The Electoral Salamander

Since the November 2010 elections and the Tucson shooting, the tone in Washington has radically calmed. The political columnists have made amends. In the Washington Post, Dana Milbank analyzed at length her “dependence” on the media drug, Sarah Palin, and vows to go a month without talking about the Alaskan muse of caribous and her daughter, Bristol, who has a new boyfriend (which was mentioned in a tone of all consumed addiction). On the evening of Tuesday Jan. 25, about fifty Democrats and Republicans mixed into the rows during the State of the Union Address, breaking with the traditional left-right ordering in Congress.

Of course, this is all a façade. While they try to one-up each other with compliments in Washington, the parties work twice as hard in the states to redistrict the electoral districts as most advantageous as possible for 2012. And yet, according to the political scientists, the “redistricting” is a phenomenon that contributes the most to the division of the country and the polarization of political life (the liberalization of established radio stations under Ronald Regan and, recently, blogs and other tabloids on the internet contribute to the scandal in excess).

The United States is the only advanced democracy where politicians themselves decide electoral redistricting. According to an expression in Washington, redistricting has turned democracy on its head. The politicians choose their voters instead of the opposite. This phenomenon made its appearance in 1812, and it seemed to become part in these practices that can only be struck with a divine seal, since they have existed for more than 200 years. This year in Governor Elbridge Gerry’s Massachusetts, redistricting led to an electoral map that would have greatly amused cartoonists because it resembled a salamander. Quickly, the process was renamed “Gerrymandering.”

The artistic side remained. Information on Gerrymandering (released in March 2010) presented drawings to passersby without telling them that they were electoral districts. This is a game of interpreting the spots. “An alligator,” asked an onlooker. “A squirrel,” suggested another. “A llama?” The law demands a certain continuity of land, and that’s it. The districts are sometimes linked together by a simple passage or hallway: for example, the interstate, like district 21 in Florida, that made twists and turns for 160 km across five counties.

Throughout these ten years, the census followed a frenzy of redistricting, especially in the states that won or lost seats in Congress, which is based on their population (this year, the industrial North-East lost a half-dozen seats in favor of the “Sun Belt”). There are a dozen exceptions, like Iowa and Arizona, which entrusted the process to an independent commission. These local assemblies take care of them, provided that the parties are arranged better. Are the Republicans becoming cumbersome in such Democratic districts? All you have to do is exchange the Democrats who are annoying the Republicans in the neighboring district. The results: the candidates preach to the converted. The only important elections are the primaries, where the extremes push for the higher bid, and the center bears the brunt of the process.

The 2010 post-census redistricting could comfort the Republicans for years. Thanks to their victory in the November election, they control the local assemblies in 25 states and redistricting in 145 districts. The use of computer science models now gives a precision worthy of Google Maps. “With a click of a mouse, we change a Democratic district into a Republican one,” assured an expert (the candidate, Hakeem Jeffries of Brooklyn, who saw his house change districts overnight, thus preventing him from running for office).

This year, a reform movement grew. In California, the voters entrusted redistricting to an independent commission in November 2010. The Brookings Institution developed software that permits citizens to draw the models themselves (under the auspices of the researcher, Michael McDonald, who introduced himself as a “penitent of gerrymandering” for tampering with the map layout in five states). The voters are asking for “compact” districts. They are enough to paralyze the system, so that problems like transportation or cuts in funding for higher education are not regulated.

Any reform looks pretty difficult since the two parties have every interest in maintaining a system that suits them best, and the redistricting is only inconvenient. For minorities, it takes on the role of affirmative electoral action. The Latinos are especially keeping an eye on Texas, a state that benefited from four more seats due to the increase in the immigrating population. It will not do any good now that the Republicans, who control the dice, are misappropriating their power, which happened in 2003…