Heavy lies the crown.
There’s a good chance you’ve heard that one before.
Having authority doesn’t come with strings attached. It comes with barbells.
We have a responsibility to use our leverage both effectively and ethically. But we must devote time and attention to make this happen. And such commitments can be a drag.
So, we try and delegate. We add proxies to do our bidding on our behalf.
It makes sense on the surface. And yet, we must wonder if such attempts are futile?
Have you ever taken a close look at a map of America?
It’s a strange sight.
States in the interior west look like blocks of a brick wall, dwarfing the size of their cousins back east. Maine protrudes into Maritime Canada. West Virginia resembles a misplaced shopping bag. And California looks like a banana.
There’s little uniformity to the boundaries of our 50 states. And yet, with some context, the divergent shapes make more sense.
Those tasked with defining these borders had to contend with topography — mountains, rivers, and lakes. The timing and circumstances of our nation’s expansion also played a part in how the map looks today
So yes, the story of our state map is a cogent narrative. You just need to think critically to find it.
By contrast, if you stare at a congressional district map, you might go cross-eyed.
Districts dot the map from coast to coast, without any sense of uniformity. Indeed, the map resembles a summer afternoon in Florida, with sunshine blanketing one side of the street and torrential downpours on the other.
What’s the rationale behind these strange boundaries?
It’s simple. They’re the expression of unchecked power.
To explain why that is, let’s brush up on some civics.
The United States Constitution states that an accurate count of everyone in the nation must be taken every 10 years. We know this decade-marking exercise as the Census.
Census data is used for many purposes, but the Constitution stipulates one in particular — apportioning Congressional delegates.
The numbers from the Census show how many seats each state can have in the House of Representatives. This ensures populous states — such as Florida or Texas — have more representation in the chamber than such less-populated states as Montana and Vermont.
This mechanism follows common sense. While the Senate allows two representatives per state, the House is meant to hold a more proportional voice. But the process of tying population to representation is only effective if the numbers are kept up to date.
And yet, the Constitution gives no guidance as to how these congressional seats are doled out. That process is left up to each state.
Our nation’s founders likely expected states to be prudent at executing this task. Yet, instead of coming up with something intuitive, many states make their maps resemble a game of Tetris.
You see, the map-drawing process — known as redistricting— normally falls to state legislatures. And that means the political party in control has influence over the results.
Politicians drawing the maps want to see members of their party inside the United States Capitol. So, they create districts that are more likely to drive that outcome.
Areas with lots of voters from their political party are split geographically into as many districts as possible. And wellsprings of support for the opposing party are clumped into a minority of districts.
Equity and common sense go out the window in a process like this. Preserving power is the only consideration.
Opponents of redistricting bias haven’t always gone quietly.
Back in 2003, dozens of Texas House members fled to Oklahoma to stall what they considered a flawed redistricting process. And more recently, the U.S. Congress has proposed legislation to address the issue.
Such tactics have largely been unsuccessful. But even if they had worked, victory would have been fleeting.
For restoring the ethics of redistricting only scratches the surface. The real issue lies at the root.
Yes, the idea of power by proxy itself is the issue here. The notion of representative democracy, while noble, is fatally flawed.
Such an arrangement emerged out of both necessity and convenience. Smarting from the injustices of monarchical rule, the founders of our fledgling nation decided to make our government by the people. But giving everyone a seat at the table was not practical. And so, the founders settled on proxy representation.
And therein lies the rub.
You see, proxies work best when they put the needs of their constituents first. For instance, parents and legal guardians tend to choose what’s in the best interest of their children.
But when the connection is less direct, proxies can go off the reservation. It’s human nature.
Politicians aren’t serving out of the kindness of their hearts. They have ambitions to satisfy.
And with such goals in mind, staying in power becomes their prime concern. The needs and wants of the electorate are barely more than an afterthought.
This is how we end up with ever more polarized political parties. This is what spawns partisan redistricting fights. And this is what ultimately leads to a democracy that’s representative in name alone.
What’s left for the rest of us?
This is a question I’ve long grappled with when it comes to representation.
At first, this seems like an odd inquiry. I am a White man. Our democracy has long been looking out for my needs, sometimes at the detriment of others.
But when it comes to ideology, I’m in the middle of the road. I’m neither far to the left, nor radically on the right. I believe in the importance of compromise and tradeoffs.
Across America, there are tens of millions of people like me. And yet, we have no one to stand for us in our representative democracy.
Moderate ideologies and commitments to compromise are not winning strategies on Capitol Hill — or in any statehouse. The ruthless ambition needed to maintain power tends to come from the fringes.
As such, politics tends to attract those with more radical viewpoints. Fundraising comes from hyper-partisan special interest groups. And the political parties themselves diverge more and more from common ground.
Sometimes an outsider shakes up the establishment. But that outsider is generally even more radical than either of the splintered factions it positions itself against.
Add it all up, and centrists like me are left out in the cold.
We have no seat at the table. Our “representative” democracy fails to represent us at all.
It’s a tragic consequence of power by proxy.
So, how do we get out of this conundrum?
How can we make power more representative?
Throwing out our existing system is not the answer. If we consolidate power, we open the door to authoritarian regimes. And if we disperse it, we only find ourselves with more voices to shout over.
Punishing proxies for their ambition is not the answer either. Without the incentive, fewer will serve in that role.
No, the best we can do is to demand more guardrails. The best we can do is to leverage peer pressure to keep proxies in line. The best we can do is speak up to ensure our voices are not silenced.
This process is not pretty, and it’s not particularly comfortable. But in an imperfect world with imperfect systems, it’s precisely what’s needed.
Power by proxy can be effective. But it’s on us to make it so.
Are you equal to the task?