The image from above appearing in a news article by Elkanah Tisdale in 1813 – Public Domain
On April 21, a majority of Virginia voters said “yes” to a ballot measure allowing the state’s US House districts to be redrawn for the benefit of the Democratic Party.
The next day, a judge banned certification of the election results, calling the ballot language “flagrantly misleading” and asserting that state legislators didn’t follow relevant rules in putting the measure on the ballot.
Virginia is the latest battleground in a centuries-long war to “gerrymander” legislative districts such that the party in power at the moment retains an advantage in future elections by drawing those districts to minimize the number of seats its opposing party can plausibly win.
This year, the war escalated from decades of World War 1 style “dig in, the line moves a few yards this way or that every decade” to dual blitzkriegs. Texas Republicans decided to re-gerrymander their House delegation, California Democrats followed suit, and we’ve seen a nationwide domino effect as the two “major” American political parties duel for advantage in the upcoming midterms.
Normally, redistricting occur every ten years, in years ending in “1,” for the perfectly good reason that seats are apportioned to states by the US Census, which is taken every ten years, in years ending in “0.” But there’s nothing in the US Constitution or federal law to prevent additional re-gerrymandering in between. Republicans thought they saw opportunity, and Democrats reacted in kind.
But just as the Constitution doesn’t forbid mid-decade redistricting, it also doesn’t require “districts” at all, and in the early republic different states did things different ways. Mandatory districts are a product of various, arguably unconstitutional, federal laws, the latest being the Uniform Congressional District Act of 1967.
The absolute BEST way to end the gerrymander wars would be to abolish Congress (and the rest of the US government). I’m all for it, but I sense I’m in the minority on that suggestion.
There’s an easier — or at least simpler — way to get it done, while still catering to the fantasy that it’s possible for a politician to “represent” the rights and interests of the diverse populations who elect him or her. It’s a two-step process:
First, Congress repeals the Uniform Congressional District Act.
Second, each state goes from “single-member district” elections to “at-large statewide” elections with Ranked Choice Voting.
For example, Florida has 28 seats in the House. At the moment, the districts are gerrymandered such that 20 (71.4%) of those seats are held by Republicans and 8 (29.6%) by Democrats, despite the fact that Republicans constitute only 41.3% of registered voters to 30.2% for Democrats (the rest of the electorate claims “no party affiliation” or “minor” party affiliation).
Electing all 28 seats “at large” would end the ability to gerrymander a 70-30 representation split on a 4-3 party differential simply by virtue of happening to hold power when the gerrymandering occurs.
One problem, of course, is that without Ranked Choice Voting, one party could plausibly end up with all 28 seats because of minor advantages in voter affiliation.
Ranked Choice Voting would reduce that likelihood by using voters’ second choices to eliminate the candidates with the fewest votes. It still probably wouldn’t produce outcomes that fully align with declared party preference percentages, but it WOULD elect the specific candidates liked the most by the most voters.
Heck, we might even see some “minor party” candidates — Libertarian, Reform, Forward, etc. — win seats with high “second choice” ratings.
Another supposed problem is that candidates would have to conduct statewide campaigns. They’d have to reach, and successfully appeal to, voters further from where they live. I don’t consider that a problem. This isn’t 1789. It doesn’t take two weeks to cross a state physically. In fact, via broadcast and digital media, campaign communications are instant.
Those outcomes, though, aren’t really the point. The point is to remove one costly and contentious element — constant redistricting fights — from the equation, producing “more democratic” outcomes.
Since I couldn’t care less whether the Republican or Democratic faction of the single state-approved party wins elections, what’s in it for me? Reduced annoyance and increased clarity. I prefer to see the “best version” of democracy given its chance so that when it fails too, others might finally give up on that fairy tale and start looking seriously at alternatives to political government.
