John Ziegler
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com --
CONGRESSIONAL redistricting, the most partisan of all political endeavors, is
finally coming to a controversial climax. It is now more evident than ever
that the entire system is in need of radical reconstruction.
While feisty battles still loom in New York and Florida, and Utah and North Carolina are locked in an interesting battle over a congressional seat, much of the attention so far has been focused on Pennsylvania. There, Republicans who control the State Legislature, Governorship, and State Supreme Court have seemingly carved out a way to greatly expand their narrow majority in the state's congressional delegation despite the Keystone State losing two representatives because of stagnant population growth. Democrats, who would be behaving in exactly the same selfish manner if they had won enough votes in prior elections to get the opportunity, are crying foul and threatening a lawsuit while claiming that the southeastern section of the state will lose significant clout (i.e., the ability to harvest "pork" spending) in upcoming congresses.
What has been lost in all this acrimony is that EVERY citizen of this country is drastically and needlessly losing his say in the House of Representatives. Congress was originally and brilliantly set up so that the House would be beholden to the voting populace because each representative would be elected by a relatively small number of people and would face reelection on a regular basis (though it is doubtful the Founders anticipated year-long campaigns for a two-year term).
The Constitution requires only that there be no more than one representative for every 30,000 citizens. The original Congress of 65 members each represented an average of about 60,000 Americans. In 1920, when the House was expanded to its current 435 members, that number was 242,000. As of the next election, we will have a staggering 646,000 citizens for every one vote in the House of Representatives.
While state legislatures tend to do a remarkable, though self serving, job of getting all the districts in their state to be virtually equal in population (usually within a few hundred people), there are still some disturbing potential violations of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment upon which the U.S. Supreme Court relied in deciding the 2000 election in favor of President Bush.
For instance, in the last Congress (based on the 1990 census), each Pennsylvania congressman represented about 565,000 people, which was almost exactly the average for the entire country. However, Delaware's lone member represented 725,000 people, while Montana had a mind numbing 879,000 citizens for its one congressman. At the other end of the spectrum, Wyoming's congressman spoke for just 481,000 people.
When looked at in terms of "voters" instead of "citizens" the numbers are even more amazing. Delaware, Montana and South Dakota all had well over 300,000 people vote for Congress in the last election. Meanwhile, some districts in other states registered just over 100,000 votes for the same office in the year of the closest Presidential election ever.
Interestingly, Democrats seemed to have done a much "better" job in 1990 setting up the districts to their advantage, at least locally. In Pennsylvania, there were an average of 227,00 voters in districts where the Republican won and just 203,000 voters in places where the Democrat was victorious. In New Jersey, Democratic districts had an average of just 201,000 people come to the polls, while an incredible 258,000 voted in areas where the Republican won. This disparity seems even more significant when you consider that a Democratic Presidential candidate won both states easily.
Switching the basis for reapportionment from census figures to voting numbers may make a lot of sense. Census figures are notoriously inaccurate and biased, and establishing the number of representatives of each state on the number of people who actually vote would certainly seem to provide an incentive for increased participation.
Other, even more important, alterations to our system should also be considered. If the number of representatives in the House were doubled, I believe that the benefits would be as dramatic as the plan appears to be. Instantly, 435 new and, at least temporarily uncorrupted citizens would descend on Washington injecting a stagnant process with badly needed fresh blood.
Simultaneously, the campaign finance mess in this country would be largely neutralized without stomping all over our rights to freedom of speech. Because each, now rather feckless, congressman would individually be of little use to lobbyists and big donors, logic would dictate contributions to the vast majority of candidates would exponentially decrease.
Also, because the amount of territory that each newly formed district would encompass would be sliced roughly in half, the nature of congressional campaigns would become once again far more personal affairs and not so exorbitantly expensive as to be out of reach for those of us who are not yet millionaires.
The doubling of congressional districts would also alleviate some of the inequity inherent in the process by providing state legislatures more flexibility in how they draw the lines, which could then be redrawn along county boarders every ten years by computer. By providing an extra "odd" representative to be added or subtracted during each reapportionment, states on the borderline would not feel such a powerful impact for small shifts in population (in other words, in this current cycle Pennsylvania would have only lost three out of 42 representatives rather than two out of 21). This would also provide the Electoral College with a formula for deciding Presidential elections that would be based far more on population than is currently the case.
Will any of this happen? Of course not. It would require congressional
representatives to vote to decrease their own power. The reality that is
prospect is a virtual impossibility is proof of just how much this sort of
drastic change is truly
Send your comments to JWR contributor John Ziegler by clicking here.
01/22/02: What The Gay TV Channel REALLY Means
01/14/02: Zahn's Too Sexy For Her Promo? A former "anchorperson" comes clean
01/08/02: Will someone please admit that not much has changed?
01/02/02: The Eternal Flame of Silliness
12/26/01: The value of a life
12/18/01: The Lost Truth of the bin Laden Tape
12/11/01: Biased about Bias
12/05/01: Is it what you do, or what you believe?
11/27/01: What if Then Was Now?
11/21/01: I Swear It ain't me — I Think
11/13/01: Racial baiting and bias hasn't changed a bit
11/09/01: TV networks show their true colors
10/30/01: Proposed programming for the "Fear Channel"
10/30/01: The Tide is Turning
10/22/01: Narcissism is at the heart of Anthrax overreaction
10/16/01: Let's not overestimate these terrorists
10/08/01: Despite what the media says, ethnic profiling is worth it
10/05/01:What if Osama just gave himself up?
09/24/01: Lessons learned --- or, ones that should be
09/17/01: The silver lining in our darkest cloud
09/04/01: "BREAKING NEWS" Not What It Used To Be
08/27/01: Some guys have it --- and some just don't
08/20/01:"Hollywood in Crisis" --- Please no Sequel!
08/13/0: Misplaced media fan-aticism about football tragedies
The Rules of the 'N-Word'
