Embrace the Gerrymander!

The Republican redistricting scheme currently causing so much consternation in and toward Texas gives me hope. Not, perhaps, in the way you might think. But in it, I see the seeds of potentially, maybe, if if if, a solution to the gerrymandering that has plagued this country for two centuries.

Allow me to explain.

I’ve been railing against gerrymandering for years. Gerrymandering is the drawing of boundaries on political districts in order to group blocks of voters together, either to increase the power of one group, or to decrease the power of another. Sometimes it is used to increase the chances that a member of a minority group can win an election. But far more often these days, it is used to cement a political party’s hold on a district, to make it “safe.” (For the problems safe districts cause, see my previous writings.)

In normal times, Congressional district boundaries are redrawn every ten years, after the decennial census data is received, so that the districts accurately represent where the people live and what those people want. These are not normal times.

Governor Abbott of Texas, kowtowing to President Trump’s request, is urging the Texas legislature to redraw the state’s Congressional map right now, half-way through a decennial period, in order to concentrate the Democratic minority voters into fewer districts, and thus give the Republicans, potentially, three to five more seats in the House of Representatives. Democratic members of the Texas legislature have left the state, in order to prevent the legislature from reaching a quorum, which would—at least, in theory— prevent action on the proposal. But they’ve tried such a quorum-break in the past; it has not been successful. I doubt it will be this time, either.

So we have to accept the reality that Texas is about to further marginalize their Democratic population and flip five of their seats in the House to the Republican party.

Governor Newsom of California has been making noises about attempting the same scheme in his state, which would flip several seats from the Republicans to the Democrats. There’ve been whispers elsewhere—such as Governor Hochul in New York—that other states might do something similar if Abbot and Trump get their way in Texas. The problem I foresee is an ongoing character flaw of the Democrats: the party insists that it must be holier than thou, purer than thou, that it will play be the rules even when their opponents have shown absolutely no compunction about violating those rules. While doing so may give them a moral victory, it will inevitably lead to an actual loss. To my mind, in these cases, the Democrats are those crying “life isn’t fair.” No, it isn’t. Everyone should follow the rules. Everyone should be a good, moral, decent human being. Everyone should be more interested in the good of us all than in our individual results.

But not everyone is.

We don’t need Governor Newsom and Governor Hochul warning “don’t do it or we might do something, too.” We need him and his fellow Democratic governors to act! Today! We need them to implement precisely the schemes Abbot and the Texans are planning. We need to gerrymander the country to a fare-thee-well, to legislate out of existence those last 40 competitive seats in the House.

Because then, and only then, will we all see just how egregious the gerrymandering has become. Only then will it be brought to the Supreme Court. And to my mind, regardless of the Court’s political slant, there is no way it can allow such outrageous diminution of the minorities to survive. In such a case, I think, the Supreme Court will only be able to rule that the gerrymandering violates the people’s rights to be fairly represented, and that political maps must be drawn in a fair, impartial manner.

(Yes, I know, I’m an idealist. It may not work out that way. But I don’t see any other way to fix the mess we’re in.)

And if, IF my dream comes true, may I humbly suggest new legislation regarding how districts are drawn? A fairly simple test, actually:

No Congressional district, when drawn on a Mercator projection map, shall be drawn in such a way that a straight line drawn on that map shall be able to cross into the district more than once. That is, except in cases where the state border itself violates this dictum.

I don’t expect any of this to happen. I expect the Democrats will continue to purge their own ranks, as they threw out Al Franken. I expect they’ll yell and whine and do nothing, while Texas rejiggers their Congressional map, and that the election of 2026 will result in a Trumpian increase in the House, and we’ll continue bitching and moaning about their self-serving actions for years to come.

But wouldn’t it be nice if I was wrong, and we could actually make things better?


Democrats flee Texas to block Republican redistricting map backed by Trump


Texas Democrats arrive in Illinois to block vote back home on redrawn House maps sought by Trump


Limited options for Democrats to retaliate if Texas Republicans redraw congressional map

Shouting into the political wind

I just completed my absentee ballot for this year’s election here in New York City’s 45th assembly district. As with the linked article, I, too, have a dearth of choices. For two of the races (judgeships), there was only one candidate, while for the State Supreme Court, there were seven candidates for the six seats (five of them were endorsed by all three parties represented on the ballot [Democratic, Republican, and Conservative], one is Democratic-only, and the other Republican and Conservative only). And in the City Council race, there is the incumbent (registered Democrat) running as a Democrat, Republican, and Conservative, while his opponent (registered Republican) is running as an independent.

For the unopposed judgeships, I wrote in votes for “None of the Above,” as I did for five of the six seats on the Supreme Court (I only voted for the Democratic-only candidate). For the City Council, the incumbent couldn’t be bothered to tell us his top issues, nor to answer the questions about his positions on the major topics, while his challenger strikes me as too religiously doctrinaire, so I wrote in myself.

Why am I posting this, along with that article link? Because I agree with it emphatically… and I can’t think of any simple way to get us out of the mess. We have the vote… but we’ve given the two major parties so much power over all the features of our government that they’ve made our vote completely meaningless. While political gerrymandering is less of an artificial impediment here in New York City (there’s no feasible way I can imagine to make the districts competitive between the parties, when the overwhelming majority of registered voters are all in one party), it also results in the extremists who can’t even talk with the other side, which is the dysfunction we’ve been seeing in Washington. So I’m voting “none of the above” in protest of the system. As absentee ballots, they won’t be noticed; as write-in votes, they’ll be recorded as “write-in votes,” and no one will even bother to read whose name I wrote in. I think I’m just shouting at the wind, but it does make me feel marginally better. Then again, climate change will probably kill us before the political extremists can truly ruin the world, so there’s that.