3 ms·
I believe that would require a change to the constitution, which is currently politically impossible, as it would require Republican support, and it is Republic
by cameldrv 5y ago
I believe that would require a change to the constitution, which is currently politically impossible, as it would require Republican support, and it is Republicans that created the current extreme gerrymanders and benefit from them.
The only way I could see something like what you suggest happening would be for the Democrats to gerrymander the blue states to even things out, and then a better solution could be agreeable to both sides.
- thomasahle 5y ago> I believe that would require a change to the constitution, which is currently politically impossible I guess you are right, but isn't that the same deal with the filibuster? Anvf that hasn't stopped people from talking about it.
- xmodem 5y agoTHe filibuster in the senate can be changed or removed with a simple majority, i.e. 9 less than the number of votes needed to break a filibuster.
- etrevino 5y agoThe filibuster isn't written into the Constitution: it's actually just Congress setting its rules of order. Changing the Constitution is a big and difficult process.
- jeltz 5y agoOnly the state constitutions as far as I know. Every state decides on its own how to conduct elections.
- etrevino 5y agoNo, at-large reps used to be a thing until a lawsuit made its way to the Supreme Court, who said it was illegal. I believe that the death knell of the idea might have been the reapportionment bill in 1929.