You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 11:07 a.m.

'Gerrymandering' highlights disparity between voting preferences and congressional delegation makeup

By Dan Meisler

As a newspaper reporter for more than a decade, I had occasion to cover nearly every level of government, from Congress and the Supreme Court to the Pinckney Village Council. One of the greatest joys of that work was interviewing the "man/woman on the street," to gather their thoughts on the political issue of the day.

One of the inescapable conclusions of talking to so many people about so many different topics is that the level of consensus on politics in America — that is, agreement among the actual people, not politicians — is surprisingly high. I would wager that most people agree on most things (excluding some seemingly intractable issues like abortion rights). I'm convinced that a non-dogmatic, centrist approach to government is what most people would want.

Now, however, polarization is the order of the day. Gridlock in Washington, demonization of one or the other side by TV, radio and Internet pundits, and the infusion of greater and greater amounts of cash into political campaigns have combined to create an extremely toxic political atmosphere.

One often-overlooked contributor to these divisions is the current practice of redrawing political districts every 10 years, based on the decennial census. In a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house, the job of redistricting is tasked to the state legislature. The very people who would benefit from drawing the lines to create "safe" districts — that is, districts so heavily populated by voters of one party that the other party's candidates essentially have no chance of winning a general election — are the ones who actually get to do it.

FIND OUT MORE

The result is a system in which politicians have absolutely no incentive to appeal to the center. That's because in a safe district, all a candidate has to do is win the primary, and he or she is virtually guaranteed to win the general election. So all they have to do is win over their party's primary voters, generally a more hard-line group than the electorate as a whole, at least in my experience.

Perhaps a more troubling effect is the disparity between the voting preferences of the electorate and the makeup of our congressional delegation. For example, in Michigan, according to a 2007 report from the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, 49.2 percent of votes in the 1998 congressional election were cast for Democrats. But because the party had drawn the districts after the 1990 census, 10 of Michigan’s 16 seats in the House, more than 62 percent, were held by Democrats. After Republicans drew the districts after the 2000 census, an equal and opposite situation emerged: In the 2006 election, 44.5 percent of the congressional vote went to Republicans, but they ended up with 9 of the 15 seats, or 60 percent.

If this is not a subversion of the will of the voters, I don’t know what is.

This issue has gained some attention this year, as various media outlets have written about how high the stakes are in this election cycle. In effect, the winners of this election will control each states’ political scene for the next 10 years. Michigan stands to lose one of its congressional seats because of our population loss. For the most part, however, these media accounts fail to point out the ridiculousness of the system in which political partisans essentially get to choose their voters, instead of voters choosing their candidates at the ballot box.

Ann Arbor residents have a great opportunity to learn more about the issue with the screening of a new, unreleased documentary called “Gerrymandering.” A special showing of “Gerrymandering” is set for 7 p.m., Oct. 6 at the U-M’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy on State Street. Writer/director Jeff Reichert will attend, and participate in a panel discussion after the showing with U-M Professor John Chamberlin, former Congressman Joe Schwarz, and Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network.

Reichert will also attend a fundraiser in Detroit for Common Cause of Michigan, which is making redistricting reform one of its top issues this year.

Other states, notably Iowa, have implemented non-partisan systems of redistricting. California and Florida also have redistricting reform initiatives on the ballot in November. It can be done. And if we want to take positive action to overcome the artificial divisions plaguing our political system, it should be done.

Comments

Dan Meisler

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 8:20 a.m.

Peregrine, As was discussed at the screening last night, there are many considerations, including compactness, competitiveness, and keeping communities of interest (racial, ethnic or geographic) together. When one factor is prioritized, others are weakened. What I think is essential, though, is to make these policy decisions in an open and transparent way, and to take them away, as much as possible, from the politicians who stand to gain from them.

Peregrine

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 6:19 p.m.

Many districts have very circuitous borders to include certain blocks or houses and exclude others. It's all part of "packing" and "cracking". Crack the opposition parties so they're in a minority in most districts. Pack the rest into relatively few other districts where they'll be a supermajority. I've wondered what would happen if this were made a competitive process using a metric that favored locality. Anyone could submit a district map. The one that minimizes the length of the borders wins while keeping the population in each district equivalent wins. There are other considerations, making sure minority communities aren't "cracked" among many districts to essentially eliminate their voting power. But perhaps with minimal border lengths that would be difficult to do anyway. Thoughts?

Amy Sara

Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 3:17 p.m.

I hope that this article and film reach many people. It motivates me to consider what we can do to create a truer democracy.

Alex Advey

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 10:01 p.m.

I completely agree with the premise of the article. Not only would the preferences of voters be better reflected with non-partisan redistricting, but in general, we would probably see better candidates as well.

5c0++ H4d13y

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 2:38 p.m.

WSJ has been writing about this for years.

Laura Meisler

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 2:31 p.m.

Government for the "people?" Which people? This issue must be paid attention to. Is Michigan in a good position to adopt non-partisan redistricting?

atef

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 12:47 p.m.

This is a brilliant thought and great analysis.

Dan Meisler

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 12:18 p.m.

By the way, I've set up a Facebook event page here http://bit.ly/bXNdBj with some links to other stories on redistricting reform.

Dan Meisler

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 12:16 p.m.

Interesting points David. I would say more accurate information about health care reform, and potentially a way to find common ground between you and the tea partier, would have been available in a less-polarized atmosphere -- whether a 50-50 district would have accomplished that in itself is debatable, but over time it would contribute to more productive policy discussions.

David

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 11:56 a.m.

Like you, I have a job that involves lots and lots of conversations with a wide variety of people, and I share your experience that there is a lot of common ground out there. I'm not so sure, though, that this common ground implies a shared embrace of moderate policy positions. Just to take one example, last summer I had a long conversation with a woman about healthcare in America. We found that we agreed that the government should ensure that even those unable to pay receive quality healthcare. Despite this agreement, that woman is a member of the Tea Party and thought the Obama Administration's healthcare reform effort was an exercise in totalitarianism, while I am a trade unionist who thought that the Administration's plan was far too timid. Neither of us saw the actual plan as an exercise in principled moderation that we could support. Would things be different if we lived in a 50-50 district? Only if both parties concluded that winning in a 50-50 district meant persuading undecideds in the middle. If either party concluded instead that agitating their base would be a better strategy then we'd be right where we are now. That reminds me, I've got some spare John Dingell stickers if anybody wants one.

Carrie Rheingans

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 11:54 a.m.

Thanks for mentioning this. After traveling a bit to other places in the world, I've found that we here in the States seem to have an affinity for joining groups, being a member of something, etc. This is especially evident in sports and politics - where it's much easier to make some sort of divide and be AGAINST the other side than necessarily FOR your side. Sound familiar??

Jason Kosnoski

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.

Great story about an underappreciated problem. Non partisan redistrciting is the way to go.

josh meisler

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 10:58 a.m.

Thanks for your effort to educate our community regarding this important and often hidden process. I'll surely spread the word about the film!