An anti-gerrymandering amendment is necessary, but I don't see it (or any of your other amendments) ever happening. There's simply no way you'll ever get 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states to approve any amendment, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Why? Do you think that at least 1/3rd of Congress and 1/4 of the states *likes* gerrymandering? Because I don't see that.
We certainly can't pass any amendments on *controversial matters* under polarization. But amendments that more than 80% of the public *actually wants*, with no opposing special interest groups (like an anti-gerrymandering amendment), seem quite practical -- if someone would just try.
Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I don't see a way that our current crop of politicians (especially in the GOP, who currently benefit more from gerrymandering and thus have more to lose if it were outlawed) would ever vote to deprive themselves of the ability to choose their own voters. This goes for other matters like expansion of the House (which I would like to see, though I'm not as radical about it as you are due to logistical problems), since I don't think House members would vote to make themselves less powerful in that chamber. I could easily see partisanship playing a big role, as I think Republicans would oppose an amendment proposed by a Democrat solely for being proposed by a Democrat and vice versa. I hope you're right and that an amendment is merely a matter of someone trying (that's the good ending for our current political crisis, which is bound to reach a head at some point), but I'm not holding my breath.
I don't think it's currently the case that the GOP benefits more from gerrymandering. It was true in the 2010s, but it is not true today.
The 2024 split between the House popular vote and the proportion of seats taken was nearly even -- and slightly favored *Democrats*. The median congressional district was *slightly* more Republican than the national popular vote, but only by 1.5%. (It was more than 5% in 2016.)
I don't have these figures for today, but, even in 2018 (when the map definitely was still gerrymandered in the GOP's favor), FiveThirtyEight projected that instituting an algorithm for districting would cut the GOP's proportion of safe seats by 7%, versus 10% for the Democrats. A real discrepancy, but not a huge one. (https://web.archive.org/web/20250226192630/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/) I'm confident they'd be closer to one another today.
The absolute number of representatives who owe their seats to gerrymandering (in the sense that, if gerrymandering ended, they would not win re-election to Congress) is also fairly small, although it's gone up a good bit this year. I pegged it somewhere in the 20s. Even if it's 100, though, that's not enough to block an amendment.
Maybe this changes back to GOP advantage if SCOTUS rules against racial gerrymandering via majority-minority districts, but, as I see it, right now is the perfect time for everyone to make a deal.
Clearly, an amendment hasn't been successfully proposed, so that's a pretty big argument against my theory that one could be, but it feels like they just aren't trying, because we've sort of nationally given up on constitutional amendments, even broadly popular ones. I'm not sure why.
I do agree with you that the House would never vote to expand itself. That's why the Apportionment Act of 1929 is still in place in the first place. The only body that could plausibly propose that amendment to the states is an Article V convention. Same thing for my Senate proposal.
I also agree that this would represent the good ending for a political crisis that seems more likely to end badly with every passing day.
An anti-gerrymandering amendment is necessary, but I don't see it (or any of your other amendments) ever happening. There's simply no way you'll ever get 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states to approve any amendment, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Why? Do you think that at least 1/3rd of Congress and 1/4 of the states *likes* gerrymandering? Because I don't see that.
We certainly can't pass any amendments on *controversial matters* under polarization. But amendments that more than 80% of the public *actually wants*, with no opposing special interest groups (like an anti-gerrymandering amendment), seem quite practical -- if someone would just try.
Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I don't see a way that our current crop of politicians (especially in the GOP, who currently benefit more from gerrymandering and thus have more to lose if it were outlawed) would ever vote to deprive themselves of the ability to choose their own voters. This goes for other matters like expansion of the House (which I would like to see, though I'm not as radical about it as you are due to logistical problems), since I don't think House members would vote to make themselves less powerful in that chamber. I could easily see partisanship playing a big role, as I think Republicans would oppose an amendment proposed by a Democrat solely for being proposed by a Democrat and vice versa. I hope you're right and that an amendment is merely a matter of someone trying (that's the good ending for our current political crisis, which is bound to reach a head at some point), but I'm not holding my breath.
I don't think it's currently the case that the GOP benefits more from gerrymandering. It was true in the 2010s, but it is not true today.
The 2024 split between the House popular vote and the proportion of seats taken was nearly even -- and slightly favored *Democrats*. The median congressional district was *slightly* more Republican than the national popular vote, but only by 1.5%. (It was more than 5% in 2016.)
I don't have these figures for today, but, even in 2018 (when the map definitely was still gerrymandered in the GOP's favor), FiveThirtyEight projected that instituting an algorithm for districting would cut the GOP's proportion of safe seats by 7%, versus 10% for the Democrats. A real discrepancy, but not a huge one. (https://web.archive.org/web/20250226192630/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/) I'm confident they'd be closer to one another today.
The absolute number of representatives who owe their seats to gerrymandering (in the sense that, if gerrymandering ended, they would not win re-election to Congress) is also fairly small, although it's gone up a good bit this year. I pegged it somewhere in the 20s. Even if it's 100, though, that's not enough to block an amendment.
Maybe this changes back to GOP advantage if SCOTUS rules against racial gerrymandering via majority-minority districts, but, as I see it, right now is the perfect time for everyone to make a deal.
Clearly, an amendment hasn't been successfully proposed, so that's a pretty big argument against my theory that one could be, but it feels like they just aren't trying, because we've sort of nationally given up on constitutional amendments, even broadly popular ones. I'm not sure why.
I do agree with you that the House would never vote to expand itself. That's why the Apportionment Act of 1929 is still in place in the first place. The only body that could plausibly propose that amendment to the states is an Article V convention. Same thing for my Senate proposal.
I also agree that this would represent the good ending for a political crisis that seems more likely to end badly with every passing day.