Recently I wrote about the state of politics and corruption. Earmarks, bribery, ethical lapses, and nepotism seem to be the hallmarks of service as an elected official, at all levels in our country. To be sure, there are many, many honest and hard working elected officials at all levels of government, but the bad guys seem to have gained the upper hand (recognizing that many informed critics of our political scene have been making the same charges from the earliest days of our country). What is perhaps equally as dismaying is that, once elected, our politicians seem to forget, or reject, the reasons we voted in their favor. Can the lure of the Beltway cocktail circuit be more powerful than our beautiful state, or district, or city? Apparently so, because it’s awfully tough to get them back home.
Collectively, our disgust with the situation is reflected in the abysmal approval ratings we give to our elected officials. I would suggest that our negative thoughts have no impact without offering a solution, so, as promised, here is my proposed solution to the mess.
First, gerrymandering. The power of the incumbent to create a district more favorable to his/her re-election is not well known and often understated. At the local level, neighbors vote in different precincts, often miles apart. City Council districts may be compacted to secure the vote of blocs inclined to support the incumbent, and expanded to exclude blocs not in favor. County level districts are impossible to decipher. State House and Senate seats are drawn to the specifics of the incumbent, regardless of density, county or city line, or area. Our elected officials, at all levels, seem to think that their first and abiding interest once elected is to work to preserve, at any cost, their re-electability.
The drawing of lines must be taken out of the hands of politicians. One solution is for South Carolina to adopt the Iowa Process. This link will explain how Iowa came to its solution and what it has meant to voters and elected officials. Pay particular attention to the district maps for the US House of Representatives. Note that the same process has been applied to state house and senate districts. South Carolina’s citizens need to impose an impartial re-districting procress in the same way that Iowa has. I would propose that the same process be applied to county and city districts whenever applicable.
What Iowa has done cannot be overstated. District lines at all levels are logical, reasonable, and consistent. The result is that Iowa voters have representatives that must respond to the needs of all constituents, which is, after all, the purpose of a representative democracy.
What can we do to impose this discipline in our state?
Second, voter turnout. The 2004 general election saw the highest percentage of voter turnout in many years, at the national level. Statewide races in many states also saw high turnout as a result of the national race. Yet, one week earlier, in elections for City Council seats in Charleston, turnout was measured in the 20 – 30 percent range in the half of the seats up for election. The point may be arguable, but elections at the city and county level have as much, if not more, impact on our daily lives than national elections. Yet local apathy continues unabated, with turnout historically below 50 percent even in hotly contested races.
Why? Several reasons. It takes a lot of advertising money to get people to go to the polls. People are not convinced that local politics has any effect on their daily lives. Confusion as to precincts, districts, and off years for seats makes it hard for any but the most interested to know what is at stake. Maybe most importantly, local elections are not necessarily held on the same date as national and state wide races, and folks can’t be inconvenienced to vote twice in one month. And finally, incumbents, at the local level, don’t want big turnouts because they can’t control more than a small percentage of the voters.
The solution is simple and more cost effective than the current methodology. We should vote for every seat, at every level, in every district on the same day. The cost of holding elections would be greatly reduced because the election commissions would only have to hold elections every two years. This is already the case in many locales, but it should be the standard statewide. All elections should be held on Saturday. What better way to assure a higher turnout! People would have the entire day to vote, instead of trying to vote either very early or very late. Working parents would not be faced with the choice of either voting or cooking supper, doing carpool, or reviewing homework. People with job sites far from precincts would be able to vote instead of work.
So there it is……one man’s cure for the disaffected electorate.
Uniform, logical districts at all levels.
Consistent, uniform election days, held on Saturday to generate high voter turnout.
Anybody got a better solution?
I agree with absolutely everything you’ve said in this post, and I’d never heard of the Iowa process, so thanks for linking it.
I think the one difficulty with implementing Iowa’s plan here is that Iowa simply doesn’t have enough minority residents to require racial redistricting. Since the courts have ruled that reapportionment must create “minority-majority” districts where possible, there’s an added wrinkle in states with high minority populations.
This wouldn’t be a factor if racial minorities voted in unpredictable ways. But because racial minorities tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates, the net effect of this rule has been to make districts less competitive, and to polarize politics. Politicians listen to the voters they need to win re-election, and if you don’t have enough minority voters in your district to make a difference, you don’t have to care about their concerns.
To see the result, look no farther than the 1st and 6th congressional districts right here in the Lowcountry.
Anyway, I would back your plan 100 percent if we could figure out a way to promote it. And you’ve certainly identified one of the root problems. The other, and they’re related, is the influence of big money on politics.
And that, too, is a bipartisan issue.
Dan: Thanks for the comments. I will add the VRA of 1964 to the reasons why our political process is broken. Protecting the minority vote in 1964 was the right thing to do. But, 42 years later, it’s hard to see the benefits. I don’t think anyone can honestly say that the white majority acts to suppress the black vote, especially since the white vote is fairly evenly distributed between the two major political parties. By “protecting” the minority vote, the VRA has helpled propel the Republican party to power in mnay southern states. The “protected” districts, jammed with minority voters and Democrats, are a nearly permanent minority in the halls of Congress. Increasingly factional voting only serves to increase the tension between the two majority parties. I would suggest that logical, consistent districts, at all levels, would never guarantee a minority candidate victory at the polls, unless that candidate crafted a campaign that appealed to voters of all races, income groups, and faiths. And then, the color of his/her skin would not matter. As evidence of this, think Tim Scott and Lonnie Hamilton. Both minority candidates, elected at large, in county-wide votes.