ISSN 1062-7421
Vol. 11 No. 10 (October 2001) pp. 483-486.


FAIR AND EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION?: DEBATING ELECTORAL REFORM AND MINORITY RIGHTS by Mark E. Rush and Richard L. Engstrom. Lanham (MD): Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001. 189 pp. Cloth $60.00. ISBN: 0-8476-9211-6. Paper $16.95. ISBN: 0-8476-9212-4.

Reviewed by Samuel B. Hoff, Department of History, Political Science, and Philosophy, Delaware State University.

This text is the fifth in the "Enduring Questions in American Political Life Series" series, which features topics presented in a debate-oriented format together with pertinent documents. Other books in the series have examined the Electoral College, the role of religion, the two party system, and the presidential nomination process. The present topic evaluates the proposal to revise the American electoral system in order to provide more opportunities for minority participation.

Richard L. Engstrom opens the controversy by contending that,"[e]lectoral systems such as limited, cumulative, and preference voting can reduce the political conflict and litigation that currently result from revising district lines and bring us closer to the goal of ... " fair representation (p. 6). He initially covers the consequences of
reapportionment, including potential adverse effects for incumbent legislators, partisan conflicts between groups of lawmakers, and how redistricting impacts on minorities.

The attempts to create majority-minority districts so as to adhere to the Voting Rights Act and its amendments are extensively discussed. Engstrom delineates how U. S. Supreme Court rulings in two cases dealing with such districts have clouded rather than clarified traditional districting criteria of contiguity, compactness, political subdivisions, and communities of interest.

As a solution to perpetual disagreements arising from the winner-take-all nature of American elections, Engstrom suggests considering alternative arrangements such as the modified multiseat systems of limited, cumulative, and preference voting. Whereas the limited voting procedures allows citizens to cast a number of votes less than the number of seats to be filled, cumulative voting permits selecting a number equal to the seats being contested while removing the restriction of one vote per candidate. Preference voting--otherwise referred to as choice voting or the single transferable vote--allows a rank ordering of candidates.

Engstrom defends the aforementioned alternatives against arguments asserting their fallibility For instance, he utilizes results from exit polls to reject the claim that cumulative voting is too complex to be understood. Further, he dismisses as hyperbole the worry about how multiseat systems may negatively influence political parties. He finds no empirical evidence to verify the perceived expectation that alternative electoral systems will perpetuate greater racial polarization. Finally, he states that more diffuse electoral

Page 484 begins here

opportunities promoted by multiseat systems will not discourage coalition building or lead to ethnic divisions.

Mark E. Rush believes that proposals, such as those touted by Engstrom," are too narrow and too broad at the same time. On the one hand, they focus on perceived defects in specific aspects of an immense, complex constitutional system and political process. On the other, they hope to deliver a new and improved democratic process essentially by tinkering with what amounts to a lone widget in that broad constitutional and political system" (p. 71). He is concerned with the costs of reforms and that there will be critics of any electoral system adopted.

Rush reviews the list of shortcomings which supporters of proportional representation systems lodge against the current American electoral setup. These points encompass the ill effects of gerrymandering, the lack of issue-oriented campaigns, the discriminatory impact of the two party system, and the low turnout in U.S. elections. He addresses each of the assertions above. Though recognizing past contentiousness associated with gerrymandering, Rush reveals that single member plurality electoral systems actually counteract the at-large voting method. He claims that any system can be manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. Second, Rush employs the examples of Great Britain and Canada as nations possessing more ideologically coherent political parties than the United States despite also utilizing single member plurality systems. Third, though democracy is spreading around the world, election turnout is concomitantly declining, meaning that the
contemporary American trend is not unique.


