Redistricting/Gerrymandering. It Matters.

“Redistricting” is possibly one of the least sexy words in the English language.  It inspires about the same slightly uncomfortable, yet boredom-inducing dread as cleaning out your great aunt’s storage unit.  It just does not seem to be terribly fun subject to think about, let alone care about. “Gerrymandering” is slightly better.  Gerrymandering sounds a bit more sinister, even scandalous, and maybe even worth a moment of your consideration.  The fact of the matter is, these two words are now functionally the same, and that’s a Bad Thing.  We need to care about this.  We need to care about this A LOT, because the politically-motivated drawing of district lines may ultimately be one of the biggest causes of our country’s inability to function as representative democracy.  As Americans, we all want a functioning democracy, right?  

First, we need to have a quick look at our redistricting process.  Using Census data, each state is divided into districts.  The number of districts is determined by population.  There are a total of 435 districts in the country (Stay with me, this gets better, I promise!).  So, the theory is, each Representative in the House is elected by and responsible to roughly the same amount of citizens.  This sounds great.  Our votes are tallied in our district, and we send our chosen somebody to Washington to represent our interests.  Yay!

Here’s the problem:  the districts are drawn by state legislatures, whose primary motivation for drawing the district map is to ensure their re-election.  Districts, therefore, often have extraordinarily complicated shapes resembling creatures from fairy tales, and the entire purpose of these shapes is to manipulate the voting public into controllable blocks with controllable voting patterns.  A political party currently in power in a state can split (or lump together) their opposition’s voters using census data so that those votes will become functionally ineffective.  Thus, the political party in power can ensure that they stay in power, just by creative mapping.

So why should we care so much?  Because we believe in our representative democracy.  We need to know that our vote matters, that we ACTUALLY elect our Representatives. Otherwise, there is no point in voting.  And voting is our tool for participating in government, for having a say in which policies effect our daily lives, our families, our well-being.

There is a way to ensure that each vote matters, and that elections are not rigged by map lines.  We need legislation dictating that district lines are drawn based on population only, not on politics.   We need to ensure that candidates are chosen by the voters, instead of voters being chosen by the candidates.  We have the technology and data to ensure that voting districts are fairly drawn.  We need to use it.  We need the ruling party – whomever that may be – to not actively silence their opposition. Because opposition and debate, in all their messiness, are a fundamental key to a functioning, active democracy.

Where Are The Great Communicators?

I recently read Charles C. W. Cooke's blog post entitled "Where Are the Great Communicators?" published in National Review.  Then I read it again.  And then again.  I have to say, I find it to be a very thoughtful and reasonable and fascinating commentary on the communication style employed by the current administration.

Charles C. W. Cooke is the editor of National Review Online.  He is a conservative writer, albeit one who doesn't perhaps fit into the stereotypical conservative box.  He's English, for a start, emigrated to the US in 2011.  He has written for the Washington Post and the New York Times, and has several times appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher.  He supports the legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriage, and is a self-described atheist (Wikipedia).  All of his background and his open critiques of Donald Trump and his administration combine to make me ask, who is his audience?  I'm not sure.  He is the editor of a major blog/online magazine, and his writing style is charismatic and clear. But his message contrasts in tone and content with the vast majority of the conservative articles and blog posts that I have seen.  I do know, that after reading this blog post, I plan to become part of his audience.  And I am definitely NOT a conservative.

Cooke's argument is with the communication style of the Trump administration, particularly around the recent announcement of its new health care plan.  He states that both the White House and the Congressional Republicans have been on the defensive with the media, and are putting their energy into pointing out "fake news" instead of communicating their plans in a clear and persuasive manner.  Cooke points out that the Republicans are now in control of the White House and Congress, and yet they are still communicating in the reactive style that they used during the Obama years.  He suggests that much confusion and public outcry could be avoided through the use of clarity, and the communication of plans before dropping surprise policies.  He also laments the lack of charm and statesmanship being shown, which would serve to smooth out some of the relationship issues between the media and the current administration.  

I really enjoyed reading this blog post, and am inspired by the idea that much of the drama and bipartisan reactionism could be alleviated with the use of a more thoughtful and inclusive communication style on the part of the administration.