Gerrymander

In 1812  Governor Gerry of Massacusettes redistricted his state to give his party a political advantage. The resulting boundary lines altered the shape about Essex county until it resembled a salamander. Governor Gerry inaugurated the time-honored political tradition of the gerrymander.

There are two views of representation for nationwide offices. The view on the one hand is that a representative should be attached to a geographical locale. So it is that we have Senators who represent a state without regard to the population of the state. On the other hand, there is a  view that representation should be based on people rather than on geography. That is one reason for the national census, constitutionally mandated to be taken at regular intervals. Population defines the allocation of Congressmen assigned to a state. Notice that there is still a strong geographical content to congressional representation, and the redrawing of political boundaries within a state are an effort to provide some equality among representatives in the House of Representatives.

The concerns that lead our founding fathers to fill the two houses of congress differently are not the subject of my discussion.

Senate representation by state is stable because state boundaries are stable and no periodic  reapportionment is required for the senate. If there are new states admitted to the union, then two new senators come with them: the existing senators are not reapportioned. So long as the number of senators per state is fixed at two without regard to internal political divisions, the representation is strictly geographical and no adjustments are needed for state stasis. 

House congressional representation is problematic. A congressman's constituency consists of the people captured within some arbitrary intrastate boundaries that are subject to change based on population and political expediency. A congressman does not actually represent people, but rather a district that contains people. Redraw the boundaries and the congressman may be without a home. Redraw the boundaries to the advantage of one party and the other party loses representation. The geography of the political boundaries are in flux with the population and with political manipulation.

The questions to consider on the third hand. Should The house of representatives represent people rather than geography? If yes, how may that be achieved?

Of course, I will pick yes to the initial question, otherwise, I've got nothing else to discuss. Now as to political reality. Neither party is willing to give up gerrymandering because each party believes that so long as the process is in effect they will be able to use it to their own advantage. It is much like a poor person or middle class person paying an effective 30% of their total income in taxes, who nonetheless buys the rich person's argument that the rich should pay no more than 17% in taxes because it is good for the country. I don't know whether the non-rich are buying the argument that low taxes for the wealthy are good for the country, or whether, like the political parties examining gerrymandering, they believe that they may become rich and likewise not pay an equitable share. Before I get off subject and rant about the 5% of the population who hold 90% of the nation's wealth and pay 70% of the nation's taxes, I simply have to wonder why those with 90% of the money are not paying 90% of the taxes.

Now about alternatives to redistricting for congressional representation. I will mention a few ideas that I may expand upon later. Now, if you think these proposals are frivilous or unworkable, simply regard the social networking brought about by Facebook, Youtoob, and the cell phone. Partitioning groups of people in the age of electronics is not as difficult as redrawing political boundaries at the nebulous will of a political party or by the command of a court.

So, on the third hand:

1.  Alphabetical partition. The idea can be refined to grouping people by name. For example, consider the name Smith. If there are enough Smith's in the country to justify one congressman, assign them one, two if necessary. Now to run for office with the Smith clan, your name should also be Smith. The clear advantage: only a moron would not know his congressman's name.

2.  Affinity groups. Once an affinity group established a sufficient population, then it could command a congressional representative. Imagine the Congressman for a kinder world for dogs. Affinity group representation, would be rather like lobyists on steroids.

A problem with the preceding plans and our current system, is that the election is always winner take all. If the winning party gets 50.5% of the vote then they achieve 100% of the representation and the losing 49.5% of the voters are left out despite the protestations of the winning congressman that she will be the representative for everyone. As soon as someone says they will represent everyone, you know they are lying.

I like our founding fathers original approach to the presidency. You didn't nominate a president and vice-president team with party affiliations, instead you had discrete canditates run for president. The winner became president and the runner up became vice-president. This approach gave some minor representation to the losing party. Unfortunately, it also resulted in a lot of political infighting, so the idea was abandoned. (Isn't the amount of infighting so much less with the system we have now?  Wink, wink.)

Here's my favorite proposal.  It eliminates traditional elections and provides about as close to true representation as you can get.

3.  A candidate, possibly a current congressman, holds himself up for office. Figure 300 million people with 100 million of them voters, at say 435 congressional  seats; that yields about 230 thousand voters per seat: the number is adjustable. Set the election  threshold at some arbitrary number like 120, 000 people.  Then John Jones can become a congressman if at least 120,000 people file a federal request for Jones with a $1 fee(similar to the presidential campaign money on income tax). Each dollar "vote" contributes to Jones' salary for the year. Every year, perhaps in conjunction with the income tax, a new request is made and a voter can switch congressman if they wish. (I don't like what Jones did last year, give me Smith, he's closer to my views). Now here is the kicker, when the congressman votes, he votes his salary amount. "I vote for Bill 32b with the full force of my $273000 salary (reflecting 273000 voters). He may even partition his salary to reflect controversial issues among his constituency. "I vote $185000 yea and $88000 nay."

I like proposal 3 just for the fun, and because it would allow me to allign with a congressman from another state with whom I could agree, instead of the nominal representation by the claghorn my neighbors always vote in. 

I have a similar proposal for allocating income tax money in the budget, but that's another blog.