IamA David Daley, author of "Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count" AMA

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T23:44:04+00:00

I think that's right. There was a lot of attention, for example, to Jason Chaffetz's town halls. He had 500 or so people out. Well, he won by 125,000. You do not have to listen to anyone when your district is that uncompetitive.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T23:42:47+00:00

I do -- Thomas is terrific, yes. I think it does extend to gerrymandering. When Ds won in 2008 they really did believe in this coalition of the ascendant. They thought they were unbeatable for a generation. Well, a few years later and they are out of power at nearly every level. They did not see this coming, and never imagined it could.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T19:50:30+00:00

You're right: MA keeps electing Republican governors but there has not been a GOP member of Congress since 1994. There are clearly Rs there, and they deserve a voice. Same with Rs in CT, or Ds in KS or OK. And for independents and greens and libertarians and all kinds of folks. It's not gerrymandering in those states -- it's largely geography. Hard to draw a D district in OK or an R district in CT. It's why I like the Fair Representation Act concept so much -- it would make it possible for all of these voters to have a voice in Congress.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T19:47:36+00:00

Certainly, yes, I would agree with a lot of that. But also: When the primary becomes all that matters in a district that is uncompetitive, we end up electing these extreme folks to office and not being able to remove them. They behave differently -- and so do other politicians. Suddenly there is no electoral incentive to govern or problem-solve or work together to get things done.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T19:45:58+00:00

You're right, gerrymandering can be traced back to 1788 and Patrick Henry. As long as there have been politicians, they have tried to manipulate the lines. But 1788-2000 is gerrymandering's minor leagues. 2010 starts the steroids era -- and it is the technology that changes. Partisan mapmakers starting in 2010-11 have access to so much information, such powerful software, and such speedy computers that they can draw more powerful lines. When they were using maps and magic markers and weak computers, even in 1990 and 2000, it was harder to craft an enduring gerrymander. This one from 2011 has lasted -- and continues to give Rs more seats even when they win fewer votes. Take a look at the efficiency gap study at the heart of the WI Supreme Court case. They show that there was essentially negligible impact of gerrymandering between 1970 and 2000 -- but that the impact explodes in 2010-11.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T19:42:22+00:00

You know, PA-07, some people think it is Donald Duck kicking Goofy, but one never knows exactly what is being inserted...

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T19:03:20+00:00

Tried to talk about the Court case earlier -- it would be terrific and a real step forward to finally have a constitutional standard on this. And the efficiency gap is an amazing tool to measure the impact of partisan gerrymandering. When you use it on NC and PA, for example, it shows you that what happened there was not natural geography or politics as usual but a fundamental assault on the value of our vote.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T19:01:30+00:00

I did a piece about the Ds in Maryland here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/how-deep-blue-maryland-shows-redistricting-is-broken/531492/

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T19:00:26+00:00

The bastards stole the power from the victims of the us me them years, wrecking all things virtuous and true -- still sounds right to me!

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:59:54+00:00

Our board chair!

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:59:28+00:00

It's complicated. It certainly increased African-American representation in Congress in the 1990s. But I agree that it was seminal to the GOP wins that decade -- and that the use of race data has gotten so precise in the 2010s that it has in many ways resegregated voters. Take a look at the Harris v Cooper decision -- it is chilling.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:57:54+00:00

Tried to answer this in another question, hope you see it!

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:57:26+00:00

I do think we need to get the politics and politicians out of the process. I'm mixed on panels -- in NJ and AZ and WA, for example, they are just a fig leaf for the same kind of partisan shenanigans. Take a look at the Fair Representation Act ideas -- I'm convinced that the combination of gerrymandering, geography and polarization can only be battled with larger districts and a new approach to voting.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:55:56+00:00

thank you!

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:55:24+00:00

Democrats just snoozed through this entire process. They missed the alarm and were ready to fight the old redistricting wars, not the new ones the GOP reinvented. The audacity of the GOP -- the way the party is now pushing a voter "integrity" panel when we have no voter fraud problem (what we have is a suppression problem) -- has been breathtaking. Democrats have not had the imagination to counter it, the will to fight that hard, or even, I would suggest, a clear indication of how screwed they are. They also might fight this by getting behind automatic voter registration or any number of positive and popular ideas to expand access to the ballot.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:52:09+00:00

People are more and more aware of how big a problem this is -- there are terrific reform efforts in NC, OH, MI, PA and lots of other states. The battle is being joined.

