Northam saga and root causes

Around 1:45pm Tuesday afternoon, I was alerted to the now infamous Tweet by RPV chair Jeff Frederick. Within minutes, I was informed that the Democrat in question was none other than my own senator, Ralph Northam. Much has been written throughout the blogosphere about how the situation with Northam arose. (The Virginian Pilot has their version of the story here, although it seems to be missing a few pieces.) It is easy is to point the fingers at the various players. What is hard is to get to the root of why the conditions existed in the first place.

Those of you who read this blog regularly know that Northam was a candidate that I and many others worked very hard to elect. Let me remind you, though, what he said when he, along with three other freshman – Democrat John Miller and Republicans Richard H. Stuart and Jill Vogel – formed the Commonwealth Caucus:

As a pediatric neurologist, Northam has cared for many needy children and their families. “Patients have never asked me whether I am a Democrat or a Republican, nor have I asked them,” he said.  “I will apply this same philosophy to issues including judges, redistricting, the Chesapeake Bay, and the environment. We can change the process for the betterment of the Commonwealth.”

At the time I made this comment:

Northam is my representative and his quote above is pretty much what he said on the campaign trail in 2007. Both Northam and Miller, whose campaign I closely followed, won in tough districts that previously had Republican representation. I think everyone understands the type of Democrat that was necessary in order to win these districts.

I believe the root cause of Tuesday’s maelstrom can be summed up in one word: redistricting.

Every ten years, the party in charge draws the lines for the General Assembly districts, along with the Congressional Districts – lines drawn with maintaining the party’s majority being the top consideration. As the result, the last election before redistricting becomes a rallying point for the party in the minority. The 2007 Senate elections were no exception (and the 2009 House elections will be the same) as Democrats sought to obtain a majority. Our next redistricting will take place in 2011, after the 2010 Census.

When the districts have been drawn by Republicans, in order to win those districts the candidates have to be small d Democrats. Likewise, when the districts have been drawn by Democrats,  the Republican candidate must be a small r Republican.  It would seem, then, that there would be a pull towards the center. But that’s not what happens.

Due to the crazy amount of money involved in running a campaign, the successful candidate ultimately becomes beholden to the people who helped him/her get elected. Fellow Rs show up for fundraisers. Fellow Ds send out appeals using their own email lists. Getting lost – always, it seems – are the voters.

Call me naive but it seems that with nonpartisan – or, at least, bipartisan – redistricting, there would be less emphasis on party and more emphasis on positions.  With the lines drawn according to the redistricting principles (from the Iowa model: population equality; compactness; contiguity; avoiding splits of political subdivisions and precincts; preserving communities of interest; preserving the basic shape of existing districts;  political fairness or competitiveness; and voter convenience and effective administration of elections) we would almost always have competitive elections and, most importantly, the people would choose their representatives instead of the other way around.

And situations, such as what we saw Tuesday, would also be less likely to occur.

~

Another point that was raised in a conversation that I had on Tuesday was also a valid root cause, but only when viewed through the lens of partisanship. Northam has never served in the minority and, while he has an inkling of what it may be like, has no direct experience. Given his propensity for bipartisanship, the proposed power sharing arrangement, had it come to pass, would be in line with his thinking. Of course, Paul Krugman would disagree with him. As would, I suspect, Governor Kaine.