change is possible
But it will be hard to convince the people in power to give up power, as Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) likes to say.
There are a number of reform proposals out there at the moment (including one by Tanner, a centrist). The one I like best is a state constitutional amendment drafted by Sam Hirsch, a lawyer at Jenner & Block in Washington D.C. He models his system on New Jersey's, an evenly-divided bipartisan commission with an independent tie breaker in the middle (it tends to be an academic). In such a system both sides have an incentive to draw maps that please the tie breaker, so they tend to be fair. Hirsch gives the tie breaker more votes than all the others combined because under the New Jersey system the two parties can gang up and outvote the academic in an effort to protect themselves-that's what happened with the New Jersey delegation after the 2000 Census.
Why not assign congressional seats by multi-member district, via some form of IRV?
April 17, 2006 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Under such a system would members find that constituent servicing was no longer cost effective or even particularly beneficial to their election prospects?
April 17, 2006 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do we really believe in the existence of "independent" tie-breakers? How can anyone grow to adulthood in the United States as an engaged citizen, and still have no political preference?
Why is it impossible or undesirable to have congressional districts designed by computer algorithm? I can invent a couple of imaginary reasons, but I'd like to hear from someone who understands American politics better than I do.
Happy talk is not the way to gain the confidence of the people. - Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq
April 18, 2006 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink