Comments on: Redistricting

By: Emmanuel

Emmanuel — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:10:41 +0000

Chris : I should have been clearer. In fact, the law was quickly changed back to the old 2-round ballots by the then right-wing majority in Parliament. Mitterand’s fault it wasn’t. I don’t think we disagree that much on the reasons of the far-right electoral success in France. Mitterand’s ploy was important (though the FN was already on the rise, garnering 10% of votes in the 1984 European elections) but so were other, mainly economic and social, factors.

By: Dubious

Dubious — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:15:51 +0000

Although I’ve never heard a conservative or libertarian voice pride in the US being ‘a republic, not a democracy’ perhaps they mean a) the federal structure, which is hardly unique, though they may think it is, or b) more checks and balances on majoritarianism and more limited power to the federal gov’t? I don’t know if the latter is actually true compared to other countries though … surely there must be other federal republics out there… Germany? Canada? How are their checks on majoritarianism?

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:36:05 +0000

the law was quickly changed back to the old 2-round ballots and has stayed the same ever since. I thought that was so, but didn’t want to post that because I wasn’t sure. More grist to the mill, though, because the pattern was of Mitterrand switching to PR when it suited him and then back again when the old system became advantageous once more. As to the FN, of course there’s more than one explanation for their continued success, but the shift in voting system for tactical reasons enabled Le Pen to get beyond the “joke party” threshold.

By: HP

HP — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:28:52 +0000

Regarding the two classes of country: It is an article of perverse pride among certain conservatives and libertarians here that “the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy.” I’ve never quite understood why they think that that is a good thing, since the list of nations which are demonstrably republics but not democracies is similar to your class one, above, and congruent with the conservative/libertarian definition of evil.

By: Emmanuel

Emmanuel — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:52:54 +0000

Chris : it’s true that the move gave the Front National a short-term boost, by the virtue of suddenly having many (35)representatives in the French National Assembly. But it was only between 1986 and 1988 : the law was quickly changed back to the old 2-round ballots and has stayed the same ever since. I’m not sure that Mitterrand’s original sin can really explain the continuing success of the FN.

By: Alex R

Alex R — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:20:56 +0000

The US state of New Jersey is another interesting example. In NJ, districts are formed by a redistricting commission formed of six appointees of each party, plus a thirteenth “tiebreaker” who is elected by a majority vote of the other twelve. I believe that in practice the thirteenth member has been an officially non-partisan academic or judge. My understanding is that in the past, this has worked out by the Republicans and Democrats separately working out their own proposals, which are presented to the non-partisan member, who then chooses the plan he or she finds to be the most “fair”. At very least, this system will encourage the parties not to go overboard when formulating their plans, though they can probably get some considerable agreement on protecting the status quo…

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:29:32 +0000

Not redistricting, but Francois Mitterrand changed the system for French legislative elections on partisan grounds from 2-round ballots in 1-member constituencies to PR when the Parti Socialiste was weak on the ground that the Front Nationale would garner enough votes to fracture the right. He was right about that, but France has been living with the consequences ever since.

By: David M

David M — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:20:11 +0000

There is a lot more variation in state laws governing redistricting than the discussion here presupposes. For example, Kentucky has a constitutional provision that limits the degree to which counties can be divided for purposes of representation. The 1992 state redistricting scheme was struck down by the Kentucky state supreme court, and a new scheme was created by the courts for the 94 elections.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:40:30 +0000

An interesting question is what level of turnover do we think would indicate a fair system? 98% retention rate suggests to almost everyone that there is a problem. I agree with Bob that a 40-50% retention rate would likely create chaos. What would a good target for the real world (in normal circumstances) be? 70-75% retention?

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:29:49 +0000

What Matt Weiner said, the US is a very big country, and I see no reason that State politics should not have a very large second-order influence on national politics. If you want to influence redistricting, you should take strong interest in who your State Representative and State Senator are. Real representation should not be automatic, but a reward for political involvement and activity. …. The 98% figure is horrible, but I am not sure how horrible. I opposed term limits. If we were to prefer our congressmen serve for say, at least six years on average, for the sake of experience, then we should look at turnover over ten or twenty year periods, not two. Exactly how competitive would we like it to be? If the figure were a 50% turnover every election, we would have a nightmare.

By: Sunita Parikh

Sunita Parikh — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:29:09 +0000

Sorry about the triple post. Long time lurker, first time poster. Obviously unfamiliar with the time lag.

By: Sunita Parikh

Sunita Parikh — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:26:20 +0000

1998 represented the recent high-water mark of the incumbency advantage. In other years the percentage of incumbents reelected is between 87% and 98%. One other thing to remember: incumbency reelection rates don’t include House Members who don’t run, for whatever reason. So the net number reelected is closer to 80%. I can’t find the numbers per election at the moment, but in 1998 395 of 435 from the previous Congress were reelected. While I agree that the rates of reelection are dispiriting, they are not a new phenomenon and therefore don’t explain current political problems. Incumbency rates have been high for decades; the lowest rate of reelection is 87% (since 1962).

By: Sunita Parikh

Sunita Parikh — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:25:14 +0000

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:25:06 +0000

Actually, I think that this aspect of the American system to some degree accounts for its stability. It probably also explains the dominance of two parties. Elections in the United States can’t be won suddenly. Rather, they are the culmination of a long-process that involves winning local elections, controlling state legislatures and governorships, influencing redistricting, electing the state election officials (Kathleen Harris) and so forth. The current Republican domination is the result of a thirty-year recovery effort rising from the ashes of Nixon’s resignation. In 1974, the Republicans controlled a small fraction of the state legislatures, they had something like 12 governors (that number may be a bit low), and the Democratic majorities in Congress were so dominent that it was said to be “veto proof.” That process was not reversed with Reagan’s election in 1980—it took until 1994 for the Republicans to win control of the House of Representatives (which they had not controlled for more than 40 years!), and that victory was to some degree the product of Republican progress in the state legislatures before the 1990 redistricting. The point is, it takes a very long time to build a true electoral majority in the United States, and those who want to change the system to speed the process of electoral change do not, it seems to me, generally acknowledge that it will make American politics less stable.

By: Sunita Parikh

Sunita Parikh — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:24:02 +0000