David Wasserman over at 538.com offers some commentary on how America’s localities are polarizing at an alarming rate:
Of the nation’s 3,113 counties (or county equivalents), just 303 were decided by single-digit margins — less than 10 percent. In contrast, 1,096 counties fit that description in 1992, even though that election featured a wider national spread.1 During the same period, the number of extreme landslide counties — those decided by margins exceeding 50 percentage points — exploded from 93 to 1,196, or over a third of the nation’s counties.
But most places just aren’t budging — in fact, they’re doubling down. In an increasing number of communities like Baldwin County, Alabama, which gave Trump 80 percent of its major-party votes, and San Mateo, California, which gave Clinton 80 percent, an entire generation of youth will grow up without much exposure to alternative political points of view. If you think our political climate is toxic now, think for a moment about how nasty politics could be 20 or 30 years from now.
This is interesting from two perspectives.
First, one immediately notes that the modern Democratic Party is by and large a regionalized one: New England and California. Or perhaps more accurately, big cities — and the polarization is perhaps the reason why massive swings such as 1994 and 2006 (and 2010 and 2014) simply aren’t in the cards for the Democrats. The “big sort” has already occurred… and gerrymandering is about the only salvation the Democratic Party has at the moment to maintain a degree of control over the new reality.
Second, as it pertains to Virginia’s redistricting debacle? Draw the lines however one sees fit… the bottom line at this rate is that urban centers vote differently than rural ones (shocking, I know). More to the point? Communities of interest are going to vote in a manner that reflects currently polarizing national trends.
What this means for redistricting and gerrymandering on both sides? Consider the Virginia House of Delegates, where 11 districts are in contention using a 55% metric for minority representation, now reduced to a nebulous 40-50% metric that gets to be determined by some future court during whatever capricious moment someone doesn’t like X neighborhood being drawn in to Y district at the expense of Z party, etc.
Polarization of the electorate based on demography and location means that lines can effectively be drawn where the citizens within really don’t get a choice — because the national orthodoxies simply don’t allow for any latitude or disagreement. RINOs and DINOs die on the vine in ruby red or sapphire blue localities, while extremists find themselves incompatible in the suburbs and exurbs.
That ultimately means that for all the protest about gerrymandered districts and the like? Such wiggling into polarized districts will not give us the competition proponents would prefer to see, but rather much more sharply drawn lines of demarcation.
One solution for this? Scrap redistricting altogether and simply run party candidates as a list.
For instance, take the Virginia House of Delegates. Get 100 Democrats, 100 Republicans, 100 Greens, 100 Libertarians and run them all as a party list. If the Dems get 44%, GOP gets 46%, the Greens get 3% and the LP gets 7%? Then the top 44 Democrats on that list become Delegates, the top 46 Republican names become Delegates, etc.
Of course, one of the problems could be regionalization… in which case a “Rural Democrat” or “Urban Conservative” party could run a list of 100 of their own. Certainly it would provide more diversity of opinion in an elected body… eventually things would settle out and you would get a parliamentary body of sorts. Another problem would be the threshold for party status… could any clown run their own slate as a party? Surely there’s a solution for that.
More to the point, this does point towards another issue that we really aren’t discussing overall in the United States: enfranchisement. In 1790 Virginia had barely 700,000 citizens — one delegate for every 7,000 people — and 21 electoral votes (roughly one U.S. House member for every 32,000 citizens). Today? One delegate represents 88,000 people, nearly three times the number James Madison would have represented as a congressman. One congressman represents roughly 700,000 people, the same number that roughly lived in Virginia at the dawn of the American republic.
Consider Virginia’s localities. One member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors represents more citizens than a member of the House of Delegates. The access that one person has to their elected official in Highland County (pop. 2,214) is far greater than in Fairfax, Prince William, Loudoun, or Virginia Beach.
The decentralization of power — rather than mere redistricting or redistribution of power to the same handful — is probably the single greatest task of the next 20 to 30 years.
Of course, Jefferson had an idea on how to restore enfranchisement — bring back the system of hundreds (what we today call precincts), the sort that helped found Virginia and enjoyed a long tradition back in Great Britain going all the way back to the Norman Conquest.
The real question isn’t whether or not we are too polarized. The problem is that American governance is too distant from we the people. Bring it closer to home and like Smokey the Bear warns us, keep it small and keep it contained?
Then you have a chance.