The Economist

In praise of Iowa: The only democratic part of the United States
October 17, 2002

This newspaper has doubts about Iowa. It is too empty. And every four years presidential candidates file to its caucuses to be blackmailed by dour farmers into supporting their ethanol subsidy--as foul a piece of political pork as you will find. It is no great surprise that this year's monstrous farm bill was largely the work of Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa.

Yet, in one respect, Iowa towers above the rest of America like a silo above the cornfields: democracy. This year, America should be set for a close election. The Republicans have an 11-seat advantage in the House, the Democrats a precarious one-seat advantage in the Senate, and there are plenty of governorships up for grabs. The polls showed the Democrats ahead in the summer, when the economy was the main subject; now, thanks to Iraq, the Republicans are just in front.

And how will this "50:50 country" emerge at the hustings? There will indeed be close races in the statewide contests--ie, those for the Senate and the governors' mansions. But in the biggest forum of American democracy--the House of Representatives--no more than 20 of the 435 races look competitive. In any other evenly divided country's lower house, one in every five members of parliament, deputies or assemblymen would be a nervous wreck by this stage; in America, only one in 20 congressmen needs to think about an alternative career.

The reason is redistricting, the rejigging of district boundaries to take account of demographic changes. In most countries, this is done by independent bureaucrats. In virtually every American state it is done by state politicians--and, boy, does it show. The parties "gerrymander" districts to cram supporters into absurdly shaped districts: doughnuts, embryos, crabs, Rorschach tests.

Usually, the ruling party cheats. In Florida, which the latest presidential election indicated was an evenly divided state, the ruling Republicans have produced 17 Republican seats and eight Democratic ones. More often, the two parties cut deals to protect incumbents. Ten of the Florida seats are so safe that the candidates are running unopposed. The only competitive seat in the whole of California is that occupied by the disgraced Gary Condit, who is now retiring.

The law does nothing to stop this. Indeed, the Voting Rights Act, which encourages majority-minority districts, provides an excellent excuse for cheating. Illinois's bizarre sandwich-like fourth district, which consists of two unconnected slivers, exists purely to gather up Democratic Latinos. And new software is allowing the parties to be even more precise about their cheating. Given all the other advantages that incumbents have, in terms of name-recognition, money-raising powers and the ability (like Mr Harkin) to bring home pork, this makes for a travesty of democracy.

There are coincidental exceptions to this rule: seven states are so sparsely populated that they have only one House seat each. Five other states have bipartisan commissions, sometimes with a neutral tie-breaker. But the noblest exception is Iowa: it has handed redistricting over to an independent bureau that is not allowed to take political considerations such as voting patterns and party registration into account when drawing boundaries. As a result, four of its five seats have competitive races--more than California, New York, Texas and Illinois combined can muster. The citizens of Arizona recently voted by referendum to adopt a similar system to Iowa's.

No method of redistricting is perfect, but the Iowan way is better than the rest. Forget the jokes about silos. Maybe it is time to tow the Statue of Liberty to Des Moines.