WI: Congressional districts organized by county

Not true, you can do it by an Act of Congress. All the Apportionment Act until 1929 mandated compact and contiguous districts. It was then deliberately left out and there was a court challenge about whether its inclusion could be inferred because it was in all the previous ones.

What's not true? While not including "an Act of Congress" may render my list of possible ways to remedy the situation incomplete, it certainly doesn't render it not true.
 
This is actually the way a number of states organized their state legislatures until the practice was barred by the Supreme Court in the 1960s in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v Sims under the "one man one vote" doctrine.

Ah, thanks for bringing that up, I know of the cases but couldn't remember the names; but yeah, this is pretty solid SCOTUS case law for why the OPer's suggestion is unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional, that is, unless you have either (a.) an amendment allowing for explicit gross malaportionment in CD size, or (b.) had a (complimetary?) constitutional amendment which mandated that every county in America was the same size, population wise.

(a.) Is pretty unviable, even by the standards of, say, Antebellum census politics, and certainly wouldn't survive into the modern era, while (b.) sounds more plausible in democratic theory, but would be a nightmare to implement.

Dear God, NO! If you think gerrymandering is bad now, imagine how much worse it would be if they were used in presidential elections.

Well, if every state went down the path of clean, nonpartisan boundary drawing it wouldn't be so bad, but that's a helluva a condition to get in the first place.

My idea remains: have every state divide it's population into cleanly drawn, non-congressional-seat-related electoral college districts (say, by each quarter million of the pop, something like that) and award each district in the standard US method, while the winner of the overall vote in the state gets a top-up of two delegates.
 
Well, if every state went down the path of clean, nonpartisan boundary drawing it wouldn't be so bad, but that's a helluva a condition to get in the first place.

My idea remains: have every state divide it's population into cleanly drawn, non-congressional-seat-related electoral college districts (say, by each quarter million of the pop, something like that) and award each district in the standard US method, while the winner of the overall vote in the state gets a top-up of two delegates.


Or dispense with geographical districts altogether. Just list all voters in alphabetical order, and in a state with ten Congressional seats, the first 10% become the first "district", the second 10% the "2nd district" and so forth.
Alternatively they could be divided by age or by the amount of State taxes they paid. But of course this would stand little chance of adoption snce it leaves insufficient opportunity for cheating.
 
But of course this would stand little chance of adoption snce it leaves insufficient opportunity for cheating.

To be honest, I can think of another reason why constituencies aren't determined like this anywhere these days*--it sort of reeks of selective voting rights to choose different 'categories' of voters, even if done randomly as you suggest in your second sentence.

*At least I think there are no systems like this in our era, not in the West.
 
Top