Problem: partisan split of districts that's grossly disproportionate (not representing the will of the voters).
#SolutionToGerrymandering: A state's total vote split can't be more than 1 congressional district disproportionate. If so, one of the "wrongly" flipped districts "flips back" in order by whichever district had the closest vote. EXAMPLE:
In North Carolina in 2024, statewide votes for its 14 seats went 43% Democrat vs. 53% Republican in congressional elections (48% Harris vs. 51% Trump), so a 6-8 split (2 vote difference) would be a reasonable congressional result (though rounded to Republicans’ favor).
Unfortunately, it's so grossly gerrymandered that it's actually currently 4-10 (28% to 72%), resulting in a massively unfair swing of 4 seats (28% off to a 6-vote difference).
How the votes went in 2024:
District#1: 46% D to 54% R
District#2: 66% D to 32% R
District#3: 22% D to 78% R
District#4: 72% D to 26% R
District#5: 40% D to 60% R
District#6: 30% D to 70% R
District#7: 41% D to 59% R
District#8: 40% D to 60% R
District#9: 38% D to 57% R to 6% I
District#10: 38% D to 58% R
District#11: 43% D to 57% R
District#12: 72% D to 26% R
District#13: 41% D to 59% R
District#14: 42% D to 58% R
REAL WORLD RESULT: Republicans got 10 seats, when they should’ve gotten no more than 8 (Democrats got 4 seats when they should’ve gotten 6).
Consequently, 2 seats would need to “flip back” to Democrats to be fair and representative of the will of the voters.
HOW THIS NEW PLAN WOULD WORK:
The Districts with the closest votes where Republicans win (Districts #1 and #11) would then switch to Democratic wins.
THIS SOLUTION’S RESULTS: Republicans win 53% of the votes and get 57% of the congressional representatives.
Democrats win 43% of the vote and 43% of the seats in Congress.
Even with this solution, Democrats are still at a net loss of 2 seats, which should be the worst possible situation (not a difference of 6 seats as it is with current gerrymandering).
CONSEQUENCES/IMPACTS:
1.) This would moderate candidates in swing districts so that there would less likely be such a disproportionate impact (with gerrymandering resulting in so many ardent extremists in purple districts).
2.) This would limit the iron grip of parties (lock-step tribalism) and thus encourage more bipartisanship.
and, most importantly...
3.) The Congress would most closely be representative of their voters.
REGARDING LEGAL/CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES: It is foundationally true (axiomatic) that government is only legitimate when it represents the will of the people. A reasonably accurate proportionality of representation that most closely resembles voter preferences must therefore be the goal. “The Constitution is not a
$uicide-pact.”
The Constitution (ArtI.S4.C1) says Congress "may at any time by Law make or alter such (election) Regulations." So this plan should be constitutional.
It all comes down to American voters deciding which is worse: extremely disproportionate representation (thus nullifying the very concept of a republic) or stare decisis (when many other longstanding precedents are being reversed all over the place). If an amendment is necessary, let’s do it.
• Hat Tip to
#IronSeagull on Reddit:
reddit.com/r/newjersey/comme…
ejournalofpublicaffairs.org/…