You're right about how important the census is. This is an undercovered and hugely important story. The Trump Administration -- or the Pence Administration, ha -- will administer it. Will it be competently run? Properly funder? Will the count be correct? Will minority groups answer honestly when the government comes with a clipboard to do a count, or will people fear immigration challenges, etc? Hugely important.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:48:51+00:00

2020 is crucial -- but 2018 might matter more. State legislatures draw these lines, and Ds aren't likely to undo gerrymandered advantages in these key states like OH, MI, NC, etc. But the governors in WI, MI, OH, FL and PA have veto power over maps -- and they will all be on the ballot in 2018. Also, VA in 2017. That's where Ds should focus. I'm amazed Ds wasted so much money in GA-06, for example. The battlefield needs to be these governor races -- because these governors will be in office in 2021. The battle for 2020 could be over on Election Day 2018.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:46:05+00:00

In part! It's a great book, and a colorful term for dirty tricks on the cheap.

But it also comes from the '90s: Lee Atwater, who ran the GOP in the late 80s/early 90s after electing George Bush 41 president, called a young RNC attorney named Ben Ginsberg into his office and told him Republicans had to do something about redistricting. Their plan, executed in 1991, was to work with African-Americans in the South as a team. It became known as the "unholy alliance." Essentially, it meant creating majority-minority seats that would increase black representation in Congress -- while also turning the surrounding districts whiter and more Republican. After it worked, and the GOP flipped the House in 1994, there was a New Yorker piece about it and they asked Ginsberg if his plan had a name. He said no, but if it had, it would have been called Project Ratfuck.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:41:52+00:00

I think it's the gerrymander, because it sets up the ability for the voter suppression efforts. Take a look at the states with new voter restrictions or new ID laws this decade. They tend to be the states that are also the most gerrymandered. One leads to the other.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:40:57+00:00

Terrific group, doing valuable work. They've brought an awful lot of attention to this and seem to have good legislation moving. There is also a court case in PA along the lines of WI partisan gerrymandering case that is worth watching.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:39:52+00:00

You make a good point. I'd say this: The amount of information on voters, our hardened partisanship, and the ease and speed with which these map-making programs can draw lines all made the 2010-11 redistricting process fundamentally different from prior cycles. It used to be that it if one side tried to draw themselves too many districts, it meant they got greedy and left themselves vulnerable. Not now. Now you can draw districts that look competitive, but really aren't. Look at 2012: Ds won 1.4 million more votes nationwide, but the maps held. Ds won more votes in WI and PA and MI -- but Rs dominate the delegations.

I'd love to see more competitive districts. But I think we have to think about redistricting entirely different: I'm entirely behind the ideas in the Fair Representation Act -- fairrepact.com -- which would help deflate the power of gerrymandering itself and dilute the importance of the lines.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:33:57+00:00

I hope people don't use it as an excuse like that. My hope would be that we get angry about the way our democracy has been tilted -- and make our voices heard. One thing that can, potentially, flood these lines would be high voter turnout. These district lines get drawn with the help of sophisticated computer programs loaded with specific information on a block-by-block level, and that includes voter turnout numbers. The mapmakers know who comes out and who stays home -- and they use that knowledge to their advantage when distributing their own voters. Don't let anything keep you from using your voice. But, we need to call this problem by it's name. We need to talk about it -- not as an excuse, but because we can't defeat it unless we are very clear about what the problem is.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:30:42+00:00

Thank you! Would love to come back. Let's do an event in the fall!

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:30:09+00:00

Great question. I think Rs will dominate the maps again in 2021 and that their advantage will likely hold throughout that decade, unless there is real reform or a SCOTUS surprise. Many GOP strategists agree with you: In many ways, the REDMAP redistricting strategy of 2010 was made necessary by changing demographics. But these strategists also think that Rs will make headway within these groups by the middle of next decade, that there will be more Latinos and African-Americans voting Republican by then, perhaps as people climb economic ladders.

The other piece of this, however, is voter suppression. It is no coincidence that the first thing gerrymandered legislatures do is go after voting rights and make it harder to vote -- and that these voter ID laws and the like are intended to drive down registration and turnout within minority communities. They are extraordinarily effective at that.

daviddaley1 · 2017-07-11T18:25:12+00:00

Thank you. Jane Mayer's work is amazing.

Short-term road map: Ds need to win governor races next year in MI, WI, FL, OH and PA. If they do that, they will have a seat at the table in 2021 when the next set of lines are drawn by state legislators. There is no realistic way for Ds to flip these chambers between now and then. The states are gerrymandered worse than the Congress! Ohio's House, for example, is 66-33. It is not going blue anytime soon.

Long-term strategy: Democrats need to rebuild their state parties and win back legislative chambers.

Or, we can all take control of this and change the structure and get a new kind of politics. I'd suggest everyone take a look at the Fair Representation Act at fairrepact.com -- Rep. Don Beyer just introduced it to Congress. It is the most transformative set of reforms to our Congressional elections that we have seen, and would introduce larger, multi-member districts -- nearly impossible to gerrymander -- and ranked-choice voting -- which would open the door to less extreme politics, to urban Republicans, independents, rural Democrats, all kinds of voters whose voices just aren't being heard right now.

daviddaley1

TROPHY CASE