譯/陳韋廷
美最高院挺選區自劃 一黨壟斷風險升
At some point or another over the last decade, Democrats have won the most votes but lost national elections for the presidency, the House and the Senate.
過去10年當中，美國民主黨曾經拿下最多的選票，卻仍然在全國性的總統、眾議院和參議院選舉中落敗。
Partisan gerrymandering is just one of the reasons the Democrats are at such a disadvantage. But the Supreme Court's decision on gerrymandering last month came as long-term political and demographic trends threaten to put Democrats at an even greater disadvantage in the Senate and perhaps also the presidency.
政黨不公正劃分選區只是民主黨處於如此劣勢的原因之一，但最高法院上月針對選區劃分問題做出裁決，卻正值長期政治、人口趨勢可能使民主黨在參議院甚至總統職位上處於更大劣勢之際。
It's even possible to imagine a future in which Republicans could effectively claim a monopoly on federal power despite continued weakness in the national vote.
這甚至可讓人想到未來一種可能的情況，亦即共和黨雖然全國得票數較低，卻仍能實際上壟斷聯邦權力。
Sustained minority rule — within the bounds of the Constitution — is not an imminent peril. After all, Democrats recaptured the House in November despite partisan gerrymandering. But the risk is real, and even if it does not materialize it might strain American democracy.
在憲法範圍內持續的少數統治並非立即的危險。畢竟，民主黨在去年11月奪回了眾議院，未受政黨不公正劃分選區影響，但這種風險是真實存在的，而且即使未成為事實也可能給美國的民主帶來壓力。
So on one hand, the ruling — which said federal courts can't bar partisan gerrymandering — merely preserves the status quo. But it also closes off one way, arguably the easiest way, that the risk of minority rule might have been reduced.
因此，這項認為聯邦法院不得禁止政黨不公正劃分選區的裁定，一方面只是維持了現狀，另一方面卻也封堵了降低少數統治風險的一條道路，而且可以說是最簡易的那條道路。
Over the last few decades, American politics has become increasingly polarized along geographic lines. Cities now overwhelmingly back Democrats; the countryside increasingly backs Republicans, although by less lopsided margins.
過去幾十年，美國的政治沿地理界線而日益兩極化。當前，城市壓倒性支持民主黨，鄉間則日益支持共和黨，儘管沒那麼一面倒。
This kind of polarization strains representative democracies with winner-take-all voting systems, since even modest alternations in district or state lines can produce very different results.
這種兩極分化會讓贏者全拿的選舉制度給代議民主帶來壓力，因為即便是選區或州界的微調，也會產生非常不同的結果。
These biases can be unintentional. Democrats, for instance, lost the 2016 election by the margin of the Florida Panhandle and Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and the 2000 election by the margin of the Panhandle. It's an accident of 19th-century history that these regions did not end up being part of Alabama and Wisconsin instead.
這些偏差並非有意造成，例如在2016年大選中，民主黨在佛州狹長地帶跟密西根州上半島落後而敗選，2000年大選中又在佛州狹長地帶落後而落敗，而這些地區沒有成為阿拉巴馬州跟威斯康辛州的一部分，卻緣於19世紀歷史上的一場意外。
But even more consequential shifts can result from the intentional manipulation of district lines for partisan gain.
但為了政黨利益故意操縱選區界線，卻可能帶來更重大的轉變。
Either party can benefit from partisan gerrymandering. But Republicans generally have an easier time of it than Democrats, who waste millions of votes by winning lopsided margins in urban districts that pad their popular vote tallies without yielding additional seats. The GOP, in contrast, wastes fewer votes in the countryside, where Republicans generally win by smaller margins.
兩個政黨均能從不公正劃分選區獲益，但共和黨通常比民主黨來得省事，而後者在城市地區得票數壓倒性獲勝，卻未獲得更多席次，浪費了數百萬張選票。相較之下，共和黨在鄉下浪費的選票較少，常以比較小差距勝出。
There is no guarantee that this bias will persist. If Republicans keep gaining in rural areas and Democrats keep gaining in the suburbs, Republicans might find themselves at an underlying disadvantage in the House.
此一偏差無法保證會持續下去。若共和黨在農村地區繼續成長，民主黨在郊區繼續成長，共和黨可能會發現自己在眾議院處於潛在的不利地位。
說文解字看新聞
gerrymandering是新聞英文常見單字，指出於政治考量不公平地劃分選區界線，而贏者全拿則是美國48州所實施勝選者囊括所有選舉人團（electoral college）選票的制度，少數統治即為該制度最為人詬病之處，至於多數的英文則為majority，多數黨就是majority party，多數黨領袖為majority leader，多數政府則為majority government。
polarization則描述對某一事物具不同觀點者相互對立的情形，衍生自動詞polarize（使兩極化），另lopsided意指「偏向一方的、一面倒的」，同義字有one-sided、partial及partisan等字，而modest alternation在文中意譯為「微調」，其中alternation意指「變更、改變」。
另外，文中出現多次的片語win/lose by...margins表示「以...差距勝出/落敗」，又倒數第二段俚語have an easy time of it則指「處於有利或優勢地位」的意思。
沒有留言:
張貼留言