We do have a narrow window to make this work out, but it’s going to take some fundamental changes in how we think about gerrymandering.
First: Accept that gerrymandering is a given in our elections until such time as we have the opportunity to make it not so. This is not so hard. WE’ve already come to that conclusion, I think, but where we get sideways is in what to do about it. Which brings us to…
Second: This is the big one — STOP CONCEDING THESE GERRYMANDERED DISTRICTS AND START CONTESTING THEM. It boggles the mind that we simply give up because Republicans don’t fight fair. Yes, they’re drawing themselves districts that they expect to be friendly. And if we simply shrug and walk away because of that, then we’re not only “complying in advance”, we’re also giving up on the people in those districts. And with us sending those voters that kind of message, we are fulfilling the self-fulling prophecy. Why would they vote for us? We’ve conceded the narrative before we even got started.
Third: Go into those districts and knock on doors. Metaphorically and/or literally. Social media is a cesspool, though unfortunately a requirement. emails get tossed without being read (ask me how I know) and TV ad buys are stupid expensive, and not especially effective with the demographics we need to reach.
Fourth: And this is a subtle distinction but a critical one. Talk TO the people of the district — not AT them. And when they talk back listen for information, and let them finish before you respond. If your head starts shaking before they’ve even finished talking, the message you’re sending is “You’re wrong. And I know you’re wrong before I ever hear what you have to say.” Take it in — you may find out why they vote the way they do which is probably the most important piece of information they can give you. You might also find out that you’re not as different as you think — and they might find out the same.
Finally: Understand that not everyone can be persuaded. They have their reasons, and if those are strong enough or personal enough you’re just trying to teach a pig to sing. You can still learn something from the exchange, though, and those are data points that no GPS can give you.
There's no need for a constitutional amendment, if one were even possible—which it isn't. Article I, Section 4. states "...Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations (for Congressional elections)". As for Trump's current re-gerrymandering gambit, the most Democratic states are actually more gerrymandered than Texas.
In Texas, where Trump garnered 56% of the 2024 statewide vote, Republicans hold 66% of U.S. House seats (25 of 38). That's an over-representation of 10 percent. In New York, where Kamala Harris garnered 56% of the vote, Democrats hold 73% of the House seats (19 of 26)—an over-representation of 17 percent. In Illinois, where Harris garnered 54% of the vote, Democrats hold 82% of House seats (14 of 17)—an over-representation of 28 percent.
And in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom is preparing to re-map the state, Democrats already hold 43 of the state's 52 U.S. House seats (83%). Kamala Harris' 58% statewide margin makes for a 25 percent over-representation. And that's with California's "Citizens Redistricting Commission."
With Republicans holding about a one-percentage point edge over Democrats in the U.S. House—and with Trump's 1.5% popular vote margin—there is zero justification for adding Republican seats in the House.
So-called "independent/non-partisan redistricting" is not a solution, as California's U.S. House delegation demonstrates. The only way to achieve fair partisan representation is some form of multi-member, proportional representation elections. Congress could mandate that by law as stated in the Constitution's Article I, Section 4.
What is the prospect of a constitutional amendment on this passing? Not good, I surmise. Ideally, every state would let a bipartisan commission, with AI assistance, carve up congressional and legislative districts without regard to partisan advantage. But politicians insist on choosing their own voters.
If Democrats' top priority had been promoting representative fairness, then they would have adopted neutral redistricting rules or set up an independent redistricting commission. It wasn't, and they didn't. Republicans have perfected what Democrats pioneered.
It's too bad that cowardly Justice Kennedy folded on redistricting reform. Bring on the constitutional amendment. But shed no tears for Democrats. Just like Republicans, they favor reform when they're out of power, not when they have power and can do something about it.
The citizens deserve better than a corrupt, self-serving duopoly.
We do have a narrow window to make this work out, but it’s going to take some fundamental changes in how we think about gerrymandering.
