# How could gerrymandered districts be un-gerrymandered? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 8, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391 "2012-11-08T19:08:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2012, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/101 "2012-11-23T03:54:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Run all of them and pick which result you use (uniformly) randomly. OK, then whichever side gets to choose “all of them” will load the deck with endless trivial variations of whichever algorithm benefits them most. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/102 "2012-11-26T14:09:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But would you want every district in this state to be 55% Democrats and 45% Republicans? Or would you want 55% of the districts to be all Democrats and 45% of the districts to be all Republicans? If the state was split 55/45 Dem, I would much rather have every district 55/45 Dem. That’s not too much of a handicap for a quality GOP representative to get elected, and conversely, the Dems had better put up a quality candidate to ensure that they hold onto the seat. By splitting them into 55% guaranteed Dem districts v. 45% guaranteed GOP win districts, you get lousy candidates on each side who win with a ridiculous percentage of the vote and little incentive for a challenge, no matter how bad (Charlie Rangel, Alcee Hastings, and yes, Ron Paul, I’m looking at you). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/103 "2012-11-26T16:29:26Z")
Of course, if we go to [proportional representation,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) that does an end-run around the whole gerrymandering problem, which becomes irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/104 "2012-11-26T17:50:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Of course, if we go to [proportional representation,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) that does an end-run around the whole gerrymandering problem, which becomes irrelevant. I would love proportional representation at the State level. The parties would hate it (cue the fracturing of their control, and the elimination of primaries). I assume the whole thing would require a Constitutional Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/105 "2012-11-27T01:02:03Z")
> [@](#): > > If the state was split 55/45 Dem, I would much rather have every district 55/45 Dem. That’s not too much of a handicap for a quality GOP representative to get elected, and conversely, the Dems had better put up a quality candidate to ensure that they hold onto the seat. It takes a heck of a lot of candidate quality to overcome a 10-point deficit. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/106 "2012-11-27T02:19:03Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > I would love proportional representation at the State level. The parties would hate it (cue the fracturing of their control, and the elimination of primaries). I assume the whole thing would require a Constitutional Amendment? At the very least a reversal by the Supreme Court. Now, it obviously wouldn’t work (for House elections) in states with only one or two seats. Conversely, I would divide large states (such as mine) into districts, just not necessarily as many districts as they have seats. Like, all of New York City should vote for a slate of House members together. All of Los Angeles. All of San Francisco. All of Chicago. It seems odd to say that my interests are totally different from those of people five blocks over in the next district. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/107 "2012-11-27T05:31:43Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > I would love proportional representation at the State level. The parties would hate it (cue the fracturing of their control, and the elimination of primaries). I assume the whole thing would require a Constitutional Amendment? At the state level, I presume in any state it would require an amendment to the state constitution. Federally, [maybe not.](http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/congress/lindf.htm) > [@](#): > > What would it take to install proportional representation for members of the House of Representatives? Nothing more than an act of Congress. No constitutional amendment is necessary. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” This gives Congress the power to preempt all state electoral laws and to mandate a system of multimember districts with proportional representation for electing members of the House of Representatives. > > Because the idea of PR is to give electoral representation not only to parties or candidates that win by slight pluralities or majorities but also to second-, third-, and fourth-place winners, it requires multimember districts. The best way to adapt PR to American conditions would be to consolidate present contiguous congressional districts into multimember districts with some manageable number of members–seven, say, or nine. The larger the number elected from a multimember district, the smaller the number of voters needed to elect at least one representative to the House. > > By promoting a close correspondence between groups of voters and groups represented in Congress, PR minimizes the waste of votes that occurs under our present system. For example, the same hypothetical voting population that, divided into nine single-member districts, now returns nine Democrats, each with a slight plurality in his district, might, if organized into a nine-member district with PR, send four Democrats, three Republicans, one Libertarian, and one Conservative to Congress–WITH THE SAME VOTES CAST. By the same token, Democrats who today waste their votes in largely Republican areas might be able to elect a minority of a consolidated multimember district’s congressional delegation. Many voters who today are resigned to never electing a congressman of their party or their philosophy, simply because they happen to belong to permanent electoral minorities in their local communities, would suddenly be able to help elect one or more representatives, without changing either their residence or their views. Written in 1992, BTw. