3 ms·

All of the problems with gerrymandering can be solved by eliminating districts and holding all elections at the national level. As a thought experiment, assume

All of the problems with gerrymandering can be solved by eliminating districts and holding all elections at the national level. As a thought experiment, assume a society that is ruled by a legislature of 29 people. Each year, society votes and elects a single individual, who then serves for 29 years. One person elected per year for 29 years gives you a legislature of 29 people. If all local, city, and regional voting districts are abolished (the districts still exist, but these are appointed positions, not elected) the public, and the media, are able to focus their energy on choosing the one best person each year. All elected leaders face a strict term limit of one term. Advantages of the system: 1.) leaders serve long enough that they can enact meaningful reform. They can also carry out necessary, but unpopular, policies, without facing immediate backlash from the people. 2.) There are no districts, therefore there is no gerrymandering. 3.) There are no decisive elections. Unlike Germany in 1933 or the USA in 2016, there are no elections in which it feels like the entire regime has changed all at once. All change is gradual, and it happens at the same pace every year. 4.) Society finally gets the true benefits of the rule of law, which is freedom from arbitrary changes. No government made of mortal flesh can ever be ensured to be wise, so hoping for wisdom is not realistic, but the rule of law can offer us stability and freedom from arbitrary government. Some of these ideas go back to Plato. His Council Of Wisdom was to be made of those leaders who would serve forever. Considering how much the West seems to admire Plato, it is odd that no Western nation has ever attempted to implement anything like his ideas.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>3.) There are no decisive elections. Unlike Germany in 1933 or the USA in 2016, there are no elections in which it feels like the entire regime has changed all at once. All change is gradual, and it happens at the same pace every year. The funny thing is, USA 2016 didn't change everything at once. The Republicans already held Congress, and actually lost a few House and Senate seats. They unexpectedly gained the Presidency, but their seeming total power now comes only from their extreme willingness to use procedural tactics that other Americans regard as "bad sport". This turned a Presidential upset into a Presidential upset plus a free seat on the Supreme Court, similarly to how it turned the midterms in 2010 from a midterm election in which the opposition party usually gains seats into a semi-permanent Republican legislative majority throughout the 2010s (thanks to the gerrymandering described in TFA).
vacri 10y ago
You have something kind've like this in the Australia system. A bicameral legislature, the lower house is up for grabs every election, but only half of the upper house is. This means senators are basically elected for two terms, and the turnover is slower in the upper house. There is provision for putting all seats up for grabs in both houses - a 'double dissolution' - which can only be done if parliament is deadlocked. Apart from that, turnover of senators is slower than members of the lower house. It doesn't have the effects you're after though - these senators are still party creatures. I'm not sure I'd like your plan anyway - people change a lot in 29 years, and you would need checks and balances against undue interference. Deep-pocketed lobbyists would only have to focus on one person per year, for example.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>3.) There are no decisive elections. Unlike Germany in 1933 or the USA in 2016, there are no elections in which it feels like the entire regime has changed all at once. All change is gradual, and it happens at the same pace every year. The funny thing is, USA 2016 didn't change everything at once. The Republicans already held Congress, and actually lost a few House and Senate seats. They unexpectedly gained the Presidency, but their seeming total power now comes only from their extreme willingness to use procedural tactics that other Americans regard as "bad sport". This turned a Presidential upset into a Presidential upset plus a free seat on the Supreme Court, similarly to how it turned the midterms in 2010 from a midterm election in which the opposition party usually gains seats into a semi-permanent Republican legislative majority throughout the 2010s (thanks to the gerrymandering described in TFA).

vacri 10y ago

You have something kind've like this in the Australia system. A bicameral legislature, the lower house is up for grabs every election, but only half of the upper house is. This means senators are basically elected for two terms, and the turnover is slower in the upper house. There is provision for putting all seats up for grabs in both houses - a 'double dissolution' - which can only be done if parliament is deadlocked. Apart from that, turnover of senators is slower than members of the lower house. It doesn't have the effects you're after though - these senators are still party creatures. I'm not sure I'd like your plan anyway - people change a lot in 29 years, and you would need checks and balances against undue interference. Deep-pocketed lobbyists would only have to focus on one person per year, for example.