4 ms·

Politicians can draw fairer election districts − the way kids split a cake

3 points by onychomys 3y ago

blacksqr 3y ago
The simplest and most straightforward way to ensure fairer election districts is simply to increase the number of representatives. Congress used to increase the size of the House of Representatives routinely, but there hasn't been an increase in over a century. In that time the population of the US has more than tripled. As long as the current standard of less than a percentage-point variation of district population from the average within a state is maintained, opportunities for partisan gerrymandering would be drastically reduced by a significant increase in House members, since most of the population is concentrated in urban areas; and the more districts there are the fewer options there are for drawing boundaries within that constraint. If the Democratic congressional supermajority in 2009 had simply increased the size of the House by a relatively modest 200-300 members, it would have been virtually impossible for an absolute minority of voters to capture either the House or the presidency going forward. After the result of the 2000 election, that should have been a top priority. Instead we relived the nightmare in 2016. No fancy new big-brain think tank shenanigans are required. Just return to what used to be the norm and what the Founders expected.
- Bostonian 3y ago
  There are already 435 members of the House of Representatives. I don't think most Americans would like there to be too many more -- it would get unwieldy. Also, expanding the House will likely lead to a decline in representative quality, since it's easier to be the "best" candidate among x people than 1.3*x people. Already there are numerous people in Congress who I think are utter clowns.
  - blacksqr 3y ago
    The UK House of Commons has 650 members, representing a population a fifth the size of the US. We are way behind the norm. I find it hard to imagine that any sizable percentage of Americans would object to greater representation and a more direct and undiluted choice for their representative due to any sense of the House's size being "unwieldy." The greater the size of a district, the harder it is for any individual voter's voice to be heard.
    - Bostonian 3y ago
      Most Americans oppose expanding the size of the House. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/how-americans-view-proposals-to-change-the-political-system/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/how-american... 'About three-in-ten adults (29%) say the size of the House of Representatives should be increased beyond its current 435 members, while a narrow majority (53%) say the size of the House should stay the same. Another 15% prefer to decrease the size of the House.'
  - blacksqr 3y ago
    Bostonian, assuming that you are from Massachusetts, the Mass. House has 160 members, each representing about 44,000 people. The average population of a Federal house district is over 750,000. Does the size of the Mass. House feel unwieldy?

3 points by onychomys 3y ago

The simplest and most straightforward way to ensure fairer election districts is simply to increase the number of representatives. Congress used to increase the size of the House of Representatives routinely, but there hasn't been an increase in over a century. In that time the population of the US has more than tripled. As long as the current standard of less than a percentage-point variation of district population from the average within a state is maintained, opportunities for partisan gerrymandering would be drastically reduced by a significant increase in House members, since most of the population is concentrated in urban areas; and the more districts there are the fewer options there are for drawing boundaries within that constraint. If the Democratic congressional supermajority in 2009 had simply increased the size of the House by a relatively modest 200-300 members, it would have been virtually impossible for an absolute minority of voters to capture either the House or the presidency going forward. After the result of the 2000 election, that should have been a top priority. Instead we relived the nightmare in 2016. No fancy new big-brain think tank shenanigans are required. Just return to what used to be the norm and what the Founders expected.

Bostonian 3y ago
There are already 435 members of the House of Representatives. I don't think most Americans would like there to be too many more -- it would get unwieldy. Also, expanding the House will likely lead to a decline in representative quality, since it's easier to be the "best" candidate among x people than 1.3*x people. Already there are numerous people in Congress who I think are utter clowns.
- blacksqr 3y ago
  The UK House of Commons has 650 members, representing a population a fifth the size of the US. We are way behind the norm. I find it hard to imagine that any sizable percentage of Americans would object to greater representation and a more direct and undiluted choice for their representative due to any sense of the House's size being "unwieldy." The greater the size of a district, the harder it is for any individual voter's voice to be heard.
  - Bostonian 3y ago
    Most Americans oppose expanding the size of the House. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/how-americans-view-proposals-to-change-the-political-system/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/how-american... 'About three-in-ten adults (29%) say the size of the House of Representatives should be increased beyond its current 435 members, while a narrow majority (53%) say the size of the House should stay the same. Another 15% prefer to decrease the size of the House.'
- blacksqr 3y ago
  Bostonian, assuming that you are from Massachusetts, the Mass. House has 160 members, each representing about 44,000 people. The average population of a Federal house district is over 750,000. Does the size of the Mass. House feel unwieldy?