Tom Mast, Solve American Gridlock founder
Reference: The Disunited States, The Economist, September 3, 2022
The lead editorial in the referenced Economist began by focusing on the degree of polarization we are now seeing in state governments. It referred to the founders’ concept that our states could be laboratories where new ideas and policies might be tried without involving the entire union. But, what is happening today has instead degenerated into a culture war. Why is this?
Of the 50 states, 37 are ruled by a single party, meaning both houses of their legislatures plus the governor’s office. Wow! This makes them one-party states, and in many of them, likely to stay that way due to our electoral methods, including gerrymandering. This has led to little negotiation or compromise in governments and resulted in radical positions and laws. It sounds an awfully lot like our federal government, doesn’t it. This is no accident because similar electoral methods and the same passion to dominate politics and win the “game” exists throughout the nation, because state lawmakers often rise to federal office, and last – but not least – because there are only two effective parties throughout the country making legislating a zero-sum game; one is either winning big-time or losing big-time. There should be a career for competent problem solvers to have rewarding careers without participating in a constant battle.
The article moves from the states to the federal level and politics in general. It states that American “dysfunction” threatens not only the U.S., but also the world that still depends on us to lead. “The federal government should stop neglecting its responsibilities… including immigration and climate change.” So, what do we do about this muddy field in which we find ourselves mired?
“…more than this America needs electoral reform. It should end gerrymandering, which lets politicians choose their voters rather than vice versa.”
Providing for multi-member districts rather than the custom-designed single-member districts (read Safe Seats) would provide for election results that would match the diversity of a state’s population much better and eliminate the evil gerrymandering. It would increase a variety of viewpoints in legislatures. Most people don’t realize that Congress mandated single-member districts for the U.S. House in 1967; it can just as easily mandate multi-member districts. Ranked Choice Voting also has been shown to produce fairer results, and allows voters to rank their preferences for candidates in addition to their first choice. Many other countries use MMDs and RCV. RCV also produces more proportional results, and it can eliminate runoff elections with all their undesirable issues including cost, time, and poor voter turnout. The use of RCV should be coupled with that of multi-member districts.
The punch line of these changes in electoral methods is that they lead a country to having more than two parties. This is good; it is really the objective! Over twenty leading nations have an average of 3.9 effective parties, meaning parties large enough to have some influence on policy. These countries have seen the advantages of getting away from two warring parties whose primary goal is to hurt the other party, not to solve their countrys’ problems. We must have more than two viewpoints on issues and civil negotiation. See the graph below.
Let’s return to polarization. Is polarization originating in our federal and state legislatures or in the populace at large? Well, which came first, the chicken or the egg? It doesn’t matter. One feeds on the other. There is no doubt that more civil politics would be a huge step in the right direction.
The Economist article wraps up saying that we voters have a responsibility. Amen! We not only have a responsibility, we have the ultimate and sovereign duty. Remember what Pogo said: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Comments