Kevin and Matt are talking redistricting, with Matt favouring proportional representation on the grounds that it would introduce intraparty competition into American politics. This is rather odd - it’s only been a few months since the Presidential primaries, which are the most vigorously and open contested intraparty political fights in the world outside of the New South Wales Labor Party. And any experience with internal Labor (or Labour) Party fights does not immediately make one think it would make the world a better place to expand that kind of fighting.
But I didn’t want to make a substantive proposal, just ask a procedural question. To the best of my knowledge there are only two classes of country where the electoral system, from drawing boundaries to determining ballot order to deciding whether there will be recounts and so on, is run by partisan appointees.
Class One: China, Cuba, etc., i.e. countries where it is known in advance how the results will turn out.
Class Two: The United States of America (with the honourable exception of Iowa).
Are there any other countries in Class Two, or is America unique in being a democracy where one of the prizes of victory is getting to be the umpire next time the game is played?
With a reelection rate (In the House of Representatives.) of over 98%, are you sure there are really two classes?
run by partisan appointees
Actually, I think in most places it’s voted on by state legislatures, which are not technically appointees (with federal judges occasionally doing the work, as in Texas between 2000 and 2002). The people in the House of Representatives have no direct input into the Congressional Districts, though as DeLay shows the indirect input can be fearsome. And I only just now started thinking about the districts for state legislatures and state senates—I assume those are probably drawn by the same legislatures they apply to, but I have never given a second’s thought to this fairly important process. Anyone know anything?
Also, some states don’t gerrymander because they only have one representative—though if you look at Utah’s map, you’ll see that three districts is enough for a pretty gruesome map. (Most of the population is in the little pseudopod that reaches into Salt Lake.)
Anyway, I agree with your points, just engaging in some freelance pedantry.
Is it really 98%? As in less than 10 incumbents ousted per cycle? Seems awfully high.
In ‘98, there were only six incumbant House members defeated in their races for reelection. That’s not the total turnover, of course, because some members did retire, or die, rather than running for reelection.
As an example of perhaps a third class see http://www.elections.org.nz/esyst/repcomm.html, specifically the report from the Representation Commission. There are representitives of the Government and Opposition, and members from the administration - technically appointees but really part of the bureaucracy. I would suggest that the New Zealand model of MMP has been a good example of increasing third party representation and maintaining civil government.
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).
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.
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).
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).
Sorry about the triple post. Long time lurker, first time poster. Obviously unfamiliar with the time lag.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review