Re:Unratified Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
by austincheney on Monday March 12, 2018 @05:37PM
(#16571891)
To me that doesn't make any sense. If it is in the vested interest of a congressman to maintain the convention of gerrymandering then any action to the contrary is equally unlikely. A constitutional amendment is the least likely scenario since it requires majority support of the congress as well the senate and states.
If you cannot expect congress to act in the peoples' interest the only viable solution is through federal court action. In the mean time, since I am in fantasy land (as you call it), I will prefer practical solutions no matter how improbable in the real world over constitutional amendment which is even more imaginary.
Also there is no reason to expect increased seats in congress will have any effect upon gerrymandering and may even make it substantially worse. It certainly won't make law making more efficient.
Re:Unratified Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
by philwelch on Monday March 12, 2018 @08:48PM
(#16573030)
The apportionment amendment was already passed in the eighteenth century, so it just needs to be ratified by the states. No Congressional action necessary.
And while you could try to gerrymander an 11,000 seat House of Representatives, it would be a lot harder.
Also, if you're going to go straight into fantasy land to solve gerrymandering, you can just do party-list proportional representation by state, or STV for smaller states, and then there's no districting at all. There's nothing in the constitution requiring congressional districts at all.