Читать книгу Gerrymandering - Stephen K. Medvic - Страница 11

Redistricting – and gerrymandering specifically – can be exasperating, but it is also a fascinating aspect of American politics. As long as there are electoral districts that don’t correspond to permanent boundaries, district lines will have to be drawn. How, exactly, to do that will inevitably generate debate.

The debate over the redistricting process is not a debate over democratic versus undemocratic procedures. It is a debate between competing visions of how democracy should operate. Is democracy inherently conflictual, with various groups in society struggling to protect their interests through any legal means necessary, or is it potentially conciliatory, with an identifiable common good that can be achieved if neutral rules for politics are in place? One perspective on redistricting – the realpolitik view – is rooted in the former while another – civic redistricting – is based on the latter.

This chapter considered the role of redistricting in realizing two fundamental elements of modern democracy – fair elections and effective representation. What, exactly, is required for elections to be considered fair and what standard are we to use to judge the effectiveness of representation? Should redistricting be considered part of “normal politics” or must it be part of a pre-political process establishing the rules within which normal politics will take place? Should we seek the effective representation of individual districts or of the entire population of a state or the nation (and which should we prioritize if we cannot have both)?

The answers to those questions are complicated. The aim of this chapter has been to explore that complexity and to suggest that applying one set of principles to the redistricting process will likely mean sacrificing another set of principles. Regardless of one’s feelings about gerrymandering, the hope is that this chapter will have made readers aware of the validity of competing perspectives on the practice.