1. “By definition, neutral commissioners never intend to devise plans that help or harm particular parties.”

   Give that man a gold star for naivete.

2. P.R. has been around since the 1840s – repeat 1840s.

   Political *SCIENCE* has advanced since the Dark Age gerrymander formation of the English House of Commons in the 1200s

   — carried into the 1607-1776 Brit colonies — carried into the 1776-2012 State regimes

   — carried into the 1789-2012 U.S.A. regime.

   Armies of math and political MORONS in the U.S.A. – courts, media, party robots, etc. etc.

3. My thoughts (as someone who personally supports of the two major parties)

   1. The Congressional law that limits the number of Congressmen (or women) per State needs to be revised. Right now, the cap has not really kept up with population and ratio (for lack of a better term) of constituents per Congress-person is not really ideal.

   2. In changing the law, most States would probably get to elect additional Congressmen/women. I would suggest having this ‘new’ members of Congress elected in a way that was less driven by gerrymandering, like some form of proportional representation.

   Thus you would still have Congressional districts that would have to deal with gerrymandering, but you also have some Congressional seats elected using PR.

   3. Non-partisan committees can be (slightly) better then overtly partisan creation of districts, at least in terms of trying to create districts with roughly the same size and economic interest.

   For example, in Minnesota the court created new districts were slightly better then what the GOP legislators wanted.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.