Multi-member districts empower party-leadership at the expense of the individual members. Their adoption would effectively convert Congress into a Parliament. In such a system, the real decisions are made by a small group of party leaders while most members are mere seat warmers with no individual accountability.
A better way to reduce gerrymandering would be to increase the size of the House and thus make districts smaller and harder to gerrymander. Congress should pass legislation to reset the size of the House to the cube root of the population after every census. If done today, this would increase the number of members to 692 from the current 435. Prior to 1929, Congress regularly adjusted the number of seats as our population grew. They only stopped because rural and small-state members wanted to avoid losing power due to the rural-to-urban population shifts in the 1920 Census. Capping the number of members ensured that the Electoral College would give excessive power to small state voters.
Limiting the number of House seats was a gerrymandering intended to preserve the power of rural and small state voters. If you want to eliminate gerrymandering, then increase the size of the House.
Agree on increasing the size of the House, but smaller districts would make gerrymandering easier, not harder.
*Districts* are not gerrymandered, The subject of gerrymandering is a collection of districts, such as a State. The state is gerrymandered by fine-tuning the boundaries of its districts, which would be easier with smaller districts.
Imagine that districts only contained one voter. Gerrymandering would be impossible since each voter would be his own representative. (i.e. perfect democracy) Now, as you increase district size to two, three, or more voters, you find that it becomes increasingly easy to gerrymander by adjusting the boundaries between neighboring districts. But,, at some point, increasing district size makes it harder to gerrymander. Eventually, when the district size is equal to the entire available population, gerrymandering becomes impossible. So, the ease of gerrymandering initially grows as the district size grows, up to a point, and then it declines to a minimum.
With MMD and Proportional Representation, one votes for the Party, not the member. Thus, it is the party leaders who choose the candidates on their list who are empowered. Today, it is possible to win elections as an independent or as a renegade party member who is respected by voters, but not the party leaders. That becomes essentially impossible under MMD with proportional representation.
The problem now is that you need to sell your idea, of a system that provides greater representation for a variety of voters/viewpoints, to an opposition that has no interest in such results.
One of the typical characteristics of the right-wing mindset is low tolerance for ambiguity or uncertainty. It's the tendency to absolutist, black/white thinking, "my way or the highway," "there's the right way and then there's all the other ways."
This includes a strong need to find and adhere to the Right Answer. Once you have it, it becomes clear that those who disagree are simply wrong. And why should people who are wrong have an equal say with those who are right? If you are right, then your ideas should rule, and it doesn't matter if you are only 51%--or even a distinct minority. Democracy is not at all your highest value. You would rather be right than democratic.
So while most Americans may be disgusted with the current state of our politics, there is a fervent minority--"the worst / Are full of passionate intensity"--who would *prefer* to be at war with their fellow citizens, rather than allow their incorrect views to prevail.
We can't just advocate for better ways of implementing democracy. We are in a fight for the justification of democracy itself.
Our Congress is completely dysfunctional, so any hope for PR and MMD is 5-10 steps down the road. What's the most immediate, powerful and achievable solution to fix the terrible incentives in our politics? Indiana's Primary elections this past Tuesday demonstrate why the real solution MUST include getting our two major private political parties out of the business of controlling our public primary elections. Closed or segregated partisan primary elections give corrupt party bosses (and dark $$ interests) way too much power and control. Let's make our parties stronger through REAL competition on a level playing field for ALL candidates, and ALL voters, regardless of party affiliation. Onward!
If there was any evidence to support your claims, Eric, I'd be on board. But there is simply no evidence to it. And contrary to your unhelpful pessimism, there is a real opportunity in this moment to make the case for proportional representation. Marginal reforms like re-arranging the deck chairs of primary rules is a waste of time and money, IMHO.
To clarify, Lee, I'm not exclusively wed to any single reform solution. I think this moment requires 1000 experiments. The current system is failing all of us. When I travel the country and share about Veterans for All Voters, I always mention multi-member districts and proportional representation as a potential solution. For some reason though, I don't hear you and your supporters call out our two major private political parties for rigging the rules in their own favor (i.e., ballot access, gerrymandering, rigged presidential debates, etc). Their divide and conquer tactics are destroying our country. I don't hear you calling for more electoral competition, on a level playing field. I'm not anti-party. I'm pro competition -- on a level playing field -- for all candidates, and all voters, including the over 50% of my fellow Veterans who aren't interested in joining a private party in order to vote. IF parties are truly adding value for their members, then they should charge a fee and pay for their own private elections. If you want to hold up NY and CT as a model for the power of fusion voting, go right ahead. I'll hold-up the Alaska model as a much more powerful and promising example of healthy governance, and real competition. In the end, both are better than the status quo. And, states could decide to use both. Hopefully we can agree on that? Onward!
