By Susan J. Demas and John Bebow
In the past decade, voters decided 664 races for seats in the Michigan Legislature. The majority of those races were never in question. Millions of votes didn’t really matter.
Districts for many state representatives and senators are not competitive. Many seats are engineered for partisan advantage. A consequence is the practical disenfranchisement of many voters. As a result, average voters face an uncomfortable question: are our elections truly representative?
If voters want true competition and choice at the ballot box, they can’t wait until Election Day. Their time for input is now, when the maps are being drawn.
Every 10 years, new Census data is used to draw the district boundaries for state and federal elected officials. In Michigan, the state legislature drives this process. To inform the 2011 Michigan redistricting process that is just getting underway, the Center for Michigan used state elections data to analyze the results of 664 state legislative races since boundaries were last redrawn in 2001.
Download the full report here. What we found:
- Over the past decade, Republicans enjoyed 43 safe seats in the state House and 19 safe seats in the Senate. Democrats had 42 safe seats in the House and 11 safe seats in the Senate. None of those seats ever changed hands between the parties. Republicans living in safe Democratic districts and Democrats living in safe Republican districts were essentially disenfranchised – and accounted for almost 1.5 million votes in the 2010 statewide elections. Add to them the significant proportion of statewide voters who label themselves independents and it’s easy to see that in many places voters’ realistic choices at the polls are severely limited.
- Only about one out of every seven Michigan residents lives in a swing district – politically competitive areas where elections are truly up for grabs. These too rare places are where ticket-splitters and politically moderate voters can have more choices – places where the character and ideas of individual candidates are arguably more likely to carry the day.
- In the Michigan House, only 16 of 110 districts are swing seats – they either regularly changed hands between the parties or averaged a 3-percent margin or less over the past decade.
- In the Michigan Senate, only 6 of 38 seats ever changed party hands in the past decade. Only two seats featured consistently close races.
A look inside redistricting
Now it’s true that Detroit is the most Democratic big city in America. And Ottawa County west of Grand Rapids is known as a GOP bastion. But, collectively, Michigan is a purple state – the electorate is pretty evenly split between the two major political parties.
So why are so few seats in the Michigan Legislature regularly up for grabs?
To a large extent, you can blame the redistricting process — what Republican Governors Association (RGA) attorney Ben Ginsberg calls “the great passion play of American politics.”
“There’s emotion, the raw power is high,” he said at a nationwide election forum. “(Consultants) get really jazzed up about the magic and voodoo we can do.”
Much of the process takes place behind closed doors between legislative and party leaders. Few voters follow the machinations.
“There are probably 11 of us out there who are total redistricting junkies,” said Tim Story, an analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). “So this is our time.”
Last time around, in 2001, Michigan Republicans owned the redistricting process thanks to their control of the state House, Senate, the governorship and the state Supreme Court. As this report demonstrates, Republicans fared well under the maps they drew 10 years ago, as expected. Democrats followed a similar playbook, with similarly favorable results, when they had the upper hand in earlier decades.
“Redistricting in Michigan is a political process,” longtime Democratic Party insider Rick Wiener said last month at a redistricting forum in Lansing. “It has been when Democrats controlled it. And it is when Republicans apparently control it.”
Lines also are crafted to help particularly powerful lawmakers and to create as many safe seats as possible for the two major political parties.
“You have a situation where the Legislature is picking their own voters,” said Christina Kuo, Michigan executive director of the good government group, Common Cause.
As always, money is an issue. Fewer competitive seats mean both political parties can better manage political fundraising and advertising.
“Both parties want to spend most of their money at the top of the ticket,” said Bernie Porn, president of the Lansing polling firm EPIC-MRA who worked for Democrats during the 1980s redistricting. “They want to spend money on TV and not worry about spending $250,000 or more on each competitive legislative seat.”
This year, Republicans control every leg of the redistricting stool – just as they did in 2001. Many observers expect a repeat of the last go-round.
One key difference this time is citizen-friendly technology. Thanks to Google maps and a wealth of district population information online, citizens can fiddle around with legislative boundaries in the comfort of their own homes. Even redistricting software used by states is much cheaper than it was a decade ago.
Across the nation, reform-minded groups are sizing up their redistricting processes this year. Beyond Michigan, a number of other states use independent redistricting commissions which are somewhat depoliticized. A handful of states require the competitiveness of districts to be taken into consideration as new boundaries are drawn.
In Michigan, large-scale reforms like those are not likely this year. But there is the possibility for increased transparency and citizen involvement through more public hearings. Those are goals of a new Redistricting Collaborative, of which the Center for Michigan is a member.
