Cutting Off The Gerrymander's Tail

In the state-level elections for representatives, a troubling thing happened. The majority of votes for representatives mostly went to the Democrats. But the House of Representatives for the incoming 113th Congress will reflect a majority of Republicans. The split in votes for the United States was about the same in percentage as is reflected in the Senate (which only votes in a third of new members every two years instead of a 100% turnover). That is to say, about 53% of the voters voted for Democratic representatives on both a state and a national level. And yet, this majority isn't reflected in the House.

Why not?

Gerrymandering.

Originating early in our nation's history, states have the right to redistrict themselves based on population. They can draw representatives' districts howsoever they see fit. Many states require that this process to be done impartially - creating districts with as close to a plurality as is possible given the population and the disposition of the registered voters. But many other states, especially in recent times and with the advent of computer modeling, have taken this right to an unhealthy extreme - so much so that the will of the people can no longer be reflected in their state. If enough states do this, then the will of the nation isn't reflected in the political demographic of the House of Representatives.

Since states can't be told how to redraw their districts, because this is a constitutional right, we need a constitutional amendment to change how representatives are elected so that the will of the majority in the state is always reflected in the voting.

The most expedient way to do that is to abolish single-representative congressional elections and have "at large" representatives who represent from one to many districts. Congressional districts would then be assigned to the representatives once the general election voting was done. It's unconventional, yes, but it allows the will of the minority to have a voice and a sympathetic ear while at the same time demanding that the two sides work together to solve the problems facing their constituents.

Here's how it would work:

First, you need the number of districts the state has. As an example, California has 53 congressional districts. That means, by population, 53 out of 435 representatives are assigned to California. Let's say (for the sake of the example and not necessarily the actual numbers) that the California demographic by political ideology is 65% Democrat, 30% Republican and 5% "Independent". This would be obtained from the voter registration roles for the PREVIOUS year or election cycle. This prevents voter registration drives from doing anything tricky because those voters would have time to be confirmed as real and qualified.

So, you will assign the representatives based on the percentage of political ideologies. 65% of 53 is 34. 30% of 53 is 16 (that makes up for the extra over 34). The other 3 are assigned to the Independent slot. So California would be represented by 34 Democrats, 16 Republicans and 3 Independents.

Once they're elected, we assign them to districts.

There are 53 districts in total, so the Independents would be assigned about 18 each with one getting 17 - with the top two vote-getters getting the 18 (17.66). The Republicans would get each 3 for most of them, and 2 for the bottom vote getters (3.31) The 34 Democrats would split them 2 for the top vote getters and 1 for the lower vote getters, split pretty evenly.

The races would be simple enough. Everyone votes on every candidate. Primaries would select the final number of candidates. If you have 34 seats for your party and you don't field 34 candidates to fill them, well, we'll take the representatives from the other parties - top loser in the next most represented demographic in the state. But if you have 34 Democratic seats and 3000 Democratic candidates, well, the primaries will be fun since everyone in the STATE votes for their top 68 choices Democrat choices. This allows the voters to screen out the idiots.

Once you have your representatives selected, the campaigning starts for the general election. There would be - at MOST - two party representatives for every party seat available. The Democrats, with 34 seats would have up to 68 Democrat choices. The Republicans with 16 seats would have up to 32 and the Independents would have up to 6 to choose from.

Pick one from each.

Top vote earners win the seats. If you don't have enough candidates, well, that's on your party.

Those elected would then be the representatives for the districts they were assigned. Residency in a district would be waived as a requirement. You'd only need to be a resident of the state in order to run. Each district would have three assigned homes and offices for the at-large representatives, allowing them to go from district to district (if they have more than one) to conduct business for two years and to act as a central point for public contact for the members of their districts.

One COULD assign them to districts before the general election so you know who you're voting for. That actually makes more sense since it's not a matter of party but of assigning an open seat for each party in that district - and would make the selection and campaigning process a bit more sane. It's not a matter of electing a Republican OR Independent OR a Democrat, but in choosing which one of EACH who will represent the will of the people in that district. The only difference is that some of the candidates will appear on more than one district's ballot.

This will provide a sympathetic political ear in EVERY district, so that a "representative" isn't just looking out for their own and saying, "Fuck the rest of you, you didn't vote for me." It will also engage those who have little motivation to vote because they get to have a say in who their representatives will be for each party in their district. And since the turnover is once every two years, any loading the deck (by having a wolf in sheep's clothing vying for a party seat who isn't actually from or representative of that party) will correct itself pretty quickly.

Since the proportion of the seats each party will represent by the state will be based on confirmed voter registrations, swings in sentiment will be lessened. And it gives a representative for every party affiliation in every district. It creates a sense of having to work together to see to the needs of the people in a congressional district. Once they get to Congress, they work to represent the needs of their constituents as usual. The difference would be that their co-representatives would have some input on how the people in the state or district actually feel IN CONGRESS. Today, we don't have that unless your representative is from your party.

I know, I've tried to engage MY "representative" in rational discourse but get nothing but form letters back. He's not from my party. I have to go to a senator who isn't in the House where legislation is actually introduced to get anything resembling an individual response back. That's no way to run a democracy. Everyone should have a representative who will LISTEN TO THEM. Right now, we don't. In EVERY congressional district, there are people who have representatives who don't represent their views. In too many states, there are more representatives who represent the minority views than there are representing the majority views.

Granted, my system won't reflect CURRENT demographic trends (though if voter registration cut-offs can be done early enough to confirm their eligibility, apportion seats and assign districts, that could change), but it will at least give minority political party voters a person to talk to in their district who is at least somewhat sympathetic to their political views. As it is now, the minority have no voice in their districts. And with gerrymandering, the majority are losing theirs in their states.

We need to give a voice back to all of the people. They may not always win the votes needed to prevail. But they should be given the right to at least be heard in the halls of Congress. The only way to do this would be to ban gerrymandering and codify this idea into the Constitutional framework for electing representatives. This way, one party can't seize power from the people indefinitely.