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/108 "2012-11-27T07:52:37Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > If the state was split 55/45 Dem, I would much rather have every district 55/45 Dem. Yes. But what if the state is split 55/45 GOP? 🆒 > [@jtgain](#): > > By splitting them into 55% guaranteed Dem districts v. 45% guaranteed GOP win districts, you get lousy candidates on each side who win with a ridiculous percentage of the vote and little incentive for a challenge … It’s even worse than that. By now, for most of the Congressional races, _the real election is the primary_. This pushes candidates toward the extreme, since votes from the opposite party are irrelevant to them. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/109 "2012-11-27T15:40:48Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It takes a heck of a lot of candidate quality to overcome a 10-point deficit. Not really. Most voters aren’t straight ticket voters. They will readily cross parties to vote for a superior candidate. Say there are 20% moderates in each party, it is nearly a wash. > [@septimus](#): > > Yes. But what if the state is split 55/45 GOP? 🆒 Even better. 🙂 > [@septimus](#): > > It’s even worse than that. By now, for most of the Congressional races, _the real election is the primary_. This pushes candidates toward the extreme, since votes from the opposite party are irrelevant to them. Agreed. No way do some of these candidates even get nominated in competitive districts.. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/110 "2012-11-27T15:42:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It takes a heck of a lot of candidate quality to overcome a 10-point deficit. ETA: West Virginia’s party registration is 50 DEM/30 GOP/20 IND. Gop candidates routinely win here including Romney with 62% of the vote, the AG candidate, and a State Supreme Court justice. The House of Delegates is 54-46 DEM even with a 20 point advantage. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/111 "2013-11-13T18:02:12Z")
[Relevant new _Rolling Stone_article covering the Republicans’ nationally-organized and systematic gerrymandering since 2010.](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/112 "2013-11-13T19:03:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What’s the simplest and most achievable way to get rid of those snakelike monstrosity districts for good? > [@scr4](#): > > If that’s the main goal, we could switch to a proportional representation system. Got it in 7. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > My favorite solution is this: > > The majority party draws districts however they want, as long as population is distributed relatively equally (say, no more than a 5% variation in population between the most and least populous districts). Add up the length of all the borders in all the districts. > > The minority party then has two choices. Either they accept the district map as it is, or they submit an alternative map in which the total length of borders is at least 10% (or other significant number) less than the majority’s proposal. If they can submit such an alternative map, then the minority party’s map is the one that applies; otherwise, the majority map applies. > > Such a procedure not only allows for partisanship, it leverages partisanship to try to get the least gerrymandered maps possible. If the majority party does too much gerrymandering, they’ll not get to draw the final map; and if they go ridiculously overboard with gerrymandering, then they let the minority party submit a gerrymandered map of their own. > > Two modifications that might be worth discussing: > > 1. The majority party could choose whether to go first or second in the process. They really should have an advantage, after all, having received the most votes, and if it turns out that going second is advantageous, let them have it. > 2. The process doesn’t end at the second iteration. Instead, after the second map has been proposed, the other party gets another chance to beat it with a map of their own that improves by 10% on the last one, and so on, until both sides agree on a map. This “you cut the cake and I pick the peice” works fine if you don’t mind a perpetual two party system. There may be enough support in the bay area for a green party candidate but not enough to overcome conspiratorial gerrymanderign by both parties together. With that said, i like that systemin a gameshow sort of way. Name that tune? I can draw congressional districts in 1 million linear miles. I can do it in 900,000 linear miles. 