Local opinion: Like voting? You were warned

How do we free-think our way out of the destruction of the Voting Rights Act of 1965? An act of Congress that brought representative democracy closer to all citizens of the United States. A betterment of the American experiment of self-governance.

Political parties have just gained more power, when our experiment is not about candidates or political parties, but the citizenry.

It helps to understand the opposition. Few on the Supreme Court or in the political atmosphere that has brought this about see themselves as anti-democratic. The view from here sees a diminishing political power hiding behind the “all Men are created equal” ideal. Thus, it follows that race should not be a factor in political districting. Running slap-counter is the idea that drawing districts based upon political affiliation is just fine. There’s a logic there, but it is hardly about equality.

If we wish for an equal society based upon a primacy of an equal citizenry, we’re in a time crunch. That’s the realpolitik, and no one should feel unwarned.

So, as in every losing position, we must return to basics. Let’s ask a simple question. Why do we have congressional districts? Districts are not in the Constitution and exist because of Congressional action, latest from 1967. So, districting and the feeding frenzy of gerrymandering is our reality, but it need not be so. There are alternatives, and we can fix this.

Districting is intended to smooth the data, so to speak. One populated region should not unduly influence congressional representation. Districting is intended to protect minority populations, including rural citizens, from being overrun by metropolitan areas. The proof, though, is in the pudding.

Often, small sections of a city are included in larger rural areas, and representatives are selected from that city. It follows that districting or the way we district is just not working. Human-drawn borders fall under the reality that to err is human.

One alternative is to eliminate districts and vote as a state. The abuse of that scenario is why we have districting in the first place. Consider that rural people have been under the thumb of city folk for as long as governments have existed.

Some advocate for proportional representation, where ranked-choice Voting is used in a multi-seat area without districts. This allows minority voters to concentrate their votes and gain representation. It’s an interesting idea, but representatives could come from something as small as one apartment complex far away.

Geography does matter. If we compare maps of Democratic Party voters with Census maps of African American populations in the “Deep South,” we can see a strong correlation. If we then add a map of cotton production in 1860, the similarities are stunning. Correlation is not causation, but we can see that geography does matter. A simple look at statewide population demographics shows us that this cotton region is underrepresented throughout. Sadly, the Supreme Court briefs didn’t take this into account. The textualists seem to need plain, direct speech.

Another hybrid idea would be to build fewer, larger multi-seat districts based upon understood geography. A populous state like Georgia would need more, but Louisiana would need fewer. Again, ranked-choice Voting would assure a majority outcome while enhancing minority outcome.

It is much more difficult to gerrymander larger multi-seat districts.

The Supreme Court has put us in a tight spot where we could easily lose our American Experiment. Let’s put aside any opinion of omission or commission. We are simply in a self-imposed jam where a single minority party (31% nationwide) may gain solid dominance over a much larger population made up of Democrats and the largest and fastest-growing population that is opting out of the two-party system. We should also remember that the Sups started this with “Citizens United” in 2010. Thus, throwing a sabot into the works.

So here comes the big question. Given that bad ideas are a force of nature, who is to blame when bad policy results? Those with that naturally born ability or the opposition who can’t or won’t develop a viable opposition?