The midterm elections have loomed large as a major threat to the extremely fragile Republican majority in the House since President Donald Trump first started down the path of radically remaking of the country on his “day one.”
The margins – in both chambers – were so tight that even a slight movement would lose the House. In nearly all midterm elections, even those presided over by popular presidents, the party of that president loses seats. It is one of the most predictable patterns in American politics.
The reasons offered to explain this are many and varied: “The presidential majority is not one that translates into party majorities when the president is not on the ballot.” “The lower voter turnout of midterms favors the party with more motivation to elect people who will change the geography.” “House seats are determined by very different factors in the midterm – no matter how admired the party may be, there are always people in favor of a change, even if only for the sake of change.”
And these reasons are on the table when the president (and the policy cluster thereof) is generally popular.
But with an unpopular president, things could get much worse. Suddenly the president (riding a 37% approval rating) faced a major shift, and the likely torpedoing of his agenda in its entirety.
Unless the election rules could be changed, somehow.
Gerrymanders for partisan advantage in the U.S. are legal and constitutional ― if unpopular ― and all districting decisions are native to the states, not the federal government. So, the administration’s thinking went, if more safe seats could be had through party-line redistricting in “their” states, perhaps disaster could be averted?
The problem is, that game can be played by both sides. And despite warnings all around, the whole business became an escalation game. Texas (a Republican state) was first, Democratic California was next. Deep red Indiana wisely refused to get involved, but as last week’s vote demonstrated, Virginia was willing to play ball.
Virginia has historically been a “purple” state with a 6-5 Democratic advantage in U.S. House seats. But voters on April 21 narrowly approved a new election map that could swing the Democrats’ advantage to 10-1. A state circuit judge has, for the moment, blocked certification of those results, but the state is appealing.
Where will it end? It likely won’t. But we could stop it in Florida.
Florida was only recently gerrymandered to perdition, but our governor seems willing to try it on for size. Again. Even “good” (read “strategic”) gerrymanders produce risk. They make once non-competitive seats, well, competitive. Maybe only marginally more than they were, but in a very tight year, that can be enough to backfire on the gerrymandering party in ugly ways. Florida’s maps advantage Republicans in unfair ways now, but a new map could throw the whole thing over the side.
“Gerrymandering” is named for Elbridge Gerry, the Massachusetts governor who did it first. He was described by John Adams as a politician known for his “obstinacy that will risk great things to secure small ones.”
Exactly.
It may be too late to defuse all of this. The kindergarten cry of “he hit me first!” is no excuse. When the parties, rather than the people, decide Congressional seats, we violate the basic tenet of a democratic republic. We may not be able to roll back what has already happened, but it is in everyone’s interest to stop rigging things. Now.
The electoral system of the USA is a fragile thing, but it has endured, through every crisis since the first election. We will, no doubt, survive this one. But in what shape?
Elections are the foundation of our Republic. For representation to work it has to be at least marginally fair to those people being represented. When we play with the basic rules, when we try to tilt the odds in ways that violate the simple premise that “all should be represented,” we play with an electoral fire that can burn down the system itself.
R. Bruce Anderson is the Dr. Sarah D. and L. Kirk McKay Jr. Endowed Chair in American History, Government, and Civics and Miller Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Florida Southern College in Lakeland. He is also a columnist for The Ledger and political consultant and on-air commentator for WLKF Radio.
This article originally appeared on The Ledger: The cascading folly of ‘gerrymandering’ | R. Bruce Anderson
Reporting by R. Bruce Anderson, Ledger columnist / The Ledger
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
