America's Rotten Boroughs
By Neil Stevens Posted in Elections — Comments (38) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"The county of Yorkshire, which contains near a million souls, sends two county members; and so does the county of Rutland which contains not a hundredth part of that number. The town of Old Sarum, which contains not three houses, sends two members; and the town of Manchester, which contains upwards of sixty thousand souls, is not admitted to send any. Is there any principle in these things?"
So asked Thomas Paine in Rights of Man, and while I would disagree with the central premise of that work, I believe we all can see the problem with having a legislative body meant to represent the people having such gross inequities in its representative apportionment.
So why, now, do we continue policies that are creating rotten boroughs in our own United States?
Keep reading...
We're a ways from the worst of England's old rotten boroughs, such as Old Sarum, in which seven voters elected two members of the House of Commons, but illegal immigration is creating inequities that run counter to our one man, one vote principle. Compare these results from the election of 2006:
| District | Winner | Total Votes |
|---|---|---|
| California 46 (Rancho Palos Verdes, Huntington Beach) | R+22.9 | 195,052 |
| California 8 (San Francisco) | D+69.6 | 184,639 |
| California 45 (my own; Riverside, Palm Springs) | R+21.4 | 164,251 |
| California 27 (San Fernando Valley) | D+37.6 | 134,724 |
| California 34 (Los Angeles) | D+53.6 | 74,818 |
| California 31 (Los Angeles) | D+100 | 64,952 |
We may as well call the House of Representatives the new Senate, if the number of voters getting to choose members of Congress is any guide. Despite the fact that we had a large number of ballot measures and statewide elections at stake, with Barbara Boxer and Arnold Schwarzenegger seeking re-election, some ostensibly equally sized districts saw only a third of the voters that others saw.
Why does Xavier Becerra (D-California 31) get the same vote as Dana Rohrabacher (R-California 46)? The answer is clear: illegal aliens in Los Angeles have created a district where the US Citizens in that state get far more influence on the Congress, than those areas with more legal residents. This trend will continue, too, affecting not just districting but Congressional apportionment. Says MediaNews's InsideBayArea.com:
Congressional seats have been migrating South and West for decades, as a result of the Sunbelt's rapid population growth. But the new report by a University of Connecticut demographer is an early take on how the nation's growing population of illegal immigrants would amplify that trend when seats in the House of Representatives are next divided up. It could foreshadow a partisan political fight over the results of the 2010 Census. While illegal immigrants can't vote, the report says their growing numbers are affecting the nation's political balance because they are counted in the once-a-decade Census. That population tally determines how seats in the House of Representatives are split among the states and is also used to distribute more than $180 billion in federal aid each year.
The Connecticut report predicts that California, Arizona, Texas, Florida and New Jersey will gain seats in Congress after the next Census because of their illegal immigrant populations. Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, and Ohio will each lose a seat because they have relatively few undocumented immigrants. New York, which would lose two seats under the current system, would lose only one seat if illegal immigrants were excluded.
If the numbers above don't disturb you, consider these numbers from other state, ones without an illegal alien invasion in progress:
| District | Winner | Total Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Iowa 1 | D+11.9 | 207,478 |
| Iowa 3 | D+5.4 | 223,082 |
| Massachusetts 4 | D+76.6 | 215,101 |
| Utah 1 | R+30.6 | 178,474 |
If Barney Frank's district can turn out the voters, despite the fact that the district and the state were not in any doubt for much of anything, then I'm forced to conclude that there's only one reason for California 31 to be the way it is. Our lax immigration law enforcement, when combined with our apportionment and districting rules in this country, is creating systemic inequalities in the House of Representatives. It's time we fixed them.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Just Because — Comments (9) »
America's Rotten Boroughs 38 Comments (0 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
1. Enforce the immigration laws
2. Stop counting illegal aliens for the purposes of apportionment and districting
with the central premise of "Rights of Man"?
Now you've piqued my curiosity.
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
My understanding is that it was a rebuttal to Burke's attack on the French Revolution. And, well, the French Revolution was awful (look at how Paine himself was arrested and nearly executed in it), so yeah, I'm with Burke.
I think you will agree that the gerymandering of this state is the result of a conspiracy betwen the parties to protect the incumbents and their ability to deed their seats to who they wish when term limits expire for the state level offices and Representatives retire from the House.
I think that it is evident that the office holders of today are primarily concerned with their own power and the enhancement of their power when their party controls the body in which they sit, in that order. Should the good of the People and the Nation happen to intersect with those interests, it is by chance.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
You're right, but this isn't about gerrymandering. This is about a disparity of citizens from district to district caused by concnetractions of illegal alien populations.
Even if we had no gerrymandering at all, and the district lines closely followed 'natural' political boundaries, then the problem I write about here would still exist.
but lets be clear: Rights of Man is basically a restatement of our own Declaration of Independence. Paine was replying to Burke's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Revolution_in_France which was more a defense of hereditary rule than an attack on the results of the French Revolution (which are certainly worthy of criticism).
