The Radical Centrist™

Think for Yourself!

gerrymandering

Who do your elected representatives represent?

By Leave a Comment

Do elected politicians represent their constituents, or do they cater to the wishes and wants of lobbyists?

I’ve been asking this question for years.  And the answer is… should be… obvious to anyone with open eyes and paying attention.

I believe they cater pretty much exclusively to lobbyists and special interests. Not only is that where the money is, but voters as a group have proven time and again that they will re-elect pretty much anybody regardless what they do. The re-election rate is so high that most politicians do not fear being penalized over what they do. There have been some hiccups in that assurance lately, but it’s still largely true.

Having said that, there are the occasional issues that become so important to the populace that they’ll start making a big deal out it and make their desires known clearly. In times like that… which are rare… most politicians will turn and vote for what the people want and snub the lobbyists. Because, as good as the money is, it is still the voter, the individual, the person, who pulls the proverbial lever and casts a vote.

And this is what pisses me off about our system so much… not the system, the system does what it can get away with… I am pissed at the voters.  We “collectively” whine and cry and piss and moan about having poor choices, then we go right out and re-0elect the same people we claim to hate so much.  We don’t get it.  We the people have the ultimate power, the ability to vote, which is much more powerful than lobby money… and we won’t use it. I think we’ve been lulled into a sense of futility and have come to believe we have no power at all, when in fact we have ALL the power.

I’ll leave you with this little gem of wisdom…

“The United States is a nation of laws, badly written and randomly enforced.”
~Frank Zappa

A Bold Idea to Fix House Representation

By Leave a Comment

I see this suggestion a lot:  Why not end gerrymandering by making standing counties the voting districts?

And many people point out that counties within states vary widely in population and you’d have unequal representation. And that’s absolutely true. But guess what… in the US House of Representatives we already have unequal representation. Just as bad, really. For example…

  • Montana has one House seat: 994,416 people per Representative
  • New York has 27 House seats: 719,298 people per Representative
  • California has 53 House seats: 704,566 people per Representative
  • Rhode Island has 2 House seats: 527,624 people per Representative

Seven states (Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, and Montana) have only one House Representative and will likely never get a 2nd one. Several other states are in danger of having their number whittled down to one. It’s just going to get worse as the overall population grows and concentrates.

A BETTER option would be to take the entire US population and divide it equally, roughly 710K per House Representative. And if the district boundaries bleed over state lines, so be it. In fact, I think that would be a huge benefit. It would keep the states out of drawing district lines and it would force the representatives to focus more on issues of their constituents rather than “Go State!”.

We have the Senate for state representation, the House should represent the people independent of the states.

Just because we’ve done something one way for 200+ years does not mean it can’t be improved, and I believe this would be an improvement. Let’s review…

  1. True equal representation
  2. Eliminate state interference (gerrymandering as we know it)
  3. Downplay state-centric bias.

I’m failing to see a downside.

Source for numbers:  2012 – 2020 Federal Representation by People per House Seat, Senate Seat, and Electors

Do You Like Your Elected Representatives?

By Leave a Comment

It’s a simple question.  Do you like your elected representatives?  Do you like your Governor, your Senators, your House Representative, your president?  (Yes, I said YOUR president.)

I bet you say you don’t.  If you are an average person and not a crackpot or a whackjob, I mean.  I bet you constantly complain how you distrust government, how they’re all crooks, how we need new leaders and why we need term limits (no, we don’t).  Americans are fickle and will turn on a dime when the government sends out stimulus checks, but historically Congressional approval ratings have been dismal, like this recent January when it had tumbled to 18%.  Obviously not popular, right?  Or, are they?

In the November 2020 elections nationwide… federal, state, and local… 93% of incumbents nationwide won their re-election bids.  What the deuce?  How can this be?  We don’t like our leaders.  Well, I have some ideas… and almost nobody ever agrees with me when I tell them this because it challenges them and their convictions directly… and they go something like this…