Whatever it is you’re proposing Congress do (pass Raskin’s bill, I think), won’t help. That bill would only allow PR, not require it. So red states would continue gerrymandering and blue states would have yet another way to unilaterally disarm. That state of affairs would be worse than where we are now.
I like the idea of proportional representation as you describe and am definitely interested in hearing more about how to get there. Callais definitely turns up the dial on partisan gerrymandering, while also proving that originalism is opportunistic, not constraining-->
"Here’s how it works. Instead of dividing a state into single-member districts where the winner takes all, you elect the whole delegation at once, proportionally."
WTF are you talking about? THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. The fascists have won.
They keep painting the political map in neat little patches of red and blue like it’s some harmless high-school football rivalry, but out in the real world the divide looks a whole lot uglier, it’s the haves versus the have-nots, and the people caught in the middle are getting squeezed from every direction.
Farmers lost international markets to tariffs, fuel and equipment costs climbed with global conflict, rural hospitals vanished under the cold math of profit margins, and transportation costs now haunt nearly every item on the shelf.
So when the political class starts ranting about gerrymandering, you have to wonder if the real trick isn’t just the district lines, but how effectively the system keeps ordinary people fighting each other while the economic ground disappears beneath their boots.
Your suggestion of PR is good, along with increasing the size of the House. However, redistricting commissions could be required to maximize the number of competitive districts
Really enjoyed this piece. PR sort of reminds me of Land Value Tax or Cap and Trade type proposals in that they seem to offer firm solutions but run into opposition from people who are receiving some form of "rent" under the existing system, and from people who are wary of a new and apparently non-intuitive system that may cause dislocations in the near term.
I respect your POV, but reject the notion that race, as a basis for representation, is (or should be) permissible. A much better solution would be to drastically increase the number of congressional representatives, by awarding House seats based on a relatively low population threshold - which I understand can be done without a constitutional amendment. That would address the primary evil of the current system, which is the disconnect between House candidates/members and the interests of their actual constituents - which happens because, under the current system (in which House members represent increasingly large numbers of residents), the only way to “breakthrough” in a primary is to have the support of one’s party. Since both major political parties have been hijacked by extreme partisans at both ends, that advances candidates and members whose agendas often drastically deviate from those of their constituents. Rather than fighting to save race preferences, which should not be necessary in today’s world, it is my opinion that we should be collectively working to ensure greater accountability - and, hopefully, thereby more effective action - on the part of our House representatives (which is what the founders, George Washington in particular, were concerned with - there is no question they never envisioned the dilution of accountability that has occurred because we keep stuffing more and more people into congressional districts).
Expending the House only works if you also implement proportional representation, otherwise it just enables higher fidelity gerrymanders. It’s a good idea, it just needs some help.
The problem, as pointed out in the article, is collective agreement on what constitutes proportional representation (proportion of what?). If you reduce the population count in districts, we each have a much higher probability of getting to know those who seek to represent us - and can make our decisions accordingly.
The proportion of a party's votes should roughly match their number of seats. (30% of the vote gets you 30% of the seats) It does not require any racial gerrymandering-- in fact PR would get rid of gerrymandering entirely!
Curious why you think mentioning RCV would jeopardize the non-partisan reputation of PR. I have an idea of my own about that, but would like to hear another view.
Sure, resorting to tribal argument can make anything good or bad by association. What I was wondering is whether they would try to come up with some logical reasoning (which they would, if they could, to get beyond red meat for the base), or recognize that they are stuck with just pure emotional tribalism on this issue.
I really like your take here. It’s “realpolitik” and PR savvy. Essentially, taking the idea and imagining the opposition points that would come up against it when putting PR into practice. There’s a path forward for PR and there’s a messaging path forward that goes along with it. Appreciate thinking about something I hadn’t considered thanks to you.
I have hope that the gerrymandering stampede just set off by SCOTUS, if carried to its logical conclusion (and why wouldn't it be?), will turn gerrymandering, per se, into a national issue.
Multi-member districts empower party-leadership at the expense of the individual members. Their adoption would effectively convert Congress into a Parliament. In such a system, the real decisions are made by a small group of party leaders while most members are mere seat warmers with no individual accountability.
