Forget Gerrymandering. Here's What We Need to Fix to Ensure Truly Fair Elections.
It's The Biggest Problem in American Politics
Forget Gerrymandering. Here's What We Need to Fix to Ensure Truly Fair Elections.
Conservative voters essentially underrepresented in liberal Rep. Nydia Velazquez’s New York City congressional district.
By Reihan Salam / slate.com

As a conservative living in New York City, my vote for Congress is essentially a socially approved form of venting. A short while ago, I moved from an extremely liberal neighborhood in Manhattan to an extremely liberal neighborhood in Brooklyn. In my old apartment, I was represented by Jerrold Nadler, an extremely liberal Democrat. In 2012, he defeated his Republican opponent, the redoubtable Michael Chan, by a margin of 69.8 percent to 16.6 percent. In my new home, I am represented by Nydia Velázquez, also an extremely liberal Democrat. She trounced her Conservative Party opponent, James Murray, by 79 percent to 4.4 percent in 2012. More depressing still, Murray was crushed by blank ballots, which accounted for more than 16 percent of the total. Something tells me that Velázquez is not losing sleep over her re-election bid.

To be sure, had I moved to Staten Island or Bay Ridge in Brooklyn, I would have found myself in the congressional district of Michael Grimm, a colorful Republican who likes to mix it up with the press. But Grimm is considered one of the most endangered incumbents in the House, thanks in no small part to, um, a 20-count federal indictment relating to, among other things, his alleged mismanagement of his old health food store, Healthalicious. (You know, the usual.) There is an excellent chance that in a few months’ time, New York City’s congressional delegation will consist entirely of Democrats.

None of this should come as a shock. New York City is a liberal town, and I’ve long since resigned myself to being part of a small political minority. What I find galling is that, as observed in May by Rob Richie, the executive director of the electoral reform group FairVote, there are actually quite a few conservatives in New York City—believe it or not, Mitt Romney won 435,000 votes here. If Grimm goes down in November, Republicans in New York City will have no representation at the national level, an outcome that Richie rightly sees as a reflection of a much larger problem.

I don’t expect you to weep for the Big Apple’s hearty band of unreconstructed Reaganites, as we are, after all, free to pick up stakes and move to Wyoming. Yet the problem we face—that our political influence doesn’t match our numbers—is one faced by many groups, including liberals in conservative parts of the country, and members of racial, ethnic, and other minorities who want and consistently fail to get their fair share of political power. The root of the problem, as Richie and the good people at FairVote have long maintained, lies in our reliance on single-member districts to elect legislators.

What’s wrong with single-member districts? Let’s start with gerrymandering, the practice in which the officials charged with drawing the boundaries of our various legislative districts do so with an eye toward boosting the members of a particular political party or group. There are many people who believe that gerrymandering is the root of all evil in American political life, and that we need to draw districts in an entirely apolitical manner. That is a fantasy. As long as we have single-member districts, it is inevitable that some group of people will be disadvantaged by the lines we draw, whether or not the line-drawers have sinister motives.

Take the problem of Democratic underrepresentation in the House. If we assume that the parties should win congressional seats roughly in proportion to their share of the vote, Democrats in 2012 were underrepresented by a whopping 18 seats, according toan analysis by Christopher Ingraham. In Pennsylvania, for example, Democratic candidates won just more than 50 percent of the vote in the 2012 congressional elections while winning just five of the state’s 18 congressional districts.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times’ Upshot has written that while partisan gerrymandering has indeed given Republicans an edge in holding the House of Representatives, the deeper problem is that Democrats are highly concentrated in densely populated urban and suburban districts, like those in and around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. By contrast, Republicans are, as a general rule, more evenly distributed across the map, which allows them to win more rural Pennsylvania districts with smaller margins. Slate’s David Weigel has replied, reasonably enough, that there is an easy workaround to the fact that Democrats like to live cheek-by-jowl: simply carve up the cities in which they live and parcel them out across different congressional districts that also include less densely populated Republican territory. But this approach seems like just another way to institutionalize unfairness. If we wind up with pizza-slice districts that distribute Democrats into a larger number of heterogeneous districts, Republicans will complain that their voices have been squelched.

