Because I prefer to come up with actual ideas rather than just screaming about problems like many others do (yes, GOP, I'm looking at you), I spend a lot of time thinking about how to solve problems. My plans may not be perfect, but at least I'm putting some thought into them, which is more than I can say for the Republican party. For example, I've gone through several iterations of my plan to reform our badly-broken immigration system - you can read the most recent version of the plan here in case you haven't seen it. The latest problem I've been thinking a lot about is how to draw fair, rational, and truly competitive Congressional districts, a process supposedly now underway across the country as districts are redrawn in response to the 2020 Census.
The Constitution allows each state to determine how it draws the boundaries of its Congressional districts, and because there are no federal standards to govern the process, most states allow the dominant political party to draw the boundaries as it sees fit, generally with an eye to maximum political advantage, in a process that has become known as "gerrymandering." Both of the major US political parties engage in this distasteful practice, although the recent GOP focus on winning races at the state level has given it a marked advantage in the process, resulting in electoral maps that allow Republicans to win seats even when they lose the overall popular vote.
Districts which have been "gerrymandered" for political advantage never result in true representation, as they are designed to create politically "safe" seats, not to represent the actual social and economic interests of the residents. One of the most egregious examples of politically-driven gerrymandering is Maryland's District 3 ...
How would I approach the drawing of truly fair and representative districts? I tried to get the chance earlier this year when I applied to be a member of the Virginia Redistricting Commission. I was not selected (obviously the selection process was rigged), but I had already developed the ideas I would have brought to the table had I had the opportunity. Here are the broad guidelines I would have advocated, using figures for Virginia as an example**:
1. Begin with the census-established population of the state (for Virginia in the 2020 Census, this is 8,631,393).
2. Divide this population figure by the number of Congressional districts determined by the Census (for Virginia, this number is 11). This gives us a nominal population per Congressional district of 784,672.
3. Determine the number of major defined political entities (i.e., counties/parishes or equivalent independent cities) within the state (Virginia has 95 counties and 38 independent cities which are considered county-equivalents for census purposes, for a total of 133).
4. Using the Census data, determine the actual population of each of those major political entities.
5. Divide the number of county/county-equivalents by the number of Congressional districts. In the case of Virginia, this yields a result of 12.1. This would mean that an ideal district would include 12 (we're rounding off, here) counties or county-equivalents.
6. Beginning with the smallest county or county-equivalent, begin aggregating those entities along their legal boundaries with adjacent entities until the population of each of the 11 aggregate Congressional districts comes as close as possible to the nominal population of 784,672.
7. To ensure that each aggregate district contains - to the greatest extent possible - a population with similar economic and racial makeup, require each incorporated portion to border on at least two others in the same or an immediately adjacent group. This would help to eliminate wildly bizarre, snake-shaped districts designed to achieve political party dominance, rather than representation of shared local economic and social interests.
6. When an existing county or county-equivalent must be subdivided to achieve the required numerical balance, require each division to be made along the established boundaries of the next lower division (i.e., township, borough, defined neighborhood, etc).
7. Continue aggregating districts in this manner until the population of each new district is as close as possible to the figure derived in Step 2.
I understand that this is not a perfect solution. For one thing, it does not account for federal laws (to the extent they remain viable***) that protect minority representation. Nevertheless, by requiring voting districts to be based on existing legal boundaries, it eliminates deliberate distortions designed to limit the representation and electoral power of minorities.
Some might argue that the aggregation of less-populated rural areas, which tend to vote Republican, with areas of larger population which might be more liberal, would dilute the representation of conservative voters. I don't think this is especially persuasive, because it would make the new districts more competitive and encourage both liberal and conservative voters to turn out and support their desired candidates. And by relying on existing legal boundaries, it avoids the extreme division-between-houses-within-a-neighborhood gerrymandering we see today.
Given today's hyperpartisan, I'm-right-and-you're-a-communist-go-to-hell environment, it will be extremely difficult to come up with a rational Congressional districting scheme that will satisfy all sides. Nevertheless, I believe my system is as close as we're likely to come. What do you think? Leave a comment with your ideas, and we'll pursue this in future posts.
Have a good day. More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
* Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.
** The figures for population and number of counties/county equivalents used can be found on the Census Bureau website at https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/virginia-population-change-between-census-decade.html.
*** Thank you, Supreme Court.
3 comments:
As this is clearly non-partisan, it could never work.
The will of the party has superseded the will of the people.
Bless you my friend! Just as we never thought the Berlin Wall would come down, I have hope that more and more people in the middle will cut off the radicals at both edges and move forward together
"...federal laws (to the extent they remain viable***) that protect minority representation."
I wonder if this is what got both sides thinking about "viablizing" non-minority districts.
Post a Comment