First: Accept that gerrymandering is a given in our elections until such time as we have the opportunity to make it not so. This is not so hard. WE’ve already come to that conclusion, I think, but where we get sideways is in what to do about it. Which brings us to…
Second: This is the big one — STOP CONCEDING THESE GERRYMANDERED DISTRICTS AND START CONTESTING THEM. It boggles the mind that we simply give up because Republicans don’t fight fair. Yes, they’re drawing themselves districts that they expect to be friendly. And if we simply shrug and walk away because of that, then we’re not only “complying in advance”, we’re also giving up on the people in those districts. And with us sending those voters that kind of message, we are fulfilling the self-fulling prophecy. Why would they vote for us? We’ve conceded the narrative before we even got started.
Third: Go into those districts and knock on doors. Metaphorically and/or literally. Social media is a cesspool, though unfortunately a requirement. emails get tossed without being read (ask me how I know) and TV ad buys are stupid expensive, and not especially effective with the demographics we need to reach.
Fourth: And this is a subtle distinction but a critical one. Talk TO the people of the district — not AT them. And when they talk back listen for information, and let them finish before you respond. If your head starts shaking before they’ve even finished talking, the message you’re sending is “You’re wrong. And I know you’re wrong before I ever hear what you have to say.” Take it in — you may find out why they vote the way they do which is probably the most important piece of information they can give you. You might also find out that you’re not as different as you think — and they might find out the same.
Finally: Understand that not everyone can be persuaded. They have their reasons, and if those are strong enough or personal enough you’re just trying to teach a pig to sing. You can still learn something from the exchange, though, and those are data points that no GPS can give you.
Thomas,
Were your number of Democrat seats correct?
I sent out a correction. Thanks.
There's no need for a constitutional amendment, if one were even possible—which it isn't. Article I, Section 4. states "...Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations (for Congressional elections)". As for Trump's current re-gerrymandering gambit, the most Democratic states are actually more gerrymandered than Texas.
In Texas, where Trump garnered 56% of the 2024 statewide vote, Republicans hold 66% of U.S. House seats (25 of 38). That's an over-representation of 10 percent. In New York, where Kamala Harris garnered 56% of the vote, Democrats hold 73% of the House seats (19 of 26)—an over-representation of 17 percent. In Illinois, where Harris garnered 54% of the vote, Democrats hold 82% of House seats (14 of 17)—an over-representation of 28 percent.
And in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom is preparing to re-map the state, Democrats already hold 43 of the state's 52 U.S. House seats (83%). Kamala Harris' 58% statewide margin makes for a 25 percent over-representation. And that's with California's "Citizens Redistricting Commission."
With Republicans holding about a one-percentage point edge over Democrats in the U.S. House—and with Trump's 1.5% popular vote margin—there is zero justification for adding Republican seats in the House.
So-called "independent/non-partisan redistricting" is not a solution, as California's U.S. House delegation demonstrates. The only way to achieve fair partisan representation is some form of multi-member, proportional representation elections. Congress could mandate that by law as stated in the Constitution's Article I, Section 4.
What would that amendment say?
I agree completely
What is the prospect of a constitutional amendment on this passing? Not good, I surmise. Ideally, every state would let a bipartisan commission, with AI assistance, carve up congressional and legislative districts without regard to partisan advantage. But politicians insist on choosing their own voters.
We know all this. The question is 'What can we do about it?'
Democrat complicity in gerrymandering runs much deeper than "they naively thought that Republicans believed in democracy."
Democrats ran North Carolina for a century. They gerrymandered for partisan gain with the greatest computational sophistication available to them at the time. (See: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/North_Carolina_Congressional_Districts_1992-2001.svg)
If Democrats' top priority had been promoting representative fairness, then they would have adopted neutral redistricting rules or set up an independent redistricting commission. It wasn't, and they didn't. Republicans have perfected what Democrats pioneered.
It's too bad that cowardly Justice Kennedy folded on redistricting reform. Bring on the constitutional amendment. But shed no tears for Democrats. Just like Republicans, they favor reform when they're out of power, not when they have power and can do something about it.
The citizens deserve better than a corrupt, self-serving duopoly.