WI the U.S. legislative districts had names instead of numbers?

In Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Turkey, and nearly all other democracies with election by district, the districts have names.

In the U.S., districts have numbers.

Seats are reapportioned and districts redrawn after each decennial Census.

Sometimes the numbers stay about where they were in the state, but at other times they move. In some cases, the alignment of the numbers is reversed, i.e. the new map has the "1st District" at the other end of the state. Continuity of district identity is very limited.

Supppose that the U.S. followed the custom of other democracies, and had names instead?
 
In Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Turkey, and nearly all other democracies with election by district, the districts have names.

In the U.S., districts have numbers.

Seats are reapportioned and districts redrawn after each decennial Census.

Sometimes the numbers stay about where they were in the state, but at other times they move. In some cases, the alignment of the numbers is reversed, i.e. the new map has the "1st District" at the other end of the state. Continuity of district identity is very limited.

Supppose that the U.S. followed the custom of other democracies, and had names instead?

You'd need to have the United States be more democratic.
 
You'd need to have the United States be more democratic.

I attribute the numbering instead of naming of districts to be a meaningless difference. My local newspaper has a tendency to call the districts of local politicians at every level by the name of the largest town in the distict, and politicians from other states has just being generic representatives of that state.

How does naming or numbering make anyone more or less democratic? You could gerrymander Upper-Lower-Middle-West-East-Uncton just as easily as you can gerrymander the 15th District.
 
You'd need to have the United States be more democratic.

Not really sure what this means.

It might not be too hard to do. States have a lot of power over how they set up their own election systems even for national elections. Some states might opt to name their districts instead of number them. If this were the case than it may work to limit gerrymandering as named districts gain historical and cultural importance within the state. Districts would still change a bit, but they would be more likely to follow distinct geographic or historic boundaries (such as counties or old land grants).

This may also give rise to other differences. Sports teams may be named after congressional districts in some states instead of cities. Some military regiments may gain long lasting historical names more similar to the British system. Finally, with districts having more distinct identities there may be a move to make said state's electorates vote per their district instead of en mass as is common OTL.

Maybe we could see a situation where those states called commonwealths use this different system. This would mean that Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky would have named districts with distinct heritages. Finally, the term Commonwealth would matter in the US. (Besides Puerto Rico, which is a different situation.)

Ben
 
Well I decided to name each state's districts. First,

Alabama

1st District - Mobile
2nd District - Montgomery
3rd District - Auburn
4th District - Decatur
5th District - Huntsville
6th District - Birmingham Surrounds
7th District - Birmingham

Alaska

At Large - Anchorage

Arizona

1st District - Flagstaff
2nd District - Glendale
3rd District - Phoenix North
4th District - Phoenix South
5th District - Phoenix Central
6th District - Phoenix Surrounds
7th District - Yuma
8th District - Tucson

Arkansas

1st District - Jonesboro
2nd District - Little Rock
3rd District - Fayetteville
4th District - Hot Springs
 
I attribute the numbering instead of naming of districts to be a meaningless difference. My local newspaper has a tendency to call the districts of local politicians at every level by the name of the largest town in the distict, and politicians from other states has just being generic representatives of that state.

How does naming or numbering make anyone more or less democratic? You could gerrymander Upper-Lower-Middle-West-East-Uncton just as easily as you can gerrymander the 15th District.
I often see within-state legislators listed as, say, "I-Smithville", but I'd assumed that meant the person was an independent who lived in Smithville, not an independent whose primary constituency was Smithville.
 
I often see within-state legislators listed as, say, "I-Smithville", but I'd assumed that meant the person was an independent who lived in Smithville, not an independent whose primary constituency was Smithville.

In most (if not all) states, doesn't a legislator have to be a resident of their district?
 
In Connecticut the districts tend to run by county lines (although with several forming one district), its usually the most populated county that it is often called by (although thats not a hard and fast rule, The district I live in is often called the Fairfield district despite it containing the second largest city in New England Bridgeport which is outside Fairfield county).
 
In most (if not all) states, doesn't a legislator have to be a resident of their district?
I don't know about "most", but California, at least, doesn't have such a requirement.

I'm more pondering the hypothetical district containing Grand City and its suburb Smithville. If Bob lives in Smithville and represents the whole district, does it fit more with common practice to label him (I-Smithville) or (I-Grand City)? I think the former.
 
I often see within-state legislators listed as, say, "I-Smithville", but I'd assumed that meant the person was an independent who lived in Smithville, not an independent whose primary constituency was Smithville.

I am pretty sure they mean the district not their hometown. As far as I know, the "name" of the district doesn't change until redistricting, even if someone else is elected. I even vaguely remember a rant about a politician in NYC who was listed as D-Sometown even as the paper was ranting about him living in the next district over. They equated living in the wrong district to being almost as bad as whatever real crimes he committed.

Then again, my utter lack of concern about whether a politician lives inside or outside the district may stem from my utter lack of understanding why anyone would want a system where representatives only come from (often randomly drawn) single member districts.
 
Top