Whether you think the French Rev was "awful" or not, the principles espoused by Burke's piece were just a bit outdated and run counter to both the letter and spirit of our own American ideals of government and liberty to say the least, and for my money Paine was dead on target in his assessment of Burke's treatise. While containing a few well-considered warnings about the rule of the rabble, Burke's is basically a defense of aristocracy, inherited power, and the idea that a self-appointed nobility knows what's best for everyone - just because, well, they're noble, and folks who want the liberty to govern themselves as they see fit are unworthy and inherently incapable of maintaining stability and progress. Paine rightfully skewers this notion (from the wiki link):
“Notwithstanding the nonsense, for it deserves no better name, that Mr. Burke has asserted about hereditary rights, and hereditary succession, and that a Nation has not a right to form a Government of itself; it happened to fall in his way to give some account of what Government is. 'Government,' says he, 'is a contrivance of human wisdom.'. . . Admitting that government is a contrivance of human wisdom, it must necessarily follow, that hereditary succession, and hereditary rights (as they are called), can make no part of it, because it is impossible to make wisdom hereditary.”
(see Kennedy family)
To be sure, both Paine and Burke have been appropriated by various movements, parties and factions - since their time - to justify/criticize all manner of things, but the fact is that both were also rebuked by both "sides" of the great debate of their time - a sure sign they were men of principles, not of movements. For myself, while some of Burke's more somber warnings about the French Rev in particular may have proved prophetic, at the end of the day I will walk with Paine, whose principles are enshrined in our own country's founding parchments and form the basis of our nation's greatness - irrespective of whether the French appreciated it or not.
Here endeth the hijack...
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
Well sure, WE would never want what Burke defends, but that's because we never had it. Burke defended hereditary rule in the context of where it already existed, and I think given the way things went in England, versus how things went in France, that a well-ordered Monarchy was better for freedom and justice than a democracy unmoored from history and common sense.
Though one could argue aristocracy and hereditary rule were manifested among the landed and moneyed families in America, notably in the South, and in the industrial monopolies of the North, prior to Teddy and the Progressive Era-you'd have a hard time convincing those who were deemed 3/5 of a person that a 'well-ordered' hereditary/traditional rule was better for their freedom and justice...
As one of my profs told us, Paine and Burke probably agreed on much of The Rights of Man; where they really disagreed was on whether the French should be allowed to be stupid about it...
Nevertheless, Paine's 'central premise' is not really a defense of French reactionaries, but more about the principles of self-government and man's inalienable liberty. Burke was an admirable and complicated philosopher and stuck his neck out more than once; there is much to admire about his career and I certainly don't reject him out of hand - but I don't reject the ideals espoused by Paine due to the fact that he had too much faith in the French...
As to the thread topic - the numbers are telling, and this is part and parcel of the need for comprehensive reform. I would posit, however, that a significant percentage of the difference between, say, your district and CA-31 can be traced to turnout which invariably correlates with education levels and economic status. We see similar patterns nearly everywhere, and it's particularly acute in many districts here in Texas. I agree we should stop counting illegals for purposes of apportionment but that in itself will not change their status as an economic force in those districts where they constitute significant %s, and that must be reckoned with by elected reps regardless.
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
and focus on the main issue. Details of how to make a constitution work are sure to vary from place to place and time to time.
Let's just look at the _judgement_ of the two.
Burke and Paine both supported the American Revolution. They were both right.
Paine thought the French revolution was based on similar ideals and Burke thought it was not. Burke was right and Paine was wrong.
So, I have to take Neil's side on this one.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
On how many sites do I get to go from opposing spy cameras in one thread, to defending monarchy in another? heh
and not what Neil said. He "central premise", not "details" which ought to be 'ignored'.
Are you going on record in support of hereditary rule and the divine right of kings and 'nobility'?
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
of liberty and constitutional rule where it was _actually_ expressed - in the UK and US, but not in France where there was no separation between law and government.
Burke did not support the divine right of kings, a doctrine swept away by the English Civil War long before his birth. His specific contention was the _Parliament_ bestowed the monarchy on the Hanoverian line after the Glorious Revolution.
Try to get your centuries right.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Burke contended that ruling nobility had a 'right' to confer power unto itself and to the monarchy in France, and that the French commoners had no right to usurp that power nor to create a government of their own, because it simply wasn't their place. Paine contended that the French people had a right to do whatever they damn well pleased, sink or swim, and based that contention on the inalienable freedoms which we should all enjoy, irrespective of their leadership's political skills. That they failed (badly, yes) due to all manner of foolishness is hardly an indictment of the ideals of liberty and self-determination - which formed the 'central premise' of Rights of Man.
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
If he ever said anything of the sort, I would be surprised. Do you have a cite?
If he ever said that with regard to France it was completely the opposite of his views regarding Britain and America.
