At RealClearPolicy Dennis Bullock asks why should we let the political parties draw the maps of legislative districts?
Neutral redistricting would render real benefits for the American people. The House would be more likely to function as intended, with representatives advocating for local interests and compromising when there is no consensus on issues of great national importance. Legislators’ incentives would be quite different: constituencies would be more mixed and partisan appeals less useful in campaigns; extreme ideas would lose much of their cachet because they wouldn’t be likely to win many elections; pragmatism would regain potency because constituencies would not be promised the moon; and legislative compromise would again become necessary for members to win reelection.
There’s a simple answer to the question: because there is no alternative. Whether the district boundaries are drawn by legislators, redistricting committees, judges, or algorithms, they will be political and will reflect the preferences, prejudices, and goals of their authors.
There still are no dispassionate, wise philosopher-kings. Whoever draws the boundaries will have political views and those views will inform how the boundaries are drawn. If drawing the boundaries of districts is consigned to algorithms (agree on the rules for an algorithm: I dare you), the boundaries drawn will reflect the assumptions and preferences of its designers and those will be political, too. If you really want to make our system fairer and more democratic, make the districts smaller. And for goodness sake reduce the stakes. Limit the reach of government.
“And for goodness sake reduce the stakes. Limit the reach of government.”
Amen.