Increase in ‘safe seats’ brings decrease in effective democracy by Congress
By Charles Mitchell
The federal government shutdown that started Oct. 1 is more evidence of years of dysfunction. Why don’t our leaders debate to solve challenges before things like this happen? The short answer is they don’t have to. We’ve entered an era of decision-making based on power, period. And power is achieved by pre-determining who will be elected.
Here’s how the system has failed the people: Out of 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, a mere 38 will be competitive in 2026 voting. According to a non-partisan group called Fair Vote, which has done the research, the rest – 91 percent of the total – are already decided or “leaning” Republican or Democrat. Taking the most cynical view, voters in at least 352 districts might as well do something else on election day.
The most demonstrable effect of the orchestration of so many “safe seats” is that people who occupy them have no need to converse with any voter or colleague of a different political persuasion. Said another way, when in session members of the House talk past each other instead of to each other.
Witness the post-shutdown rhetoric. Daily press conferences were staged with Republicans saying Democrats were liars, followed by press conferences where Democrats said Republicans were liars. The only democratic aspect of this is that they took turns going first. Witness also the extreme dogmatism of the most vocal members of the House who don’t defend their ideas and, instead, hurl ad hominems across the aisle.
How did we get to this point? Some of the blame goes to computers. Some goes to the U.S. Census methodology. Some goes to the genius of political strategists including James Carville and Haley Barbour. And some goes to the U.S. Supreme Court for the deference it gives state legislators in designing federal and state election districts to guarantee outcomes.
Sharp division on hard questions are not new in the American Experience. For example, there has been no more contentious matter than slavery. An intense back and forth was even part of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. James Madison wanted to stop the importation of slaves right away. One day during that convention in Philadelphia the consensus was to allow Congress to order a halt to the practice in 10 years, perhaps to allow owners to adjust. The next day the delegate from South Carolina, Charles Pinckney, made a motion for a later date, 1808. Madison, who was from Virginia and owned slaves, objected but the motion passed. Of course, Congress didn’t act immediately or in 1808. Emancipation by presidential proclamation didn’t come for almost 80 years and later, completely, when the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865.
The point of the example is that there have been countless times in which very serious, very emotional and highly disputed topics have been addressed by lawmakers who were super-convinced their views were right, but were just as determined to work toward solutions. At that 1787 convention, another compromise was there would be two legislative bodies. The U.S. Senate would have two members per state. Seats in the U.S. House would be apportioned based on state population and, in turn, state legislators would create districts roughly equal in number (currently about 670,000). Initially, district lines were geographical as much as possible – rivers and streams – and based on fixed borders, such as county lines.
The newer method has been for states to hire consulting firms with tacit instructions to stack districts in favor of whatever party happened to be in power. Instead of natural boundaries, the firms switched to Census Enumeration Districts, defined as an area that a single census taker could completely cover within two weeks in cities and within four weeks in rural areas. Computers could then string together enough enumeration districts of like-minded voters to create maps based on ideology. Elections became a science in the 1980s, with experts such as Barbour and Carville as the strategists who left little chance of a surprise outcome on election day.
This year, we’ve seen Republicans, who dominate the Texas Legislature, redraw their map to favor adding five more Republicans to preserve Republicans’ slim U.S. House majority and we’ve heard that Democrats, who dominate the California Legislature, will add enough Democratic districts to more than overcome the “adjustments” in Texas.
Such actions won’t help bring the days of talking past each other to an end. We can long for a time when lawmakers with different views would get in a room and stay there until there was a compromise or solution, but we’re headed in a different direction. In fact, all across the South and elsewhere these days, many House and some members of the Senate simply refuse to have “town hall” type meetings with constituents. A person safely in a Blue seat has nothing to fear from a Red constituent, and a person safely in a Red seat has no reason to listen to a constituent with Blue views. And the same is true when Congress is in session. If your party happens to be in the majority, even great ideas from the other side can be rejected.
Power politics is not democracy. The country was designed to progress through spirited and even better debate in the belief that was the best way to govern. The nation has become bogged down because the sharing of ideas is no longer necessary.
—————————————————————-
Charles Mitchell is an associate professor in the School of Journalism and New Media at the University of Mississippi and a member of the Overby Center panel of experts.