So, therefore, the 35-105 figure is a
figure which is quite defensible. Admittedly,
it is a compromise figure. The Committee
itself at one point tied ten to ten on a
House of 80, and a Senate of 40, and the
compromise of 35-105 was reached after
several hours of debate, but was reached
in the spirit of the democratic process.
Turning now to the question of one dele-
gate per delegate district, and one senator
per senate district, we will address our-
selves to that question which has created
the most commotion in Baltimore City.
The Committee recognized the fact that
prior to reapportionment Maryland had by
and large throughout its history, at least
from 1837 on, the single-member district
for the State Senate. The upper house had
always been throughout our modern history
a single-member district. The fact is change
was brought about by reapportionment,
and it would not be unfair to say that the
tradition of the single-member district in
the Senate was departed from somewhat
reluctantly in some areas. Maryland today
has a combination of both multi-member
and single-member districts.
At the present time, 39 bodies, that is
to say, either a House or Senate, in 26
states of the Union, use single-member dis-
tricts exclusively, so the idea of a single-
member district is not one which is new.
I think it is also interesting to note that
despite the arguments that are made about
the difficulty of using single-member dis-
tricts within a large urban area, New York
decided to continue the single-member dis-
trict for both houses of its state legis-
lature, despite the fact that it has within
its confines the largest city of the United
States.
Now, the arguments for a single-member
district are many, and I am just going to
outline them briefly.
First of all, it strengthens the two-party
system, because it is quite obvious that one
can have a large minority party in any
political subdivision, and yet as a result
of a sweep, 55-45 split between one party
and the other might well produce no repre-
sentatives from the minority party. For
example, in a political subdivision, which
was electing 8, 12 or 16 members to a
lower house, and was constituted with 55
per cent of one party and 45 per cent of
another, all the members of the majority
party might well win and none of the
members of the minority party, thereby
effectively removing the possibility of ade- |
quate minority representation, despite a
significant and large, but not majority
voter registration on the part of the mi-
nority party.
Committee Recommendation L-BI re-
duces the possibility of a clean sweep by
one party, and to that extent it strengthens
the two-party system.
Today the average voter who must in
certain sections of the state vote for eight
members of the lower house, may well be
acquainted with one, two, three or four,
but having exhausted those possibilities
and those connections, must then play the
alphabet game of voting for everybody
under the "A's" or may look for a name
which appeals to him, or may look for men
or women, as the case might be. The Com-
mittee felt that where one is forced to ad-
dress oneself to the question of voting for
multiple candidates, in reality these votes
are lost, particularly beyond the level of
personal acquaintanceship or knowledge of
the parties and that to the extent that the
fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth spot
on the ballot must be filled, it is often
filled by happenstance rather than inten-
tion on the part of the voter.
Under the single-district voter arrange-
ment, every voter in the state would have
but one senator and one delegate, so that
he would address himself, particularly in
the primary election, to selecting one of
each. In the general election, there would
be the typical head-on clash, between the
two major parties of the district, but one
would be in a position to know at all times
who his one senator was, and who his one
delegate was, so that there would be no
evasion of responsibility, one would know
who to call upon for constituent services,
and one could evaluate and know how ones
senator or ones delegate voted.
There is greater visibility, and greater
responsibility placed upon the shoulders of
those who serve in a single member district
arrangement in both House and Senate
than there is in those areas where you can
get lost as one among eight or one among
four, five, six, or seven. This high visi-
bility, this greater sense of responsibility,
this greater opportunity for public scru-
tiny, the Committee felt, I might say, by
a vote of 15 to 5, would provide a better
Senate and a better House and a better
kind of representation for the people of
Maryland.
Of course, one of the happy by-products
of using the single-member district would
be cutting down on the long ballot. |
