Replies

I like your idea. We could amend the Constitution so that the population of the smallest state be the base to determine how many districts each state should have, and the number of Reps can increase as the population grows. Since the number of Reps per state would be measured by dividing their population by the pop of the least populous state (and rounding up if it's .50 or above and down if it's below .50), reapportionment would no longer be a zero-sum game where the only way in which Utah can gain a seat is if it is denied to North Carolina. I think we could tie this to an idea of mine, which is to give each state 3 Senators, so that there's a Senate election in every state every two years (thus giving the people the chance to affect their Senate representation in every election). The original Congress (after RI ratified the Constitution) had 65 Representatives and 26 Senators, a ratio of 2.5 Reps per Senator. The ratio today is 4.35 Reps per Senators, which means that small states are much less represented in the Electoral College than they used to be. While 2.5:1 ratio in a House of 570 members would result in 228 Senators, which obviously wouldn't work, having 150 Senators would yield a 3.8:1 ratio, which is a lot fairer.

But even if we had 570 congressional districts, it would not curb gerrymandering---in fact, I think it would make it worse, since it would give redistricters more "cloth" with which to work. There is no perfect solution to political gerrymandering. In fact, it would be less (small d) democratic to draw districts without taking politics into account, because one would end up with districts were the people have nothing in common except the fact that they live in a 20-mile radius of each other. And if one tries to draw as many evenly-matched districts as possible, a party that has a good election night could elect every member of the delegation even though they are only 51% of the population. If one tries to be fair about how to go about electing representatives, one has to balance (i) the right of the majority to speak with one voice with (ii) the right of a numerous minority to representation. Thus, it would be wrong to insist that 4 of the 9 representatives from Indiana be Democrats even though they get 44% of the vote, since the 56% that vote Republican should expect, for the most part, to speak for Indiana in Congress. But it is also wrong for all 10 reps from Massachusetts to be Democrats. I believe the best way to reach the happy medium between strict majoritarianism and strict proportional representation is for each state to create a number of multi-member districts (3-member or 5-member districts are best), with each multi-member district electing members by proportional representation. Thus, Indiana would create 3 districts of 3 members each, and each of the districts would most likely elect 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat, for a congressional delegation of 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Massachusetts would create 2 districts of 5 members each, with the most likely result being a delegation with 6 or 7 Democrats and 3 or 4 Republicans. The benefits of such a system are that not only will minority ideologies get representation (when was the last time a Republican from SW Georgia or NW Tennessee had a representative who looked out for his interests?), but it would make it much more difficult to obtain partisan advantage from redistricting, since multi-member districts are almost impossible to pack, stack or crack. And there would be no need to draw "minority-majority" districts, since any 3-member district in which blacks are over 25% of the population and any 5-member district in which they are over 17% of the population would be able to elect a black Congressman. I think multi-member districts may be the only way to avoid most of the problems created by redistricting in particular and congressional elections generally.

RE: Multi-Member House districts

BAD IDEA. We have that here in West Virginia with our delegate districts to the State House and it stinks. In such districts, we end up with deadbeat ('Rat) delegates who ride on the coat-tails of the other delegate(s) who either do all the work or don't and then point a finger instead. As such, there's mass confusion, nothing gets done, and our state is a mess (and you thought California's was bad?). Of course, the 'Rats love this.

This is why there is a statewide drive now (by Republicans) for SINGLE Delegate districts where the delegate can and will be held individually responsible to his/her constituents. When politicians are held accountable, more good things than bad things tend to get done.

RE your suggestion for 3 senators - I think there was some discussion of this during the constitutional convention...will look it up. Of course, the real problem with the senate is that they're elected in the first place. The proper solution is to repeal the 17th amendment and go back to having the respective state legislatures choose their senators. Thus, citizen election of their state legislators becomes MORE important thus transfers more responsibility downstream... makes politics more local. Senators can then spend all their time actually working rather than campaigning/fundraising/sucking-up to lobbyists & special interests.