There are over 33,000 ZCTA’sin the US with a population range of 0 to ~114,000. I don’t think that will work.
There is no way - repeat, no way - to draw equal districts in a place as geographically large and with such an uneven population distribution as the US. If you choose to go by equal population, some districts would be tiny and others would be impossibly large. If you choose to go by equal geography, some districts would have nearly no people while others would have 100’s of thousands. There will always be Gerrymandering, it’s just a question of who it benefits most at the time (the party in power when the districts are drawn- surprise!).
The only way to do that would be at the federal level, and there’s no way the states would give up the right to determine their own voting districts. (Especially the red ones.)
As it is, less than a quarter of states have independent commissions (although if you don’t count states with a single district, it’s more like 30%).
It’s not up to the states to give it up. Congress can just take it. The states only have the authority to draw congressional districts by virtue of Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution delegating that power to them (it’s not an inherent power protected by the 10th Amendment). That section also provides that “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” Once that happens, the supremacy clause kicks in and the states can’t do anything about it.
(I think this could be dangerous, because you could also see a differently-motivated Congress abolish the independent commissions that do exist already.)
And who elects/appoints these commissions? In the end, the party in power at the time.
Also, please define “fair” as it relates to electoral districts. There is no way at a state or federal level that each district have the same demographics as the state or country as a whole. It get difficult in many counties and larger cities as well.
The commission could be mandated to be made up of 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans (perhaps from the state legislature, for example), or something similar. And in the case the commission can’t agree on a map by the deadline, they could all be docked in pay (along with the entire legislature). Something like a $20K bonus to everyone in the state house unless the commission doesn’t finish their work, perhaps.
Why is the US so completely opposed to the idea of proportional representation? Is it because Americans don’t like to admit that they are voting for a party rather than individuals? (But if that’s the case, why is there a “straight ticket” tick box on my ballots??)
The first part of your post may be a start, or it may be just a way to ensure eternal deadlock. I lean toward the latter. The second part will never, never, never fly. And I never say never.
Have you ever looked at the voter turnout numbers in the US? It takes at most a few hours and the cost of bus fare to vote, much less than that for many people, and yet we still can’t convince more than about half of the eligible population to do it. Convince about 10% more people to spend that minimal time and effort, and we could overcome even the worst gerrymandering. And that would be a heck of a lot easier than to convince a comparable number of people to take a step as drastic as moving.
You realize these redistricting commissions already exist right? I’m not talking about growing a unicorn. The ones that are out there have the majority leader and minority leader both assign an equal number to the committee and then a couple of people from neither party get chosen. Both Arizona and California for example have these bipartisan/independent redistricting commissions.
And the goal can’t be to get exactly the same demographics in each district - just to get districts to be a reasonable chunk of people in a compact piece of land. Arguing that it wouldn’t be perfect doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better than the current system.
Wanted to add: contrary to iiandyiii’s suggestion, a number of the ones I looked at specifically exclude sitting legislators from being on the commission.
And where exactly do you find people who are engaged in the political process but not a member of either party? Such a commission will inevitably consist of people who are part of a party and say so, and people who are part of a party but pretend that they’re not.
Where the “bipartisan” or “neutral” commissions have worked, it’s because the law constrains their choices of maps in significant ways, and once you have those significant constraints on the map-drawing, it doesn’t matter who’s actually doing it, and it could just as well be the legislators themselves.
Each state is different as far as selecting commission members (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission), but in general there are protections against partisanship. Doesn’t mean those systems can’t be gamed, but you’re never going to be able to eliminate nefariousness completely.
As far as fair is concerned, I’d settle for districts that aren’t so clearly tortuously drawn as these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Examples_of_gerrymandered_districts. Demographics are generally a reason to keep it on the state level, unless you’re interested in adding even more to the bureaucracy in DC.
While members of a commission may be members of one party or the other, it does not have to follow that they are partisan. We all played sandlot ball as kids and there was always one guy that both sides trusted to act as umpire, even though he was a member of one team or another.
If we can’t find four or five members of each party in any given state who can, despite their membership in one party or another, be trusted to act impartially in drawing up district lines, then we’re in bigger trouble than I thought.
And deadlocks are resolved by…? The legislature? The courts? The Governor?
Bolding mine.
I’m just arguing that the bolded part requires, by definition, Gerrymandering. We have many threads here railing against Gerrymandering, but what they really mean is “doing it in a way that hurts my interest/party/candidate”.
One I saw, deadlock decided by the courts. Another had them settled by a Commission on Appelate Judge Selection. Never the legislature as that would obviously be contravening the whole point. Sometimes the neutral member was a non-voting chairman. There’s a few flavours out there
I think your cynicism is clouding your opinion a bit too much. It is possible to make reasonably shaped districts following natural borders or neighborhoods.There’ll always be some jostling for advantage but an independent commission can prevent the more egregious examples of gerrymandering.
(and no, the bolded part does not require “by definition” gerrymandering. It is the opposite.)
Doctor Jackson wrote: "but what they really mean is “doing it in a way that hurts my interest/party/candidate”. "
I think that the people arguing for another system are doing so from a standpoint that “hurting my side” can also result in loss of faith in the system as a whole if said “hurt” is disproportionate to what would occur under a “fairer” system.
While many of the gerrymandering “activists” are Democrats, they’re not arguing for a system that would favor Democrats, merely to end one which favors Republicans.