The Fair Way

The Bible is very clear about one thing. Using politics to create fairness is a sin.

~P. J. O’Rourke

There is a debate going on in America about fairness when it comes to designing a system by which winners are chosen. It is an obsession for some people, myself included. If you think I am referring to the ongoing dispute over gerrymandering congressional districts you would be wrong initially. I will deal with that later. I am, of course, talking about how the PGA Tour determines its champion, the recipient of the FedEx Cup.

Since it’s inception in 2005, PGA officials, with input from players and fans, have continuously tweaked the system in search of a structure that defined the honor and maximized fan interest. Promoted as a “season long” pursuit of the FedEx cup, the original design involved an accumulation of points accrued during each and every PGA Tour sanctioned tournament. At the end of the season, the Tour held four playoff events for which the point totals were reset, giving players who had good seasons a chance to make up ground at the end of the year. To no one’s surprise, the inaugural cup went to Tiger Woods who amassed the most points during the regular season and won two of the four playoff events.

It took one additional year for the worse possible scenario to play out. Vijay Singh’s performance throughout the first three playoff events assured his winning the cup without having to play in the final tournament. Think of it as a baseball team with such dominant wins in the division and conference rounds they are awarded the World Series trophy without having to take the field. To address a recurrence in future years, the Tour made two changes. First, they decreased the advantage in the point system during the first three events to discourage players from skipping a tournament. Second, retention of one’s “tour card,” which automatically qualifies a player’s entry into any PGA Tour event the subsequent year, depended on his being in the top 125 at the end of the playoffs. In other words, there was now more at stake than just winning the FedEx Cup.

The next tweak came in 2019 when the importance of the playoff events under the revised system appeared to diminish the value of an overall good year and success in the first three playoff events. In response, the Tour instituted the equivalent of a “handicap” system where the player with the most points going into the Tour Championship, the final playoff event, started 10 strokes under par (-10) while other players started anywhere from -8 to -0 depending on their ranking. That too raised concerns. A player who started 10 strokes behind the leader had little if any chance of winning the cup. And since all 30 players who qualified for the Tour Championship already secured their tour card, their presence on the course was mostly an afterthought.

Which brings us to this year’s playoffs for which the handicap system has been eliminated. Whoever wins the Tour Championship, being played in Atlanta on August 21-24 will be declared the “Tour Champion” and take home the cup and the $15 million first prize. Though the new system again diminishes performance prior to the final event, most of the players are fine with it. Even defending FedEx winner Scottie Scheffler, who dominated play this year, supports the new format (below).

I didn’t love the previous format of starting strokes, and I really like the direction where we’re going. I think the TOUR Championship is going to be difficult to qualify for. Making the TOUR Championship is truly going to be the results from a great body of work over the course of a season, and then you have an opportunity to win the TOUR Championship and the FedExCup.

Will this be the last revision? It may depend on who wins the cup this year. In the past, the cup winner has also been voted “Player of the Year” by his peers to the point where the two have become somewhat synonymous. But there will likely be players among the 30 at the Tour Championship who have won no other tournament this year. Will a player with one victory deserve the title of “PGA Tour Champion” over a player with two major championships (PGA and British Open) and the unprecedented accomplishment of finishing in the top 10 in 11 straight tournaments. Regardless, the PGA Tour advisory committee deserves credit for continually challenging the status quo in order the find the most “fair way” to determine their champion.

Which brings me back to the debate over mid-census redistricting and gerrymandering. In contrast to the above discussion, this is not tweaking the “system.” This is manipulating it, a practice that goes back to 1812 when then Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill that created an inexplicably shaped partisan district in Boston which resembled a salamander. HISTORICAL NOTE: As you probably guessed, the term “gerrymander” is a portmanteau of the governor’s last name and reptile-like configuration of this first effort at partisan redistricting.

While it took the PGA Tour 24 months to realize that their playoff system needed re-thinking, the United States has operated a flawed system of congressional redistricting ripe with opportunities for partisan manipulation for 213 years. The only significant revision during that period is the creation of redistricting commissions made up of non-politicians in eight of the 50 states. The first congressional attempt to address this issue under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution was introduction of the “Redistricting Reform Act of 2021,” which would have required each state to establish an independent redistricting commission. The proposal was introduced on August 6, 2021 and received a second reading the following day. END OF STORY.

Too bad Congress refuses to take seriously its constitutional authority which reads:

With this authority it could go much farther than the 2021 legislative proposal. May I suggest the following provisions for a “Redistricting Reform Act of 2025.”

• Each state shall establish a non-partisan redistricting commission whose primary function is to implement the provisions of this act.
• State redistricting commissions can only revise the district maps within 12 months of the official results of a national census authorized under the Constitution.
• The population of a congressional district must be within 10 percent of the total U.S. population divided by 435. (approximately 800,000 following the 2020 census)
• To the extent possible, any jurisdiction (city, county, parish or similar designation) with a population equal to 10 percent above or below the average size of a congressional district shall be designated as its own congressional district.
• In jurisdictions where the population is a multiple of the average, that jurisdiction shall have a number of congressional districts equal to said multiple with boundaries to be determined by the independent state commission.
• In jurisdictions with less than the average population, the boundaries of districts shall include contiguous jurisdictions with an aggregate population of 10 percent above or below the average. The specific contiguous jurisdictions will be determined by the independent state commission.
• Where the population distribution makes it impossible to follow the above guidelines (e.g. a jurisdiction with more than the average population but less than enough for a second district), the independent state commission may designate a district made up of a portion of the population of a jurisdiction combined with the total population of one or more contiguous jurisdictions.

I have no doubt this proposal, in practice, will uncover unanticipated anomalies that will require future attention. But to leave a flawed system intact for 213 years is unacceptable. To complete the metaphor between Congress and the PGA Tour, the current situation is akin to the way Donald Trump plays golf. The GOP’s scorecard may look impressive, but how many times when they are guilty of errant shots do they ask one of their own to conveniently drop a ball in a more advantageous position?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP