Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere's a simple way to end gerrymandering. Too bad Congress made it illegal.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8980137/fix-gerrymandering-multiple-member-districtsYears back, a law professor told me that when she teaches a class on the drawing of legislative districts, she leaves the issue of multi-member districts for last because it solves all the problems too well and makes the rest of the material uninteresting.
I was reminded of that when I read Kim Soffen's Upshot column about the way geography rather than gerrymandering disadvantages Democrats in Florida when it comes to the US House of Representatives.
But even though every state in the union does it this way, it's not a law of nature that you have to allocate Florida's 27 House seats by dividing the state into 27 equal population slices. You could easily treat the state as one 27-member district whose members are elected proportionately. That's how they do it in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, and many other countries that prefer not to be beset by highly politicized district boundary questions. A really big state like California or Texas you might want to split into two or three multi-member districts. And there are always some thorny issues to work out, like the choice of the D'Hondt Method or Sainte-Laguë method of tallying the votes....
The trouble for the United States is a deeply misguided 1967 law that banned multi-member districts. The government's concern was that a state like Georgia might say, "We'll just elect all 14 of our House members at large," and that way no African Americans would get elected. Of course this concern doesn't apply to a proportional system, which, if anything, would have the opposite result you could ensure that black and Latino members would get elected without needing to resort to funny-looking majority-minority district boundaries. So the problem of holding fair elections in Florida isn't unsolvable, but it will take an act of Congress to fix which is almost as bad.
I was reminded of that when I read Kim Soffen's Upshot column about the way geography rather than gerrymandering disadvantages Democrats in Florida when it comes to the US House of Representatives.
But even though every state in the union does it this way, it's not a law of nature that you have to allocate Florida's 27 House seats by dividing the state into 27 equal population slices. You could easily treat the state as one 27-member district whose members are elected proportionately. That's how they do it in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, and many other countries that prefer not to be beset by highly politicized district boundary questions. A really big state like California or Texas you might want to split into two or three multi-member districts. And there are always some thorny issues to work out, like the choice of the D'Hondt Method or Sainte-Laguë method of tallying the votes....
The trouble for the United States is a deeply misguided 1967 law that banned multi-member districts. The government's concern was that a state like Georgia might say, "We'll just elect all 14 of our House members at large," and that way no African Americans would get elected. Of course this concern doesn't apply to a proportional system, which, if anything, would have the opposite result you could ensure that black and Latino members would get elected without needing to resort to funny-looking majority-minority district boundaries. So the problem of holding fair elections in Florida isn't unsolvable, but it will take an act of Congress to fix which is almost as bad.
Hmmm... is that law constitutional?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 679 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
There's a simple way to end gerrymandering. Too bad Congress made it illegal. (Original Post)
KamaAina
Jul 2015
OP
The problem is what House would vote to eliminate many of their own seats? n/t
PoliticAverse
Jul 2015
#1
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)1. The problem is what House would vote to eliminate many of their own seats? n/t
rickford66
(5,528 posts)2. The minority party should do the reapportioning.
This would have a self adjusting solution over time.