>I did some quick research and have found no evidence that creating districts is a legally binding action.
He ought to do more research, then, because in 1967 Congress put this in the US Code:
>In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).
unless I'm reading this wrong the obvious flaw is that a very populated city would potentially overrule the entire rest of the state just by having more people, that's exactly the reason the districts are used, so that the rural communities and less populated areas get a representative
Did I not account for that? Candidates of all parties can present any number of candidates. People in rural areas would still have a choice. In Illinois, it wouldn't just be Chicago liberals voting. There are conservatives in the whole state. They would elect their share of representatives.
My design may not balance everything, but adding to it could resolve those issues. Redistricting, in its current form, will always be hyper-political and abused. There has to be a way to take that out of the equation.
My number one comment is that "districting" is not a constitutional guarantee. If the current system is broken, as it so clearly is, why not look at alternatives?
Not trying to be a jerk, but calling it "[your] design" is a strong characterization. It's called proportional representation, and used in (...quick Wikipedia check...) 87 countries around the world already. Not saying it's a bad idea. It's just not a new one.
One downside to PR is that you lose the sense of having "my representative" in Congress. When an Illinoisian (to use your article's example) disagrees with a policy, who do you call? Each of the 18 representatives on the two party lists? Maybe.
(and yes, I would concede that with extreme gerrymandering, the geographic sense of "my representative" is also dead in lots of places now... though at least you have a person to call and hold accountable)
An alternative -- that was recently passed by voter referendum in Maine -- is the Single Transferrable Ballot (or ranked voting), which retains single-member districts, and opens the door for greater than two parties, even with voters choosing strategically.
At-large representation ends up with majoritarian exclusivity, which is why it isn't used by anyone who values minority civil rights. As an example, the city of Austin recently went from an at-large city council to one elected by districts.
District representation has its down sides, gerrymandering being one of them, but the alternative is 'tyranny of the majority' or, at best, "gentlemen's agreements" that leave certain seats available for minorities.
7 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 23.1 ms ] threadHe ought to do more research, then, because in 1967 Congress put this in the US Code:
>In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).
My design may not balance everything, but adding to it could resolve those issues. Redistricting, in its current form, will always be hyper-political and abused. There has to be a way to take that out of the equation.
My number one comment is that "districting" is not a constitutional guarantee. If the current system is broken, as it so clearly is, why not look at alternatives?
One downside to PR is that you lose the sense of having "my representative" in Congress. When an Illinoisian (to use your article's example) disagrees with a policy, who do you call? Each of the 18 representatives on the two party lists? Maybe.
(and yes, I would concede that with extreme gerrymandering, the geographic sense of "my representative" is also dead in lots of places now... though at least you have a person to call and hold accountable)
An alternative -- that was recently passed by voter referendum in Maine -- is the Single Transferrable Ballot (or ranked voting), which retains single-member districts, and opens the door for greater than two parties, even with voters choosing strategically.
District representation has its down sides, gerrymandering being one of them, but the alternative is 'tyranny of the majority' or, at best, "gentlemen's agreements" that leave certain seats available for minorities.