
Rep. Don Beyer’s revolutionary bill could transform how we elect Congress - smacktoward
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/27/make-democracy-great-again-rep-don-beyers-revolutionary-bill-could-transform-how-we-elect-congress/
======
pc2g4d
The discussion seems to ignore that such a bill would (if I understand
correctly) be unconstitutional. States pick their representatives with little
federal control.

Were each state to adopt an independent approach to redistricting and a ranked
choice approach to each election, it would achieve essentially the same effect
as the proposal in the article.

Seems there should just be an open source library (libredistrict or something)
that implements standard redistricting algorithms. Each state could specify
which parameters to use, and there you go, a reproducible, auditable, fairer
redistricting strategy, out of the box.

[Googles...]

[http://autoredistrict.org/](http://autoredistrict.org/)

[http://www.districtbuilder.org/](http://www.districtbuilder.org/)

------
jmclnx
Just remove the limit of 435, increase it to the point were 300,000 people or
so per district. That is what was originally intended. If we end up with a
2000 member congress so be it. That would provide better representation and
make it very difficult to gerrymander.

While I am on a roll, peg there total salary including gifts and benefits to
the State average they are from. Salary to be paid by the state as opposed to
the federal gov.

~~~
dragonwriter
> If we end up with a 2000 member congress so be it. That would provide better
> representation and make it very difficult to gerrymander.

It wouldn't make it any more difficult to gerrymander (more districts, except
in the pathological edge case of 1 voter per district) makes it _easier_ to
gerrymander (and easier to do it with reasonably compact districts rather than
oddly shaped monstrosities they draw attention.)

You make it more difficult to gerrymander if you increase the number of seats
per district, not if you increase the number of districts.

It also (because of organizational dynamics that are not scale independent)
would reduce equality of effective representation, because it would increase
power inequality within the House.