Since they were both agreed on America, it is much more likely that the disagreement between the two related to Paine's misunderstanding of what was happening in France.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
discussing the jurisprudence behind the succession of the monarchy, the authority of the crown, church, Parliament and aristocracy, and the importance of 'prejudice' and tradition as protectors of civil society and the sovereignty of the state. He thus concludes that the the state, as manifested in this paradigm, is of utmost importance, and the subversion of these long-established institutions is not only undesirable, but in itself the harbinger of chaos and the loss of said sovereignty.
BTW - full text to be found here: http://www.bartleby.com/24/3/
He supports these arguments quite well, and demonstrates with considerable dexterity that England's Revolution and Restoration were carried forth judiciously and wisely in a manner which preserved a measure of civility, order, and the creation of SOME mechanism for change. He criticizes the French counterparts lack of prudence, which is indeed a virtue and those who wrested control of the Frog's Revolt had none of it. In short, Burke's is a 'baby-with-the-bathwater' argument.
But at the end of the day he sees the rights of man as something granted by pre-existing authorities, as opposed to God-given and inalienable as Paine and Jefferson would assert. The French should follow England's example and respect the power and place of the nobility, the monarchy, and the church, because they are traditional seats of power and some good can (and has) come of them. Paine countered that because these institutions had repeatedly rejected the assertion of the rights of life, liberty, and property irrespective of the crown, that the citizens of France were under no obligation to continue to support them, and had every right to usurp that which would choose to oppress and deprive them. How they went about it was another matter; we all know what eventually happened.
Again, Burke was right about the French but wrong (to me) that the rights of man should take a backseat to the traditions and inertia of a powerful elite. Oddly, it is from patronizing liberals that I tend to hear arguments in the Burke mold, e.g., faith in the authority of the federal government and in taxation and spending.
Fun discussion, but obviously for another place, and i've sidetracked this thing way more than enough; appreciate your patience, guys.
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I had absolutely no idea that Congressional Districts were so disproportionately drawn.
I am a little unclear, however, on the source of the problem (and thus the solution).
1. Do I understand correctly that congressional districts are explicitly apportioned on the basis of numbers of residents (i.e., citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants), as opposed to number of citizens?
2. If yes above, then what is the source of this rule? US Constitution, Supreme Court ruling, federal statute, state by state law?
1. Yes
2. I think the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th amendment requires equal districts, but I'm not sure. I just checked and I don't see anything in Article I of the Constitution that addresses districting. I'm about to take my walk though so I could have missed something.
Article 1, sec 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
This was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.:
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
And while yes I did forget my article addresses both,m y focus is on districting, heh.
So I was right AND wrong.
one vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
as to the number of registered electors in each district?
Turnout can be a pretty poor guide to this - though you make the valid point that in California there are usually a whole bunch of things to vote on, so the closeness of one particular district is not likely to make a huge difference. Municipal level initiatives might, though.
You are right that it is crazy to count illegal immigrants. I believe prisoners also count, and some counties build prisons to up their representation at state level, even though the prisoners can't vote.
(In the UK, by the way, we use the electoral register as a guide. It is better, but still far from perfect. Issues is migration between counts and the relative rigour with which councils maintain the register. I would love to be able to base it on turnout at the last election. Turnout is way lower in Labour constituencies than in Conservative ones, partly because their electoral registers contain quite a few ghosts).
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Registeration by district as of 2/10/2007:
46: 390,298
8: 340,252
45: 320,065
27: 275,494
34: 173,987
31: 168,502
So yeah, it's not that turn out is way way way down, it's that VOTERS are way way way down.
of California 31, which evidently had no Republican opposition to the incumbent Democrat. Obviously, a non-competitive race will have low turnout.
The author would do better to scrap that district in this analysis, otherwise it looks sloppy, intellectually dishonest, and risks invalidating his main argument.
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. Somerset Maugham
still apples vs. oranges.
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. Somerset Maugham
And your point would seem to be predicated on the assumption that the local House race, not the Governor's race or the Senate race or any of the Propositions, would be what drove turnout.
Seems like a look at a presidential electin year would provide the best comparison between districts, as I imagine it would draw the most voters and not be as subject to extraneous influences such as the competitiveness of a House race, whether a Senate race or Governor's race exists, local initiatives, etc. Not to say that these factors won't still exist, but they should not swing the numbers as much in a presidential election year.
As a general rule, presidential elections attract a high turnout. But closeness of votes is also relevant. A close Senate election in a state not expected to be particulary close in the presidential election attracts a big turnout. (See Washington state in 2000).
Also, California has numerous local initiatives. Sometimes they concern local planning issues. Whether someone gets to build a hotel at the bottom of your street is *way* more important than who gets to sit in the White House. Especially as people don't expect their vote to decide the Presidency. Let's face it, in current conditions California is only likely to be close in a GOP landslide.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
All the points you make are fair. But, they apply equally to off-year elections. Still seems like a comparison of districts in presidential election years will smooth out some of the local effects, although not eliminate them for the reasons you note.
It reminded me of a speech that Pres. Reagan delivered to the National Restaurant Association. This was one of the main topics of his speech.
LINK
It's a true loss to the country that his illness kept him from pursuing this bit of unfinished business.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.