Nate Cohn detailed on Sunday the structural disadvantages Democrats face in winning back the House of Representatives in November. Republicans are all but certain not just to retain the House but expand their majority in contrast to the competitive Senate.
That Democrats will likely struggle in 2014 is not atypical. Historically the president’s party struggles in midterm elections. But the current composition of the Democratic coalition is such that it is uniquely unsuited to success in the House. Cohn explains:
Expanded Democratic margins in metropolitan areas are all but wasted in the House, since most of these urban districts already voted for Democrats. The result is that Democrats have built national and statewide majorities by making Democratic-leaning congressional districts even more Democratic, not by winning new areas that might turn congressional districts from red to blue.
Another factor undoubtedly at play here is partisan gerrymandering. The Republican wave in 2010 gave them control of a number of state governments during the decennial redistricting cycle. Legislators in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina redrew districts that exacerbated Democrats’ inefficient distribution of votes and heavily favored Republicans.
While Cohn cites political scientists that say redistricting cost Democrats just 6-8 seats, Princeton’s Sam Wang argues it was closer to 15. Regardless, it’s having at least some impact.
This combination is how you get a scenario like the one that occurred in 2012. Democratic House candidates nationwide received 1.4 million more votes than their Republican counterparts but fell well short of winning a majority of seats. Republicans won 234 to the Democrats’ 201.
Cohn says the Party will have to appeal to voters “some liberals thought they could abandon: the conservative Democrats of the South and Appalachia.”
A couple of things here:
1) National Democrats has been trying to appeal to those voters ever since Al Gore underperformed with them in 2000. Gun control was dropped from the party platform and they more conservative candidates for Congress were promoted. Ultimately those voters are Republicans now.
2) Cohn is too pessimistic. Democrats had 257 seats after the 2008 elections. That was under the old map, but winning 218 in a good year is eminently possible. If the party’s 2016 presidential candidate (probably Hillary Clinton, despite my misgivings) wins by a substantial margin, the lower chamber could go blue. It’s an uphill battle but not impossible.
But the basic issue here is that American democracy is failing voters. More people voted for a Democratic House. Instead they got one dominated by conservative Republicans. This is because the House is structured by geography.
As Andrew Prokop writes, “it’s unnatural to draw a map dispersing [Democrats who live close together] across many districts.” Members are elected from geographic districts that devalue votes from urban areas and privileges exurban and rural votes.
It’s a reality that has flies in the face of the principle of one person, one vote and has implications for public policy above and beyond partisan considerations.
It’s worth noting there are electoral systems other than the single-member, plurality-winner districts the United States uses. One in particular, proportional representation, would address the gap between votes and representation that currently exists in the House.
Proportional representation (PR) is pretty simple. Within a state, parties would present voters with a list of candidates as long as the number of seats it is apportioned in Congress. In California, 53 people would be on the list, Pennsylvania, 18. The number of seats a party held would correspond with the percentage of the popular vote it won.
For example in North Carolina, Democratic candidates received roughly 51% of the statewide vote. If proportional representation were in effect, they would have held 7 of the state’s 13 congressional seats. In actuality, they held just 4 (*). This dynamic was at play in a number of states across the country.
Other versions of PR would set up multi-member districts within states. FairVote (**), an organization that advocates electoral reform, has released a “fair voting” plan for every state. It’s centered more around candidates than parties, but it still adheres to a principle of the number of seats aligning with voter percentage.
PR is widely accepted around the world. 126 countries use some form of the system, including Spain, Israel, and Germany.
It would also represent a substantial change to the status quo and is thus not on the mainstream political agenda.
There are multiple reasons why the Democratic Party isn’t necessarily for this. Existing Democratic leaders were elected with first-past-the-post, as you can see in institutional opposition to scrapping the Electoral College, politicians are typically unwilling to dismantle systems that put them in power. PR would also make it easier for minor parties to gain a foothold in Congress, which the two major parties typically seek to prevent.
Still, adopting PR in the U.S. would undoubtedly benefit the urban voters Democrats increasingly rely on. And if they are continually deprived majorities in the House despite voter support, they will have to at least consider structural change.
So far, redistricting reform to end partisan gerrymandering has been the main target of Democratic ire. Implementing that would indeed have positive effects, but it’s only part of the problem. Addressing the inherent flaws of single-member districts is necessary for real fairness.
This kind of somewhat radical reform may seem alien to a status-quo oriented mainstream political party. But that’s not always the case.
Democrats’ reaction to the Citizens United Supreme Court case is a useful comparison. The flood of corporate money embodies a perceived existential threat, and the party has proposed reform to contain that threat. President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have all voiced support for a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and the states more power to regulate campaign finance. Many Democrats have given lip service to the idea that there is too much money in politics.
Constitutional amendments are rare and this likely won’t become law anytime soon. But talking about the issue makes it more likely to attract public attention. Without that, it will never become salient with voters. It’s definitely a good first step.
One hopes the threat of permanent minority status in the House will motivate Democrats to think about proportional representation. Politics aside, it’s the right thing to do for a more representative democracy.
(*) One of those four is North Carolina’s 7th district, which leans conservative and was one of the closest congressional races in the country in 2012. Democrat Mike McIntyre barely prevailed and will retire at the end of this term, meaning Republicans will likely pick up that seat.
(**) Full disclosure: I interned at FairVote previously.
No comments:
Post a Comment