Interesting article in yesterday’s DDN by William Hershey quotes a political scientist, Herb Asher, blaming gerrymandering for the fact that radicalized legislators now have a lot of power in Congress. But what is the root cause of gerrymandering? The reason there is gerrymandering is because political parties have way too much power and gerrymandering is loved by the bosses of both parties.

Hershey’s article, “Board Begins Redrawing Districts,” points out that, already, the districts for Ohio’s Assembly are so gerrymandered that most are considered “safe” seats. The article reports that “in 70 of 99 House races last year, the margin of victory was 20 points or more.” The closest Ohio House race last year in Montgomery County was in the 36th, hopelessly lopsided with Republican Michael Henne winning 63% to 34%.

Hershey quotes political scientist Herb Asher as explaining that, “The legislators don’t have to compromise, they can be far to the left or as far to the right as they want.”

The 37th District in Kettering, where I live, offers a good illustration. The 37th is strongly Republican. However, my representative to the Ohio House, Jim Butler, supports measures so libertarian and antigovernment as to be out of the 37th District Republican mainstream. It sounds like a joke, for example, to suppose that a “conservative” would advocate: “Let’s cut down the trees and drill for oil and gas in the state parks.”

Our representatives are radicalized — out of the mainstream — because the antidemocratic system of political party dominance empowers representatives not only to disregard the general public, but to disregard the mainstream of their own party as well. Representatives gain their power from the party and their first allegiance is to the party.

Butler was appointed represent the 37th District by the Montgomery County Republican Party. If the party was a small-d robust democratic group, fairly representing mainstream Montgomery County Republicans, then his appointment would have some validity. But the voting council of the Montgomery County Republican Party amounts to a small clique of insiders, as does the voting council of the Montgomery County Democratic Party.

Both parties, amazingly, anoint one of the faithful members of their clique to run for office and then push out other potential candidates from seeking nomination in any primary contest. Last year my proposal to amend the Montgomery County Democratic Party’s constitution to prohibit such antidemocratic action was defeated at the Reorganization Meeting.

In all five Ohio House Districts in Montgomery County, the clique of the ruling council of the local political party effectively chose the current representative — either by appointment, or by giving one-sided support in a contested primary.

• District 36: Republican Mike Henne elected in 2010. The party endorsed him in the primary, rather than Joe Ellis.
• District 37: Republican Jim Butler was appointed by the Montgomery County Republican Party (MCRP) and has not yet participated in a primary or general election.
• District 38: Republican Terry Blair was elected in 2008. The MCRP party endorsed him in the primary rather than Tom Young.
• District 39: Democrat Clayton Luckie was appointed in 2006 and the Democratic Party has endorsed him in all primaries
• District 40: Democrat Roland Winburn was elected in 2008 to an open seat vacated by Fred Strahan. The Democratic Party vigorously supported Winburn in the primary against Victor Harris.

Previous posts that relate to this article include:

1. The Montgomery Democrats Decide to Suppress Democracy — Just Like the Republicans (December 14, 2007)
2. Victor Harris: Surprised That Local Democratic Party Wanted To Suppress Primary Competition (February 25, 2008)
3. How Gerrymandering Defeated An Outstanding Candidate And Sent a Weak Candidate To Columbus (March 5, 2008)
4. How Can The System Known As The United States Be Made To Work To Provide “Liberty and Justice For All”? (February 5, 2009)
5. Mark Owens Says Most Montgomery Dems Approve The Party’s Suppression Of Primary Participation (April 8, 2009)

The debt limit legislative fiasco to a large degree was controlled by a small group of recently elected tea-party legislators. A good question for civics teacher to ask: “In a democracy, how is it possible that a small group of zealots can force its will on the majority?”

It would be a trick question, because, in fact, in a democracy such an outcome would be impossible. If the U.S. Congress was structured as a town hall meeting, the 20% of the group who are radicals would have their voices heard. But eventually, in a Robert’s Rules run meeting, the majority would assert itself.

The U.S. government, however, is not organized as a town hall democracy.  The three branch system — giving Wyoming the same number of senators as New York — was designed, in part, by thinkers who were afraid of too much democracy.

I’ve often mentioned the POV of the genius of systems’ thinking, W. Edward Deming, that 85% of quality is determined by the organizational structure of a system. We are experiencing a systems’ problem. We need to analyze why it is, in our present system, over and over again our government pursues policies contrary to the will of large majorities of Americans. Our political discussions should explore possible system changes that would make our government more likely to advance the common good. For example, would a constitutional amendment that outlaws gerrymandering help? How about a constitutional amendment that guarantees free TV access for all verified candidates? How about a system of on-line voting? How about a whole new approach to civic education?

The exciting truth is, our system of government is changeable. Blacks, women, the poor and 18 year olds can now vote. And, the federal government, if it so chose, has the authority to soak the rich and redistribute their wealth. Our present system is a shocking change from that imagined by the founding fathers, and a big improvement on their design.

One obvious big glitch in the system that needs to be addressed, illustrated by this debt limit debacle, is the corrupting influence of the unchecked power of political parties. The parties have way too much power and are controlled by a very small, tiny, fraction of the entire voting public.  To a big extent the parties are isolated from the public — 80% of the members of the U.S. House are in “safe” seats. This unreality allows John Boehner, regardless he is Speaker, to see his connection to the Republican caucus as his first priority. In his important job, he makes no pretense that he is trying to represent all Americans, or, amazingly, even the Republicans in his district (OH-6).

The debt limit fiasco came about because the tea party representatives leveraged themselves to more power than they deserved. All the Republican sheepies, like my OH-3 representative, Mike Turner, allowed it to happen because maintaining solidarity with fellow Republican legislators, regardless of how crazy their ideas and actions, was seen as a first priority. The drift to unreasonableness within a major political party, illustrated by this event, is alarming.

This debt limit fiasco should wake us to the deplorable state of our system. True, congress was never designed to operate as a Roberts’ Rules Town Hall democracy, but, we still have a system that has the capacity to do a much better job than it presently is doing — of advancing the common good and of representing the interests of common citizens. The system, from many standpoints, is failing miserably. The foundational question that more and more Americans are asking is:  How do we get the system to work? As I wrote four years ago,  it seems to me, inevitably, The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Is Democracy Itself.

See also: The Best Way To Transform Our Democracy Is By Transforming Our Political Parties

An analysis posted at the Economic Policy Institute web-site predicts that economic policies stemming from the the new agreement on raising the debt ceiling will result in a loss of 1.8 million jobs in 2012.

1. Applying conventional multipliers, the reduction of $30.5 billion in calendar year 2012 would reduce GDP by 0.3%, and result in roughly 323,000 fewer jobs.
2. The payroll tax holiday reduced the Social Security payroll tax for all workers by two percentage points. Extending that tax cut for another year would provide roughly $118 billion in stimulus through increases in employees’ take-home pay, which would boost economic activity by an even greater $128 billion. Allowing this policy to expire would lower GDP by 0.8% in 2012, and would lead to roughly 972,000 fewer jobs.
3. The continuation of unemployment insurance benefits to long-term unemployed workers (up to 99 weeks of benefits) is also set to expire at the end of the year. Allowing that provision to expire on schedule would mean $45 billion less in assistance to unemployed workers, and $70 billion less in economic activity (unemployment insurance has one of the largest bang-per-buck of any job-creation policy). That reduction in purchasing power would lower GDP by 0.4%, and mean roughly 528,000 fewer jobs.