If our goal is to create legislative districts that truly reflect their electorates, our best bet would be to give up on single-member districts altogether and replace them with multi-member ones. Take the case of my tribe, the forlorn conservatives of New York City. Even if the New York state Legislature decided that it wanted to carve out a new district to represent conservatives scattered across the five boroughs, and not just those in Michael Grimm’s swing district, they’d have an almost impossible time doing so. For one thing, we don’t all live in a heavily Republican enclave called “Giulianiville.” A similar problem arises for minority groups that aren’t isolated in particular neighborhoods. The only reason it is possible to draw majority-minority districts for blacks in the Deep South and some Northern and Western cities is that black segregation is still with us. Drawing majority-minority districts for less-segregated minorities, like Asians, is a different story. (The only Asian-majority congressional district in the United States is in Hawaii, though there is one district in California’s Silicon Valley that comes close.)

When you combine single-member districts into bigger multi-member districts, the picture starts to look quite different. The beauty of multi-member districts is that they allow us to use what FairVote calls “fair representation voting.” (FairVote is stacking the deck a bit with that terminology, admittedly.) There are several different forms of fair representation voting, but FairVote is a fan of “ranked choice voting,” a method that has been used in Ireland and, closer to home, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for decades. Under that system, voters rank-order several different candidates rather than choosing their single favorite. Here’s an excellent video from Minnesota Public Radio explaining how it works:

As FairVote explains, the goal of this approach is to ensure that all candidates who receive a certain share of the vote will be elected. Some countries have huge multi-member districts that elect dozens of legislators. Israel elects all 120 members of the Knesset in a single multi-member district that encompasses the entire country. This guarantees that even very small groups can elect a representative who reflects their interests, yet it also severs the connection between a legislator and a given region. In the United States, FairVote envisions multi-member districts that would send no more than five representatives to Congress—big enough to represent relatively small minorities, but not so big that they don’t have a connection to concrete communities.

In a district with three representatives, you’d need to win 25 percent of the vote plus 1 to get elected. In a district with five reps, you’d need to win 16.7 percent plus 1. Getting there is a bit complicated—it involves fractions. But the basic idea is that if there were a three-seat multi-member district in Texas in which 68 percent of the vote went to Republican candidates and 32 percent went to Democratic candidates, one of the scenarios FairVote offers in “Monopoly Politics 2014 and the Fair Voting Solution,” it would send two Republicans and one Democrat to Congress. Of course, fair representation voting won’t do much good in states that send only one member to Congress. The good it would do everywhere else, however, is reason enough to justify the idea.

It should be obvious why multi-member districts would appeal to Democrats, who really are disadvantaged by the status quo. But it should appeal to Republicans, too. Yes, it would deny the GOP an edge over Democrats in the short term. But at the same time, it would help stranded conservatives like myself, and it would guarantee that some political reversal of fortune wouldn’t one day result in Republican underrepresentation.

There is an even better reason to favor fair representation voting: It might fuel the rise of new political parties. Getting to 50 percent can be challenging for Greens or Libertarians or other minor-party candidates who are asking voters to make a leap of faith. Getting to 17 percent in a multi-member district is far more realistic.

Imagine if Netroots Democrats or Tea Party Republicans made an impact not by launching primary challenges but by setting up shop as separate political entities. Instead of dragging the major parties to the left or to the right, they’d be able to compete with them on a level playing field. It’d be a bit like the startup world, where venture-backed entrepreneurs routinely take on entrenched incumbents. Don’t think your local Democrats are liberal enough? Vote Netroots! Tired of GOP squishes? Back the Tea Party!

Not everyone likes the idea of a multi-party system, I realize. There is a neat symmetry to two-party politics, and it is true that our big, lumbering parties are capable of change, albeit at a slow pace. Yet it’s hard to deny that a two-party system is best understood as a zero-sum game, in which a victory for one party is seen as a defeat for the other. This makes meaningful cross-party cooperation vanishingly rare. A multi-party system, in contrast, is one in which your enemy on one issue might become your ally on another. Netrooters might fight Tea Partiers tooth and nail on the top marginal tax rate one day while working alongside them to curb crony capitalism the next. They might join with Democrats on one issue and Libertarians on the next. This ever-present need for coalition-building creates a powerful incentive to treat your political rivals with respect, even when you disagree with them. That would make for a much healthier political culture—and certainly a more interesting one.

