The problem has been solved by several American states and many countries. It’s only politically tough, because one party is obstructing it.
The problem is I don’t think there’s a consensus on what fair districting even looks like, which makes it hard to move in that direction.
Let’s say we have a state with five voting districts. Sixty percent of the people in the state generally vote for Party A and forty percent generally vote for Party B.
If you divide the state up one way, you get five districts, each of which are sixty percent Party A voters and forty percent Party B voters. If you divide the districts up a different way, you get three districts made up almost entirely of Party A voters and two districts made up almost entirely of Party B voters.
Which division is more fair? In the first division, every district is representative of the state as a whole. A lot of people would argue that’s a fair system. But you end up with a state that’s going to elect five Party A candidates to office despite having a sizeable number of Party B voters.
So is grouping together like-minded voters more fair? Let’s put some numbers to this scenario. Let’s say the state has five million voters; three million Party A voters and two million Party B voters. Let’s group like-minded voters together. We put a million Party A voters each in two districts and we put 330,000 Party A voters and 670,000 Party B voters in the other three districts.
We now have a state in which three out of five voters prefer Party A. But three out of its five representatives belong to Party B. So can we conclude that grouping together like-minded voters is unfair and should be prohibited?
This illustrates the problem with addressing gerrymandering. You can’t come up with a simple set of rules that are guaranteed to produce fair outcomes. A rule which creates a fair outcome in one situation might produce an unfair outcome in another situation.
I like the First Amendment, and I think Citizens United should be shitcanned. The decision was 5-4, it’s not like there is universal agreement that free speech dies if corporations can’t spend unlimited money on elections.
I like the First Amendment too. But I don’t see the word money anywhere in it.
The Supreme Court invented the idea that money is speech and deserves First Amendment protection in 1976. Do you feel the country lacked free speech prior to this? I don’t and I would have no problem going back to the free speech standard that existed in 1975.
I’m suggesting throwing out the idea of considering party affiliation, or any other demographic factors, when drawing districts. I don’t believe in making districts representative of the state as a whole, or grouping like-minded voters together. The only considerations should be compactness and population, and that can easily be handled by a computer. I acknowledge that this is a pretty drastic change and getting politicians to go along with it would be an uphill battle.
Here’s an article that explains it better than I did:
I don’t think even this would do the trick, because Republicans would still recognize that their chances of winning are better with the Electoral College than without it. They’d just attribute that loss as a one-off fluke and move on, keeping the EC just the same.
I can’t read the article because of the paywall. But I don’t see how a system must be impartial just because a computer is involved. Somebody is making the decisions of what goal the computer should be programmed to seek.
And somebody else can use a computer to see what the outcomes will be. They’re not going to openly say they favor the system that gives them the greatest advantage. Instead, they’ll model dozens of different “impartial” systems and see which one produces the best results for them. And then they’ll declare their support for that impartial system.
You object to using the impartial system they suggested? They’ll accuse you of favoring a biased system instead of an impartial one.
Look at the various voter ID programs they suggest. They don’t openly say they want to use these programs to eliminate legitimate voters. They claim these programs are intended to fight voter fraud. So if you argue against their voter ID program they claim you must be in favor of voter fraud.
Absolutely.
One thing we could do (but won’t, of course) is end the government’s aiding and abetting of the war on organized labor that’s been going on for the last forty years. And the Democratic Party is almost as guilty as the Republican Party on this one.
The ruling in Citizen’s United was based on the First Amendment. Congress and the President cannot overturn it, short of a Constitutional Amendment, which ain’t happening.
Great. Reread my post and respond to that.
Or you can just keep passing laws that almost overturn it and have them challenged all the way up to the SCOTUS, until one day they overturn it themselves. Hasn’t that been the plan with Roe?
(Of course, seeing as how that’s failed for almost 50 years, maybe it’s not such a great plan …)
Great. What are you going to do to “overturn” it then, say in our lifetimes. Nothing.
There are many things that could overturn it in our lifetimes. But that’s not what I said.
The article is mainly about a program by software engineer Brian Olson. His software designs “optimally compact” equal-population districts and respects census block boundaries, but doesn’t consider any other demographic factors.
Here is Olson’s website, showing the existing maps compared with the maps drawn by his software. Here’s his TED talk where he describes his proposal.
I would argue that decisions like Buckley and Citizens United were based on a particular interpretation of the First Amendment. As I noted above, there’s no mention of money in the text itself.
That wouldn’t do anything about lame-duck pardoning, though.
The Senate could make new rules for itself concerning when and how quickly they must move on consenting on the president’s choice.
OK, let us say some state rules that Unions cant donate… whoops they kinda already did.
Look, Money is speech, and sure it’d be great to stop some big corps from donating, but then no one would have the right to donate- except those that the GOP or whoever wanted to allow.
What about scrapping presidential pardons altogether?
Not directly, no. But if an outgoing president pardoned a bunch of scumbags before Sept. 30, the candidate from the other party could tar his/her opponent with those actions.