News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
The State of Reform
Download Unite America’s free report
Download Unite America's free report analyzing the impact of four key political reforms.
News. Community. Debate. Levers for better democracy.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
The single transferable vote explained.
How multimember districts could end partisan gerrymandering
Eckam is a Texas software developer and graphic designer. Last year he self-published "Beyond Two Parties: Why America Needs a Multiparty System and How We Can Have It."
<p>
A year ago the Supreme Court declared partisan gerrymandering beyond the reach of its adjudication — while at the same time acknowledging the practice is "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/politics/partisan-gerrymandering-supreme-court/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">incompatible with democratic principles</a>." So what can be done about it?
</p><p>
Many activists are pursuing independent redistricting commissions, which would certainly help. But something a little more radical would go further in safeguarding our democracy from partisan abuses of power.
</p><p>
Instead of electing each of the 435 members of the House to represent a district with a single member, we could create fewer congressional districts but then elect several members in each of them. For example: Texas, which because of population growth will probably be able to send 39 representatives to Congress for the next decade, could decide to have 13 districts with three members each.
</p><p>
These seats would be filled in a single election using a proportional, multi-winner voting method, such as the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLH_w5kHJpA" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">single transferable vote</a>.
</p><p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>
The number of representatives from a district is called its "district magnitude." Once the number reaches five or so, the electoral system becomes effectively immune to partisan gerrymandering, political scientist Douglas Amy of Mount Holyoke College <a href="https://www.fairvote.org/how_proportional_representation_would_finally" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">has noted</a>.
</p><p>
To see why, remember that single-member elections are winner-take-all. The stakes are very high for the parties because losing, even by a hair, means getting nothing. There's no proportionality of representation; one can only hope that disproportionality in one district is balanced by an opposite disproportionality somewhere else. The low fidelity of representation leaves a huge opening for political operators to skew their party's seat share, relative to vote share.
</p><p>
It's easy to see how this works by looking at the first illustration below. The big rectangular "state" has 60 voters, 36 Republican red and 24 Democratic blue, and they get to fill six single-member House seats. This can be done in some very different ways. In Map A, red gets 100 percent of the seats even though it has just 60 percent of the voters. But in Map B,the reds get just one-third of the seats despite its three-fifths of the voters — thanks to the power of the complementary redistricting tactics known as <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/cracking-redistricting" target="_self">"cracking"</a> and <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/packing-redistrictin" target="_self">"packing."</a></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://thefulcrum.us/media-library/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQzNjQ3MC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTc5MTA2MH0.1Uykx9c1Fxr_UJv9w2jjMbkGCZuutWxkp7_bxmcd8YM/image.png?width=980" id="69b69" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="360958c1549e6abf4361b6ab369fb1e4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="packing and cracking in redistricting">
</p><p>In this second set of schematics, below, the same jurisdiction elects three members each to represent just two districts.<br></p><p>Map C shows a simple division in which both districts have the same share of voters as the state, three-fifths red and two-fifths blue. But because of the multimember system the Democrats get to fill one of the three seats in each district, which isn't too far from their share of the vote.</p><p>Map D shows what might happen if the blue team drew the maps. By adjusting the lines so they have a slight majority in one district, while leaving enough of their allies in the other to maintain a single representative there, they manage to take half of the six seats.</p><p>That's still out of proportion to their share of the overall vote, but not too far out of line compared to what the blue team was able to achieve under the most aggressive single-member gerrymander scenario. What's more, there's no way to distort the balance any further than that. Blue cannot gain more representatives in one district without losing one in the other district.</p><p>Put another way, as district magnitude increases, the granularity of representation narrows further the scope for distortion. Greater representational accuracy renders attempts at gerrymandering unprofitable. It's ruled out structurally, rather than by a delicate balance of competing interests.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://thefulcrum.us/media-library/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQzNjQ4Ni9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTM4NDA2NX0.50CNe2ymNPsX73U5bsRZbpyn3GxzAd3tXbB_i1TCHeA/image.png?width=980" id="67733" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="00249903ab066a0248d734d4530f51cf" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="multimember districts">
</p><p>Multimember districts <a href="https://www.daneckam.com/?p=165" target="_blank">were used</a> to draw the congressional maps of many states for much of American history. But it was usually for a wrong purpose — combined with non-proportional, "at large" election methods such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_non-transferable_vote" target="_blank">block voting</a> in order to dilute the electoral strength of Black voters. In 1967, Congress prohibited multimember House seats, concluding that single-member districts were a good way to comply with the Supreme Court's landmark "one person, one vote" decision a few years before — and were an improvement over at-large elections.<br></p><p><span></span>That's no doubt true, but it's quite a low bar. Combining several-member seats with proportional representation is a far better way to ensure representation for minorities of all kinds — because it flows from the structure of the system. Under single-member districts, <a href="https://www.fairvote.org/minority_representation" target="_blank">minority representation</a> depends on groups being geographically concentrated, to some extent. Mapmakers can't draw a "majority-minority" district for a group that's perfectly integrated.
</p><p>
But why should integration and fair representation be in conflict with each other? With proportional multimember districts, they wouldn't be.
</p><p>
A <a href="https://www.fairvote.org/fair_rep_in_congress#why_we_need_the_fair_representation_act" target="_blank">bill stuck in Congress</a> would require multimember districts in all states with more than one representative. Alternatively, Congress could simply repeal the 1967 law and let states decide. Local reform would also help, both to achieve better representation and to raise awareness.
</p><p>
Of course, it won't be easy to get legislators to act. It will require sustained effort, starting with a greater understanding of how the switch would mean fairer representation for all Americans. There's a lot of "bang for the buck" here — the costs may be somewhat higher than for independent commissions, but the benefits are also greater.
</p><p>
That gerrymandering is such a big issue in our democracy attests to deeper problems of representation. Only because of the partisan duopoly are the politicians (either Republicans or Democrats are always in control) able to abuse their power to suppress competition. Why not attack this problem at the root? Given time to become established, proportional multimember districts would loosen the grip of partisan interests over our democracy by depriving them of majority power.
</p><p>
James Madison <a href="https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493273" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">wrote</a> that since it's impossible to eliminate factions, we need to find ways to control their pernicious effects. His idea was that an extended republic would encompass a greater variety of interests, making it less likely that an oppressive majority could be established.
</p><p>
Gerrymandering is clearly one of many such pernicious effects of faction. Multimember districts would not only end the political profitability of such mapmaking but also begin to address the deeper issues of representation that now enable the practice.
</p>
Keep reading...
Show less
'Slay the Dragon' - Film Screening & Panel Discussion on Gerrymandering
Organizer: Fix Democracy First and Meaningful Movies Project
Join Fix Democracy First and Meaningful Movies Project for an online film screening and panel discussion on gerrymandering with "Slay the Dragon," a 2019 documentary film about gerrymandering in the United States directed by Barak Goodman and Chris Durrance. The film follows citizens' groups as they work to end the practice of gerrymandering, which they see as undermining democracy. It features Katie Fahey, the activist who founded Voters Not Politicians and led a successful grassroots campaign to ban partisan gerrymandering in Michigan. View trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGdCxOM1A20
Location: Webinar
FotografiaBasica/Getty Images
Arkansas redistricting reform blocked from November ballot
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a redistricting reform measure from the November ballot, dashing the hopes of anti-gerrymandering advocates who hoped to achieve multiple wins this fall.
Siding with Republican Secretary of State John Thurston, the high court rejected the petition submitted last month by Arkansas Voters First because of an error with the state-mandated criminal background checks for petition canvassers.
That leaves Virginia as the only state left with a redistricting reform measure on the ballot. Reformers in other states had pushed anti-gerrymandering initiatives this year, but they ultimately fell short of signature thresholds or were defeated in court. These campaigns represented the last change for meaningful change until 2030, as states will begin their decennial mapmaking process next year.
<p>
The Arkansas ruling comes on the heals of North Dakota's Supreme Court scrapping a ballot measure that would have ended gerrymandering in the Legislature. Advocates in these and other states are now forced to look to the future.
</p><div id="8702a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7fbf3999017c54b5f228606b3305bd2b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1299090150660681728" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">My heart is going out to @NDVotersFirst and @ARVotersFirst you aren't alone in this fight even if it's going to ta… https://t.co/1YUsWgLrol</div> — Katie Fahey 👍✌ (@Katie Fahey 👍✌)<a href="https://twitter.com/KTeaFahey/statuses/1299090150660681728">1598562202.0</a></blockquote></div><p>While Arkansas Voters First is still evaluating its next steps, Chairwoman Bonnie Miller said she "will not stop fighting for fair maps in Arkansas."
</p><p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>
"I'm not giving up hope for a more representative democracy in our state," she said. "The power and authority to draw maps should be vested with the voters — not politicians and lobbyists."
