Does your vote matter? Thanks to our antiquated system of single-winner districts, the answer is probably: NO. Here’s why. PLUS: how to fix it to make your vote matter in the future.
All well and good. Yes, single member districts bad and multi-districts good.
But we have had single member districts for hundreds of years and disaster did not ensue. Begs question #1: Why so bad now? When and why did it get this way?
You point to sorting by geography. Begs question #2: why did geographic sorting become so extreme?
I argue the answers to both questions are found in the downstream consequences (especially policy changes and problems ignored) of the way we fund election campaigns (especially primary ones).
- Primaries became nearly universal in 80s.
- "Being primaried" (the phenomena you have documented so well) using campaign funding to force out the moderates and install advocates, became a tool of the rich and special interests (especially the fossil fuel industry and Wall Street). Gradually during the 90s, perfected by early 2000s. Heavily used by Republican donors (though Democrats may do it too).
- Conservatives are naturally suspicious of "differences". They can't help it. It is what makes them conservative. Humans are cautious of New and Unfamiliar. Some of us just more or less than others. [See recent Scientific American article on this topic.] Religion, gender, skin color, national origin, etc. Republicans (AKA conservatives) under Gingrich found emphasizing cultural differences to be a wonderful way to raise pull campaign donation money. Fit well with language attacking the moral character of the Democrats.
- Policy followed influence of campaign money. Trash welfare with TANF. Both parties ignoring the employment and welfare consequences in mid-west and small cities of huge increases in manufacturing efficiency and, to less extent, global trade. Great Recession as we stopped regulating financial firms and then coddled the crooks. 80% of workers with inadequate access to retirement funding (and open, if foolish, talk about making Social Security & Medicare worse). Huge tax changes to make wealth/income distribution not just severely unbalanced but "in your face." Voting restrictions. And more and more.
- That led to anger and the specific geographic distribution of that anger.
Please, Mr. Drutman, put your analytical skills to work addressing these questions in light of what you have already written.
And then address a third: If the country only spent a relative pittance of $10 billion electing the 2022 Congress, why have the Democrats not adopted vigorous commitment in 2024 to completely break the power of the campaign finance stranglehold on our country? But not by promising to restrict donations. (We tried that, it doesn't work, Congress won't pass it, it won't pass muster at the Supreme Court and the voters will yawn - heard that before). Instead by proposing a campaign finance voucher program of about the same size and let the public simply out-spend the rich and special interests.
All well and good. Yes, single member districts bad and multi-districts good.
But we have had single member districts for hundreds of years and disaster did not ensue. Begs question #1: Why so bad now? When and why did it get this way?
You point to sorting by geography. Begs question #2: why did geographic sorting become so extreme?
I argue the answers to both questions are found in the downstream consequences (especially policy changes and problems ignored) of the way we fund election campaigns (especially primary ones).
- Primaries became nearly universal in 80s.
- "Being primaried" (the phenomena you have documented so well) using campaign funding to force out the moderates and install advocates, became a tool of the rich and special interests (especially the fossil fuel industry and Wall Street). Gradually during the 90s, perfected by early 2000s. Heavily used by Republican donors (though Democrats may do it too).
- Conservatives are naturally suspicious of "differences". They can't help it. It is what makes them conservative. Humans are cautious of New and Unfamiliar. Some of us just more or less than others. [See recent Scientific American article on this topic.] Religion, gender, skin color, national origin, etc. Republicans (AKA conservatives) under Gingrich found emphasizing cultural differences to be a wonderful way to raise pull campaign donation money. Fit well with language attacking the moral character of the Democrats.
- Policy followed influence of campaign money. Trash welfare with TANF. Both parties ignoring the employment and welfare consequences in mid-west and small cities of huge increases in manufacturing efficiency and, to less extent, global trade. Great Recession as we stopped regulating financial firms and then coddled the crooks. 80% of workers with inadequate access to retirement funding (and open, if foolish, talk about making Social Security & Medicare worse). Huge tax changes to make wealth/income distribution not just severely unbalanced but "in your face." Voting restrictions. And more and more.
- That led to anger and the specific geographic distribution of that anger.
Please, Mr. Drutman, put your analytical skills to work addressing these questions in light of what you have already written.
And then address a third: If the country only spent a relative pittance of $10 billion electing the 2022 Congress, why have the Democrats not adopted vigorous commitment in 2024 to completely break the power of the campaign finance stranglehold on our country? But not by promising to restrict donations. (We tried that, it doesn't work, Congress won't pass it, it won't pass muster at the Supreme Court and the voters will yawn - heard that before). Instead by proposing a campaign finance voucher program of about the same size and let the public simply out-spend the rich and special interests.
-