If our political system is to be made sound again, we need to rethink this practice.
If our political system is to be made sound again, we need to rethink this practice.
R epublicans in a number of states are engaged in artful redrawing of congressional-district boundaries for their own benefit. This has provoked cries of outrage from Democrats, who, as a matter of deep principle, would prefer that the boundaries be drawn to favor their candidates instead. Indeed, that is exactly what Democrats have done wherever they have had the power to do so. In my home state of Colorado, power is somewhat balanced. This has forced the two parties to split the spoils of election rigging, creating several safe districts for each. As a result, we have been able to gift the nation with such singular talents as Diana DeGette (D) and Lauren Boebert (R), two remarkable women who could never be elected from competitive districts. In other locations, gerrymandering has facilitated the careers of such individuals as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Pramila Jayapal, Madison Cawthorn, Paul Gosar, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
This should bring home an important point. While political operatives may object to gerrymandering when it places their party at an electoral disadvantage, there is really a much bigger issue involved.
By contriving districts to be safe for one party or the other, gerrymandering disenfranchises the electorate, making politicians safe from the judgment of the public. Furthermore, gerrymandering removes any incentive for members of congress to attempt to represent all the people in their districts. Instead of trying to win the general election by seeking the middle ground, politicians need only to win their party’s primary to prevail in the end. As a result, extremists are empowered, making our political system increasingly dysfunctional.
Furthermore, the parties themselves are liberated from reason, as their leaders are no longer driven to cater to the electorate or the national interest. Instead, their only imperative is to demonstrate to the ideologues and activists within their choir that they are true defenders of the faith.
If our political system is to be made sound again, we need to end gerrymandering.
But how can this be done? While it is apparent that weird district shapes are engineered by conspiracies of politicians desiring to disenfranchise the electorate, what objective standard is there for assigning fair boundaries?
In fact, there is a standard. The degree of contrivance behind the design of a set of districts is directly related to the total perimeter length of the districts. The shortest distance between any two points is a straight line. The odder and more artificial the district shapes, the longer will be their perimeters.
Now congressional districts need to have equal population sizes, and population density varies, so the task of dividing a state fairly is more complicated than simply slicing it up into equal-sized squares. Still, there is a solution that can be objectively ascertained that does accomplish the goal of creating equal population districts with the minimum total perimeters. This can be found either by humans or computers.
I suggest it be done as follows. Let’s let the majority party in the state legislature take the first shot at proposing a redistricting plan. The sum of the perimeters of all the proposed districts can then be added up to create a score for the majority plan. The minority party can then be given 30 days to come up with an alternative plan. If they can come up with a design whose total perimeter is less than the majority plan’s, then the minority plan is adopted. If not, then the majority plan remains in place.
Creating districting boundaries in this way will not prevent the creation of safe districts for one party or another in all cases. But it will leave the matter to fair chance and geography, rather than the arbitrary actions of political cabals.
Under the current system, redistricting plans are subject to endless litigation. For example, under the Voting Rights Act, various minority groups have made the accusation that certain redistricting plans have been contrived to deny them representation. Alternatively, those facing such suits have made the counterargument that their proponents are attempting to create racially determined set-aside congressional seats, which would clearly be unconstitutional. However, if the system recommended here were adopted, both of these forms of improper activity would be impossible, and suits based on their allegation rendered preposterous.
Many politicians will resist such reform, as it will make it necessary for them to care about the views of the voters and the needs of the nation.
The rest of us should insist on it for precisely that reason.