810,000… > [@Terr](#): > > It’s actually pretty simple. You let the majority party or whoever the law requires make up district maps. Then you have a poll of 1000 randomly selected voters - you show them an outline of each district (you don’t show them the map, just a solid color outline) and ask them if it looks gerrymandered. If any district doesn’t pass this test (let’s say 66% polled have to agree it isn’t gerrymandered), the map goes back to revision. Rinse, repeat, until all districts pass. Does the minority party ever get any input? > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s not a dumb argument and it’s not (all) because of gerrymandering, and if you calculated the total vote percentage won by Republicans in US Senate races this year, it would be higher than the percentage of seats that they won. > > Think about it. Or if you’re math challenged, ask someone to help you. What if a 60% democrat 40% republican state sends 40% democrat 60% republicans to congress? > [@Terr](#): > > How exactly do you propose to elect 30 or 60 or 200 (depending on the state) legislators at-large using proportional representation? Is it the top 200 vote-getters? That ballot is going to be fun to look at. What will be the vote count for the 200th legislator - 0.1%? Now THAT’s representation. California has 55[?] congressmen. You make the candidates file in each county in which they wish to be considered (by getting some threshhold number of signatures in that county). That will limit the ballot to those people who thin k they have any votes to be gained in those counties. I suspect that the registration process would localize the candidates ballot access. > [@](#): > > Apart from the fact that campaigning in the whole state is orders of magnitude more expensive, for each candidate, than campaigning in his small district. Very few candidates (except those with an eye towards statewide office in the future) would compete statewide. > [@jtgain](#): > > Agreed. No way do some of these candidates even get nominated in competitive districts… I don’t mind whackadoodle candidates, i don’t even mind whackadoodle politicians. I mind when the deck is rigged so that the whackadoodle candidates become the favorites. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/113 "2013-11-13T21:03:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > California has 55[?] congressmen. You make the candidates file in each county in which they wish to be considered (by getting some threshhold number of signatures in that county). That will limit the ballot to those people who thin k they have any votes to be gained in those counties. I suspect that the registration process would localize the candidates ballot access. As someone born and raised and still living in California, I suspect that what would happen is, you would get 55 Democrats and 55 Republicans nominated in every county, and the smaller parties would end up fending for themselves. I have a feeling that a considerable number of people in every county would vote a straight party line ticket, so all 55 Democrats and 55 Republicans would “think they have any votes to gain” in even the smallest county. Of course, now you have the problem of everybody having a ballot with 200+ names on it (and instructions to vote for up to 55 of them). Then again, California is used to that - there were almost 200 names on the 2003 “replace Gray Davis as governor if he is recalled” ballot. You might as well have just one box per party on each ballot, and the party with the most votes gets all 55 seats. In fact, in order for it to be “true” proportional representation, that’s what you _should_ do, but the seats are distributed proportionally among the parties. I am not a fan of at-large representation, for one simple reason; you no longer have “your” representative in Congress. “Well, yes, we elected 55 Representatives from your party, but we thought it would be best if all of them came from southern California. We’ll get around to fixing the San Francisco area bridges and tunnels when we’re done with Los Angeles and San Diego…and Bakersfield…and Fresno…and Ontario…oh, and it will now be a crime to refer to a freeway by number without putting the word “The” in front if it.” ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/114 "2013-11-13T22:54:40Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > If you disagree with the principle of compact, geographically-based districts on the grounds that they might disenfranchise some minority group (by party or otherwise), it seems that you should be arguing for an entirely different system–at-large districts, multiple-representative districts, party list voting, proportional representation, something along those lines. So make a list of every voting age person in a state, and eliminate districting entirely. Say the state has a state senate of 50 people, open the polls to anybody who wants to be a representative. If they can get 5000 signers on a petition, they go onto the poll. If they can get enough people to vote for them, they are in the state senate - simply run the poll and take the top 50 winners. Same for federal level senate and congress. Screw districting. Make them have to deal with the whole state instead of a handpicked little area. Same for president - if you can get 25000 signatures on a petition, your name goes into the polls. Top 2 winners get to be president and vice president, no parties. Limit the advertising to 1 preset tv, radio and print commercial, it can be run 1ce per day per media outlet and no longer than 3 months pre-election. No phone calling. If they want to get out and knock on doors, or appear in shopping malls they can, but no further than 3 months in advance, and no electoral congress, straight voting. Once the polls are closed, whoever got the most people to vote wins. It would never work, too many people are vested in making money off the whole political circus. Pity. