First Principles

By the numbers, it sure doesn’t seem to be Nevadans.  At least not accurately.

NPRI broke down the numbers – Republican Assembly candidates got the votes of 51% of Nevada voters – Democrats only got 45%.  That’s over a 40,000 vote difference.  60% of Nevadans are represented by Republican Assemblymen. If you count votes for other right-leaning parties, liberals got a 10 point drubbing in this state last week.

So how do the Democrats still have a 26-16 majority?  Why do Republicans only get 38% of the vote in the Assembly?  How can that possibly be reconciled with our notions of representative government?

~~~

The sizes of the districts are comically lopsided:

The largest Republican district (AD 13) had more voters than the eight smallest Democratic districts (ADs 11, 28, 8, 6, 19, 9, 41 and 42) combined.

The two largest Republican districts (ADs 13 and 22) had more voters than the 14 smallest Democratic districts (the eight previously listed, plus ADs 12, 10, 14, 34, 3 and 37) combined.

The 21 smallest districts, and 25 of the 27 smallest, are Democrat seats.

The 11 largest districts, and 14 of the 15 largest, are Republican.

The average number of voters per district was 16,245. Of the 28 seats with fewer voters than average, 25 are held by Democrats.

Only one Democratic district (AD 17) contains more than the average number of voters.

The largest Democratic district (AD 17) is fewer than 4,300 voters larger than the smallest Republican district (AD 23).

The largest Republican district (AD 13) is more than 58,000 voters larger than the smallest Democratic district (AD 11) and is more than 44,000 voters larger than the largest Democratic district (AD 17).

Redistricting took place 10 years ago, when the population looked different, and before our state’s population exploded.  But the gerrymandering was done quite purposefully then as an incumbent protection strategy.  (It worked better for the Dems than the GOP, but neither own any moral high ground over it.)

Can there be any doubt that were these numbers reversed, that the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be heard from ev’ry mountaintop in the state and beyond?  We would be treated daily to front page articles in every newspaper about disenfranchisement and dictatorship, with a healthy dose of “racism!” accusations thrown in for good measure.

And except for the “racism” canard, they would be right to complain.  It is disenfranchisement.  It is profoundly un-democratic.

Jon Ralston responded to the same NPRI piece dismissively, shrugging, “The spoils of redistricting go to those who are in control.”  The problem, though, is that the redistricting was done to make sure that The People themselves are never the ones who are “in control,” and that this should hold true for as many future generations as can be hoped for.

No legislative body should be able to bind future generations in this way.  Free societies have the right to change their minds about who it is that governs them, no matter WHO happens to be “in control.”  The fight over redistricting isn’t a fight between Republicans and Democrats, it’s a fight between liberty and tyranny covered with a ballot shaped fig leaf.

Even more so than the budget issues facing our state, I believe this is the single most important issue lawmakers will take up this session.  As with so much else in these times, it is fundamentally a question of what we believe ought to be the relationship between citizen and government.

~~~

As an only partially related aside, one cannot help but notice the disparity in the number of votes generated for Republicans running for Assembly and those for the US Senate.  The good news is that it puts to bed any serious consideration that Harry Reid “stole” the election through fraud.  The bad news is that there were a lot of Republicans (and independents) otherwise voting Republican who couldn’t get behind Sharron Angle – a cautionary tale for us all (and particularly tea party types) in future primaries.

~~~

As another semi-related aside, this is the sort of thing which pushes me back towards supporting term limits.  I oppose them philosophically, because I think people should be able to chose whomever they wish to represent them whether they’ve been in office for 40 years or 4.

I think this principle survives the fundraising complaint, and even other amorphous laments about how people just always pull the lever for the devil they know.  Democrats outspent Republicans this last cycle, and plenty of incumbents lost their jobs.

But that philosophical principle breaks down when you CAN’T get fair representation, or can’t reasonably hope to ever change yours, because the incumbents have literally drawn you out of any competitive district.  It’s worse when a voter in a teeny-tiny district’s vote is worth many times more than yours, because there are so fewer people in his district.

Term limits wouldn’t solve this problem completely – an “inheritance” system can and already has been developed for those in power to stay at least plugged in.  But I think it will help us in the end.  I suppose we’ll see how true that is this session.

~~~

But back to the matter at hand.  How should the GOP handle this?  Certainly, with these numbers, Sandoval in the Governor’s mansion, and minorities strong enough to sustain vetos, they have the power to insist things be done their way, and they SHOULD so insist.  They need to make this case to the people, though, pointing out the absurdly unfair breakdown in regional electoral power.

If the GOP changed the districts as “fairly” as they currently sit, but in their favor, given the popular preference for Republicans in this state the Democratic caucus meetings could be held in phone booths.

But as appealing as that image may be to those of us on the right, Republicans should resist the urge, even if they’re able to do it, to swing the pendulum the other way.

First of all, it would be just as wrong, just as odious, and just as offensive to a free society.  If we want our politicians to be responsive to us, they need to know they’re at risk of being booted.  Incumbent protection plans like this insulate our government from us unacceptably.

That includes Republican politicians.  There is great distrust in Nevada for GOP elected officials among many, many rank-and-file Republican voters, and overtly carving out “safe” fiefdoms for themselves will only widen this gulf.

And perhaps most importantly, we don’t need to do it.  The voters are already with the GOP, at least for now.  To keep them with the GOP, all that needs to be done is to keep faith with those voters and deliver what’s been promised – a further benefit to all involved.