NYT essay on gerrymandering and GOP House majority

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/its-the-geography-stupid.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ilikeverin]

His Holiness Nate Silver already informed us of this.  Arguments against gerrymandering necessarily stem from issues of representativeness and fairness, not partisan advantage.  The real solution to these issues is multi-member districts with some amount of proportionality within the districts... because that will happen.

[Hatman 🍁]

Certainly an argument that Dem gerrymanders are more justified than GOP ones

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It's not just gerrymandering in many states so much as Democratic voters often being far more concentrated than Republicans. Still doesn't justify many of the more insane gerrymanders (PA, OH, NC, etc).

[Sol]

It's certainly true in some states, like MO, but not in others, like NC.

[DC Al Fine]

It's not just gerrymandering in many states so much as Democratic voters often being far more concentrated than Republicans.

We ought to send cards to Democratic voters for making such nice packs for us.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A very concentrated electorate isn't necessarily a problem, actually...

[H. Ross Peron]

This is a good argument for expanding the number of House seats and establishing a mixed-member proportional system.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is a good argument for expanding the number of House seats and establishing a mixed-member proportional system.

The problem is, without changing the Constitution, to ensure a minimum of 3 seats for every MMP district using the 2010 census (1367 seats), we'd have to more than triple the size of the House.  That's just way too large. Nor do I see Constitutional change as at all possible.  For better or worse, the US is stuck with single-member districts.

[H. Ross Peron]

This is a good argument for expanding the number of House seats and establishing a mixed-member proportional system.

The problem is, without changing the Constitution, to ensure a minimum of 3 seats for every MMP district using the 2010 census (1367 seats), we'd have to more than triple the size of the House.  That's just way too large. Nor do I see Constitutional change as at all possible.  For better or worse, the US is stuck with single-member districts.

It'll probably require a constitutional change but a MMP system is more like that of Germany's-single-member districts plus a national list vote.

[Dave from Michigan]

The size of the house should be increased at least to 500, preferably 600. I don't think that would happen though. Although if Puerto Rico becomes a state maybe they will inlarge it even more than however many seats PR gets. I would be shocked if more than 20% of the U.S. supported a larger house. 4-500K sounds like a good number per district, preferably smaller though.

[muon2]

Part of the issue identified is due to the current make up of the two parties. The Dems are a far more concentrated urban party than they were 30 years ago. The rural river and union areas the article notes were not the remnants they are today. I suspect the long sweep of history will eventually cause party shifts that negate some of the concentrating effects. Another 30 years should do it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If they wanted to create some new though on the matter, they would have gone with a larger house size once they determined that gerrymandering alone was not enough.