I think the cure will be finding out that you can die by the gerrymander as well as live by it. The Republican model is to concentrate Democrats in few districts where they will win by wide margins and carve the other districts carefully so that Republicans win more districts but by smaller margins. That works- until your party shits their own bed, as Republicans have been doing since 2010. When your carefully planned 55-45 districts all of a sudden se a 5 point swing, then gerrymandering doesn’t look so smart.
I think that accusations of gerrymandering get thrown about a bit more often than they’re actually warranted. Urban areas tend to vote heavily Democrat, while suburban and rural areas go Republican, but less heavily. So you get a third of your seats (those in the city) going 90% D, and the rest going 60-40 R. Just naturally, based on relatively compact districts. And like you said, when the GOP starts to go out of favor overall, those suburban districts might suddenly start voting for Democrats. That’s not to say that gerrymandering doesn’t happen (it does), or that this is desirable (I think it’s not), but there’s not necessarily malice involved in all lopsided victories.
The solution? Proportional representation, but good luck getting anyone to consider that.
I can see two problems with this off the top of my head.
First, in larger counties, what does a party do if it wants to run two or more candidates? How do you tell some people to vote for Candidate A and others to vote for Candidate B?
Second, if it’s one candidate per party per county, you may shut out the smaller counties entirely. In the 2012 Presidential election, 3,181,067 people in Los Angeles County voted. Even if a party’s candidate got only 1% of the vote, that’s still more than any candidate could possibly get in 22 other counties. You might end up with a lot of fringe candidates from the larger counties, but is that what you want?
I think the closest that anyone can get to proportional representation without disenfranchising a sizable number of people is Single Transferrable Vote (aka “what the Oscars use to determine Best Picture” or “how the site for the next Olympics is chosen” - rank all of the candidates; if nobody has a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and those ballots re-ranked based on the highest vote among those candidates still remaining; repeat until somebody has a majority, even if it comes down to two candidates).
A reasonable solution … but to problems completely different than that being discussed in this thread.
You describe a way for a single district to select a single representative. In the thread concern is that the district boundaries were unfair to start with. The problem can be avoided with larger districts each selecting multiple representatives but your scheme, without major modification, is useless then.
If political parties were weaker your scheme might have some merit. Often there are three candidates in a U.S. district: a Democrat, a sentient Republican, and a Teabagger. In the present system the sentient Republican loses in the primary but might win the general election, in your system, if allowed to compete.
You mean like the way Australia votes for Senators? Each state has 12 Senators, and 6 are up for re-election every 3 years; everybody ranks all of the candidates (and yes, the large parties put up 6 candidates in each state), and they use the Single Transferrable Vote method with a modification - when somebody gets enough votes to guarantee being elected (1 plus (1 divided by (1 plus the remaining number of seats to fill))), their ballots are treated as if they had the fewest number of votes, except that each ballot is now worth only a fraction of a vote (I think it’s the difference between how many votes they got and how many they needed, divided by the total). Yes, it does get complicated.
To make voting a little easier, each voter has an option; instead of ranking all of the candidates, they simply vote for a party. Each party submits its own ordering of the candidates, and that is what is used for that ballot. Here is a list of the party orderings for Australia’s 2013 election for the state of Victoria (which includes Melbourne). A lot of the smaller parties make deals with each other so that if a smaller party candidate is eliminated, those votes go to another small party. Something like four fringe parties had Senators elected (including Nick Xenophon of “the Nick Xenophon Group party” in South Australia.
Unless Proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will.
Why is that a problem? It’s similar to running the primary and the general election together: the party doesn’t get to rank the candidates, the voters do.
Tyranny of the Moronity is not something we need to scheme against. If a political party is dumb enough to put up a group of statewide at-large candidates from the same city then they will inevitably get the the electoral rout they deserve. Opponents just need to appeal to people that city on the basis of ideology and the rest of the state on the basis that the first party obviously doesn’t care about them. There’s no reason to fear situations no real political party would ever get themselves into.
Also what is so special about location? My neighbor is a nice old guy but he has the ignorant worldview you would expect of a viewer of FOX News. BrainGlutton lives six states away but he is far more representative of my beliefs.
Ah, wonderful system, voting for individual candidates. I bet all the independents who voted for Dubya because they’d rather have sat down and drunk a beer with him than John Kerry feel really good about it. Except for that strong aftertaste of wasted billions and needlessly dead American soldiers. How’s that beer sitting with ya now, indies?
Let’s say that no candidate is on the ballot in more than one county. You will end up with some counties that, in effect, elect two Representatives. If the Democrats run D1 and D2 and the Republicans run R1 and R2, and the county votes 60% Democrat, but they all vote for D1 while the Republicans vote for R1 and R2 equally, then each party gets a seat instead of the Democrats winning both of them had their voters split between D1 and D2 as well.
Of course, in that case, the Republicans realize that they can’t possibly win both seats, so they only run one candidate and concede the other seat to the Democrats.
I still think the system used for the Australian Senate is better in this situation than “one person, one vote, first-55-past-the-post.”
I’m glad that someone else understands that parts of the VRA have unintended consequences that actually end up hurting minorities rather than helping them.
Thanks, lance, for quoting F-P’s idiotic nonsense from a year ago that he probably read on Redstate or some other bullshit website and mindlessly vomited onto this forum. I really needed to read that post again.
No, it wouldn’t. The states choose how to elect their representatives to Congress.
It’s not nonsense at all. It’s quite true.
P.S. As I said, it’s quite true. Here’s a good article about it showing the link. Note that it’s not from Redstate. Also, I don’t know about him or you, but I’m a moderate/liberal.
Actually, Congress does:
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4:
U.S Code Title 2, Chapter 2(c):
Until further notice, any method of choosing Representatives other than “one per district” is illegal.
On the other hand, Congress has no say in deciding how each state’s Presidential electors are chosen.
Not an amendment, but a law passed by Congress that would replace the law quoted above with one that allows for proportional or other “at large” systems.
I think. I seem to recall that the Supreme Court once ruled that at-large systems were Unconstitutional somehow, in which case it would take an amendment to the Constitution.
A quibble: that says the states choose, unless Congress chooses to override the states.
But you’re right - Congress has done so in the law you cited. I forgot about that. It would require a change to this federal law first.
It would NOT require a constitutional amendment, though, which is what I was responding to.
Well, the court probably ruled that a simple winner-take-all at-large election is unconstitutional, simply because it disenfranchises the minority. But that’s the problem we’re trying to fix with districts. A proportional representation election wouldn’t have that effect, so it might pass muster.
Missed the edit window:
After reading up on this, I think the “unconstitutionality of at-large Congressional districts” applies only to where physical and at-large districts exist in the same state simultaneously; I don’t think it has been tested by any state with more than one Representative trying to have all of them elected at-large.
Of course, as I said above, first the law that requires one-Representative districts has to be changed by Congress.
Even if the law was changed and a state did try to have 100% at-large districts, it might violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in that it would make it much harder in some states to elect minority candidates.
Not if it was a proportional representation system. That would make it much easier for minorities to win.
Even in a Southern state where you would expect the whites to overwhelmingly vote in white candidates? Or is this not as much of a problem as it used to be?