A better way to reduce gerrymandering would be to increase the size of the House and thus make districts smaller and harder to gerrymander. Congress should pass legislation to reset the size of the House to the cube root of the population after every census. If done today, this would increase the number of members to 692 from the current 435. Prior to 1929, Congress regularly adjusted the number of seats as our population grew. They only stopped because rural and small-state members wanted to avoid losing power due to the rural-to-urban population shifts in the 1920 Census. Capping the number of members ensured that the Electoral College would give excessive power to small state voters.
Limiting the number of House seats was a gerrymandering intended to preserve the power of rural and small state voters. If you want to eliminate gerrymandering, then increase the size of the House.
Agree on increasing the size of the House, but smaller districts would make gerrymandering easier, not harder.
*Districts* are not gerrymandered, The subject of gerrymandering is a collection of districts, such as a State. The state is gerrymandered by fine-tuning the boundaries of its districts, which would be easier with smaller districts.
Imagine that districts only contained one voter. Gerrymandering would be impossible since each voter would be his own representative. (i.e. perfect democracy) Now, as you increase district size to two, three, or more voters, you find that it becomes increasingly easy to gerrymander by adjusting the boundaries between neighboring districts. But,, at some point, increasing district size makes it harder to gerrymander. Eventually, when the district size is equal to the entire available population, gerrymandering becomes impossible. So, the ease of gerrymandering initially grows as the district size grows, up to a point, and then it declines to a minimum.
How does MMD empower party-leadership more than the current system?
With MMD and Proportional Representation, one votes for the Party, not the member. Thus, it is the party leaders who choose the candidates on their list who are empowered. Today, it is possible to win elections as an independent or as a renegade party member who is respected by voters, but not the party leaders. That becomes essentially impossible under MMD with proportional representation.
Humm? That’s not the way I understand MMD. Will have to go back and read up on that.
Here are four examples, unless I am misunderstanding, I still see typical primaries in the process.
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/Four%20Models%20of%20Multimember%20Districts%20v2.pdf
The problem now is that you need to sell your idea, of a system that provides greater representation for a variety of voters/viewpoints, to an opposition that has no interest in such results.
One of the typical characteristics of the right-wing mindset is low tolerance for ambiguity or uncertainty. It's the tendency to absolutist, black/white thinking, "my way or the highway," "there's the right way and then there's all the other ways."
This includes a strong need to find and adhere to the Right Answer. Once you have it, it becomes clear that those who disagree are simply wrong. And why should people who are wrong have an equal say with those who are right? If you are right, then your ideas should rule, and it doesn't matter if you are only 51%--or even a distinct minority. Democracy is not at all your highest value. You would rather be right than democratic.
So while most Americans may be disgusted with the current state of our politics, there is a fervent minority--"the worst / Are full of passionate intensity"--who would *prefer* to be at war with their fellow citizens, rather than allow their incorrect views to prevail.
We can't just advocate for better ways of implementing democracy. We are in a fight for the justification of democracy itself.
Our Congress is completely dysfunctional, so any hope for PR and MMD is 5-10 steps down the road. What's the most immediate, powerful and achievable solution to fix the terrible incentives in our politics? Indiana's Primary elections this past Tuesday demonstrate why the real solution MUST include getting our two major private political parties out of the business of controlling our public primary elections. Closed or segregated partisan primary elections give corrupt party bosses (and dark $$ interests) way too much power and control. Let's make our parties stronger through REAL competition on a level playing field for ALL candidates, and ALL voters, regardless of party affiliation. Onward!
If there was any evidence to support your claims, Eric, I'd be on board. But there is simply no evidence to it. And contrary to your unhelpful pessimism, there is a real opportunity in this moment to make the case for proportional representation. Marginal reforms like re-arranging the deck chairs of primary rules is a waste of time and money, IMHO.
To clarify, Lee, I'm not exclusively wed to any single reform solution. I think this moment requires 1000 experiments. The current system is failing all of us. When I travel the country and share about Veterans for All Voters, I always mention multi-member districts and proportional representation as a potential solution. For some reason though, I don't hear you and your supporters call out our two major private political parties for rigging the rules in their own favor (i.e., ballot access, gerrymandering, rigged presidential debates, etc). Their divide and conquer tactics are destroying our country. I don't hear you calling for more electoral competition, on a level playing field. I'm not anti-party. I'm pro competition -- on a level playing field -- for all candidates, and all voters, including the over 50% of my fellow Veterans who aren't interested in joining a private party in order to vote. IF parties are truly adding value for their members, then they should charge a fee and pay for their own private elections. If you want to hold up NY and CT as a model for the power of fusion voting, go right ahead. I'll hold-up the Alaska model as a much more powerful and promising example of healthy governance, and real competition. In the end, both are better than the status quo. And, states could decide to use both. Hopefully we can agree on that? Onward!
