This follows an earlier diary where I argued that 3-seated state assembly elections would reduce gerrymandering without requiring an "independent" redistricting commission. The idea is to have state-districts with one state senator and three state representatives each and to elect the reps in one election, as was done in IL from 1870-1980 and as Barack Obama tried to bring back in 2001.
There, my nemesis Prof Haley suggested a party cd still gerrymander the districts so that their party would win two reps seats in many of them. But it's a Catch-22, cuz what helps a party in a 3-seated election hurts it in a 1-seated state senate elections. So, while X might make it so they cd likely win two reps seats in more districts, it would also make them lose senate seats in more districts, costing them the state senate.
This is yet another reason why 3-seated elections wd make our democracy more responsive to us Kossacks!
This is because to win more seats in 3-seated state assembly elections, one needs concentrations of X-voters in many of the state districts. However, such concentrations of X-voters would make it harder for party X to win a plurality/majority in the other 1-seated state senate elections. This is why it's a catch-22. The shenanigans that help a party in 3-seated elections would hurt them in 1-seated elections and vice-versa. As such, it'd be best for them to call the whole gaming of the system off!
And if there were more parity between the two major parties in the state assembly then that would lead to less gerrymandering of the 1-seated national congressional elections. In fact, if we trusted our state assembly-persons more so, we might come out ahead on average if we gave them back their constitutional right(taken away by the 17th amendment) to elect our US senators. After all, our statewide senate elections do tend to require candidates with deep pockets or with lots of friends with deep pockets. If we let state-reps from the two major parties and local third parties decide with an election rule other than "first-past-the-post", it could both reduce the cost of elections and help to elect better quality senators on average, since the "affluence requirement" would be rescinded.
Heck, maybe Markos M might get a shot at becoming a US senator!
dlw