority in the legislature during the session in which redrawing district lines took place. The Democratic majority redrew the district lines in such a way as to produce the same proportion of Democrats and Republicans in the legislative bodies as the proportion in the State as a whole. Previously, Republicans had managed to elect more than what many would consider a fair share of legislative members. There was good reason to suspect that the result of the proposed redistricting would restore a situation in which Republicans would be over-represented in the State legislature and in the California delegation to Congress.
How could a truly non-partisan commission achieve such a result? It would be easy. All the commission would have to do is draw compact districts with mostly rectangular shapes. Rural districts would contain slight majorities of Republicans – 55 to 60 percent. Urban districts would contain overwhelming majorities of Democrats – 85 to 95 percent. To persons not concerned with demographics or the partisan make-up of the legislature, the redistricting would look just fine. The result would be a legislature with more Republicans than at present, perhaps even a majority. The proposed commission would also redraw the district boundaries for members of the national legislature. These new boundaries would increase the proportion of Republicans in the California Congressional delegation and help to the National Republican Party to retain control of Congress after the election of 2006.
An editorial piece in the Los Angeles Times today suggests that our chastened Governor and the Legislature are going to work together to produce some sort of commission to do redistricting. The editorialist proposes a commission of seven, with no more than three members of any political party. However it is done, redistricting will always be a political process. If either of the major parties decides that the commission’s district boundaries are unfair, the party will sue. Such lawsuits occurred in past years when one party didn’t like the result of the Legislature’s redistricting plan.
So far, no one in California has publicly proposed abandoning our tradition of single-member districts and adopting some form of proportional representation. A well-designed system of proportional representation would produce a Legislature with Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and Independents (non-partisans) in the same ratios as in the State as a whole. There would be no incentive to produce districts that were safe for particular incumbents. In fact, district boundaries might not have to be changed at all for decades.
Illinois had a rudimentary system of proportional representation for its lower House for more than a century. Each representative district elected three members. The majority party in the district was given two members, the minority party one. The system was abandoned in 1980. Before the days of the Communist scare, New York City elected borough representatives to the City Council by proportional representation. In the 1930’s the system was abolished to prevent Communists from obtaining positions on the City Council.
There are some serious changes that a system of proportional representation would make in the State Legislature and in the political landscape in the State. One effect would be to weaken the influence of the two major political parties and encourage the growth of small “third” or “fourth” parties. There would be no point of a member of the Green Party voting for a Democrat if there were a good chance of electing at least one Green candidate to the State Legislature. Similarly, there would be no point of a Libertarian Party member voting for a Republican rather than a member of his own party. Our State Legislature would resemble the parliaments of several European countries, in which no one party has a majority and laws have to be enacted by coalitions. I think this would be a good thing. What do you think?
I can think of a few reasons without spending much time in thought. First, most voters realize, whether they agree with him or not, that Mr. Schwarzenegger is a very partisan Republican and was using the election to weaken his Democratic opponents. Schwarzenegger has discarded the mantle of “non-partisan reformer” that he wore during and for a time after the recall election of two years ago. Hence, many voters ignored the TV and radio ads for and against the proposition and voted their party preferences. Democrats outnumber Republicans in California.
Second, the average voter in this State is not greatly bothered by living in a gerrymandered district. Voters may despise the legislature generally and other members of it, but they love their own representative. In particular, they like being represented by a member of their own Party. Hence, the members of whichever party is in the majority in the district are willing to accept the gerrymander.
A third, more subtle reason, has to do with why gerrymanders are created in the first place. A famous (or infamous) redistricting took place a number of years ago when the Democrats had, for the first time in years, a majority in the legislature during the session in which redrawing district lines took place. The Democratic majority redrew the district lines in such a way as to produce the same proportion of Democrats and Republicans in the legislative bodies as the proportion in the State as a whole. Previously, Republicans had managed to elect more than what many would consider a fair share of legislative members. There was good reason to suspect that the result of the proposed redistricting would restore a situation in which Republicans would be over-represented in the State legislature and in the California delegation to Congress.
How could a truly non-partisan commission achieve such a result? It would be easy. All the commission would have to do is draw compact districts with mostly rectangular shapes. Rural districts would contain slight majorities of Republicans – 55 to 60 percent. Urban districts would contain overwhelming majorities of Democrats – 85 to 95 percent. To persons not concerned with demographics or the partisan make-up of the legislature, the redistricting would look just fine. The result would be a legislature with more Republicans than at present, perhaps even a majority. The proposed commission would also redraw the district boundaries for members of the national legislature. These new boundaries would increase the proportion of Republicans in the California Congressional delegation and help to the National Republican Party to retain control of Congress after the election of 2006.
An editorial piece in the Los Angeles Times today suggests that our chastened Governor and the Legislature are going to work together to produce some sort of commission to do redistricting. The editorialist proposes a commission of seven, with no more than three members of any political party. However it is done, redistricting will always be a political process. If either of the major parties decides that the commission’s district boundaries are unfair, the party will sue. Such lawsuits occurred in past years when one party didn’t like the result of the Legislature’s redistricting plan.
So far, no one in California has publicly proposed abandoning our tradition of single-member districts and adopting some form of proportional representation. A well-designed system of proportional representation would produce a Legislature with Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and Independents (non-partisans) in the same ratios as in the State as a whole. There would be no incentive to produce districts that were safe for particular incumbents. In fact, district boundaries might not have to be changed at all for decades.
Illinois had a rudimentary system of proportional representation for its lower House for more than a century. Each representative district elected three members. The majority party in the district was given two members, the minority party one. The system was abandoned in 1980. Before the days of the Communist scare, New York City elected borough representatives to the City Council by proportional representation. In the 1930’s the system was abolished to prevent Communists from obtaining positions on the City Council.
There are some serious changes that a system of proportional representation would make in the State Legislature and in the political landscape in the State. One effect would be to weaken the influence of the two major political parties and encourage the growth of small “third” or “fourth” parties. There would be no point of a member of the Green Party voting for a Democrat if there were a good chance of electing at least one Green candidate to the State Legislature. Similarly, there would be no point of a Libertarian Party member voting for a Republican rather than a member of his own party. Our State Legislature would resemble the parliaments of several European countries, in which no one party has a majority and laws have to be enacted by coalitions. I think this would be a good thing. What do you think?