</p><p>An anti-gerrymandering effort in <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/big-picture/supreme-court-gerrymandering" target="_self">Oregon</a> were also blocked in the courts, and a campaign in <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/redistricting/nevada-redistricting-measure" target="_self">Nevada</a> fell short of the required signatures because the coronavirus pandemic made canvassing especially difficult. </p><p>A redistricting measure is on the ballot in Missouri, but if approved by voters, it would <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/redistricting/gerrymandering-missouri" target="_self">undo a reform initiative</a> implemented two years ago.</p><p>After Arkansas Voters First turned in signatures for its petition in July, Thurston determined the submission was insufficient because the campaign's canvassers did not certify they passed background checks. But Miller argues the canvassers were in compliance with state law.<br></p><p>
"The court had the opportunity to side with the people as the canvassers had clearly complied with the statute, but instead chose to refuse their rights by a thin technicality," Miller said. "We are very disappointed in this ruling and are evaluating our legal options."</p><p>
Currently, Arkansas' congressional maps are drawn by the GOP-majority Legislature, and the legislative maps are determined by the governor, attorney general and secretary of state — all Republicans.
</p><p>
If the redistricting measure had been successful, it would have put a nine-member nonpartisan commission in charge of redrawing Arkansas legislative and congressional maps each decade.
</p><p>
"Surveys from earlier this year show that when given the opportunity, Arkansans want to end the control of redistricting by politicians behind closed doors and replace it with a fair, nonpartisan and open process," Miller said.
</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Partisan maps hurt children, liberal group claims - The Fulcrum ›
- North Dakota court boots gerrymandering reform from ballot - The ... ›
- Ark., Nev., N.D., Ore. inch closer to redistricting reform - The Fulcrum ›
- Arkansas anti-gerrymander group joins fight for relief from signature ›
Related Articles Around the Web
- Arkansas a top-10 state in legislative gerrymander - Arkansas Times ›
- Arkansas - The Atlas Of Redistricting | FiveThirtyEight ›
- Arkansas ballot measure would change redistricting process ›
- Arkansas ballot measure would change redistricting process ›
- Arkansas court blocks redistricting, open primary measures ›
Keep reading...
Show less
FotografiaBasica/Getty Images
North Dakota court boots wide-ranging reform measure from ballot
A sweeping election reform measure has been removed from the November ballot following a North Dakota Supreme Court ruling Tuesday.
The measure would have established an independent redistricting commission as well as other changes to the election process, if approved by voters. But the high court agreed with a lawsuit that claimed voters had been misled during the signature gathering process.
This year's general election is the last opportunity for some states to approve redistricting reforms before election maps are redrawn next year. The court's decision means North Dakota's legislative districts will remain subject to partisan gerrymandering for another decade. (The state's sole seat in the U.S. House isn't subject to remapping.)
<p>Soon after North Dakota Voters First's reform initiative was approved for the ballot earlier this month, the conservative Brighter Future Alliance sued GOP Secretary of State Al Jaeger to remove it. The suit claimed petition canvassers failed to provide a full text of the measure when collecting signatures. Nearly 100 Republican state lawmakers — the party dominates both chambers — also filed a legal brief in opposition to the ballot measure.</p>
<p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>In a 5-0 ruling, the justices ordered the measure be removed, saying "the petition does not comply with the constitutional requirement that it contain the full text of the measure." Jaeger said he intends to follow the court's instruction.</p>
<p>The measure would have put the state's nonpartisan ethics commission in charge of the redistricting process for the Legislature. It also would have established a top-four open primary system and <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/ranked-choice-voting" target="_self">ranked-choice voting</a>.</p>
<p>"All North Dakotans should be alarmed at how an entire political establishment came together, used all the levers of power and government, marshaled the special interests together, and denied the voters the right to make a simple choice about how our elections should be governed," said Carol Sawicki, chairwoman of North Dakota Voters First.</p>
<p>With North Dakota's efforts dashed, <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/redistricting/virginia-redistricting-amendment" target="_self">Virginia</a> and <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/redistricting/redistricting-reform-oregon-arkansas" target="_self">Arkansas</a> are the only two states in which voters will decide this fall whether to approve redistricting reform measures. Oregon also attempted to get an anti-gerrymandering initiative on the ballot, but those efforts were <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/big-picture/supreme-court-gerrymandering" target="_self">blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court</a>.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Missourians will vote on whether to <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/redistricting/gerrymandering-missouri" target="_self">undo a redistricting reform initiative</a> they approved two years ago.</p>
<p>Currently, 36 states give lawmakers the authority to draw maps for their own legislatures. Ten states use nonpartisan commissions and four have commissions staffed by politicians. For congressional districts, eight states use independent commissions.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Missouri votes may undo latest revamp of redistricting rules - The ... ›
- CAP's final report on gerrymandering cites harsh voting laws - The ... ›
- Ark., Nev., N.D., Ore. inch closer to redistricting reform - The Fulcrum ›
- Arkansas redistricting reform blocked from November ballot - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
