Why DC needs more Republicans

Just got back from a conference on voting. I learned a few things. First, I learned that I don't learn nearly as much from public presentations as from conversations and reading papers. Presenting technical material using bullet points is a complete waste of time. I learned that being at (name of institution) really is ideal for me, because the standard methods of academic political theorists are still too Chicago School Wannabee for my tastes. I learned that there there is no such thing as a gerrymander-proof district in a democracy (conclusion: do away with the frigging districts already). I got to meet Dr. NS of Saint Louis, MO, who is a pretty fun guy, and actually did seem capable of learning from bullet-pointed lists of equations. Finally, I was reminded of how DC is fucked.

Why DC is fucked DC has three electors in the Electoral college (3 out of 538 members=0.56%), making it basically irrelevant. One elector even abstained in 2000, in protest of the fact that DC gets a full 0% of Congressional seats. Where other state license plates have mottos like `the Show-me state' or `Ski Utah!', DC license plates say, `Taxation without representation'.

But beyond that, there's another fact that puts DC in a much, much worse position in terms of getting the ear of the politicians: it's solidly Democrat. Here are the votes cast in DC for the 2000 election (FEC source):
Gore: 171,923
Bush: 18,073
Nader: 10,576
So Bush would need about another 80,000 votes before anybody took him seriously in DC. This means Republicans aren't gonna waste limited resources making concessions, and that Democrats, knowing Republicans will make no efforts, won't make any efforts either. DC is punished for its loyalty by being ignored by all parties.

In fact, the Democratic party has so little respect for DC that it doesn't even recognize its primary. DC, in return, is OK with this, and will still be solidly Democrat in 2004.

Part of the problem is that DC is mostly a city of urban Black people---the most solidly Democrat group out there. Blacks need to learn from Hispanics, who have shown a strong willingness to vote for the Devil. In return, Hispanics get endless concessions from both parties such as those I discussed on 10 January. Similarly, DC needs to learn from New Hampsire, which is a very centrist state, and therefore gets loads of concessions from the Democratic party, such as going first in the primary cycle (which translates to agenda-setting power, which translates to a real effect on people's lives).

[One thing DC can do (and has begun doing) is attempting to get white suburban types to move in to the city. These White folk are more willing to vote Republican, allowing DC to look more centrist, and weakening the equation between DC and politically exiled urban Blacks. But this is a rather cynical way to go.]

The more direct yet more uncomfortable conclusion is that more urban Blacks and more DC residents need to tell the pollsters that they're willing to vote Republican. I'd like to think that a liberal third party would do the trick, but Nader got half as many votes as Bush, even after every research assistant between Capitol Hill and Dupont Circle voted for Nader. Google says: ``Your search - "african-americans for nader" - did not match any documents.'' The only real threat to Democrats are Republicans, so a vote switched to a third party (-1 for the Dems) is half as threatening as a vote switched to Republican (-1 Dems, +1 Reps). Support for a third party could conceivably allow DC and urban Blacks to gain attention, but that support is not forthcoming, the third parties don't have the resources to bring that support about on a sufficient scale, and it's not as effective as the strategy of demonstrating Republican support.

So there you have it. More analysis with queasy results from your pal Ben: until DC and Black Americans in general start showing some support for Republicans, they're fucked from both sides.