As longtime listeners/readers are aware, the creation of fair voting districts is an obsession of ours. Gerrymandered districts, in Texas, Colorado, and elsewhere, are the root cause of what is wrong with our Congress, and, by association, our government. This system entrenches incumbents and disenfranchises voters. For background on the problem, visit the invaluableFair Districts Website.
The ONLY “benefit” brought by redistricting is that, via the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it increased the number of African-Americans in congress by allowing for the creation of minority districts. And for a while, this was enough to convince me that it was worth hanging on to, despite its problems. Texas changed that.
Which is why it’s refreshing to read Henry Louis Gates, writing in the NY Times, arguing that it might be better for democracy as a whole if we do away with this system, despite what it might mean for African-Americans in congress. He writes, “The creation of black-majority districts was necessary when the Democratic Party had a monopoly in the South, and whites would almost never vote for blacks. ”
He goes on to say:
In Georgia and elsewhere, there has been a clash between what the constitutional scholar Richard Pildes calls “descriptive” and “substantive” representation. Descriptive representation is centered on the symbolism of skin: a black face for a black constituency. But it came at the cost of substantive representation – the likelihood that lawmakers, taken as a whole, would represent the group’s substantive interests. Blacks were winning battles but losing the war as conservative Republicans beat white moderate Democrats.
Precisely. It’s not worth it any more. We end up with congressmen in safe seats who see no need to be moderate, and it stymies debate.
Some districts will remain safe, no doubt. Districts will still represent contiguous geographical regions, and folks who live in such regions tend to have similar cultural attiutdes (which, these days, is a better predictor of voting trends than economics!). Nevertheless, representative democracy will be better for it.
