Gerrymander in Elkridge

The scions of Elbridge Gerry are alive and well.

Yesterday, the Governor's Redistricting Advisory Committee released its proposed map for Maryland’s next ten years of Congressional representation. Elkridge is currently in District 3, but under the proposed changes…well, I’m still trying to figure it out.

As near as I can tell, some of our southern neighbors may be headed to District 2, but I’m not sure.

What struck me, as I pored over blurry PDFs and interactive redistricting maps—which defy my attempts to "interact"—is how difficult it is to get information on who, exactly, I’ll be voting alongside when this process is over.

Congressional district borders follow nothing—not geography, not communities, certainly neither rhyme nor reason. They are calculated with a simple goal in mind: ensure the party that draws them, be it Republican or Democrat, maintains or increases its majority. The method necessary to reach that goal, however, is so brutally complicated that my hard drive has been whirring itself into a frenzy as I try to suss out the implications for Elkridge.

With each Census, the party lucky enough to be in majority at that time gets to redraw Congressional boundaries in the hopes that they extend their time in power, preferably into perpetuity. The only consideration is who voted for what in previous elections, and could be depended on to continue to do so in the future. Naked self-interest is the order of the day, every time the process begins anew.

The first question is this: Could we expect more? The answer, I think, is no. If you were offered the chance to ensure that only people who agreed with you filled all the managerial positions at work, would you pass it up? Or if, using a perfectly acceptable process, you could guarantee that you’d never be fired? I think, given the opportunity, few of us could maintain any semblance of supposed righteousness or evenhandedness.   

The second question is should we expect more? It is here that dreams of a transparent government operating with only the best interests of all its citizens in mind meets the brick wall of reality.

Politics is nothing if not the art of the possible, and, in the case of beneficial redistricting, we are talking about methods that extend, literally, to our Founding Fathers. Look closely at the Declaration of Independence, and you’ll find Mr. Gerry’s bowed signature, somewhere below the flourishes of John Hancock. His name is also still stamped on our political process, then used to benefit his Democratic-Republican party and now helping the same names, different parties.

The continuation of gerrymandering is less a reflection on current politicians than a symptom of the two-party system that cobbled its way into being in the absence of any better ideas 200 years ago. The opprobrium likely to be heaped upon our politicians in the coming days would be better used deciding if we, as a country, are ready for deep, difficult, systemic changes. We’re talking viable third party here, we’re talking changing how we, as a nation, define and discuss politics. The ease afforded by a two-party system allows us to neatly bisect issues, to readily classify others as "with us" or "against us."

This is the problem, not gerrymandered districts: our own laziness.

To be honest, I have no great solution. I’m not convinced a third party is even a good idea, let alone a possible one. I’m only reminded of Sir Winston Churchill’s thoughts on the subject: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” I just wish I knew who I was voting with.