The idea is proportional representation, and “could” here of course means if we grant that it had any real chance of happening.
The article makes the argument that democrats will repeal the law that requires district-based representation if they get congress because they will be desperate enough to do so given the destruction of the Voting Rights Act. Also, this option is likely to be less politically controversial and more likely to yield immediate results than packing the Supreme Court.
Being more likely than packing the court still doesn’t seem likely. They haven’t shown any willingness to actually do anything of substance and this would be a huge thing to achieve. I hope I’m wrong though.
from the article for those curious about how it’s framed:
All this sounds like pie in the sky, if not “un-American,” right? Actually, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that mandates either single-member congressional district or first-past-the-post balloting. A 1967 congressional statute requires single-member districts. Legislation to repeal or replace it would arguably be easier to enact that some blatantly partisan Court-packing scheme or a ban on partisan gerrymandering that might not pass judicial muster.
It’s possible that Callais’s impact is so dire that it would make such radical reforms suddenly possible and perhaps even palatable across party lines. When it comes to gerrymandering, we are clearly entering the “hyper-partisan doom loop of escalating division and polarization” that led Drutman and others to embrace proportional representation and fusion voting. Donald Trump is the perfect expression of the prevailing style of politics, and Democrats who fear and despise him should think hard and think big about how to escape the poison.
Seems like a good idea. Democrats should push it. It could be part of the DNC platform. Having a computer program draw districts would also end gerrymandering but proportional representation seems simpler.
Democrats won’t push anything that extends democracy
Republicans and Democrats might not be interested in eliminating gerrymandering. That’s the reason neither party has ever proposed having a computer program draw districts.
Who programs the computer program? Would there not be an incentive to lobby for the contract by political forces?
We already know how weaponized a computer program can be. There is not one thing that is magical about having a computer program draw districts, what matters is the algorithm and who is doing it.
See REDMAP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
No, the US government would have companies bid for the computer program. The winning program would be required to be used by all states in drawing districts. The winning program would be subject to peer review.
Before the gerrymandering fuckery, I daydreamed briefly of a veto-proof majority. It seems any plan to do anything will need R buy-in or wipe out, or extra time
