Citing the work of Jonathan Rodden,[1]the last
posting begins sharing what that political scientist reports on the
undemocratic nature of American governance.
Using the standard, “one man/woman, one vote,” the US Constitution
provides certain provisions that defy that standard. For example, the fact that each state has
equal representation in the US Senate illustrates these counter democratic
provisions. In that body, the 600,000
citizens of Wyoming with the 40 million citizens of California have equal voice.[2]
Now,
the aim in that posting was not to share anything new with civics teachers. They already know about these inequities. In addition, any news-watching citizen surely
has heard from time to time references to this and other undemocratic aspects
of the American governmental arrangement.
That posting’s aim is to set the stage for what is to follow.
This
posting, for example, focuses on another provision which adds to this less than
ideal democratic processes; that is, how the system draws representative
districts and the utilization of gerrymandering. But as one investigates gerrymandering, one
finds that that provision is not so central in denying democratic equality. While gerrymandering does have an effect,
when one compares the US system to others, one sees that another quality plays
a more determinate role in creating the undemocratic results.
Rodden
claims that there are various practices that nonurban forces (mostly rural,
conservative area factions) use to deprive urban areas equal representation and
further indicates that the role of location is central to this overall
condition. This can get a bit complex and
the best way to appreciate these less than democratic practices is to compare
the US system to that of European systems.
There
the common approach in choosing representatives is for the representative
districts to be large and to have multiple representatives be elected for each
district. That means, the system is not
a winner-take-all approach. Also, the
various parties are represented in such a way that their numbers reflect their
share of the vote within each district.
The
way that system arranges representation, therefore, guarantees that a party
will be given that number of seats reflecting how well it did on election day. And to keep the number of representatives to a
reasonable number, the districts are much larger than most districts in the
United States, especially those in US states with sizable urban areas.
Here,
in the US, there is a “majoritarian” system in which districts are smaller and a
single winner wins a single seat. If one
party has most of its voters concentrated – “bunched” – geographically, such as
Democrats do in mostly urban areas, many of those votes are “wasted.” They are wasted even if the districts are not
gerrymandered. As soon as the system has
a winner-take-all set up in small geographic districts, a party that has its
supports so bunched will be underrepresented compared to its opponent.
To
understand this system and how it has become so undemocratic, one needs to look
historically at its development. Given
Rodden’s analysis, there seems to have been a qualitative shift (reflected in
quantitative election results) with the advent of the New Deal under the Franklin
Roosevelt administration. For example,
Woodrow Wilson’s victory in 1916 showed no difference between urban and rural support
that Wilson was able to garner. Yet, by
1960, Kennedy’s victory was strongly aligned with urban vote totals. That bias reached extreme levels with Hillary
Clinton’s vote and her support in urban counties vs. rural counties in 2016.
This
well-entrenched urban bias is noted not just in vibrant, new information-based
economic centers (e.g., Seattle), but in both postindustrial cities (e.g., Detroit)
and medium-sized cities (e.g., Reading, PA).
Of importance here is that while some cities are losing populations (such
as in postindustrial cities), across the board, cities are gaining population
which is further intensifying the underrepresentation of these peoples’
political views.
So, these
disparities have become an integral aspect of the polarized political landscape. In terms of having legitimate political
sentiments being adequately represented in policy-making bodies, this
underrepresentation of urban interests promises to further destabilize the
politics of this nation. As things
stand, as a glaring consequence from Republicans’ overrepresentation, it gives
shape to the volatile urban-rural sectionalism, a growing aspect of
contemporary politics.
But when
one compares the US system to other democracies, this gerrymandering attribute
is limited to the American system. But
that is not to say that an urban-rural divide only characterizes the US. Countries derived of British colonization and
Britain itself all have single-representative systems. That is, they have winner-take-all districts.
The
other “Anglo” nations also have marked underrepresentation of urban areas as
compared to their rural counterparts. In
addition, one can find that labor or progressive parties are associated with
urban interests and as in the US, their elections pit more cosmopolitan and
postindustrial city interests against traditional rural sentiments. And even without gerrymandering practices, their
vote results and resulting representative allocations resemble that of the US.
