Once again, voices have been raised, clamouring for gun control in the United States. And once again, E. J. Dionne, Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann write that those voices will be ignored, because the United States "is now a non-majoritarian democracy:"
If that sounds like a contradiction in terms, that’s because it is. Claims that our republic is democratic are undermined by a system that vastly overrepresents the interests of rural areas and small states. This leaves the large share of Americans in metropolitan areas with limited influence over national policy. Nowhere is the imbalance more dramatic or destructive than on the issue of gun control.
And the non majoritarian character of American democracy also explains why Donald Trump is president. His supporters live in "flyover country." And they complain that nobody listens to them. But, actually, they are in control:
David Birdsell, a Baruch College political scientist, has calculated that by 2040, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states — and be represented by only 30 of the 100 senators.
In the House, mischievously drawn district lines vastly distort the preferences of those who cast ballots. After the 2010 Census, the GOP controlled the redrawing of congressional boundaries in most key states. The result? The Brennan Center for Justice concluded that Republicans derived a net benefit of at least 16 seats from biased boundaries, about two-thirds of their current House margin.
The electoral college, meanwhile, is increasingly out of line with the popular vote. In raw terms, Trump had the largest popular-vote deficit of any electoral college winner. It was the second time in just five elections that the two were at odds. Here again, the failure of our institutions to account for the movement to metropolitan areas is the culprit. In 1960, 63 percent of Americans lived in metros; by 2010, 84 percent did.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes. Trump claims that they were all illegal votes. But Rex Tillerson and a majority of Americans know that Donald Trump is a moron.
Image: davidbrin.blogspot.com
12 comments:
The Americans have brought gerrymandering to a whole other level, Owen.
They've worked very hard to make sure districts work in a particular party's favour, Lorne. The Supreme Court is presently considering a case which illustrates that problem. The Court can do something about gerrymandering -- if it truly wants to.
Steve wrote:
I am somewhat torn by the electoral college. It was part to the founding fathers brilliance made dim by idiots. However if you go with a majority, California, NY, Texas and Florida will become the republic.
When the Republic was founded, Steve, it was very much a rural nation. But times and neighbourhoods have changed. The same phenomenon has happened here.
For more on the mechanics, go to "Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy", by David Daley, Liveright (2016).
And lest we ignore States Rights doctrine. In consideration of the gerrymandering question and given the composition of the Supreme Court, how many generations would be required to take that down.
Until the last federal election, Canada's Commons was less representative than the US House. Our skewed rep-by-pop was significantly reduced in 2011 when Harper added 30 seats to the Commons to reflect the growing populations of BC, Alberta and Ontario. Still, our constitution ensures that PEI continues to have a say in the Commons (4 seats) that vastly outweighs its tiny population.
But true electoral equality has two components: first, having the same number of voters per MP, and second, having a voting system that gives equal weight to all votes. Harper's rebalancing of the Commons addressed the first component. But it doesn't give equal weight to all votes. So it doesn't fix the Canadian problem of unequal weight per party vote or the US problems of "non-majoritarian democracy" and gerrymandering.
The results from the 2015 federal election show that our first-past-the-post system unfairly translates party votes into MPs being elected:
- Liberals: 39.5% of votes, 54.4% of seats won, difference 15.0
- Conservatives: 31.9% of votes, 29.3% of seats won, difference -2.6
- NDP: 19.7% of votes, 13.0% of seats won, difference -6.7
- BQ: 4.7% of votes, 3.0% of seats won, difference -1.7
- Greens: 3.5% of votes, 0.3% of seats won, difference -3.2
In fact, the Liberals fared best, winning 15% more seats than you'd expect based on the votes cast for the party. OTOH, the NDP fared worst, with their votes translating into almost 7% fewer seats than you'd expect.
It's no wonder that Trudeau reneged on his promise to fix the unfair FPTP system, but if history is any guide that decision will come back to bite his party in future.
Cap
Maybe it's time for a new America, two in fact. Productive, healthy and prosperous America and another state, the minority who keep people like Trump and Congressional Republicans in power. In essence the eastern seaboard from Virginia north, the northern states and the entire west coast. The Bible Belt and the Slave States can have the country they've always fought for. For a fun look at what that might entail, read Chuck Thompson's "Better Off Without 'Em."
Good question, John -- to which I don't have an answer. Like the old Jim Crow laws, gerrymandering is happily rooted in the political culture. It took a long time to get rid of "separate but equal."
I fully expect that, at sometime, Trudeau will pay dearly for abandoning electoral reform, Cap. It's painfully obvious why politicians don't reform a system that serves their partisan interests.
Thanks for the tip, Mound. The South has been grousing and trying to rise again for a long, long time.
Trudeau might have shown more interest in electoral reform if the average Canadian had shown any interest in the subject, at least when Trudeau was in his first year of office before Trump became president, at a stage when he had a certain openness and more flexibility. As I recall, he gave Canadians a chance to provide input to a special parliamentary committee and there was damn little input from most Canadians beyond blank looks and impatience with the whole boring subject.
I don't really blame Trudeau for dropping electoral reform. There is no point in giving people something they don't want, even if they would want it if they understood and supported their own interests. I don't think Trudeau's motivation is pure self interest
The average Canadian doesn't like democracy very much. Too much effort, too much thinking.
True, ffd. Things were complicated by the different parties' take on electoral reform. The Tories didn't want it. The Dippers wanted radical proportional representation and the Libs wanted the ranked ballot. Nonetheless, Trudeau made a commitment -- which he broke. That broken promise has cost him.
Post a Comment