
The Absolute Gerrymandering Fix - ChicagoDave
https://medium.com/@david_cornelson/the-absolute-gerrymandering-fix-3931d0a6c4f7
======
Armisael16
>I did some quick research and have found no evidence that creating districts
is a legally binding action.

He ought to do more research, then, because in 1967 Congress put this in the
US Code:

>In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent
Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment
made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be
established by law a number of districts equal to the number of
Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall
be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than
one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one
Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its
Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-
first Congress).

~~~
ChicagoDave
I should amend my posting. There is no constitutional requirement for
districts. Remove that one law and states could enact alternate voting
methods.

------
jhayward
At-large representation ends up with majoritarian exclusivity, which is why it
isn't used by anyone who values minority civil rights. As an example, the city
of Austin recently went from an at-large city council to one elected by
districts.

District representation has its down sides, gerrymandering being one of them,
but the alternative is 'tyranny of the majority' or, at best, "gentlemen's
agreements" that leave certain seats available for minorities.

------
luxuryballs
unless I'm reading this wrong the obvious flaw is that a very populated city
would potentially overrule the entire rest of the state just by having more
people, that's exactly the reason the districts are used, so that the rural
communities and less populated areas get a representative

~~~
ChicagoDave
Did I not account for that? Candidates of all parties can present any number
of candidates. People in rural areas would still have a choice. In Illinois,
it wouldn't just be Chicago liberals voting. There are conservatives in the
whole state. They would elect their share of representatives.

My design may not balance everything, but adding to it could resolve those
issues. Redistricting, in its current form, will always be hyper-political and
abused. There has to be a way to take that out of the equation.

My number one comment is that "districting" is not a constitutional guarantee.
If the current system is broken, as it so clearly is, why not look at
alternatives?

~~~
landric
Not trying to be a jerk, but calling it "[your] design" is a strong
characterization. It's called proportional representation, and used in
(...quick Wikipedia check...) 87 countries around the world already. Not
saying it's a bad idea. It's just not a new one.

One downside to PR is that you lose the sense of having "my representative" in
Congress. When an Illinoisian (to use your article's example) disagrees with a
policy, who do you call? Each of the 18 representatives on the two party
lists? Maybe.

(and yes, I would concede that with extreme gerrymandering, the geographic
sense of "my representative" is also dead in lots of places now... though at
least you have a person to call and hold accountable)

An alternative -- that was recently passed by voter referendum in Maine -- is
the Single Transferrable Ballot (or ranked voting), which retains single-
member districts, and opens the door for greater than two parties, even with
voters choosing strategically.

~~~
ChicagoDave
I honestly came to this idea on my own. That it actually exists is cool.