“Last time, redistricting was a very closely held thing by leadership within the caucuses,” said Rich Robinson, executive director of the Lansing-based Michigan Campaign Finance Network (MCFN), a member of the collaborative. “But it’s not just about political parties and caucuses. It’s about the voters. This is how we’re represented.”
This report is not intended to question the legitimacy of any individual sitting legislator. And, to the average voter, redistricting might seem like the ultimate act of inside baseball. But it’s important to consider that those little lines on little maps dictate big-time political power.
9 Comments
“One key difference this time is citizen-friendly technology. Thanks to Google maps and a wealth of district population information online, citizens can fiddle around with legislative boundaries in the comfort of their own homes.”
Suggestions please?
The problem wouldnt even be solved by “competitive” districts. Those voting for the loser wouldnt have their views represented. And it still be a competition between who can offend the least, sell the best and be the most innocuous. A form of proportional representation is the best solution to gain representation for all and a competition of ideas and principles; not hairdos and slogans.
see:
“Numbers Rule: The Vexing Mathematics of Democracy, from Plato to the Present” (Princeton; $26.95);
George Szpiro
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2010/07/gottlieb-on-voting.html
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/07/26/100726crbo_books_gottlieb
The real problem is having people who are a specific political party run for these elections. In the primaries, the incumbent will win 99% of the time. When you get to the elections, the only choice is the devil you know, or the devil you don’t know. Have an open primary. Then you might end up with a choice between 2 people of the same part, or even 2 “no party affiliation” candidates. Pass a law to prohibit anyone running from disclosing their party. Perhaps then we might end up with more gems like Rick Snyder, who seems to be doing what’s best for the people of Michigan. Oh, and we NEED term limits to prevent politicians from becoming too deeply embedded in any one job.
I read the words: voters not being represented; lack of competition; safe seats and districts. These concepts are thought of as problems. These concepts are based on an unspoken concept: winner takes all. This concept has been the basis of our country since the beginning. Are you saying you want to change from winner takes all? If so, what do you want to go to? Maybe, for government to work, you must have parties, politics, winners and losers, and winners take all.
Gerrymanders = Half the votes in half the rigged gerrymander districts = about 25-30 percent ANTI-Democracy indirect minority rule by the EVIL party hacks.
Much worse minority rule due to party hack extremists being nominated in party hack primaries — who later get elected in the rigged gerrymander districts.
Remedy – Proportional Representation
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner.
Pre-election candidate rank order lists (in larger districts) — to transfer excess votes down and loser votes up.
Result – ALL votes count — with both majority rule and minority representation.
P.R. is used NOW in most free nations in the world.
The U.S.A. is in a political STONE AGE.
After reading the full report, I am a little confused by The Center for Michigan’s newfound concern for disenfranchising voters.
Tell me, how many candidates from the Libertarian Party, US Taxpayers Party, or Green Party did you invite to last year’s gubernatorial debates that you hosted?
How much coverage did TCFM give to political independents?
Contrast that to the coverage that you gave to those with a “-r” or a “-d” after their names?
From where I’m sitting, TCFM is as equally responsible for any disenfranchisement of Michigan Voters as “both” political parties are with their redistricting schemes.
I don’t agree we have a gem in Rick Snyder. I am one of those public servants who had a base income cut to pay for early retirements and health care. This was on top of concessions made in previous years. I make less than 39K a year. To treat all levels of public servants the same in this manner when they haven’t seen the same pay increases is ludicrous. If anyone thinks this is helping balance the budget and stimulate jobs or the economy they are sorely mistaken. Redistricting is just another way to disenfranchise the masses and to rig the outcome of elections. I’m not looking forward to the TV commercials with their half truths about the accomplishments or misdeeds of this candidate or that one, no matter the party affiliation. Politicians are self serving and the most over paid and ingratiated of “public servants” and I use that term loosely with Politicians.
It does seem unfair when one party is in total control, an independant panel could offer new boundaries based on population movements and not always along party lines to weaken the other party, while strengthen your own. We do ourselves a true diservice when only one voice is heard. Other states have tried this approach with some success.
Just a thought
What are we waiting for??
Redistricting should be a no brainer ! We only have one opportunity every ten years so let’s do it now.
Can you tell me what additional cost there is related to this part time job? I’m assuming they all have administrative assistants. Then add a vehicle allowance, a gas allowance or mileage allowance,a nice office, a phone and computer,a T&E allownance and the list goes on !
You get the picture. What can we do to ge the ball rolling ?
JJ