A realistic plan to end gerrymandering

(Part of) a Voting Rights Act for the age of big data

Partisan gerrymandering is at crisis levels. There are currently multiple court cases challenging extreme partisan gerrymanders: Gill v Whitford in Wisconsin (which has gone through oral arguments in the SCOTUS), Abbot v. Perez in Texas, Benisek v. Lamone in Maryland, the Cooper and Rucho cases in North Carolina, and probably others I’m missing. Modern computer-aided gerrymandering can be far more extreme than in the past, and we’re in for another round of it in 2020.

One of the many negative consequences of gerrymandering is increased partisan polarization. Representatives for artificially-drawn safe districts are motivated to ignore the other party and pander to the extremist primary voters of their own party. Thus we get politicians so intent on hurting their partisan enemies that they’re willing to damage the nation and even the constitution itself in the process.

In this article, I’m going to propose a realistic plan to use this partisanship against itself. So for the first part, I’m going to sound like a “Conan the Barbarian” partisan, reveling in crushing the Republicans and seeing them driven before me. But the ultimate goal is a system that is fairer for all voters. That’s actually win/win for almost all groups of voters, including not just many Republicans but also third party supporters and other groups who are deeply suspicious of, or outright hostile towards, Democrats. So please read to the end before you judge me as a dembot.

Many solutions have been proposed for gerrymandering. Litigation and court-ordered remedies; voter initiatives for nonpartisan redistricting power; dreams of proportional representation. The problem with all of these are that they are slow and difficult. Litigation is reactive; by the time you win, the damage is already done. And if done at the state level, both nonpartisan redistricting or proportional representation rely on either the initiative process or traditional legislation, which makes them nearly impossible to accomplish in precisely the places where they’re most needed.

Is there a realistic way to solve this problem at the federal level?

Without the “realistic”, the answer clearly would be yes. Rep Beyer (D-VA) has sponsored the Fair Representation Act, which would impose a belt-and-suspenders double fix of proportional representation (through multimember Single Transferable Vote, aka STV) and fair redistricting (through nonpartisan commissions) on all states’ congressional elections. But frankly, the chances that Congress will vote to radically reshape the way every single one of they themselves must campaign for re-election strains credibility.

I think that the innovations that are coming out of the court cases can point a way forward. Instead of mandating that all states use some new system(s) to avoid gerrymandering, Congress could just impose the requirement on the worst offenders. Using the “efficiency gap” standard proposed in Gill v. Whitford, here’s the states where the state legislatures are badly gerrymandered:

It could be like a Voting Rights Act for the age of big data. (Of course, gerrymandering is only one of various threats to voting rights these days, so other protections would also be needed. But that’s another story.)

So what I’m suggesting is that Congress should pass a law that says “States must maintain an efficiency gap under 7 percent, or else…” This of course presupposes some future Democratic congress, because no Republican legislator is going to vote against the basis of their own power in 13 states. But the chances of Democratic control of Congress by 2021 (when this issue comes to a head) are at least 50/50, and arguably better.

So that leaves one obvious question: or else what? The solutions envisioned in the Fair Representation Act are good, but they’re slow and cumbersome. A state whose districting plan was found to be in violation would have to set up new redistricting commissions from scratch; let them do their work; create entirely new election procedures involving new machines and a difficult-to-secure centralized counting process; and educate the voters about a radically new ballot format; all in a tight timeline before the next election, and all as the state itself is unwillingly dragging its feet. Frankly, that’s not realistic.

This is where PLACE voting comes in. Like STV, this is a proportional representation method (hashtag #PropRep, because the initials PR mean other things). Remember, gerrymandering is the partisan weaponizing of wasted votes, and the efficiency gap measures those wasted votes; #PropRep methods make that impossible by ensuring that only a tiny fraction of votes are wasted.

But unlike STV, PLACE voting can use the same districts and voting machines as we do now, and vote-tallying procedures could still be done at the precinct level. Ballot format would change somewhat, and some voter education would be needed, but frankly the system would not break down even if these steps were done half-heartedly. This makes PLACE voting a credible threat: a short-term drop-in replacement for the current gerrymander-prone voting method (known as first past the post, FPTP).

That’s a game-changer in terms of congressional feasibility. Congress is not about to change the system that elected them to office. But a Democratic majority changing things mostly for Republican states? That kind of partisan jockeying is what Congress is good at.

…

This may sound distasteful. If you’re not a Democratic partisan, why should you hope for Democrats to take this hyper-partisan step? Because in the long run it’s good for all of us.

My ultimate goal is to pass proportional representation nationwide. But this isn’t some sneaky, underhanded plan. I just think that once voters got a look at how it worked in red states, they’d start demanding it for themselves. If it’s not as great as I think it is, then there’s no way for it to spread. And even if that’s how it works out, still, by acting to end gerrymandering as a partisan move against Republicans, Democrats will have removed this anti-democratic (small “d”; also, anti-republican) tool from the toolbox, so that in the future when gerrymandering might be a potential weapon for Democrats, it will not be available.

But I think that ultimately, #PropRep would benefit many groups. Third parties would get a fair voice, with both seats in congress and important reasons for major-party candidates to listen to third-party concerns out of self interest. “Base” groups for both major parties could be taken for granted no longer. Voter turnout would increase and currently-underrepresented groups would have their fair share of power. Negative campaigning and the negative-sum politics of spiteful zero-sum thinking wouldn’t be the only way to win.

Basically, from a game theory perspective, we’ve chained the real world with its multiplayer positive-sum possibilities to a two-party duopoly biased towards zero-sum tactics. Breaking that link can be a win/win for many groups. Only the very biggest winners under the current system — corrupt incumbents, lobbyists, and their ilk—would have to give up anything at all.

So yes, in the service of that goal, I’m willing to encourage Democrats to do this on a purely partisan basis. And that’s why I think that a “fair maps or else PLACE voting” bill is a realistic hope to end gerrymandering once and for all.

The shield should read “#PropRep”