Political scientists Bernard Grofman and German Feierherd have this Washington Post article on how other democratic countries handle redistricting. The number one point in the article is that most democracies do not use single-winner districts. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Sorry – NO *democracies* in the USA — just nonstop gerrymander OLIGARCHY regimes.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less control.
Much, much, much worse primary / convention math.
—–
One election day.
Ballot access via nominating petitions or filing fees.
PR and AppV
I disagree with your point about the most important point in the article. They note that most countries outside the English-Speaking world do not use single-member districts, and then explain how Canada, Britain, Australia, India, and New Zealand (all English-speaking) do redistricting.
Gill v Whitford is about legislative districts, not congressional districts as the article states.
When I said “the number one point” in the article, I meant that the article lists multi-member districts first in the list of remedies. I didn’t mean to imply the authors said that was the most important remedy; it was just a reference to the fact that they wrote it down on top of their list.
The article makes the claim, “In most other long-term democracies, a politically neutral body draws new districts”, which is absurd.
However the members of such a body are chosen, they will reflect the political desires of whoever chose them. There is no magic way to get around that.
But in many jurisdictions the members are not chosen directly by the political parties but by other means.
The Boundary Commission for England (that does Parliamentary boundaries) has 3 Commissioners – a Judge and two very experienced lawyers. They aren’t nominated by the parties as they would be in parts of the US. There isn’t a nominee from the Conservatives and one for Labour for example.