0.0 ·
0
What's Next
Trending Today
Ten Ways We Misunderstand Children
Jan Hunt · 14,561 views today · 1. We expect children to be able to do things before they are ready. We ask an infant to keep quiet. We ask a 2-year-old to sit still. We ask a 3-year-old to clean his room...
The Little Engine That Couldn't: How We're Preparing Ourselves and Our Children for Extinction
Daniel Quinn · 12,647 views today · In a recent semi-documentary film called Garbage, a toxic waste disposal engineer was asked how we can stop engulfing the world in our poisons. His answer was, "We'd have to...
Debt, Inequality and the Logic of Financial Violence
David Graeber · 2,337 views today · Five years after Occupy, organizer and anthropologist David Graeber speaks to ROAR about the power of finance, the history of inequality and the legacy of the movement.
When You Kill Ten Million Africans You Aren't Called 'Hitler'
Liam O'Ceallaigh · 2,142 views today · Take a look at this picture. Do you know who it is? Most people haven’t heard of him. But you should have. When you see his face or hear his name you should get as sick in...
18 Empowering Illustrations to Remind Everyone Who's Really in Charge of Women's Bodies
Julianne Ross · 2,016 views today · When Brazilian graphic designer Carol Rossetti began posting colorful illustrations of women and their stories to Facebook, she had no idea how popular they would...
Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (The Real Reason For The Forty-Hour Workweek)
David Cain · 1,072 views today · Well I’m in the working world again. I’ve found myself a well-paying gig in the engineering industry, and life finally feels like it’s returning to normal after my nine months...
Gabor Maté: Why Our Culture Makes So Many Of Us Unhappy
3 min · 1,067 views today · Dr. Gabor Maté explains why it is that our culture makes so many of us unhappy, unkind to one another, miserable, alienated from ourselves, etc. Watch the full interview in Part 2.
Incredible Photographs and Witness Statements from Charlotte and Baton Rouge Protests
Mankaprr Conteh · 927 views today · On September 20, a black father named Keith Lamont Scott was fatally shot by an officer of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. It is not clear if he was armed...
Yemen's Forgotten War and Famine Fuelled by Weapons from The West
3 min · 926 views today · The world has forgotten the war in Yemen but you'll remember these shocking images of its starving children.
John Lennon's "Imagine," Made Into a Comic Strip
John Lennon. Art by Pablo Stanley · 890 views today · This is easily the best comic strip ever made.  Pabl
The White Man in That Photo
Riccardo Gazzaniga · 878 views today · Sometimes photographs deceive. Take this one, for example. It represents John Carlos and Tommie Smith’s rebellious gesture the day they won medals for the 200 meters at the...
Prince Ea Just Put The School System on Trial and Found it Guilty of Killing Free Thought
6 min · 749 views today · Albert Einstien once said "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid". Today Prince...
Schooling the World (2010)
66 min · 730 views today · If you wanted to change an ancient culture in a generation, how would you do it? You would change the way it educates its children. The U.S. Government knew this in the 19th...
Bitter Lake (2015)
136 min · 648 views today · Adam Curtis: Politicians used to have the confidence to tell us stories that made sense of the chaos of world events. But now there are no big stories and politicians react...
It Didn't Start With You: How Inherited Family Trauma Shapes Who We Are
Mark Wolynn · 547 views today · The past is never dead. It’s not even past. — William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun
How You Can Support Standing Rock
Thane Maxwell · 519 views today · This is your pipeline battle too. Whatever you have to offer, we need it. Wherever you are, take one step deeper. Find your voice. Find your own front lines.
Beyond Civilization: Humanity's Next Great Adventure
Daniel Quinn · 488 views today · PART ONE A fable to start with Once upon a time life evolved on a certain planet, bringing forth many different social organizations—packs, pods, flocks, troops, herds, and...
You Should Get Naked More Often. It's Good for You.
Joni Sweet · 437 views today · When Nelly encouraged overheated people worldwide to get naked in 2002, he was unknowingly advocating much more than just a sexy, sweaty dance party. Sunbathing, sleeping...
Today I Rise: This Beautiful Short Film Is Like a Love Poem For Your Heart and Soul
4 min · 436 views today · "The world is missing what I am ready to give: My Wisdom, My Sweetness, My Love and My hunger for Peace." "Where are you? Where are you, little girl with broken wings but full...
90 Inspiring and Visionary Films That Will Change How You See the World in Profound Ways
Tim Hjersted · 398 views today · The world today is in crisis. Everybody knows that. But what is driving this crisis? It's a story, a story that is destroying the world. It's a story about our relationship to...
Load More
Like us on Facebook?
Forget Gerrymandering. Here's What We Need to Fix to Ensure Truly Fair Elections.