New York State Legislature redistricting, a GOP view
Did you catch Jim Alesi’s essay in Tuesday’s D&C?
The money grafs are here. The entire essay is below the fold. From Jim Alesi (R-55th NYS Senate district)
[snip]
I believe that the purest and perhaps fairest way to draw new lines is to implement a completely objective computer-driven plan that allows for an equal number of residents in each district, without regard for party registration.
However, this method also would mean that the Democratic Party, with an overwhelming enrollment advantage, would control the state Legislature and, to a large extent, New York’s congressional districts.
[snip]
So, the only way to protect citizens from the loss of the two-party system is to incorporate initiative and referendum into any impartial redistricting effort. This would allow citizens, rather than legislators from one dominant party, to sponsor and vote on issues that the Legislature might otherwise block.So, using an impartial system might seem like a simple reform; however, the results would be dramatic. New York’s citizens and all who call for reform of our system of government must understand the potential impact of the predictable loss of the two-party system in our state.
What is wrong with splitting the state into areas with equal voters. Oh, that’s right all those Democrats will take over. Seems there is more Democrats in NY than Republicans. Especially in NYC the registration is overwhelming.
Well, Jim, I’m for putting the power in the hands of the voters but please explain the 12 years of George Pataki - not from a policy perspective but from an election perspective. He was elected 3 times in a state with more Democrats than Republicans.
Then there is my guy Joe Robach. He keeps getting elected even though he needs a solid Democratic district to turn out for him.
And finally, those Democrats in NYC should not be reelected Mayor Bloomberg. I mean he is a Republican. Did those Dems in NYC not get the message and forget to vote lock step?
It seems that we currently have a system with grid lock. The same folks keep getting reelected because of the gerrymandering. Places where there isn’t gerrymandering such as statewide or-city wide elections Republicans get elected despite the state Democrats registration advantage. You essay fails to account for blanks and independents. It also doesn’t account for the primary process in either party.
The people expect their government to get something constructive done. I think we have learned at a national level that getting things done quickly isn’t the best way. I mean a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government not necessarily the best and I’ll take best over efficient anytime.
Still people expect their government to work for them not for themselves. How better to do it than straight up redistricting
The piece about initiatives and referendums (like California) is interesting. This works when we get a lot of informed people out to vote. The skeptic in me says this process can be hijacked. I’d have to better understand the details - so no comment yet.
No matter - Jim’s essay is worth a read. It is below the fold because it disappears off the D&C website after a week. Here is an idea. Maybe the D&C can get a COMIDA grant to hire someone one to keep the stories and the links to them active for longer than a week.
(January 17, 2007) — After the next census in 2011, the state Legislature will present a redistricting plan that will determine where members of the Assembly, Senate and Congress will run for re-election. The initial process will be under the domain of a Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment created in 1978 by the state Legislature. The task force consists of two Assembly members, two senators and two nonlegislators.
Under the current system, the Democrat-controlled Assembly and the Republican-controlled Senate will make sure that the new lines will be drawn to keep the control of their respective houses intact. Individual members will lobby intensely to cut the best possible district for themselves. The process will also include drawing new lines for the congressional districts, and House members will have the same intense interest in their future districts.
The net result of the current process is gerrymandering, and the assurance that each party will extract as much political power as possible until the next census, 10 years into the future.
I believe that the purest and perhaps fairest way to draw new lines is to implement a completely objective computer-driven plan that allows for an equal number of residents in each district, without regard for party registration.
However, this method also would mean that the Democratic Party, with an overwhelming enrollment advantage, would control the state Legislature and, to a large extent, New York’s congressional districts.
If New York were to adopt an impartial computer-driven redistricting plan, without “tinkering” by interested parties, then the citizens must have significant protection against the predictable outcome of one party (Democratic) controlling both houses of the Legislature and congressional districts, and a predictable long-term occupation of the governor’s seat.
It should also be noted that the governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints judges, agency heads and other significant officials who determine everyday life for the citizens of New York.
