(10-06-2017 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 04:51 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 01:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 11:42 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Then we turn it over to a non-partisan/bi-partisan commission.

But where do you find anyone nonpartisan to serve on your commission?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Ay, there's the rub...

An idea I would like to consider is an amendment stipulating that, for example, each congressional district must consist of one or more complete counties, or something like that. This would scrap the idea that districts must be equal in population, but that concept is over-rated anyway. European parliaments have constituencies that vary considerably in population, without too much complaint from the populace. And of course, the US Senate does as well: New England, for example, has twelve Senatorial districts, which very widely in population, but they're not gerrymandered. (Of course, the region's ideological conformism means that even without gerrymandering, most of those Senate are not really contested between the two parties, but that's more of a cultural problem...)

I think having one body that is disconnected completely from population like the Senate is good. I think we should just strive to make the other body as representative of population a state possible. That is likely easier said than done, but I don't find any of the points of why it's so difficult to do that to be compelling enough to not try that.

Yes, proportionality is good, but it's also in tension with reducing gerrymandering. Maintaining proportionality requires frequent re-districting, which opens the door to gerrymandering. I think it would be a completely worthwhile tradeoff to give up some proportionality in order to reduce gerrymandering -- but that's must my opinion.