In any state where ballot measures are allowed, the people could put up a measure that would redraw the districts by computer, as currently happens in Iowa. Unfortunately there’s no powerful and organized group with a strong motivation to put such measures forward, while the two major parties would generally oppose such things.
We could cut this whole knot if we adopted proportional representation. And it would not disenfranchise minorities, either.
Just a data-point:
During the Recent Unpleasantness, opinions of Congress and the GOP in particular have plummeted to new depths. Sam Wang of Princeton Election Consortium has been considering evidence that opinion of Republicans is actually worse in the gerrymandered districts. His theory is that gerrymandering, as it’s set up at the moment, packs firm Democrats into a few solid districts and then spreads firm Republican districts around the rest of the state. This usually results in Republicans winning a lot of tight races by narrow margins. But, his theory goes, there aren’t nearly enough solid Republicans in any area to make those districts as firmly Red as the Blue areas a firmly blue. Wnag argues that in truth those districts are a mix of Pubbies and Independents. Hence, at a time when people are more than usually united in their anger at congress, there aren’t enough loyal Republicans to offset the angry Republicans & the angry Independents together.
In short: Wang argues that while gerrymandering might provide some advantages, it also perhaps provides unexpected vulnerabilities.
http://election.princeton.edu/2013/10/09/partisan-gerrymanderings-hidden-burden/
http://election.princeton.edu/2013/10/10/a-prediction-for-2014-house-elections-take-1/
Wang is also arguing that the effects of the current levels of anger at congress will last probably about six months - unless congress does something else to piss us off in the meantime. So, you know.
http://election.princeton.edu/2013/10/17/how-long-will-the-shutdowns-effect-on-opinion-last/
Gerrymandering can only be ended by Democrats, who are not hyper-partisan on the whole like Republicans.
That’s interesting; it’s like picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. Sounds like the smart course for the Dems would be to run relatively conservative or moderate candidates in these sorts of districts and clean up…if, as he notes, voters stay angry.
Actually, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved two constitutional measures (pushed by Democrats) that require nonpartisan redistricting procedures. Less surprisingly, the Republican governor/soul-leecher and Republican-controlled legislature have been blocking their implementation for going on five years.
That would have the side effect of giving 10% of the state’s legislative power to a candidate who receives 95% of the vote, and 90% of its legislative power to the remaining 9 who combined receive only 5% of the vote.
Lots of people (including BrainGlutton above) point to proportional representation as a better way of doing things, which seems to emphasize parties over individuals.
That’s a fair point. But if you’re the 95% candidate, you’d be well-advised to ask 18 friends also to run for office, and to coordinate your supporters to vote for the entire cohort somehow (e.g., via direct mail).
A candidate getting 95% of the vote is extremely unlikely. On the other hand it gives non-Dem/Rep parties a chance to win a seat.
Personally, my solution is more or less a marriage of these two ideas. Have a state-wide election, and the top n vote-getters (where n is the number seats the state gets) all get seats. Their voting power is then normalized over the total votes they all received together.
For example, let’s say we’re in a state with 4 seats. Alice gets 30% of the vote, Bob gets 25%, Chris gets 20% and Dave gets 15%, and the last 0% are others, then Alice gets 1.33 votes, Bob gets 1.11, Chris gets 0.89 and Dave gets 0.67. It may need a bit of tweaking to put maximums and minimums for large states, but that’s the basic idea.
This would address several issues. First, no districting, so no gerrymandering. Because they get proportionalized votes, candidates that have broad appeal will get more support and more power and those that have limited appeal will get less support and less power. In that same way, it encourages politicians to continue to aim for more approval because with each election their power will change based upon their level of approval, not just getting the plurality of votes in their district.
It also has the advantage of representing people who otherwise wouldn’t be. For example now, even if I live in a district drawn in a non-biased manner, if I’m a supporter of a candidate that didn’t win, I’m effectively unrepresented. With state-wide proportional representation, I’m much more likely to get a candidate I supported in congress.
Similarly, this would be a boon to third parties. Here in Virginia, I often see a fair amount of votes for Libertarian candidates, but inevitably all the representatives are Democrats or Republicans. With this proposal, being able to pool those votes together across the state, we’d still probably have mostly Republican and Democratic representatives, but chances are that a statewide Libertarian candidate could get enough votes to at least be one of our seats, particularly since I often hear justification along the lines of “I would vote for so-and-so, but that’s just throwing my vote away”. It no longer would be, at least not in sufficiently large states. Certainly, in the largest states like California, Texas, and New York, we’d see a ton of minority voices.
This may not be an optimal solution, but I do think it would do a lot to at least fix the gerrymandering and get more minority voices heard. Hopefully, it would even encourage people to vote for who they believe is the greatest good rather than the lesser of two evils. Maybe then, we’d end up with less of this polarization.