So, the only way to protect citizens from the loss of the two-party system is to incorporate initiative and referendum into any impartial redistricting effort. This would allow citizens, rather than legislators from one dominant party, to sponsor and vote on issues that the Legislature might otherwise block.
So, using an impartial system might seem like a simple reform; however, the results would be dramatic. New York’s citizens and all who call for reform of our system of government must understand the potential impact of the predictable loss of the two-party system in our state.
Alesi, R-Perinton, represents the 55th District in the state Senate.
Sympathy for the devil time:
The man has a point. I’ve lived in states where the Democrats were a permanent minority and it sucks, not just for the minority but for the majority as well. Without truly competitive races the majority party gets corrupt and stupid. Witness the fact that in the 1980s Indiana not only elected Dan Quayle, but reelected him to the Senate and then voted for him as Vice-President both times he ran. There’s no way that a turkey like Dan Quayle would have gotten elected if the Republicans didn’t have a lock on power in the Indiana Statehouse to gerrymander Quayle (the son of a local political powerbroker) a nice, safe district to run in.
Instead, we ought to have at-large candidates elected via modified instant run-off elections. Every voter gets to vote for X number of candidates, ranking them in order of preference, out of a larger pool. Alternately, a voter can vote for less than three candidates and vote against one or more candidates. Each negative vote cast cancels a positive vote, regardless of ranking.
For example, in a hypothetical chamber of 10 representatives and 20 candidates, every voter gets to vote for 3 candidates in order of preference, or they can choose their favorite and second favorite and cast a veto vote against a candidate they really hate. Total votes are counted for first place (minus veto votes) and candidates who get a certain threshold of votes are elected. If there aren’t enough winners in the first round, then second place votes are counted (minus vetoes) and winners from that round of voting who achieve the minimum threshold are elected. If necessary, voting goes to a third round. If not enough candidates are chosen, a new election is called.
Inevitably, voters will cluster around the candidates who best match their interests (whether local, ethnic or economic) and, if they feel strongly about it, they can attempt to block truly objectionable candidates at the expense of being less able to support their own candidates. Such a system forces politicians to adopt policies most favorable to the majority and weeds out the majority of extremists, although extremist parties will have some representation as long as they have a sufficiently large core of supporters and their candidates aren’t utterly odious to the electorate at large.
Great perspective– thanks.
An interesting proposition, but that would take WAY more reform than any government in the US would ever be able to achieve (in my lifetime anyway). The problem for your proposal is that it would allow too many 3rd party candidates into races, and would threaten the 2-party monopoly; hence they would never vote-in such a system.
I feel that the state senator quoted above is merely fearful for his job. He makes it sound as though New York is SO heavily Democratic that no republican would ever be elected in a district that was drawn at random. All it would do is force politicians to represent the interests of the people in their districts. Republican candidates would have to make concessions and become more liberal in order to win in a district, rather than sticking to their guns and catering to a target population in a heavily Republican district. Whatever happens, we can’t keep the current system because it is blatantly obvious to me that it doesn’t work. I’m willing to make a gamble on a different system. Furthermore, I don’t think the WHOLE STATE is as Democratic as he leads us to believe. I think that many districts in Upstate and Western New York would easily elect an environmentally friendly, church-going, pro-life, tax-cutting but school-funding Republican. Why does everything have to be so black and white? In my opinion, his concerns are unfounded.
The key is representing the district’s interests.
If a party can’t get their act together enough to win elections, they deserve to be out of power. Period.
Here’s one way to do it randomly: http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html
It’s a tricky proposition, though, and not just in terms of getting the politicians to sacrifice safe districts. The voters will complain, too. Any time you change something that’s unfair, the people who were advantaged by the unfairness will complain.
Also, voting districts must be composed of existing census blocks. The block boundaries are roads, streams, train tracks, and municipal boundaries. So at the micro level it’s still not truly random.
Finally, you’d have to re-draw the entire state every decade, and not just a few areas.
[...] Finally we saw a precursor to Jim Alesi’s lack of logic - something evident in many of his essays or legislative bills. Gerrymandering anyone? Check out Jim Alesi’ non-sense over why it is unfair to redistrict? [...]