  • Gerrymandering:  Essentially where your representatives choose you, based on where you live and who you are likely to vote for.  Even people who live in gerrymandered districts disapprove of their representatives, in general.  This is the only point in here that is controlled by the government and not the voters… but even then it doesn’t explain how or why local elections follow the same predictable path.
  • Ignorance:  Increasingly willful ignorance.  No one discusses issues anymore, it’s all name calling and yelling.  Let’s face it, if you read social media and the conversations taking place, you realize a great many people simply cannot understand the nuances and ramifications of politics.  They spout what their emotions tell them and what others they like say.
  • Selfishness:  They give us what we want.  We say we hate spending, but programs and jobs, often government-induced jobs, get votes.  Democrats never cared about deficit spending, and even Republicans abandoned fiscal responsibility decades ago because they figured out the voters didn’t care as much about it as they say they do.  In other words, they “bring home the bacon”, or they buy us and our votes.  We now have so much in a historically opulent lifestyle that we’re afraid of losing it.
  • Selfishness, Pt 2:  Voting an incumbent out just might require… voting for the other party.  gasp!!!  (In all seriousness, especially in today’s political environment, this could be tough., regardless which side you’re on.)
  • Laziness:  Term limits are a very popular idea, but there’s a disconnect here.  We want these people out, but we’re not willing to do it ourselves, we want it to be a default so we don’t have to think or be pro-active.  This results from ignorance and selfishness above.
  • This last point is what people so vehemently disagree with and refuse to admit or consider… for all the bitching and moaning and whining and crying we do about out leaders… we actually approve and get what we want.  Yes, I said we like them.  Re-read the things I said above… we hate them and see them as greedy (which is true), they don’t really care about us, but they do know that keeping us “fat and happy” keeps them fat and happy, just on a bigger scale.  As long as we have our cushy lifestyles and our boats and our vacations we’ll keep voting them in.  Don’t want to upset the apple cart.

So what can we do about this?  Or, should we do anything about this?  I mean, we could just keep going as we are, let the status quo do its thing.  That would be the convenient way out.  Whining is free.  So, if we are truly serious about changing our representation here’s what we have to do…

  • D.R.I.P:  Don’t Reelect Incumbent Politicians.  Any of them.  Now, at a 90%+ reelection rate they know they can safely ignore us.  But if we could get the reelection rate down to just 50%, let them know their cushy job isn’t guaranteed, they’d sit up and pay attention.  They would at least throw us more bones.  Since we, and not corporations, are the ones who actually vote the balance of power would shift.

You up for it?

Is House Apportionment Flawed?

By Leave a Comment

Apportionment for the House of Representatives is theoretically supposed to be equal, but is it equal?  Even reasonably so?  Not really.  According to this article House representation varied from 530,000 people in Rhode Island to over one million in Montana (rounded numbers, of course).  Is there anything wrong with this?  Districts are evenly distributed within each state, right?

Well, there’s the problem.  Constitution and laws aside*, we’re measuring per state, and the House is supposed to represent the people.  Using the numbers above it is clear people in Montana are getting screwed compared to Rhode Islanders.  In Congress we have the Senate for state representation.  Here’s what we need to do…

  1. Eliminate everything state-related regarding the House.  No state lines would be factored in at all.
  2. Take 308.7 million people (per 2010 census) and divide by 435 (number of House seats).  This would give each Representative 709,655 people to represent.  That’s equal representation.
  3. If some districts overlap states lines, so be it.  States should not be factored in in any way whatsoever.

There are other issues regarding the House, i.e. gerrymandering, possibly increasing the number of seats… I mean, isn’t 700,000+ people to represent a bit unwieldy?… but those are different topics for a different post.  I think this idea would lessen the state competition, though, and in the long run that would be a huge improvement.

*-It is understood a Constitutional Amendment may be required.  So be it.

Is compromise in politics good or bad?

By Leave a Comment

I would say that, yes, compromise in politics is a good thing. The whole point behind government is to get things done, right? One would think. Contrary to the workings of politicians today, government is not… or, rather, should not be… primarily for the benefit of those involved.

There will be times that a person’s convictions have to remain steadfast. I get that.  But does that mean everything at all times, as seems to be the current trend? No, it does not. Digging in of one’s heels should be the exception, not the rule.

Unfortunately, extreme give-no-quarter partisanship seems to be the rule of the day anymore, even by average citizens. It is amazing that average people are buying into such extreme inaction. Ask these people, and most will tell you that they’re just as unsatisfied with gridlock as anyone else, yet they fail to see their own part in the dysfunction of the process.

Another aspect that plays a part, and that is often forgotten in this equation, is gerrymandering (in the House). Where is the incentive for a politician to compromise… get something done… when their district has essentially been chosen for them and they know that their re-election is pretty much a foregone conclusion? By ensuring re-election, gerrymandering creates and perpetuates the extreme division.

Now, having said all that, there is an example of when compromise is a bad idea. Pork. When Congresspeople agree to vote for each other’s pork to help get their own pork passed, we all lose.