Rush holds that there are other drawbacks of proportional representation. For one, he notes that while the latter system may lessen wasted votes, any election that results in some candidates not elected fosters wasted votes as well. Further, he asserts that whereas minority rights advocates seek to prevent dilution of voting influence, supporters of proportional representation are more concerned with maintaining majority rule. Finally, though characterizing Engstrom's alternative electoral system proposals as somewhere between American and European representation procedures, Rush states that juxtaposing such mechanisms onto the U. S.
constitutional system will not meet objectives "unless we also implement other, fundamental changes to the structure of the government and the rules by which politics and elections are conducted" (p. 81).

Following their respective presentation of positions, Engstrom and Rush include excerpts of nine U. S. Supreme Court decisions that depict developing voting rights jurisprudence. The authors recognize a contradiction in rulings pertaining to this topic: that while the Court insists individuals be treated fairly, a strict color-blind approach will adversely impact certain political groups. The cases selected are Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Wright v. Rockefeller (1964), United Jewish Organization of Williamsburgh v. Carey (1975), City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980), Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), Shaw v. Reno (1993), Holder v. Hall (1994), and Bush v. Vera (1996).

Several recently published books similarly deal with the issue of minorities and voting rights. David A. Bositis's (1998) edited book contains chapters analyzing the effects of redistricting on black and Hispanic populations in the 1990s. J. Morgan

Page 485 begins here

Kousser (1999) examines the milestones of the "Second Reconstruction" period, from 1954 to 1994, when he believes that Congress, interest groups, and the
courts improved federal protections for minority rights. He then offers case studies of attempts to deny minority representation in two cities and three states together with a critique of Supreme Court rulings emanating from the latter controversies. David T. Canon's (1999) study taps empirical methods and personal interviews with members of Congress and their staff in order to illustrate the advantages of majority-minority districts. His findings contradict complaints from Caucasian citizens that they are displaced by such electoral arrangements. The most recent book on redistricting as it relates to minority voting rights is by Mark S. Monmonier (2001). He describes how the George Bush's White House supported majority-minority districts under the assumption that they would dilute Democratic influence in other areas. Though this strategy produced some Republican gains, it also augmented minority representation in Congress. Employing a plethora of maps, Monmonier
explains reapportionment scenarios and their consequences.

The Rush-Engstrom offering is a valuable contribution to the literature on minority voting rights. Obviously seeking to convince readers of their respective positions, both writers cite statistics showing the extent to which their preferred election systems are being utilized. Both authors integrate many Supreme Court decisions found at the end of the book into their essays, along with a few which are not excerpted (Miller v. Johnson, 1995; Shaw v. Hunt, 1996). However, Rush explores the philosophical foundation of concepts such as majority rule, representative government, and the public interest in a way not found in Engstrom's essay. The combination of tradition, present laws and a general reluctance to revise election system components probably makes Rush's arguments more convincing if not more
comprehensive than those of Engstrom.

Public officials, advocacy groups, and citizens alike should read this book as the post-2000 reapportionment process unfolds. It provides resources to evaluate past trends, contemporary procedures, and future possibilities. The question of fair and effective representation has been with us since the creation of the republic and will continue beyond the current maelstrom over majority-minority districts.

REFERENCES:

Bositis, David A. 1998. REDISTRICTING AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Canon, David T. 1999. RACE, REDISTRICTING, AND REPRESENTATION: THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF BLACK MAJORITY DISTRICTS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kousser, J. Morgan. 1999. COLORBLIND INJUSTICE: MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS AND THE UNDOING OF THE SECOND RECONSTRUCTION. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Monmonier, Mark S. 2001. BUSHMANDERS AND BULLWINKLES: HOW POLITICIANS MANIPULATE ELECTRONIC MAPS AND CENSUS DATA TO WIN ELECTIONS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Page 486 begins here

CASE REFERENCES:

Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 1996.

City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980).

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).

Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994).

Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996).

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).

Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).

United Jewish Organization of Williamsburgh v. Carey, 423 U.S. 945 (1975).

Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52 (1964).

****************************************************************

Copyright 2001 by the author, Samuel B. Hoff.