Whatever it is you’re proposing Congress do (pass Raskin’s bill, I think), won’t help. That bill would only allow PR, not require it. So red states would continue gerrymandering and blue states would have yet another way to unilaterally disarm. That state of affairs would be worse than where we are now.
I like the idea of proportional representation as you describe and am definitely interested in hearing more about how to get there. Callais definitely turns up the dial on partisan gerrymandering, while also proving that originalism is opportunistic, not constraining-->
https://www.activevoice.us/p/your-democracy-has-been-updated
Hi Lee, the link to your NYU Law Review essay doesn’t work. Is it still live somewhere?
"Here’s how it works. Instead of dividing a state into single-member districts where the winner takes all, you elect the whole delegation at once, proportionally."
WTF are you talking about? THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. The fascists have won.
They keep painting the political map in neat little patches of red and blue like it’s some harmless high-school football rivalry, but out in the real world the divide looks a whole lot uglier, it’s the haves versus the have-nots, and the people caught in the middle are getting squeezed from every direction.
Farmers lost international markets to tariffs, fuel and equipment costs climbed with global conflict, rural hospitals vanished under the cold math of profit margins, and transportation costs now haunt nearly every item on the shelf.
So when the political class starts ranting about gerrymandering, you have to wonder if the real trick isn’t just the district lines, but how effectively the system keeps ordinary people fighting each other while the economic ground disappears beneath their boots.
https://substack.com/@patticrane636836/note/c-252355270?r=1atxk
I have reached the same conclusion many times. See: https://youtube.com/shorts/UfKvNs8g43I?si=dMvf8r9zAD72eP_M
Your suggestion of PR is good, along with increasing the size of the House. However, redistricting commissions could be required to maximize the number of competitive districts
Really enjoyed this piece. PR sort of reminds me of Land Value Tax or Cap and Trade type proposals in that they seem to offer firm solutions but run into opposition from people who are receiving some form of "rent" under the existing system, and from people who are wary of a new and apparently non-intuitive system that may cause dislocations in the near term.
Thanks for the writeup!
I respect your POV, but reject the notion that race, as a basis for representation, is (or should be) permissible. A much better solution would be to drastically increase the number of congressional representatives, by awarding House seats based on a relatively low population threshold - which I understand can be done without a constitutional amendment. That would address the primary evil of the current system, which is the disconnect between House candidates/members and the interests of their actual constituents - which happens because, under the current system (in which House members represent increasingly large numbers of residents), the only way to “breakthrough” in a primary is to have the support of one’s party. Since both major political parties have been hijacked by extreme partisans at both ends, that advances candidates and members whose agendas often drastically deviate from those of their constituents. Rather than fighting to save race preferences, which should not be necessary in today’s world, it is my opinion that we should be collectively working to ensure greater accountability - and, hopefully, thereby more effective action - on the part of our House representatives (which is what the founders, George Washington in particular, were concerned with - there is no question they never envisioned the dilution of accountability that has occurred because we keep stuffing more and more people into congressional districts).
Expending the House only works if you also implement proportional representation, otherwise it just enables higher fidelity gerrymanders. It’s a good idea, it just needs some help.
The problem, as pointed out in the article, is collective agreement on what constitutes proportional representation (proportion of what?). If you reduce the population count in districts, we each have a much higher probability of getting to know those who seek to represent us - and can make our decisions accordingly.
The proportion of a party's votes should roughly match their number of seats. (30% of the vote gets you 30% of the seats) It does not require any racial gerrymandering-- in fact PR would get rid of gerrymandering entirely!
> Since both major political parties have been hijacked by extreme partisans at both ends
Bothsidesing liar.
Curious why you think mentioning RCV would jeopardize the non-partisan reputation of PR. I have an idea of my own about that, but would like to hear another view.
Sure, resorting to tribal argument can make anything good or bad by association. What I was wondering is whether they would try to come up with some logical reasoning (which they would, if they could, to get beyond red meat for the base), or recognize that they are stuck with just pure emotional tribalism on this issue.
I really like your take here. It’s “realpolitik” and PR savvy. Essentially, taking the idea and imagining the opposition points that would come up against it when putting PR into practice. There’s a path forward for PR and there’s a messaging path forward that goes along with it. Appreciate thinking about something I hadn’t considered thanks to you.
I have hope that the gerrymandering stampede just set off by SCOTUS, if carried to its logical conclusion (and why wouldn't it be?), will turn gerrymandering, per se, into a national issue.