Texas is experiencing a political drama, in case you missed it. In order to gerrymander additional seats for Republicans in the Texas congressional delegation, the Republican leadership there is determined to use redistricting. Democrats in the state legislature responded by leaving the state in an effort to prevent the newly trimmed map from passing by preventing the legislature from having a quorum. More over one-third of lawmakers in the state House and Senate are Democrats, and Texas mandates that two-thirds of the legislature be present in order to conduct business.
There is more to this Texas redistricting dispute than meets the eye. Republicans will gain five more seats in the US House of Representatives if the new plan is approved, according to several experts. Other states, such as California and New York, have responded by considering more drastic gerrymandering in support of Democrats.
This fight is frustrating because it doesn’t have to occur. In other words, gerrymandering in the US may be totally eliminated—and no, I don’t mean by utilizing nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting panels, which have been used with mediocre results in several states. Instead, the answer is to rethink the way we choose our representatives.
Single
-member districts don t adequately represent us
The so-called single-member simple plurality method is used in almost all US House of Representatives elections. Even though the typical American may not be familiar with this term, anyone who has ever cast a ballot in a US House of Representatives election—and many others who haven’t—understands the idea. One representative is chosen from each of the districts that make up each state. Voters just select their favorite candidate when they cast their ballots. The winner is the candidate with the most votes, not necessarily a majority.
By its very nature, this system is not representational. Large numbers of individuals will remain unrepresented regardless of how a state divides up its districts, whether or not gerrymandering is used. Consider this: two out of every five voters in a district will not have their preferred representative in the U.S. House if a candidate wins even a sizable majority of the vote, say 60%. The candidate who wins that seat is exempt from considering the opinions, preferences, or concerns of people who did not support them.
All of this means that our representative election process is fundamentally unrepresentative. Additionally, gerrymandering creates incredibly unrepresentative districts by removing districts to maximize the chances of a candidate from one party or another winning.
We can use a more representative system
Gerrymandering is made possible by the single-member simple plurality system’s intrinsic unrepresentativeness. Bad faith actors can take advantage of the system’s intrinsic unrepresentativeness by cutting districts that favor one side thanks to the single-member district.
Bad faith actors will always exist and will find methods to take advantage of flaws in the system if efforts are made to prevent gerrymandering without addressing the single-member simple plurality system’s intrinsic failure of representation, such as through redistricting committees.
Therefore, switching to proportional representation, or PR, instead of a single-member simple plurality system is the only method to end gerrymandering. Notably, PR is not a system of ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice voting does little to lessen unrepresentativeness and instead converts the single-member simple plurality system into a single-member majoritarian system.
In a PR system, several persons are elected to represent the voters rather than just one, and districts are either nonexistent or incredibly wide. The seats are distributed according to the vote once you have what are known as multi-member electoral districts.
For illustration, consider Arkansas as a single district with one hundred legislators. Republicans would receive about half of the seats if they received 50% of the vote from voters. Democrats would receive almost 40% of the seats if they received 40% of the vote.
No one is left without representation, which is the system’s greatest feature. Even minor groups would be represented if a party received 1% of the vote, which would earn them one representative. Gerrymandering is no longer a concern because there is no longer a need to eliminate districts. There would be no more fighting like there is in Texas.
But this idea is crazy!
Actually, it isn’t. This system is used in scores of countries around the world, like the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Israel and many others.
It s really a very intuitive system, and it has other benefits beyond ending gerrymandering. Decades of scientific research show that a proportional representation system increases voter turnout and actually produces more political parties from which to choose. The reasoning for this is straightforward: if votes are counted proportionately, no votes are wasted, increasing the motivation to cast a ballot. Additionally, citizens are encouraged to vote for their actual preference instead than choosing the lesser of two evils. Ultimately, a party gains seats even if it receives a small portion of the vote.
The real problem with using this system in the United States is a lack of political will. Since the passage of the Uniform Congressional District Act in 1967, all elections to the United States House of Representatives are required to be single-member contests. This regulation could be amended to require either single-member districts or multi-member districts chosen by proportional representation. It just seems that nobody in Congress, Republican or Democrat, has an interest in making the system more representative.
Given the uphill battle of trying to alter the federal electoral system to be more proportional, it might make more sense to turn to the state level, particularly in a state like Arkansas. The state constitution can be amended through a citizen initiative. By addressing the way members to the state House of Representatives and the state Senate are chosen, and requiring elections to use proportional representation, Arkansas can lead the way in fighting against undemocratic gerrymandering. That s right, for once Arkansas could be the leader in a positive category nationwide.
It’s dragon-slaying time!
The Arkansas Times, which relentlessly defends the fundamental rights and liberties in our community, stands as a light of truth in an era when critical voices are being silenced more and more. Our commitment to provide uncompromising journalism has never been more important, especially with Arkansas in the center of a broad culture war that is impacting our libraries, schools, and public conversation. We can’t accomplish our goals of defeating dragons and holding those in positions of authority responsible alone. You can guarantee that independent journalism in Arkansas not only endures but flourishes by making a contribution today. We can join the fight and make a difference together.
