Gerrymandering drives polarization

It should seem strange that, in Pennsylvania, the state Legislature draws the lines for electoral districts which will elect its own members. It should not seem strange that legislatures draw districts that make it easier for those currently elected to the legislature to remain there — especially for the majority party.

That practice — gerrymandering — is the subject of two bills before the state House, which would take this power out of the hands of legislators and give it instead to a commission made up of independent citizens. This is not only a basic point of fairness, it has the potential to reduce what have become caustic levels of partisanship and polarization.

First, the elected shouldn’t be able to choose their own voters. The opportunity for corruption is patent, and gerrymandering distorts the voice of the people by enabling a minority faction to put a stranglehold on majority control — see Wisconsin, where 49% of the vote gave Republicans 65% of the state’s legislative seats.

Some inefficiency is normal. After all, voters of certain parties will naturally cluster in certain areas, and “wasted” votes occur in any system — but the Wisconsin result was fueled by computers and a deliberate effort to draw a biased electoral map.

Gerrymandering, though, feeds something far worse: the hyper-polarization that causes dysfunction in our system. A healthy political system is center-seeking. Since the largest bloc of citizens is found in the middle, democracy tends towards moderation and compromise as elected officials seek to maximize their odds of winning by appealing to that large middle bloc. Gerrymandering destroys that incentive. Gerrymandering not only makes elected officials “safe,” it also drives them from the middle.

Consider this: A representative or senator draws a “safe” seat, comprised predominately of his/her own partisans. This member can now rest easy, knowing that a general election victory is all but assured.

When this process plays out in both Democratic and Republican districts, we end up with members at greater and greater ideological distance from their opposition, which reduces the ability to compromise. The partisans who will choose the primary winners don’t want compromisers and sellouts: they want fighters and purists.

HB 22 and 23 (which would end gerrymandering and remove elected officials from the judging of their own electoral fate) are doubly-useful. First, ending gerrymandering is structurally useful: it reduces partisan polarization and promotes agendasetting that focuses on issues of interest and value to the “average” member of the Commonwealth, and does so regardless of which party is in power. Second, ending gerrymandering is idealistically useful in that it attacks cynicism and promotes legitimacy since election outcomes more-closely reflect vote totals. In short, ending gerrymandering is good for democracy.

“But,” one might object, “why should we be catering to the ‘center,’ anyway?” First, because our policy preferences are not nearly as polarized as our politics. Supposedly “progressive” ballot initiatives for issues like minimum wage increases passed in 2018 in deeply conservative states like Arkansas and Missouri, but fail in the chamber of our “moderate” state’s General Assembly. Second, because center-seeking provides a natural check against extremism of any stripe.

One might also ask, “when will HB 22 and 23 be voted on – I’d like to contact my representatives and share my views!” The answer, unfortunately, is “Unknown, and possibly never.”

State Government Committee chair Garth Everett (R) and Speaker Turzai (R) are blocking further action.

Indeed, the more cynical of us would be justified in concluding that it is the knowledge that these bills will remain bottled up that empowers legislators to cosponsor them: their support, and therefore their safe seats, will likely not tested.

The people of the Commonwealth deserve, at minimum, debate and vote on a reform with the potential to address such a bedrock issue of fairness, especially one with the added potential to draw them closer together in a time of such division.