I have a proposal for a stunt, in which the Blue States reform their districting laws, and then proclaim "okay, we reformed, now it's the Republicans turn." I know what you're thinking: we can't unilaterally disarm! That's what you're supposed to think - that's part of the trick. But in this scheme, we get all the political benefits of unilateral reform, and none of the electoral cost.
Here's how it works...
When the day arrives, they learn that this is the bill: "This state shall use such-and-such nonbiased computer program for districting of congressional seats and senate seats. No human intervention or adjustment of parameters is allowed." But it also has this little catch: "This law shall go into effect when all 50 states have passed this exact law." That little catch is the magic trick. It's not unilateral disarmament - the law has no effect until Texas passes it too.
We proclaim boldly that this bill will be the end of gerrymandering. Then, we announce that we plan on marching this bill across the blue states, one at a time. We announce in advance that one blue state will pass the law every Monday, at 5PM central time. We do not reveal in advance which state it will be, but we give hints, to encourage the Sunday talk-shows to spend time speculating.
We follow through. Every week, another Blue state passes the bill. This generates a weekly newspaper article about Democrat-driven election reform. Periodically, we "spice up" the stories by letting the bill get delayed by Republicans, and then we tell how we overcame them.
This goes on for two months or so. Eventually, we run out of blue states over which we have absolute control. Next, it's time to go after the purple states. Now the real fun begins.
Remember: the Republicans can't let this bill pass in all 50 states. If they do, we get a double win: clean districting, and we get control of Congress. They won't let this happen. So the question is, will they fight it early, or late?
If the Republicans fight it early, it will cost them dearly. If the law passes in all the blue states, but in none of the red states, then the meaning will be clear as day: liberals support clean elections, conservatives don't. We can use this to bludgeon them forever.
But if they give in to political pressure, and let the law pass in some of the red and purple states, then they'll pay an even higher political price. Imagine the media running stories like "48 states support clean elections, with only Republicans in Alabama and Texas blocking the bill." It would make them look awful. I doubt they'll let this happen, but you never know.
And who knows? Maybe the unthinkable will happen: maybe someday they'll really sign on for clean elections. In which case, we all win.
UPDATE: many people are pointing out flaws in computerized districting. You're missing an important point - this doesn't *have* to be a perfect bill, because it will never activate. This is theater. It's like the federal marriage amendment - the Republicans didn't design it to be perfect, they didn't have to. They didn't even really want it to pass. The goal here is not to fix districting law. The goal is to make it obvious that its the Republicans who are preventing reforms to districting law.
Other people are pointing out that "democrats will never sign on to this, because they don't want their districts abolished." Again, you're missing the point - this bill is never going to activate. They're not going to lose their districts. It's pure theater.
Comment Preferences