To
support this, Rodden points out that British parliamentary elections since 1950
show that the Conservative Party (the right of center party) received 41% of
the vote while the Labour Party (the left of center party) received nearly 40%;
one can judge this as fairly close results.
Yet, Conservative rule garnered 63% of the representative seats during that
time (1950-2017).
In
the more recent years, due to the way its support is geographically
distributed, it, the Conservative Party, has been in the position to form
governments while only accruing 37% of the vote. And given the relative power that parliamentary
systems give the controlling party – they do not have the level of dispersed
powers that federal systems have – one can see how undemocratic that stretch
has been. Similar results are found in
other Anglo nations such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
None
of these Anglo systems have gerrymandered districts. Again, as in the US, Rodden attributes these
results to geographic factors. As with
Democrats in America, the leftist parties abroad, while putting together policy
positions that appeal to urban voters, find it difficult to package those
messages that appeal to either suburban or rural voters.
Consequently,
they win big within city limits, but fall woefully short in the other areas of
their respective nations. As with the
US, left of center parties find it excessively challenging to become
sufficiently unified – remember, this blog has argued that the Democratic Party
in the US is much more diverse than the Republican Party. And that diverseness expresses itself here in
the US and in other Anglo nations as suffering from ongoing tensions over various
issues in which urban voices tend to be ideological and suburban voices are
more pragmatic.[3]
These
divides can and are becoming quite complex.
For example, there is a growing tension between rising “global” cities
and declining postindustrial cities.
This latter strain is further fueled in multiparty systems in the other
Anglo nations where the left of center factions find themselves drifting
further apart.
In
that sense, polarization in the US might be precluding that from happening here
due to the “Schattschneider” effect, previously explained in this blog. That is, Democrats can’t afford to split on
this or any issue of substance and still be competitive with the right of
center party.[4] But this could be an “incubating” problem
that might explode if the current polarized arena is resolved.
That
is, Democrats, in a more normal political environment, might find themselves openly
fighting over policy: summarily, should
it assist the furtherance of global economic activity or should it revert to
representing the more traditional manufacturing workers? Pragmatist control the former; ideologues
control the latter.
Currently,
this is no small issue since many “blue collar,” unemployed workers have been
drifting to the Republican ranks as that party has opted to issue identity-based
messaging described in previous postings.
In other Anglo countries, this divide might be preceding the splitting
of Labour type parties and the emergence of newer, further leftist, ideological
parties.
So,
in short, this underrepresentation of left of center coalitions seems to be a
feature of winner-take-all set ups whether they have gerrymandering practices
or not. This summary judgement is made
by looking not only at the American scene but at all such systems that coincide
with the “British” derived governmental arrangements. And that underrepresentation mostly falls to
the detriment of advancing urban interests, be they interests reflecting the
new information-based economy or the older manufacturing economy.
Obviously,
the question begged in all of this is:
should these Anglo systems adopt the multi-representation district
system employed in European democracies?
And if they do, will they become more truly democratic? A lot of that analysis depends on definitions
and how one sees one’s interests. It
seems to this writer that one needs be on guard against simplistic views to
attain democratic solutions to the above concerns. This blog will continue this review in the
next posting.
[1]
Jonathan Rodden, Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political
Divide (New York, NY: Basic Books,
2019).
[2] Stated another way, just in regard to this factor, a Wyoming
voter has seventy times the representative strength than a California voter.
[3] The urban ideological disposition tends to be more
affected by critical theory, a current form of Marxian thought. The suburban voice tends to be more open to
global, information economic forces and lean toward practical solutions that
are conducive to global developments.
[4] Leading into the 2020 national election, the
Democrats are exhibiting this condition in that the spectrum of its varied
political positioning has been set aside in a fairly unified support for the party’s
presidential candidate, the moderate Joe Biden.
No comments:
Post a Comment