Polarizing on purpose: Barely scratching the surface on redistricting

Since 1911, the number of seats in the U.S. House has been set by Congress, basically at 435. The calculation results in one congressman representing roughly 600,000 of us who constitute a congressional district. Every 10 years, based on the census, seats might move in response to population shifts from one state to another. This is important.

In addition to its 80 state Assembly and 40 state Senate districts, California currently has 53 congressional districts. The map looks like it was drawn on an Etch-a-Sketch during an earthquake.

(If you really want to understand how redistricting happens, click here.) It's a game by the University of Southern California Game Innovation Lab that will do more to show how the system can be abused than words -- even mine! -- can ever explain.)

A proposal from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and backed by Common Cause and others is likely to make the ballot as an initiative on Nov. 4. Schwarzenegger's previous effort in this area was rebuffed by voters in 2005. Essentially, this new proposal would create a commission that would take the drawing of the state's political districts out of the hands of the legislature. Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez has responded that the governor's proposal is "anti-democratic" (though Núñez, upon closer examination, probably really means "anti-Democrat") and is pushing a counter-proposal. There's been a reasonable amount of narrow coverage of the issue, focused largely on the criteria in each proposal for naming "independent" commissions to draw the districts.

(See the following from the Los Angeles Times, Politico, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Maria Times and San Francisco Chronicle.)

The coverage presumes that the fundamentals by which the congressional districts are formed are sound. So far, none of the coverage has challenged the presumption, for example, of whether a sole member of Congress is capable of representing the interests of 600,000 constituents. Very often, due to the hallucinogenic manner in which some districts are drawn, many of us who are represented by the same congressman live many miles apart. Is this a good thing?

This "gerrymandering" -- drawing boundaries to try to gain advantage in the election -- is really what's at issue in the dispute between Núñez and Schwarzenegger. Núñez argues the governor's plan would hurt "diversity." Supporters of Schwarzenegger's proposal say Núñez is just trying to protect his party's upper hand.

The hope of its supporters is that the commission backed by the governor would reduce gerrymandering. Many state Democrats believe taking the process out of the hands of the legislature, in which they have a majority, would put them at a disadvantage in comparison with the power they currently hold. This is about as incisive as the coverage gets in explaining the issue.

Any change in how congressional districts are drawn in California needs to take into account some relatively new and developing realities. By and large, we no longer live in "diverse" communities. What that means is that in areas where 600,000 people live, there is increasingly a majority comprised of people who think and vote alike. That's not to say there aren't, for example, rich people living near poor people. It's just that in any of those geographic areas, one group tends to dominate. In general, people who are alike vote the same way, the research says.

Currently, the system by which district lines are drawn by the state legislature ingeniously or intuitively takes into account -- somewhat -- the fact that we separate ourselves from those who are different. The result, by and large, is that we get the extremes -- liberals and conservatives -- representing the districts that they or like-minded successors hold for years and years. The opposite extremes are then left to fight it out on issues in Sacramento and Washington along with, say, other liberals and conservatives from other districts or states which experience the same lack of diversity inside each district. Few moderates run, much less make the cut. Consensus is not sought. Gridlock ensues. (To which you might respond: "Yeah? You're saying that like it's a bad thing.")

Does this raise questions about proportional representation based on non-traditional criteria? Would this help in reaching consensus? Or is it just another method by which to separate and further polarize?

Self-preservation being what it is, none of our politicians will be showing a lot of leadership in reexamining the fundamentals. And if the media don't do it either, then, with apologies to William Greider, the title of whose 1992 book asks, "Who will tell the people?"

Redistricting needs to be covered and explained better because it involves more than simply which group draws the lines. Redistricting ultimately relates to whether our representatives get anything done in legislatures, be they in Sacramento or Washington.

At its core, redistricting has to do with whether voters who go about electing politicians have really had much to do with even selecting who or what type of person represents them. The difference, as a former colleague put it, is whether we get democracy or "de-MOCK-racy."