Whereas partisan redistricting has substantially reduced the number of “swing” districts;
Whereas this has led to radicalization of “safe” districts;
Whereas radicalization has led to members of Congress being unwilling to compromise on issues as well as being batshit crazy;
It is hereby resolved that the SMDB needs to push for an amendment to the Constitution to require non-partisan redistricting committees.
I am not a lawyer and I don’t know how such an amendment would need to be worded to achieve the desired result.I am aware that such committees exist in several states (I believe the number is 13).
I also don’t know what kind of pushback such an amendment would receive. I believe that currently the Republicans have the most advantage under the current system, but I can’t back that up.
Gerrymandering certainly has some effect on the mix of representatives, but I have seen some things recently that lead me to believe that the geographic sorting of populations into politically like-minded regions has more of an influence in creating safe districts (sorry, can’t search for a citation at the moment).
I think we’d do better with the following:
[ol]
[li] The Constitution guarantees a minimum of 1 House member per state, but I believe the total number of Reps is set by statute. Change the statute to allow the size of the House to grow with population, so that the average number of constituents is set to the population of the smallest state. [/li][li] For states with more than 1 House member, require some portion (50%? 100%?) to be elected via proportional representation. This would allow for third parties to have a realistic chance of getting some representation, and should somewhat moderate the centrist parties. [/li][/ol]
You haven’t even come close to fully fleshing out the idea. You identify a problem. The sum of the idea is that whatever we do should be via amendment to be uniform across states and should be vaguely “non-partisan.”
I agree the current system has issues. I need a proposed solution to know if that solution is better, worse, or indifferent (at the opportunity cost of wasting time making the change.) I tend to lean to state’s choosing their own solution. I’d have to think whether there’s a systemic disincentive to do it at the state level in a vacuum. Since 13 have done this it makes me think that the amendment part may not be necessary.
Reform on redistricting is almost impossible. The keys to the kingdom are held by politicians. Some states might allow a change if the state constitution allows ballot initiatives, but that’s about it.
Further, it is not in the interest for the republican party to change gerrymandering. They thrive in the house by winning far more districts where no one chooses to live and out numbering ultra democratic (and more populous) districts clustered around the cities. The situation as it stands allows them to retain power in the house even if they cannot convince most of the nation of their ideas. Why would they give that up? They already have a harder and harder time winning the presidential election because during those years more than just conservatives come out to vote.
Conservatives cannot afford to compete on an even playing field, and so they will do everything within their power to make sure they’ll never have to.
Here’s a cite: [INDENT]None of this is to say that partisan gerrymandering doesn’t have any effect. Sam Wang believes Republicans are far more likely to gain seats than Democrats when they control the redistricting process. Goedert’s analysis, which includes more states, agrees, but also shows that Democrats are likely to take more seats than they should if they gerrymander as well. Goedert demonstrates that Republicans gain more seats by about 18 percentage points in a state when they control redistricting. Democrats pick up only about 9pt more when they draw the lines. This difference is, in my opinion, likely a reflection of the natural disadvantage Democrats have in redistricting – as seen in the 7pt Democratic underperformance in the non- and bipartisan states. [/INDENT] Why 'gerrymandering' doesn't polarise Congress the way we're told | Harry J Enten | The Guardian
So gerrymandering matters a lot, but geographic sorting might be a larger effect.
Who selects the non-partisan commission? Who selects the non-partisan committee that selects the non-partisan commission? Who selects the non-partisan board that selects…
Serious question. In the states that have a non-partisan means of redistricting have we seen any significant change in the re-election rate? Are the districts really more competitive?
Except we already have those in several states like California-and the districts they’ve produced look far more normal than those that prevailed before.
The most notorious and politically contentious districting in Australia was the result of bipartisan support.
In the state of Queensland, the districts were designed to give safe seats to the left, where the representatives had no independent wealth and wanted to have a safe job, and marginal seats to the conservatives, who were willing to risk loss-of-income in return for better control of government.
In the end, as the left switched to a professional political class, the system fell apart, and the majority party also had the majority of the votes.
I also have to note that the system was first designed to give more representation to the left, with fewer voters having more power in country seats dominated by agricultural laborers, but that was the deliberate design of the constitution, not a “districting” effect. The safe seat/marginal seat thing was districting, and it was collusion between the two sides of politics.
And it’s significant, because the SAME THING is happening in America: there is collusion to make seats safer. That can’t be fixed by “non-partisan” redistricting committees.
We have a legislative body that has permanent non-partisan districts, the Senate. It is not obvious that the Senate is immune to partisanship and not compromising. Hereis a tool where you can see how partisan Senators are over the past several sessions.
The problem is not that are legislators are divided, that is a symptom. The problem is voters are divided.
Why not just use the existing Constitutional authority under Article 1:
Section. 4.
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 appears to be specific authority which would allow implementation of a single standard election process for the whole country.
