Does My Vote Even Count?..Probably Not.
By: Morgan Ranee
Did you know that there are 435 members of the House of Representatives? True story. These seats are divided evenly by population and allotted to each individual state. Every ten years when the census is conducted and the information it provides is used to determine how much each influence each state gets over the entire US Government. What's wrong with this you may ask?
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment)
California, Texas, New York, and Florida are practically running the country! Four out of fifty states literally make up a third of our country's House of Representatives. When it comes time to pass bills and acts, that's an awful lot of influence that forty-six of us do not have. Sound fair South Dakota? Their one congresswoman probably thinks not. The solution to this is not to have two senates, it's just to not break up directly by population so that small states still have a fighting chance for some influence in Washington.
If Washington isn't your main concern than think about from the State's perspective. Is California fifty-three times the size of South Dakota? Absolutely not and just like people in one fifty-third of California than the people of another fifty-third, the people and opinions in South Dakota also vary. South Dakota only gets to voice one opinion because they only have one seat in the house, which means over 40% of South Dakota simply just does not count. You're probably thinking "Oh now I get it".
Did you vote for your congressman? Maybe you did. Or maybe you didn't and maybe you, like many other Americans, are trying to figure out who in the world did. The fact of the matter is in most congressional districts drawn across the Nation, they know which party will have the seat and there is no fighting that. Ever heard of gerrymandering? Well if not it looks a bit like this:
State legislatures use demographics to basically discredit each an every vote for a seat in congress. You see they know that you and your neighbors are democrats, so what do they do? One of two things, they either break of your whole democratic area into little pieces and stick it with way more republicans so that your vote doesn't count or they stuff you with all the other democrats so yeah who you want wins, but that's all your gonna get so your few to one little seats don't really hold much influence in comparison to the other party anyway. How do we fix this? We stand up for our voice and our output in our democratic nation. We fight that congressional districts be set solely by dividing states into evenly populated sections and ignore all other demographics. Another solution is to have a bipartisan group from every state appointed for redistricting so that neither party can influence the way each district votes.
Another disadvantage of Gerrymandering is that it gives a colossal unfair advantage to the member of the party that the district is gerrymandered for. This is only one of the incumbency advantages that ensure that your Congressman will be your congressman until they say so. The way things are now there is hardly a reason for reelection. The major advantages that incumbents have are:
1. They don't have to worry about the candidate
from the other party because the district is already gerrymandered for their party's success.
2. Everyone in there district knows who they are
and over half voted for them before.
3. They get to mail stuff for free since apparently
each of their signatures are worth 45 cents.
4. They can travel for free on their State's dime.
These advantages make it impossible for a newbie to try to run an even campaign and certainly impossible to make enough money to financially support an equal campaign.
(source for both charts: http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/15/throwing-the-bums-out-is-harde)
The obvious solution for the incumbency advantage is to set term limits. Allow new leaders a fighting chance to help improve not only their districts, but also to help improve Congress as a whole. Also by leveling the playing field Americans would inevitably become more involved in the congressional election process because they would have more candidates to choose from and could find someone that better represents their own views.
I think that term limits would definitely be an adequate solution to incumbency advantages and that gerrymandering is unfair because party members in some cases but one thing that stood out in my mind was although California, New York, Texas, and Florida makes up a third of our country's House of Representatives but you have to think about this: California, New York, and sometimes Florida are democratic states and we still have a republican house?? Just a thought!:D
ReplyDeletei just realized that the first sentence doesn't make sense, so here is what i wanted to say: I think that term limits would definitely be an adequate solution to incumbency advantages and that gerrymandering is unfair because some party members are sometimes included into apposing party districts.....
DeleteI agree with you that many people feel as if their votes do not count because of large states such as Texas, Florida, California, and New York. They have some of the largest populations in the country and, therefore, obtain the majority of the electoral college votes. These are large city-oriented states and, therefore, have similar political views and with a large number of electoral votes, I agree that they have the ability to run the Presidential election. However, I disagree with your point to give Presidents a set term limit. Technically they already do with having a limit of 8 years, but I think Presidents earn that privilege to return to office because of their success in office the previous years. However, I do think that the voices of the people are not heard as well as they should be. We should focus on finding a way to allow the people to have a larger voice in political matters, not change the term a President is allowed to have.
ReplyDeleteI agree that gerrymandering is a huge issue and makes the incumbency advantage way too large to be fair. It takes away the democratic nature of our country, and definitely results in tyranny of the majority. But what do you mean by leveling the playing field? How will you do that? I get that you would set term limits, but would it not still results in the same party candidate in a gerrymandered district?
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question, it's a combination of both. Resolving one of those issues would not level the playing field. The idea is to have term limits in a fair district.
DeleteI agree that gerrymandering and the significantly bigger amount of representatives in states like,Texas, California, Florida and New York, limit the people's voice. I believe that it is necessary to figure out away that everyone is represented equally. I really liked your blog and it was easy to read and understand your viewpoints and opinions. I think the pictures and cartoons you chose worked well with your blog and allowed the reader to understand what your blog was about.
ReplyDeleteI agree that gerrymandering and unlimited term limits make elections unfair. Because incumbents have an unlimited amount of time in office people begin to favor the status quo. People are fine with how things are so change can seem scary, therefore new candidates do not have a chance. I'm fine with gerrymandering if a democrat is who it is favored for. Lol. But it is unfair to those whose political views are different than their representative.
ReplyDeleteLove you momo :)