Feb. 10--Late in his speech this afternoon to the Illinois General Assembly in Springfield, President Barack Obama said this:
So much of our politics now is just designed for short term, tactical gain. You know, if you think that adding more voters will hurt you on election day then, suddenly, you're not interested in (increased votter) participation. And if you think that the gerrymander is helping you instead of hurting you, then you are not for those proposals
We get trapped in these things. We know better. If we were setting up a set of rules ahead of time, and you didn't know where you stood, which party you're going to be in -- you didn't have all the data and the poll numbers to tell you what's going to give you an edge or not -- you'd set up a system that was fair. You'd encourage everyone to be part of it. That's what we learned in our civics books. That's how it should work.
Those who have studied political philosophy are likely to recognize the allusion to the Original Position -- also called "the veil of ignorance" -- most famously explained and advocated by the late philosopher John Rawls.
Rawls asks us to imagine a set of laws and moral principles that would shape our vision of the ideal society. But there's a catch.
The person who peforms this thought experiment must imagine that he doesn't know "his place in society, his class position or social status," wrote Rawls in his 1971 book "A Theory of Justice." "Nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like."
In the Original Position behind the veil of igorance, there is no such thing as self-interest -- no cleverly tilting the rules to fit people like you and to disadvantage people not like you.
For example, and to the topics that led into Obama's Rawlsian wheeze, ballot access and political mapmaking.
What sort of policies and procedures for voting -- registration, access to polls and so on -- would you implement if you had no way of knowing whether your ideas would help or hurt those who share your political views?
How would want legislative maps drawn if you didn't know whether the method you chose would help or hurt the interests of your party?
When you have no self interest at stake -- if you have to imagine that tomorrow you might be be rich or poor, black or white, male or female, healthy or sickly, religious or unchurched, Republican or Democrat and so on -- you are exquisitely motivated to be fair.
Many years ago I reformulated this idea as the Platinum Rule: "Do unto others as though you might be them."
The name didn't catch on, exactly, but the principle has particular salience now in the debate over legislative mapmaking in Illinois.
As part of his "Turnaround Agenda," Gov. Bruce Rauner wants to take the power to draw state legislative districts out of the hands of partisan politicians and put it in the hands of a non-partisan commission.
Democrats, who drew the current map and therefore are considerably advantaged by its contours, tend to resist this initiative, which would't have any impact on the composition of the legislature until the election of 2022 at the earliest, since maps are based on the decennial U.S. Census.
But the veil of ignorance here is more than theoretical because, by 2022, it's possible that the Democrats will have lost the right to control the map-making process.
Under the current system -- as outlined in Article IV, Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution -- the General Assembly is tasked with drawing the new maps every 10 years in the year following the Census.
But when the GA is split, with one party in control in one chamber and the other in control in the other chamber, and can't agree on a compromise map, or if a united legislature is unable to override the veto of a governor from the other party, "a Legislative Redistricting Commission shall be constituted ...(comprising) of eight members, no more than four of whom shall be members of the same political party."
And if that group is stalemated, a ninth, tie-breaking member is added by random draw to the commission. The winning party then gets to draw the maps.
Democrats won just a drawing 1981 and 2001, but Republicans won in 1991 (after a map veto by Gov. Jim Edgar) and given the volatility of politics in Illinois, they might have a shot at winning in 2021.
Yes, Democrats currently hold a 71-47 advantage in the 118-seat House and a 39-20 advantage in the 59-seat Senate, but with modest pickups in each of the next three statewide legislative elections, the majority party could become the majority in at least one chamber by the time the next maps are made.
And of course there's a decent chance that the governor in 2021 will be a Republican.
If so, and if the Democrats then lose the random drawing and find themselves at the mercy of no-doubt vengeful Republican mapmakers, for a decade, they'll truly understand the wisdom of the Obama-Rawls mandate.
There are reasons why these so-called "fair maps" aren't panaceas. As I pointed out in a Nov. 5 column, political scientists who've studied the matter have found no connection between the elimination of gerrymandering and more responsible budgeting, improved business climates, diminished influence of special interests or less polarized, smoother functioning legislative bodies.
Note, for example, that the U.S. Senate, which elects members by state and is not subject to cynically drawn political maps, is just as polarized as the U.S. House, where districts are drawn into absurd shapes to protect incumbents and party interests.
But the idea polls very well and may be enacted no matter what the Democratic leadership wants. Independent Maps, bi-partisan coalition, needs to collect a little more than 290,000 valid petition signatures by May to put a "fair maps" constituational amendment on the November ballot. They recently reported having "just under 500,000 signatures" on their way, they hope to at least 600,000 signatures.
Acceeding to a public vote on this question would be a great way for the Democrats to:
1. Give Rauner a concession in order not to look too stubborn as the broader negotiation proceeds.
2. Live up to the ideals of democracy
3. Illustrate the wisdom of the Platinum Rule.
.jpg?w=600)
