Fuzzy Math
Tuesday, Jan. 6 2009 @ 8:59AM
Huntington Apportionment Is Easy!*
Most people don't think about the intricacies of elections. Do
you ever wonder why your U.S. congressional rep is reelected in a landslide
year after year? (See: Jim McDermott.)
Or why most people can't even name their state
representative? This is often because the election is settled in advance, for the
benefit one party or another, by redistricting. Then these "safe seat" races fall
off the political radar.
The United States constitution requires that congressional seats
be reapportioned every 10 years according to the census. This has profound political
implications, because somebody needs to draw the new district boundaries. The
way it happens usually turns the notion of democracy on its head. In effect,
the result of redistricting is to cherry-pick voters for incumbent lawmakers, instead of forcing them to compete for
votes. Thus the major parties maintain control of those safe seats.
No matter that your calendar currently reads 2009, the 2012
reapportionment of congress has already begun. I'll let the Republican
Governors Association state how much reapportionment counts: "The 2010 state-level elections will
determine congressional and state legislative apportionment for the next 10 years,
and who is governor of each state will be of utmost importance. A 25 seat congressional
swing is up for grabs as a result of state-wide elections."
In other words—let's rig the system in our favor! Though, to be
fair, Democrats mostly feel the same way.
After the next 2010 census, people will get together in each state to draw political district lines. Sometimes, there's fairness involved. In other cases, it's a cynical power grab.
Here's how most elections are settled, before you even see the ballot. An appointed committee considers demographic data, geography, state and federal electoral rules, and other criteria to create political districts. Political insiders are watching closely. They've likely benefited from the last 10 years of safe political seats. If the district lines change, they might have to run an actual campaign. Other interested parties may claim violations of the Voting Rights Act—if, for instance, too many African American neighborhoods are carved up to create of a predominantly white district. Then, often, the new political map triggers the legal process, and everyone winds up in front of a judge.
At the national level, there are currently** 435 seats in the House of Representatives. Regions like the Midwest are losing population, while the South is gaining. So we can expect Michigan's delegation to shrink, and Arizona's to swell.
It's been reported that our Washington state population has grown by 11 percent since 2000. Our current ratio of U.S. representatives to constituent is roughly one to 600,000. Our state's population, totaling around 5.9 million at the last census, is projected to grow by that same number—around 600,000 new people. It makes sense that we should get an extra congressional seat in Washington, D.C. (we currently have 9), but that's not going to happen.
Unfortunately, redistricting isn't as simple as comparing state populations and assigning congressional seats in direct proportion. There's a mathematical formula used. But I'm not going to delve into a math lecture—my columns can get wonky enough as it is! So go to this following link, and have at the Huntington method of reapportionment.
Here's my point: Please tell me how ranked choice voting is more complicated than the current system? Here's a link to the proportional version of ranked choice that I think is fun to consider. But, again, I tend to be a wonk.
Don't believe critics of ranked choice voting when they claim the system is too complicated. All electoral systems are complex. Ranked choice is a better way to vote, because it puts the sophistication of elections in the hands of voters, instead of in the backrooms manipulated by governmental committees.
*Find the modified divisor - D such that each constituency's quotient { population / D } when rounded by geometric mean of the lower and upper quota yields the correct number of seats.
**There is no Constitutional requirement that the US House be set at 435 seats. Congress could simply vote to add a seat for Washington - or any other state - and increase the number of House members.
4 comment(s)
Charlie says:
I support RCV
Posted On: Tuesday, Jan. 13 2009 @ 11:17AM
Bill says:
I used to support ranked choice voting because it seemed like the only way minority parties would get any sizeable vote; and because it would have given Gore the election in 2000. But a couple of months ago I decided it was actually a really bad idea if the idea is to let minority-party voters influence anything in this country.
The big parties are close to a "tie" between voters in many states. In these states, it's important to try and scoop up every vote. So if, say, the Green Party is popular in Washington, you can expect both the Democrats and Republicans to make various platform changes or campaign promises that pander to the Green Party, in the interest of getting them to switch their vote.
Under ranked choice voting, however, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will bother to accommodate the desires of Green Party voters. The Democrats will conclude, correctly, that Green Party voters will rank the Green Party candidate as #1, and the Democratic Party candidate as either #2, or #3 behind the Libertarian candidate. Since the Green Party and Libertarians won't win, the vote will 'fall through' to the Democrats without the necessity to modify their platform *at all* to placate the Greens.
Over on the Republican side, they'll correctly conclude that Green Party voters will rank them behind the Democrats, so pandering to the Greens has no benefit.
All in all, I am afraid that ranked choice voting will just cement the hardened attitudes and aims of the big parties and make it even harder for the minority political parties in this country to influence politics at all.
Posted On: Wednesday, Jan. 14 2009 @ 4:04PM
Krist Novoselic says:
Bill,
Democrats do not pander to Green Party voters - instead they tell folks not to waste their vote on a Green or any other minor party. Greens - which probably make up 1 percent of voters then stay home - or - vote for the Democrats because they don't want a Republican.
I can't think of any instance where Democrats have pandered to Greens? Can you tell me?
Also, nobody gives a hoot about the state party platform of either major party organization - not even most state legislators.
Minor party's can compete and they can if their policies need to speak to a wider swath of of voters.
I'm an active Democrat. I'd like to see more opportunities for Democrats in places where the map's been drawn to benefit Republicans. On the other hand, safe seat Democrats should be able to stick up for their policies in the forum that is a competitive election.
The main point is - the election is settled for both major parties in a process that most are unaware of. The election falls off the map and people don't vote. this only creates a vacuum that financial interests are happy to fill.
Posted On: Thursday, Jan. 15 2009 @ 11:22PM
Ryan Reader says:
Hi Krist,
I'm a 17 year old from the UK. It's interesting reading about this, and has got me thinking about how it works in the UK. I am obviously only just finding my feet in the political world, so forgive me if I am wrong about some of this.
I would hazard a guess and say that something similar, in terms of 'rigging' safe seats and the process of doing so, happens here in the UK. One difference is that to my knowledge, political boundaries do not have to be re-drawn here. Like in the US, this has a massive effect on the efforts of so-called minor parties, such as the UK green party. The majority of seats stay between either the Conservatives (roughly your Republicans) and Labour (roughly your Democrats), and in my opinion, I think it’s quite sad that many of these parties don’t really get a look in, as many of these parties have good policies which don’t get tried and tested. I am, however, writing this still undecided on where my political support lies, and due to my age, I will miss out in the UK’s elections in summer this year (my birthday is in October), so I still have time to decide, or, to put it better, be influenced.
It is interesting to also see that you are an avid and active democrat. In this country, many people hide their political views, and who they vote for etc, so it does give very little to talk about. Anyway, apologies if you have already written an answer to this question in an earlier blog, but what do you think of Barack Obama, and what do you wish he may change domestically and also in terms of foreign policy (i.e. to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, war on terror etc)
Thanks,
Ryan.
Posted On: Friday, Jan. 16 2009 @ 11:22AM