That seems like a catch 22. In order to elect people that represent us we need to fix the system (e.g. by fixing redistricting), but in order to fix the system we need to elect people that represent us.
For that reason, I don't think that the government really represents us in any meaningful way.
> That seems like a catch 22. In order to elect people that represent us we need to fix the system (e.g. by fixing redistricting), but in order to fix the system we need to elect people that represent us.
>For that reason, I don't think that the government really represents us in any meaningful way.
There are lots of ways to "fix" the system. Currently 21 states have non-partisan or bi-partisan redistricting regimes[0], so it's certainly possible to do so, either via a state ballot measure[1] (26 states have those) or a legislative process.
Obviously, states without ballot measures are a hard sell, especially in state legislatures that have strong majorities of one of the major parties.
But like I said, "the government is us." And that means voting, and not just in presidential election years -- since elections are regulated on the state and county levels.
Which means two things:
1. Your vote in local/state elections not only gives your vote more weight, it's also easier to change both our representatives and the laws they pass than in Federal elections;
2. A smaller electorate (for mayor, county executive, state assemblyperson/senator) that not only votes, but makes their opinions and ideas clear as to the sort of government they favor can have a strong impact on how elections (including Federal elections and redistricting) are planned and executed in their state.
That voter turnout for general elections in presidential election years is usually around 55-60%[2] (although this year was a bit higher), but primary turnout is generally significantly lower.
In non-presidential election years, turnout is generally much lower, even though local and state elections generally have a much bigger effect on governance in states and localities.
As such, if you want change in your government, it's easier than you think because state and local elections are the ones where most of the change we need would come.
What's more, most people would agree that fairer redistricting and a smaller but still huge number would agree that reducing the influence of money in elections (via public funding, shortening the time for campaigns, etc.) are important to the health of our political system and (small 'd') democracy.
If you just throw up your hands and say why bother? "I don't think that the government really represents us in any meaningful way," you're not making things better -- by not voting or advocating for positive change, you're implicitly endorsing the status quo.
If you aren't clear as to how that could work, here are a few resources:
Learn about Ranked Choice Voting. A dozen states and localities have/are about to implement it. It can give more voices a real chance and help to break the stranglehold of the two major parties:
For that reason, I don't think that the government really represents us in any meaningful way.