As we all learned in middle school history, when the 13 original colonies were trying to figure out the new Republic, the small states were worried they would become colonies of the big states, ruled over by the populous states who would use and abuse the resources of the smaller states to the advantage of the big states. Merchants in Rhode Island and Maryland, small states with big bays, were determined to protect their own access to international markets and Virginia, a very large state with slaves and cotton did not want New York simply voting to control its economy.
So emerged the concept of representation in the legislature not by counting bodies, one man one vote, but by apportioning power in the legislature according to other criteria.
Initially, the only people with power were free (white) male property owners, and men who were "bound to Service for a Term," meaning indentured free men who would complete their contract to serve another man, and then be free to earn a living independently. Slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a body and Indians did not count at all, specifically excluded by the Constitution.
The states themselves were defined by various charters, history, occasional surveyors. Some, like Vermont and New Hampshire, were divided by geography, a river, topographic differences--Vermont was populated in valleys between forested mountains and New Hampshire had granite mountains, a seacoast and a river separating it from Maine to the East and a river separating it from Vermont on the East.
Once the Republic was up and running, the idea of representatives in Congress being selected to represent not people but regions, geography, land was never quite dismissed. Voters in upstate New York believed the huge voting block of New York City might vote for projects and values which reflected the needs and desires of the city which would conflict with the needs and values of the rural upstate population.
Whole states, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana cover vast expanses of geography, but have fewer people than Washington, D.C. or any of a score of large metropolitan areas.
So, withing states, territories were carved out to insure geography was proportioned votes in the legislature to protect the interests of the few who controlled big geographic territory. Senators from each state are elected without regard to the geography of the state, but Representatives are elected from "districts" which presumably were meant to reflect the interests of distinct territories within a state. You might have an urban district with several million voters getting one representative in Congress while three rural districts, with a grand total of thirty thousand people might get three representatives.
State legislatures were given the power to draw these districts and they drew them to keep the party in power when the lines were drawn in power until the next census ten years hence. This practice of Gerrymandering of course, violates the principle of Congressmen representing people as opposed to rich industrial farmers, or coal mine owners or steel magnates or oil barons, who might control a small number of voters by virtue of their power to employ.
In a fascinating article in today's New York Times, a Princeton professor of molecular biology, Sam Wang, has applied his computer programs to analyze how Gerrymandering has perverted representation among the states. In only one state--surprisingly it's Arizona--do the Democrats have more Representatives in the House of Representatives than they have votes in the last election. But in five states, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, popular majorities for Democrats were thwarted by Gerrymandering so the majority of Representatives from each of those states are Republicans.
In California, where districts are not drawn by the politicians in the state legislature, but by a non partisan commission, the popular vote is reflected almost precisely in the numbers of Representatives allotted each party.
If Gerrymandering had been in effect for the Presidential election, Mitt Romney would be President today, as all five of those key states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia) would have cast their electoral votes for Mr. Romney.
Is Gerrymandering corruption or is it simply an effort at compromising between the interests of the rural, the minority of citizens who control the majority of the land and resources and the interests of the big populations in the cities?
Had Gerrymandering not handed the Republicans extra seats, had the popular vote been reflected in the House of Representatives, even though Mr. Obama won the popular vote nationwide by over 5 million people, the seat count in the House of Representatives would still be Republicans 220, Democrats 215. Presumably, this reflects the fact we still send Representatives to Congress based on states.
But "gridlock" in Congress, the dysfunctionality of the broken legislative branch would be significantly ameliorated.
That is the story of the numbers. It is not the story of our Republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment