« Cavanaugh Takes A Dive | Main | Expectations Management »

Gerrymandering

Kevin's pondering redistricting reform. The best way to fix the system, I think, is to eliminate the concept of a congressional district. Each state should operate as a single district with n members elected via Hare proportional representation. The downside is that it would be a bit difficult to explain the voting system to people the first time 'round. The upside is that you could forever eliminate gerrymandering and redistricting-related litigation. Moreover, it would inject a healthy dose of intraparty competition into American politics. Any takers?

UPDATE: The point that (for financial reasons if nothing else) this wouldn't work in very large states is well-taken. Still, you could divide a big state like California or New York into just a few Hare districts that, in virtue of their size and the nature of the Hare system, would be hard to gerrymander effectively. The claim that this would cut down on African-American representation is just wrong. You're thinking of systems where you have multiple "at large" seats in a single municipality-wide district, a tactic often used to disenfranchise racial minorities (like, e.g., white people here in the District of Columbia). A Hare system works differently and, in fact, would allow for African-Americans to secure reasonable representation without recourse to absurdly shaped districts.

September 20, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8342163c053ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gerrymandering:

» Redistricting from Crooked Timber
Kevin and Matt are talking redistricting, with Matt favouring proportional representation on the grounds that it would introduce intraparty competition into American politics. This is rather odd - it’s only been a few months since the Presidentia... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 20, 2004 6:47:01 PM

» Proportional Response to Redistricting from The 80/20 Club
Geez, I went to all that trouble a minute ago. Pressed ‘Save’ and everything. Then I checked the news where I find this interesting snippet from Matthew Yglesias: [Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum is] pondering redistricting reform. The best way to fix ... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 20, 2004 8:35:21 PM

» Party oligopoly from Crooked Timber
Kevin and Matthew have good posts on redistricting, although like Brian, I’m a little unsure whether intra-party competition is always such a good thing (in Ireland, where we have a PR-STV system, the result is intense localism - politicians perc... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 20, 2004 8:56:22 PM

» Party oligopoly from Crooked Timber
Kevin and Matthew have good posts on redistricting, although like Brian, I’m a little unsure whether intra-party competition is always such a good thing (in Ireland, where we have a PR-STV system, the result is intense localism - politicians perc... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 20, 2004 9:00:08 PM

» Hare today... from Bradford Plumer
Good idea. 'Twas even better when Hendrik Hertzberg first proposed it. (Okay, if we really want to play this game, maybe we have to go back to John Mill or something… whatever!) The only real obstacle, I think, is Article I of the U.S. Constitu... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 20, 2004 9:12:35 PM

» great ideas that will never happen, part 1 from coffee grounds
The "Hare" system or Single Transferable Vote is a great way of having all the advantages of single member electoral districts, and none of the attendant disadvantages of gerrymandered districts. It is no more complicated than being asked to rank... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 20, 2004 9:54:42 PM

» Gerrymandering from Sebastian Holsclaw
Both Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias are talking about a subject that we can agree on--gerrymandering sucks! Kevin's idea to fix it is a bit wacky, and Matthew's fix is a radical reform from the American district concept (For a... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 20, 2004 10:38:29 PM

» Taking on Gerrymandering from Andrew Olmsted dot com
Matt Yglesias proposes an interesting solution to the problem of gerrymandering. I've never seen this particular brand of voting scheme before, so I wanted to take a look at it and see if it might be a viable solution to... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 21, 2004 8:13:19 PM

» Taking on Gerrymandering from Andrew Olmsted dot com
Matt Yglesias proposes an interesting solution to the problem of gerrymandering. I've never seen this particular brand of voting scheme before, so I wanted to take a look at it and see if it might be a viable solution to... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 22, 2004 7:38:40 AM

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 2:52:05 AM

Comments

Not here. While I hate "victors take the spoils" gerrymandering, I want a representative that I can call my own.

The idea of making house races statewide elections strikes me as a sure fire way to cripple all minority viewpoints. (Not just ethnic, but all political minorities as well)

Keep the distrct geographically centered on the populations they represent. Just take the redistricting process out of partisan hands.

Posted by: def | Sep 20, 2004 6:48:49 PM

There's something to be said for congresswomen representing small geographical areas. In your system, the median district in a state would essentially have 5/10/20 reps all to itself. Austin and Orange COunty would never get a representative to their liking for instance.

Posted by: WillieStyle | Sep 20, 2004 6:58:43 PM

Check out Ireland for the full mechanics of this system. People quite like it, and with paper balloting it makes election counts tense and very interesting - there are numerous counts and seeing the shades of opinion is very interesting.

We call it Proportional Representation Single Transferable Vote. It actually works very well however it has been accused of creating some problems - particularly the growth of clientalism and an inordinate focus on local affairs.

It is used in NI Assembly elections and all RoI elections.

Posted by: tadhgin | Sep 20, 2004 7:01:17 PM

The Hare system appears to be an adaptation of the multi-vote system that prevailed in Illinois prior to the re-writing of the state constitution here in the 1970's. I'll have to look up the arguments that resulted in the abandoning of the old system back then.

Posted by: Dave Schuler | Sep 20, 2004 7:01:49 PM

How about splitting the difference (between single-member districts and statewide election of Reps on a PR basis), and have a handful of multi-member (say 3- or 5-member) districts? You largely eliminate the incentive to gerrymander but you still have smaller-than-statewide geographical constitutuencies with voters who can look to "their" representative.

On the state level, Illinois had something like this (3-member districts) for the state assembly between 1870 and 1980. My understanding the voting was a little quirky -- each party could only field two candidates (which generally ensured 2 Repubs and 1 Dem in Repub-leaning districts and the opposite in Dem-leaning districts), and each voter got three votes, which you could distribute as you saw fit (either, for instance, allocating 2 votes to your favored Dem and 1 vote to the other Dem, or alternatively "bullet-voting" (giving all 3 of your votes) for, say, the Green Party candidate if you were so inclined, with the result that sometimes some sort of fringe candidates with really committed supporters were able to sneak in and keep things interesting.

Posted by: packerland progressive | Sep 20, 2004 7:03:16 PM

San Diego residents shouldn't be voting for the same Representative as people in Mendocino; there are just too many differences.

We need a nice open-source computer program that will determine congressional districts from census data. For the first election, its main criterion would be to keep the districts as geographically compact as possible. In suceeding years, it would also try to keep as many people in the same district as possible.

This would be part of American Constitution 2.0, a major upgrade and new release. Maybe we could beta-test in Iraq. Or Russia.

Posted by: Bob Munck | Sep 20, 2004 7:13:07 PM

Also, reformers should take care to ensure that their reforms don't accomplish something quite unfortunate like elminating all southern black congressmen as I think Matt's system would. Any reforms of redistricting should keep extant the notion that a district represents some community or group of communities in a state.

Posted by: WillieStyle | Sep 20, 2004 7:15:49 PM

Then how do we define "community"? But who out there thinks that gerrymandering doesn't suck. We've all had enough of that word. It's most prominent practitioner is Tom Delay. He clearly won't be interested in unraveling his life's work in Texas, but why let that stop us. If for no other reason than to mercifully sweep gerrymandering into the dustbin of American democratic history.

Posted by: fnook | Sep 20, 2004 7:21:08 PM

I want a representative that I can call my own.

With respect, that doesn't happen now. At least, not when you and 599,999 other people call one representative your own. That's six times larger than federal districts in Canada and Australia, both of which have state/provincial systems as well.

The Congressional Black Caucus likes this idea -- it means that you don't have to create ridiculously gerrymandered districts based upon racial demographics -- and so do I.

San Diego residents shouldn't be voting for the same Representative as people in Mendocino; there are just too many differences.

Why not? In practice, especially in larger states, there'd be local/regional canvassing, just without strict district boundaries. SoCal candidates wouldn't be campaigning in the Bay Area, and vice versa. But that wouldn't stop people from voting for them.

Posted by: ahem | Sep 20, 2004 7:22:49 PM

Why make life so difficult? A simple "grid system" would solve the problem. Congressional districts must be a square (exception for one or two sides being state borders). Size of the square in all cases to be defined by population. Lines on non-border sides can vary up to 10% of the square dimension to take certain anamolies into consideration (highways, rivers, county lines, etc). I think it would better reflect the goals of our founders!

Posted by: Noodles | Sep 20, 2004 7:26:00 PM

Yeah, I'd have to say this is a nice idea in the abstract, but it would be totally ridiculous in a state like California where regional divides are enormous. Why don't we just put districting solely in the hands of state supreme courts rather than legislatures? Judges aren't as subject to election fears and short-term thinking and would do a better job most of the time. Proportional representation would, however, be a good idea for allocating electoral college votes. That way candidates would have incentive to go all over the country instead of the 10 swing states.

Posted by: zef81 | Sep 20, 2004 7:26:31 PM

Then how do we define "community"?

As Justice Potter Stewart would say: communities are like porn.

Posted by: WillieStyle | Sep 20, 2004 7:33:32 PM

Picture the cost of running in a single statewide District the size of California, or New York, or Texas, or Florida. Then ask yourself how much time your rep would have to take care of any of your business between fund raising eventes.

Posted by: flory | Sep 20, 2004 7:47:48 PM

*****
27 Jones
25 Brown
14 Black
23 Green
16 Wood
Jones and Brown, having secured the quota of 24, are declared elected.

Jones has 3 more votes than needed for election. As these three ballots can no longer help Jones to be elected, they are transferred to help elect other candidates. Thus, the three ballots are transferred to the second choices indicated on each.
*****

Ummm, _which_ three votes would be transferred? Why should the last votes counted have more weight - be able to express more preference - than other votes for Jones? Why should the order in which votes are counted affect the outcome? Why are you setting up an arbitrary process?

You could argue that with large enough numbers or statistical sampling or something you get around these questions - but how do you know that (e.g.) the poor minority precincts don't get counted first, saving the suburbanites for the later votes?


There probably are decent ways to do proportional voting but I disagree with the thrust of what you and Kevin advocate (the elimination of congressional districts). In addition to setting up intraparty competition you're also setting up intrastate competition. And all the people smarter than me can talk about equal protection and the VRA and why districts are a good idea.

Not that I don't think we need redistricting reform. I guess my dictatorship would tend towards the elimination of states, not the elimination of districts. So the first step would be to change the senate to proportional representation with a national electorate.

Posted by: tortoise | Sep 20, 2004 8:02:04 PM

"Also, reformers should take care to ensure that their reforms don't accomplish something quite unfortunate like elminating all southern black congressmen as I think Matt's system would."

There have been a number of cases where "at large" elections of multiple aldermen in cities and counties in the South have been found illegal for that very reason.

Posted by: TR Farmer | Sep 20, 2004 8:14:25 PM

I'd like to congratulate tortoise for being the first to notice that the "Hare" system, at least as described in that link, actually contains an arbitrary component which makes it rather silly and, in fact, open to corruption and manipulation.

As for the topic of the post, I'd like to suggest adoption of a simple computer program that objectively works off population density data to draw locally optimal district lines meeting some straightforward criteria, such as nice convex shape and minimizing variance of population among the districts. The problem is that the "liberals" would be the first to gripe about this because it might not actually choose to draw districts which contain e.g. safe seats for black candidates.

Actually to be fair to "liberals", the *first* people to complain would be the people currently in Congress, whose jobs might depend on keeping the lines where they are and keeping a close watch on them, because they're the ones who'd actually have to implement any change... ;-)

Posted by: Blixa | Sep 20, 2004 8:15:51 PM

The problem is that the "liberals" would be the first to gripe about this because it might not actually choose to draw districts which contain e.g. safe seats for black candidates.

Obviously, that explains why the Congressional Black Caucus supports it. Try again.

Posted by: ahem | Sep 20, 2004 8:19:00 PM

I say we use cartograms to draw our districts.

Posted by: TJ | Sep 20, 2004 8:29:21 PM

Obviously, that explains why the Congressional Black Caucus supports it.

The Congressional Black Caucus supports what? Drawing districts objectively by computer? If so, I'm surprised and pleased to hear it.

Posted by: Blixa | Sep 20, 2004 8:32:30 PM

(Crossposted from Crooked Timber)

The 98% figure is horrible, but I am not sure how horrible. I opposed term limits. If we were to prefer our congressmen serve for say, at least six years on average, for the sake of experience, then we should look at turnover over ten or twenty year periods, not two.

Exactly how competitive would we like it to be? If the figure were a 50% turnover every election, we would have a nightmare.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 20, 2004 8:32:30 PM

I don't think that plan would really fly in states with strong regional differences. To name the most obvious example, Matthew, what do you think people in upstate New York would think of your plan? Not that these people are being well served by the current arrangement, either (take boondock Chautauqua County having just been attached to Buffalo, for instance), but your arrangement wouldn't be any improvment.

How about doubling the number of representatives and halving their pay? Even if these districts would be gerrymandered as effectively (perhaps even more effectively?), they would still be more locally responsive, and I think that would be a net improvement.

Posted by: Evan McElravy | Sep 20, 2004 8:34:28 PM

Matt's policy wonk attributes are shining forth:

California
Where 'n' = 54

Please Rank the Following candidates in order from 1-54. Where 1 is the candidate you most prefer and 54 the least. By least prefer we mean 'you don't like so much'. Please assign only one number per candidate.

___ Candidate A
___ Candidate B
___ Candidate C
___ Candidate D
___ Candidate E
___ Candidate F
___ Candidate G
___ Candidate H
___ Candidate I
___ Candidate J
___ Candidate K
___ Candidate L
___ Candidate M
___ Candidate N
___ Candidate O
___ Candidate P
___ Candidate Q
___ Candidate R
___ Candidate S
___ Candidate T
___ Candidate U
___ Candidate V
___ Candidate W
___ Candidate X
___ Candidate Y
___ Candidate Z
___ Candidate AA
___ Candidate BB
___ Candidate CC
___ Candidate DD
___ Candidate EE
___ Candidate FF
___ Candidate GG
___ Candidate HH
___ Candidate II
___ Candidate JJ
___ Candidate KK
___ Candidate LL
___ Candidate MM
___ Candidate NN
___ Candidate OO
___ Candidate PP
___ Candidate QQ
___ Candidate RR
___ Candidate SS
___ Candidate TT
___ Candidate UU
___ Candidate VV
___ Candidate WW
___ Candidate XX
___ Candidate YY
___ Candidate ZZ
___ Candidate A1
___ Candidate A2
___ Candidate A3
___ Candidate A4
___ Candidate A5
___ Candidate A6
___ Candidate A7
___ Candidate A8
___ Candidate A9
___ Candidate A10
___ Candidate A11
___ Candidate A12
___ Candidate A13
___ Candidate A14
___ Candidate A15
___ Candidate A16
___ Candidate A17
___ Candidate A18
___ Candidate A19
___ Candidate A20
___ Candidate A21
___ Candidate A22
___ Candidate A23
___ Candidate A24
___ Candidate A25
___ Candidate A26
___ Candidate B1
___ Candidate B2
___ Candidate B4
___ Candidate B5
___ Candidate B6
___ Candidate B7
___ Candidate B8
___ Candidate B9
___ Candidate B10
___ Candidate B11
___ Candidate B12
___ Candidate B13
___ Candidate B14
___ Candidate B15
___ Candidate B16
___ Candidate kind of dumb idea in practice, no?
___ Candidate B17
___ Candidate B18
___ Candidate B19
___ Candidate B20
___ Candidate B21
___ Candidate B22
___ Candidate B23
___ Candidate B24
___ Candidate B25
___ Candidate B26

Please check your ballot to make sure you have 54, and only 54 marks,and that no mark is repeated.

_____________________________________________


I'm with the previous poster,
I like having my Congressional rep.

Posted by: BumperStickerist | Sep 20, 2004 8:46:47 PM

When I hear the phrase 'proportional representation' I think of party-based voting. E.g. if the Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and Liberatarians get 40/35/15/10% of California's votes, they get the same proportion of California's 54 House seats.

I'd hate to live a country where this is the arrangement of picking a parliament that picks a chief executive (e.g. Italy, Israel) due to the apparent political instability that engenders. But I think it'd be a great way to pick members of the House.

If regional issues separate Mendicinoans from San Diegos more than ideological issues separate members of those two counties from one another, regional parties could form, no? If not, not.

If the House worked this way, we'd have a lot of ideological diversity in the House, but a Senate filled with more centrist figures who are elected on a statewide basis. That seems like a nice balance.

Back in the 1800s, districts in Britain elected 2 MPS each, yes? So we could look at that to see how well that worked.

Posted by: Dubious | Sep 20, 2004 9:07:13 PM

"We need a nice open-source computer program that will determine congressional districts from census data. For the first election, its main criterion would be to keep the districts as geographically compact as possible. In suceeding years, it would also try to keep as many people in the same district as possible."

I'm all for that. Make the inputs totally transparent. And absolutely, definitely, do not allow any race or party affiliation or religious data into the system.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | Sep 20, 2004 9:54:40 PM

I'm with Evan's proposal to drastically increase the number of Representatives. The Constitution mandates that each Rep represent at a minimum, 30,000 people [well, a combination of free people and 3/5ths of "other" people that totals at least 30,000]. Today, Reps represent around 530,000 voters. Clearly various forms of technology enable our Reps to manage larger constituencies, but an 18-fold increase is still a bit much.

This would obviously a big nasty fight, because you'd have to halve the operating budget for a congressional office, and each incumbent rep would lose power. But I think it would do a great deal to personalize House members. Since the fundraising needs per race would be half, individual House members would probably be less vulnerable to leadership pressure than they currently are.

Posted by: niq | Sep 20, 2004 10:00:57 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.