Yesterday, Standard & Poor's downgraded the US's credit rating from AAA to AA+. The world's largest economy was humiliated leading to fears of further market turmoil. One can blame a whole range of issues but deadlock on Capitol Hill has to be one of the frontrunners. Held hostage by the radical Tea Party, Republicans found themselves unable to compromise with Democrats on a coherent approach to deal with the nation's rising debt burden. With no credible plan, S&P felt unable to award the AAA grade.
As this sorry episode has shown, an increasingly polarised Congress coupled with America's famed system of checks and balances threatens to bring the US to a standstill. If the US is once again to be governable then this partisan deadlock must be broken. Change will undoubtedly be difficult, but there is one reform that with little controversy could put America back on the path to a functioning political system.
Throughout the USA, state legislators draw up the districts that elect their representatives to Congress. Imagine if in Britain it were the responsibility of local councils to draw up MPs' constituencies. The conflict of interest, wanting to select electoral boundaries that would favour candidates from one's own party, would cause outrage. A Tory run council would draw up constituencies that elected Tory MPs, whilst Labour and Lib Dem councils would do exactly the same thing. It's called gerrymandering.
Unsurprisingly, we don't allow this to happen in Britain. We leave it to an impartial body, the Boundary Commission, to draw up constituencies. So do most other developed democracies. It is America that stands out as the exception. The consequence is electoral districts of incredible shapes that cannot possibly best serve the interests of their constituents.
When it comes to an election, the candidate whose party drew up the district will win by a landslide. It's comparable to the problem of safe constituencies in the UK, except worse. The only contest is when each party chooses its candidate. Since only party members can vote in primaries, ideological purists push out more moderate candidates.
To break its partisan deadlock, America needs to bring back real competition to its elections. Putting a stop to gerrymandering would be a good start.
Hah, as if gerrymandering doesn't exist in the UK, fair enough it might not be as bad as the US but you can take the 2005 General Election results as a good example where the difference in votes between Labour and Conservatives was a mere 3~% yet the difference in seats was a vast 25~%.
ReplyDeleteIf Lib Dems and Conservatives formed a coalition in 2005 they would have had 14,770,369 votes compared to Labours 9,552,436 yet Labour would have still won by having more of the seats, hardly seems fair to have a government that almost 2/3rds of the country that (arguably) didn't want in power.
I'm sorry, but how can gerrymandering exist if it's not politicians who draw up constituency boundaries?
ReplyDeleteThe boundaries commission change boundaries following requests from the councillors in the area thus the local government in already influences the boundary changes thus able to make it more advantageous to themselves. It might not be politicians who draw up the boundaries but they certainly influence the process.
ReplyDeleteYou might as well call Quangos independent if your going to assume the boundaries commission is.
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. Councils have no say in the drawing up of provisional boundaries, nor does anyone else. The BCE only carry out a public consultation once they have finished their proposals, so as to ensure they remain impartial.
ReplyDeleteSee the Guide to the 2013 Review, paragraphs 22: http://bit.ly/o1ElnK.
Then perhaps you would be able to explain Appendices: D paragraph number 1 "The number of constituencies in the United Kingdom shall be 600.". I do believe the current number is 650 while cutting the number of MP's is the idea of The Rt. Hon. David Cameron. Who would decide which MP's get the sack?
ReplyDeleteI really don't know what to say. You're complaining about a manifesto pledge of a party people went on to elect.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I am, I am a sore loser (damn AV referendum) who has lost faith in the government. However that aside doesn't change that the process to change a boundary means that whatever BCE do suggest it has to go through parliament to come into affect thus the government in power has the ability to accept the BCE's suggestions or reject them and they have the ability to use that power to their advantage.
ReplyDeleteI would not be surprised at all if Parliament rejects the proposal if it's suggested to reduce the number of seats in Hertfordshire (big Tory area) and accepts the proposal if it's suggested to reduce the seats in Merseyside(big Labour area). Of course only time will be able to prove me wrong or right.
I still stand by my point that it's ridiculous that a party can be in power even though they don't have the popular vote though I do concede that it is not the same as gerrymandering.