Personal Democracy Plus Our premium content network. LEARN MORE You are not logged in. LOG IN NOW >

Commentary: Micah Altman on How Participatory Technology Is Changing Redistricting

BY Micah Altman | Wednesday, February 8 2012

Illustration: Shutterstock

Micah Altman is Senior Research Scientist, and Director of Data Archiving and Acquisition, in the Institute for Quantitative Social Science in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University; and Non-Resident Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution. He is also a principal investigator at the Public Mapping Project.
Here is Altman's response to Nick Judd's article, posted earlier this week, about participatory technology in redistricting.

Nick’s recent article, entitled "In Pursuit of a Tech Answer to Gerrymandering, Good-Government Groups Must Wait Another Ten Years," is full of interesting information on public participation in redistricting -- it makes a real effort to give examples both of how technology has catalyzed new and substantive participation, and of how it has had little apparent effect on the plans actually adopted by legislatures. Also, it provides gratifyingly positive coverage of DistrictBuilder.

It's a good article, even if its titular conclusion, that we'll have to wait another 10 years for any of this to matter, is wrong.

Nick's article begins with "advocates [of participative technology] were in for a lot of bad news". Not exactly. Participation is not binary -- it's true that full participation in redistricting will require institutional change. Technology alone will not force this change, but it will, and has, meaningfully increased participation.

What social scientists know, generally, is that participation takes many forms, and that it falls along a continuum. And as Michael McDonald and I have written elsewhere ("Technology for Public Participation in Redistricting"), public engagement with redistricting falls along a continuum: "At one end of the spectrum are receptive interest and a willingness to learn about the redistricting process. Although far from active participation, increasing interest is important because, currently, members of the U.S. public typically know little about redistricting. Farther along the participatory spectrum, active engagement can involve information seeking; and progress to active commentary on both the redistricting process and specific redistricting proposals. Farther still along the participatory spectrum are local commission-based redistricting institutions that incorporate public input extensively into the creation of boundaries."

Near the conclusion, Nick's articles states "This, in short, was not the year that technology and citizen input democratized redistricting." This is true, but few, if any, serious academics or reformers expected it would. What we hoped, instead, was that technology would offer a qualitatively different level of engagement in the redistricting process, and would produce a rich set of real alternatives that could be used by the public, the media, and the courts as a yardstick with which to compare the political plans that would inevitably be produced by the legislatures.

In this way, participative technology has succeeded beyond our expectations. The number of legally viable, publicly submitted plans has grown by a factor of a hundred since the last decade. These plans demonstrate a qualitative difference in public participation, and have produced many examples of better ways of redistricting.

Although the legislatures have dropped the ball (or, more accurately, turned their backs on the people-formerly-known-as-the-audience), it will not take another decade to see real political impact from this participation. Many redistricting plans will be litigated, and courts are clearly taking note both of the process and of the particular plans produced by the public. Furthermore, the redistricting process is just starting up in other countries, like Canada, and participative technology is going to play an increasingly important role internationally.

Redistricting has not been democratized, but it appears that in many states, the role of the public in redistricting is being transformed -- from passively complaining about the results after the fact, to actively engaging during the process. We hope that the public dialogue about redistricting will lead to future reform, including more opportunities for public involvement. The results have been that in substantial numbers 'real' people are, for the first time, creating legally viable, (and better) political districts. Regardless of what the legislature does, this is good for democracy.

News Briefs

RSS Feed thursday >

NY Study Shows How Freedom of Information Can Inform Open Data

On New York State's open data portal, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation has around 40 data resources of varying sizes, such as maps of lakes and ponds and rivers, bird conservation areas and hiking trails. But those datasets do not include several data resources that are most sought after by many New York businesses, a new study from advocacy group Reinvent Albany has found. Welcome to a little-discussed corner of so-called "open government"--while agencies often pay lip service to the cause, the data they actually release is sometimes nowhere close to what is most wanted. GO

Responding to Ferguson, Activists Organize #NMOS14 Vigils Across America In Just 4 Days

This evening peaceful crowds will gather at more than 90 locations around the country to honor the victims of police brutality, most recently the unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, on Saturday. A moment of silence will begin at 20 minutes past 7 p.m. (EST). The vigils are being organized almost entirely online by the writer and activist Feminista Jones (@FeministaJones), with help from others from around the country who have volunteered to coordinate a vigil in their communities. Organizing such a large event in only a few days is a challenge, but in addition to ironing out basic logistics, the National Moment of Silence (#NMOS14) organizers have had to deal with co-optation, misrepresentation, and Google Docs and Facebook pages that are, apparently, buckling under traffic.


wednesday >

NDI Launches Open Source DemTools for International Development

Yesterday the National Democratic Institute launched a suite of web-based applications created for their partner organizations, mostly pro-democracy groups and political parties around the world. These “DemTools,” which are ready-to-use but can also be customized, will give organizations in developing countries some of the capabilities that political activists and parties in the United States have had for years. Moreover, since the National Democratic Institute (NDI) is making the promise to host partner organization's applications in the cloud essentially forever, they hope these applications will help usher in a period of more sustainable tech.