It seems safe to say that we can divide the population into two groups; those who want fair elections, and those who want to manipulate. That unfortunately leaves out those who don’t care or are unable to care. Nevertheless, an important part of government-by-the-people is confidence that elections are fair, meaning that the results reflect the desire of the greatest possible portion of the voters. This has been sorely rested recently. Unanimous would be better but unlikely in a population larger than a family. We settle for a majority, more than half. Even that requires some compromise.
There are politicians who believe that they, like royalty, are entitled to govern no matter how poorly. Whether they can win a fair election or not; it is their kuleana (right, obligation) to be in charge. They see others as remiss in some characteristic that goes contrary to their opinion of the proper way to govern. In the past, this has been a binary choice about issues like slavery, states-rights, national defense, civil rights, or taxation. Currently the division is harder to see, but it is us versus them, vaguely defined as conservative versus liberal, with neither side fitting the definition well. Liberals may be progressive, yet dogmatic in some beliefs. Conservatives may be inconsistent in concepts where by definition they should be in step.
Majority parties when they are in office do whatever they can to remain in office legally as well as, let’s say, extra legally. This can make it very hard for a minority party candidate to get elected. Minority parties complain about that situation. There is a way for them to legally overcome that obstacle: run superior candidates: like Abraham Lincoln or Dwight Eisenhower. Lincoln revived the divided, Whig/Union/Republican party, Eisenhower was popular with both sides, he had defeated Adolf Hitler; became a Republican because he disagreed with Southern Democrats. The provider with the best product usually dominates the market.
In recent elections, we saw many abuses designed to favor one party’s candidates by making it harder than necessary for some citizens to vote. In the past, it was often physical intimidation, or illegal. The abuses include difficult or nonsensical identification requirements, closing or under-staffing of polling places and ballot harvesting. Many parties accuse others of such practices, but one party has been caught many times. One of the worst abuses is called gerrymandering. Named for Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry who signed into law in 1812 a district whose boundaries reminded many of a salamander. The process was intended to create many voting districts that had a majority of his party members and as few as possible that had a majority of any other party. Over the years the distortion of districts for that purpose has become more common, and bizarre. Districts that are supposed to be compact to contain people of common interest are shaped like cartoon characters. Some districts are two communities demographically similar, but miles apart, connected by a corridor that may be virtually impassable.
The majority party of the year in many states has the privilege of drawing future electoral districts to benefit themselves. Quite literally the incumbent representatives choosing their voters instead of the voters choosing the representatives. The Constitution gives the states the right to do that, but also gives Congress the ability to fix it. “Article I, Section 4 – Elections, Meetings: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” A responsible coalition can mandate that a system be used that draws district boundaries that considers all residents as equal.
A current bill HR1/S1 would try to depoliticize redistricting by appointing an apolitical commission. A good start, but it still depends on humans. Unfortunately, humans have trouble leaving their knowledge, anxieties and biases behind. An electronic algorithm could be made that is unable to receive any input but the geography and the location of individual people. Who will openly object to a system designed to ensure fair elections?
Ken Obenski is a forensic engineer, now safety and freedom advocate in South Kona. Send feedback to obenskik@gmail.com