Stalling For Time

So-Called Stooping

As we all know by now, Gavin Newsom and other leaders of California’s Democratic Party have organized to put something called Proposition 50 on the ballot so as to further gerrymander California in favor of Democrats. There was a surprising amount of dissent to this notion, summarized as so: We cannot stoop to Republicans level, to do so is to hypocritically play politics with voting rights, and ultimately it would reinforce Democrat’s unpopularity. As I, along with many others, argued that night, we simply do not have any other choice than to do this. Gerrymandering in this case is not “playing politics” in the sense we are accused of wanting to do, it is a desperate gambit to buy time for pursuing the goals we all share regardless of this specific debate.

Let me begin by addressing the most broadly shared perspective of our friends in opposition, are we stooping to the level of Republicans by matching their gerrymandering? I will not deny that it is precisely that. Some might give importance to the temporary nature of Prop 50, or the inconsistent promise of some of our party’s politicians that they would impose fair maps federally, but I find these details meaningless. There is nothing magical about California Democrats, their gerrymandering is not rendered less corrosive to democracy in and of itself by virtue of them performing it. The question therefore is not if Democrats are stooping to Republicans level on the specific matter of gerrymandering, they unquestionably are, but whether such is justifiably necessary or merely “playing politics.” 

One cannot say all such ‘stooping’ is inherently unjustifiable, otherwise we would have to dismiss every tactic to slow-roll Trump’s judicial nominations as an egregious sin. It is after all the historic tactic of Mitch McConnell to invent a thousand procedural hurdles by which to block judges, rather than accepting that they would be confirmed by a majority vote. We have all condemned this strategy of throwing wrenches into the machinery of government before, rightfully viewing pointless obstructionism as damaging to democracy. Yet now we celebrate it when it is done to stop judges who care little for civil rights when compared to assisting Donald Trump, because we understand that ‘stooping to Republican’s level,’ is sometimes necessary in order to protect people’s well-being and perhaps even democracy itself.

Playing Politics or Facing Reality?

But before we can discern if this tactic of gerrymandering is necessary, we have to clarify what it means to “play politics.” Previously the majority of members had argued that our party cannot “play politics with people’s lives.” Contextually put, Democrats should not permit or accept cuts to something like healthcare even if it would be of electoral benefit to them. The thrust of this claim can then be understood as saying that winning elections is subordinate to ensuring the highest standard for society, in that case the best material quality of life as enabled by a robust healthcare system. 

In this case, with the claim that we would be “playing politics with people’s right to vote,” we can understand the claim to be that winning elections is subordinate to ensuring there is a fair democratic process in which all citizens may vote on equal grounds. Formulated more generally, we can say that one is “playing politics” when they sacrifice more desirable structures and conditions so as to obtain political power. This presents us with two objections from the opposition. But in analyzing those objections to gerrymandering, we shall find that each of them is in fact self-defeating in their logic.

The first of these objections was made quite clearly, “I see a bunch of people over there who were saying we shouldn’t play politics with people’s lives.” Yet this suggestion of an inconsistency is entirely unfounded. Because it is due to the Republican majority that our healthcare discussion even happened. Or that we are faced with the legitimate fear of policies like an abortion ban. Thus if one’s foremost priority is harm reduction, then it is essential for Democrats to regain the House. Since Republicans have already decided to gerrymander states like Texas, North Carolina, and even New Hampshire, the only way it will even be possible for Democrats to regain a majority is by doing the same in California. Far from being inconsistent, it is clear to me that gerrymandering is obligated by the belief in prioritizing people’s immediate and material welfare.

This does not however address the second objection, that it would be “playing politics” with people’s vote. This is a trickier objection, requiring that we understand how exactly gerrymandering serves to undermine democracy. It does this by weakening the representation of the masses, by making politicians less subject to concerns of re-election. In the general election this is accomplished by the obvious fact of splitting up voters on the basis of partisanship. But this is true as well in primaries, as gerrymandering divides communities and mixes them in with others, thus creating a voting constituency which is too divided in their interests to cohesively make demands of even their own party’s elected officials.

As I said earlier, it is impossible to deny that gerrymandering is corrosive to democracy in this manner. But this is just as true for the lack of automatic voter registration, limited numbers of ballot boxes, restrictions to in-person election day voting, and so on. Those are not trite issues as we all know, nor is that list even remotely exhaustive of. One could consider the many ways beyond the direct weakening of people’s votes that we are denied anything resembling real democracy, the dictatorship of money in politics is without question. I say this not to engage in what-aboutism, but to stress that the questions of people’s vote and representation involves many issues of which gerrymandering is only one.

When we consider these issues of people’s democratic rights in totality, it becomes unclear why gerrymandering must be elevated over not just any single issue, but all others. Because even if one doesn’t trust Democrats to do as they have done at the state level and implement laws for fair districts, something we know Republicans never do at any level; we do know that they are better on all other issues. We know that Republicans will enact every measure of voter suppression possible, whilst Democrats have worked to expand them through endeavors like early voting and same day registration. Thus, much like our issue of healthcare, gerrymandering to elect Democrats over Republicans is currently obligated by the belief in protecting as many democratic interests as possible.

Buying Time for Democracy

This leaves us with one final pillar of the presented opposition to Democrat’s gerrymandering, that it further tarnishes the reputation of an already publicly disgraced party. Once more I have to say it entirely does, but in this case the caveat is not one which exonerates the decisions of our party leaders. I have explained the necessity of gerrymandering to keep Republicans out of power, none of that is changed by the damage which is done to the party’s legitimacy. But it reveals the precise purpose and limit of all this, which is to buy time. If the status quo does not change, if we do not produce a more democratic system which protects people’s standard of living, then sooner or later far right authoritarians will be handed the reins of power out of desperation for change.

We must use the time bought by gerrymandering to demand this change. To demand the leadership of democratic-socialists like Zohran Mamdani, who engage in a principled struggle to make affordable and tight-knit communities. To demand a system of proportional representation for elections, like STV, so that parties representing a wide range of voters' beliefs can be elected in proportion to their mass support. To demand an end to money in politics, so that politicians actions are determined by popular will. Finally, we must demand a more democratic constitution in which the people’s House is given the power to legislate in full accordance with the democratic will; not one which is constrained by an unelected court that considers corporations to be people with free speech rights.

It is impossible to say whether or not we shall succeed in this endeavor. But it is certainly the case that we shall fail if Republicans are able to entrench themselves in power forever through a gerrymandered House built on the annihilation of black voting rights, an undemocratically disproportionate Senate which favors their minority rule, and robed tyrants whose declare Donald Trump to be all powerful before the law. There is so much more to be done to avert all this, but Democratic gerrymandering is one of the bitter necessities. I do not relish this reality, but it is as I said that night, we simply do not have a choice.