Interesting, but I’m not sure why this is necessary. Do congressional districts have to be physically contiguous? People who live on various islands get lumped in with other island and mainland populations, after all.
Well . . . Dems are guilty of the practice too, just less so than Pubs.
At any rate, that’s not a likely solution. Gerrymandering can only be ended by Democrats if they take power in the red states.
“Bi-partisan”? What about the third party, the New Democrats? Are they represented?
I disagree. If you have two Congressmen available for the Hopi and Navajo people, why is it a better result for the Hopi to elect a congressman who will fight to the death against the Navajo and vice versa?
Wouldn’t it be better to draw the district so that you have two congressmen that, in order to get elected, must listen to the voices of both groups of people?
Instead of, for example, having Maxine Waters and Michelle Bachmann spewing bullshit and cancelling each other out on every vote, wouldn’t it be better to have two reasonable people who understand other groups of people bringing their respective knowledge together and maybe voting on the same side some times?
Huh?
Look, I’m a Democrat, so I’m happy when they do well. But I have to be realistic. When they have the power, they are just as capable of maneuvering things to their advantage as the Republicans.
Look at California state politics, especially in the 80s and early 90s, and the way that Assembly Speaker (and later San Francisco Mayor) Willie Brown got his way. Probably his masterstroke was when he mangaged to regain his speakership in 1995 even after the Republicans took control. (He made a deal with two Republican defectors). As one columnist put it, “He’s the real Slick Willie.”
Actually, they’re the second party: the NDP is the Official Opposition.
The commissions are appointed by the Speaker of the House, which in the Canadian system is an impartial office, not the leader of the majority party, as in the US.
There are three members: a superior court judge as chair, and two other members. By custom, they are not meant to be partisan, but at the same time, I believe that the Speaker consults with the Government and Opposition to make sure the possible nominees are acceptable.
Since the current set of commissions were appointed in 2012, after the 2011 election where the NDP became the Opposition, the consultations would have been with the Conservatives and the NDP.
Even if our scrupulous Canucks chose the bi-partisan model, here in to antipodes, we go the full monty:
Australia Electoral Commision - redistributions overview
Timing of redistributions
A redistribution is necessary when:
•the number of members in the House of Representatives to which a State or Territory is entitled has changed.
•the number of electors in more than one third of the divisions in a State or one of the divisions in the ACT or Northern Territory deviates from the average divisional enrolment by over 10% for a period of more than two months
•a period of seven years has elapsed since the previous redistribution.
The redistribution process
A redistribution is undertaken by a committee consisting of the Electoral Commissioner, the Australian Electoral Officer for the State concerned, the State Surveyor-General and the State Auditor-General.
As soon as possible after the redistribution process commences, the Electoral Commissioner invites public suggestions on the redistribution which must be lodged within 30 days. A further period of 14 days is allowed for comments on the suggestions lodged.
The Redistribution Committee then divides the State or Territory into divisions and publishes its proposed redistribution.
A period of 28 days is allowed after publication of the proposed redistribution for written objections. A further period of 14 days is provided for comments on the objections lodged. These objections are considered by an augmented Electoral Commission consisting of the four members of the Redistribution Committee and the two part-time members of the Electoral Commission.
At the time of the redistribution the number of electors in the divisions may vary up to 10% from the ‘quota’ or average divisional figure, and at the projection time, usually 3.5 years after the expected completion of the redistribution, the figures should not vary from the average projected quota by more or less than 3.5%. The augmented Electoral Commission publishes its decision and reasons in a report.
The Parliament has no power to reject or amend the final determination of the augmented Electoral Commission.
Fornicate the Canadians! This nation was born with a proud tradition of gerrymandering and, by God, we will continue that to the bitter end! Where do you think the word comes from? And the twice-damned Canadians are not the sweet innocents they claim to be. From Wikipedia because it’s bedtime and I don’t feel like following Wikipedia’s links and look like I did some original research:
If you’re really committed to a district-drawing system that eliminates affinity-based outcomes, I came up with one nearly a year ago.
Nobody really liked it very much. 
At-large voting would create more problems than it solves.
If you give people multiple votes, then you effectively prevent minorities from wielding political power so long as they have sufficiently distinct political interests (see, e.g, the whole history of at-large elections in this country).
If you give people one vote, then you end up with either intense tactical voting that perversely benefits the bloc most able to coordinate its votes, or candidates who represent extreme groups being elected.
We can lessen gerrymandering without abolishing districts. Just make political gerrymandering illegal. It’s not illegal now. It would be much harder to do if it were illegal (and it would also make even more pernicious gerrymandering, like racial gerrymandering, much harder to accomplish).