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/115 "2013-11-14T02:28:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Damuri Ajashi** : > > This “you cut the cake and I pick the peice” works fine if you don’t mind a perpetual two party system. There may be enough support in the bay area for a green party candidate but not enough to overcome conspiratorial gerrymanderign by both parties together. [The variant I favor](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15678865#post15678865) leaves the parties out of it entirely, and lets anyone have a voice who can get a single candidate elected. Which is still a barrier to entry, of course, but at the level of a state legislature it’s a surmountable one. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/116 "2013-11-14T03:46:03Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > [The variant I favor](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15678865#post15678865) leaves the parties out of it entirely . . . Bad idea. Parties are what make democracies sing and shout. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/117 "2013-11-14T15:18:59Z")
Well, I mean it officially leaves them out of it. Parties would still be involved as an emergent property, just like they emerged from a Constitution that didn’t mention them. In practice, I expect that the parties would probably do most of the work in developing the maps that the legislators would propose. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/118 "2013-11-15T05:18:11Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > As someone born and raised and still living in California, I suspect that what would happen is, you would get 55 Democrats and 55 Republicans nominated in every county, and the smaller parties would end up fending for themselves. I have a feeling that a considerable number of people in every county would vote a straight party line ticket, so all 55 Democrats and 55 Republicans would “think they have any votes to gain” in even the smallest county. > > Of course, now you have the problem of everybody having a ballot with 200+ names on it (and instructions to vote for up to 55 of them). Then again, California is used to that - there were almost 200 names on the 2003 “replace Gray Davis as governor if he is recalled” ballot. > > You might as well have just one box per party on each ballot, and the party with the most votes gets all 55 seats. In fact, in order for it to be “true” proportional representation, that’s what you _should_ do, but the seats are distributed proportionally among the parties. > > I am not a fan of at-large representation, for one simple reason; you no longer have “your” representative in Congress. “Well, yes, we elected 55 Representatives from your party, but we thought it would be best if all of them came from southern California. We’ll get around to fixing the San Francisco area bridges and tunnels when we’re done with Los Angeles and San Diego…and Bakersfield…and Fresno…and Ontario…oh, and it will now be a crime to refer to a freeway by number without putting the word “The” in front if it.” My notion was that everyone could vote for one and only one congressman. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/119 "2013-11-15T07:37:08Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > My notion was that everyone could vote for one and only one congressman. > > … ( You make the candidates file in each county in which they wish to be considered) Is your method used anywhere in the world? I’m afraid there’s much to find fault with in your proposal. I’d nominate it for worst proposal yet, except that that title goes, hands-down, to “assign voters to districts at random” (almost ensuring all representatives are of the same party). A well-organized group, e.g. NRA or perhaps Teabaggers, would arrange to maximize the number of seats they get in your system. For softer coalitions, e.g. non-doctrinaire libertarian or green, voters would tend to vote for “big names.” If a “big name” greenie gets three times as many votes as he needs, that’s two little greenies who _didn’t_ get elected. Greenies might counter by negotiating in advance so that “big name” registers only in a few counties. Even ignoring that then “big name” might not even get elected, this path leads to _more_ partisan “smoke-filled rooms”, not less. (I’ve elaborated the specific problem of an over-popular candidate in detail. Other flaws in the method are left as exercise.) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391/120 "2013-11-15T14:52:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > My notion was that everyone could vote for one and only one congressman. Think about it. A couple of big names will get 40% of the vote. Another few of smaller names - 20%. Next 10 - another 20%. You have 40 or so names left with 20% of the vote left for them. Some will get 2%. Some will get 0.1% - and will still be in top 55. Do you really want a congressman elected by 0.1% of the vote in his state? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-gerrymandered-districts-be-un-gerrymandered/640391.md?page=7)