“I guess Trump is really worried that the Republicans might lose the House of Representatives next year,” I said.
“What makes you say that?” Socrates asked as he downed a link sausage. This conversation took place during one of our Saturday breakfast meetings.
“He’s asking the Texas legislature to redraw the House districts so their state will have five more Republican Representatives than it would under the current plan,” I said, laughing at the cheek involved in such a request. [1]
Socrates shook his head. “Imagine politicians not believing in democracy,” he said with sarcasm. “Are they going to do it?”
“They’re thinking about it. But there’s some concern that it might backfire on them. They may have made Texas as Republican as they can.”
“Well, once again, we gain some insight into the integrity of our political class. I don’t suppose the Democrats are too happy about it.”
“Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, is saying that his state should do the same thing in order to increase the Democratic representation from California.” [2]
“That seems like a reasonable response.”
“Why? Don’t you think it’s a little hypocritical?”
“No. Why do you say that?”
“Aren’t the Democrats always saying that we should get rid of gerrymandering?”
“I don’t know if that’s true. They certainly have engaged in gerrymandering in the past. But let’s suppose you’re right. Why would it be hypocritical for them to fight fire with fire as Governor Newsom suggests?”
“Maybe they should stick to their principles.”
“But can’t you see that would put them at a permanent disadvantage? If Democratic states draw fair districts while Republican states freely engage in gerrymandering, won’t that distort the outcome of elections?”
“I suppose. But maybe if they don’t engage in gerrymandering, others will be inspired to follow their good example.”
At that Socrates laughed out loud, while I simultaneously realized how ridiculous my last statement was. “That would be a sight,” he said, “politicians being inspired by an example of virtue.”
“Okay, okay,” I replied. “That was stupid. But if most people agree that gerrymandering is a bad thing, why can’t we get rid of it?”
“Most people probably think gerrymandering is a sordid practice, but I don’t think the majority of the political class thinks so. To them, winning is everything. If we had ballot measures on the federal level we probably could get rid of it fairly quickly. But we don’t. So we’re stuck with whatever the politicians give us.”
“Can’t the Supreme Court do something? It seems like it would be a violation of Equal Protection.”
“You’d think. But they recently punted on the issue because they couldn’t think of a rule that would cover every possible situation. They forgot they are a court, which is supposed to decide the case in front of it, rather than a legislature, which does try to conceive of every situation to which a statute might apply.” [3]
“And I don’t suppose the Congress can do anything.”
“It has the power. But it would have to be populated with a sufficient number of people with high enough ideals. And they’d have to have enough to overcome a Senate filibuster.”
“Well, that’s bleak. How did we get here?”
“Like most of our political problems it can be traced to political parties. After all, gerrymandering is designed to give one party an advantage over the other.”
“Well, I’m at a loss. How can we fix this?”
“Before we get to that, would you agree, based on what we’ve said so far, that gerrymandering is something that has to be dealt with on a national level? After all, if some states get rid of gerrymandering and others do not, the states that don’t would provide an outsized advantage to their majority parties.”
“That’s true. But what about individual citizens? We’re thinking in terms of political parties, and fairness to them. But if gerrymandering is allowed won’t members of the minority party in their state be unduly disadvantaged with respect to their representation?”
“Of course. But let’s be realistic. Do Representatives in the House really represent their districts? Or is it more the case that they represent their political parties, most of them taking orders from their party leadership on how to vote?”
“The latter.”
“So, with that grim fact in mind, let’s consider whether the individual voter you are concerned about is really being disadvantaged. Won’t his party get more representation in another state where it is in the majority than it would if districts were drawn fairly?”
“Yes, since every state would be gerrymandering to the same extent according to our hypothetical.”
“Exactly. So the disadvantage that minority voters have in one state would be balanced out by states where their party is in the majority. I don’t know if the balancing would be precise, since states have differing populations, and some would be better at gerrymandering than others. But if we’re going to permit gerrymandering, and it seems that will be the arrangement for the foreseeable future, states that gerrymander will have an advantage for their majority parties over the majority parties in states that do not. Am I right?”
“I can’t argue with that.”
“So, can you see how Governor Newsom’s response is a rational one?”
“I can. But there’s something about all this that bothers me. Why is our political class so indifferent to fairness in voting?”
“Surely you are aware that politicians and political parties represent specific interests.”
“True. So what?”
“And don’t those interests tend to be those which are capable of financing their campaigns?”
“Yes. Money talks, as they say."
"But do those interests seek advantages for themselves or fairness for everybody?"
“Advantages for themselves, of course.”
“And do you suppose that when they make their donations to candidates or parties that they caution their beneficiaries to make sure that they serve their interests only through fair democratic processes?”
“No, it would be ridiculously naive to think that.”
“But effectively serving the interests of their donors is how politicians stay in office, am I right?”
“You are.”
“Where, then, do you suppose democratic considerations come in to play in this dynamic?”
“Nowhere that I can see.”
“Nowhere that I can see either.”
“The way things are now, money is everything in politics,” Socrates replied. “Do you see any way out other than requiring campaigns to be financed, whether directly or indirectly, strictly with public funds?”
“No, you’re right. But how could that be accomplished?”
“That’s for another discussion on another day,” Socrates said.
—Jack Quirk
