by Andrew Prokop
When Americans voted for the House of Representatives in
2012, Democratic candidates won 1.4 million more votes than Republicans.
Yet after the dust settled, the GOP ended up with a 234-201 majority in
the chamber. And notably, in several states, Republicans had won about
half the vote or less — but ended up with a far greater share of the
states' Congressional seats:
Last year, in contrast, the GOP won a national landslide. But
despite
winning big victories in these four states, they only picked up one new
House seat overall among them (in North Carolina). That's because
Republicans already won nearly all of the competitive seats in 2012 —
partly because of
gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering isn't the only reason that election results only occasionally match vote totals. "Does
redistricting explain why Democrats got a majority of the votes, but
not a majority of the seats [in 2012]? Probably not," Eric McGhee, a
fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, told me last year.
Several analyses find that simple geography matters more — many Democratic voters are packed closer together in urban areas.
But gerrymandering infuriates voters because it feels so unfair.
Letting partisan politicians — or their appointees — draw congressional
districts reverses the normal order of politics. Voters are supposed to
choose their politicians. Gerrymandering lets politicians choose their
voters.
So is it possible to end gerrymandering? Well, the country just north of us managed to pull it off.
How Canada does it
"Canadian reapportionment was highly partisan from the beginning until the 1960s,"
writes
Charles Paul Hoffman in the Manitoba Law Journal. This "led to frequent
denunciations by the media and opposition parties. Every ten years,
editorial writers would condemn the crass gerrymanders that had
resulted." Sound familiar?
Independent commissions now handle the redistricting in every Canadian province
Eventually, in 1955, one province — Manitoba — decided to experiment,
and handed over the redistricting process to an independent commission.
Its members were the province's chief justice, its chief electoral
officer, and the University of Manitoba president. The new policy became
popular, and within a decade, it was backed by both major national
parties, and signed into law.
Independent commissions now handle the redistricting in every province. "Today,
most Canadian ridings [districts] are simple and uncontroversial,
chunky and geometric, and usually conform to the vague borders of some
existing geographic / civic region knowable to the average citizen who
lives there,"
writes
JJ McCullough. "Of the many matters Canadians have cause to grieve
their government for, corrupt redistricting is not one of them." Hoffman
concurs, writing, "The commissions have been largely successful since
their implementation."
American experiments with redistricting commissions
So why hasn't the US done this yet? One reason is
that in Canada, there was a long tradition of the national parliament
being involved in the redistricting process. But the US leaves the
boundary-drawing to the states. The national government and
the courts have only interfered for two main reasons: to keep each
district roughly equal in population, and to combat racial
discrimination. So a national law requiring
independent redistricting commissions in each state would go against the
US tradition of state independence, and might not even be constitutional.
there are no truly nonpartisan redistricting commissions in the us
And it's important to note that these commissions can be little
better than the system that preceded them. Some US states have
ostensible redistricting commissions, but let politicians name the
appointees. "Those commissions are not really
independent per se, they're just a separate venue where Democrats and
Republicans can hash out their differences," McGhee said.
The specifics of the commission's instructions also matter. "Some
of these commissions are specifically charged with creating competitive
districts, but that process has costs to it," Nicholas Goedert, a
postdoctoral fellow at Washington University in St. Louis, warned. "You
can end up with districts that are not as amenable to representing
minority interests."
Only six US states use commissions to do their redistricting, but
none of them have fully embraced the Canadian solution. The key
difference is that Canada's commission members are all nonpartisan —
they're mostly judges, political scientists, or retired civil servants.
But our states with redistricting commissions, like California and New
Jersey, reserve many seats for members of political parties. "There are
no truly nonpartisan redistricting commissions in the United States,"
political scientist Bruce Cain of Stanford University told me last year.
Iowa uses a nonpartisan agency that's not permitted to take party
registration into account, but it still gives final say to the governor
and legislature.
How California's commission works
California's commission does take several steps toward independence.
It doesn't let politicians specifically choose commissioners — instead,
it uses a
complex selection process
with thousands of applicants that includes random drawings as well as
input from the legislature. And while the commission reserves 5 seats
for Democrats and 5 for Republicans, it has 4 "tie-breaking" seats for
people of neither major party.
But in 2012, California Democrats won 62% of the House vote, and got 72% of the seats — so some have
argued that the state just ended up gerrymandered anyway. Yet
McGhee, the researcher from the Public Policy Institute of California,
told me those kinds of numbers are to be expected. That's because
the US only elects one winner from each district — so the losing voters
in each district don't affect the House delegation at all. When
one simulates various districts and election outcomes under such a
system, the winning side naturally ends up with some advantage in the
results — a winner's bonus.
Though McGhee was originally skeptical of California's
commission, he had come around when I talked to him in the spring of
2014. "I think they did a great job. Compared to the previous decade,
the new plans were more fair, more compact, and provided better minority
representation," he said. As for
reported attempts by Democrats to influence the process, McGhee said, "If
you talk to the commissioners, they say, 'Yeah, we knew that was going
on, we could tell which people were likely shills for one side or the
other.' The only question is whether the outside forces will play the
commission better next time around."
Replacing gerrymandering with independent commissions won't solve all our problems. But 50 years of Canadian experience shows
that it can make elections more fair — and that it's possible to make
one of the worst features of our politics a thing of the past.
by Arturo Garcia
!['Couple in a hotel room' [Shutterstock]](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Couple-in-a-hotel-room-Shutterstock-800x430.jpg)
Elizabeth Warren
