Here's a very simple idea, and I'd love to hear reader feedback as to the pros and cons of why this would or would not work.
With an election that was a rousing success for the progressive movement overall, perhaps the one black mark on the evening is that we will still be dealing with the same group of hard-line obstructionists in control of the House of Representatives.
It is frustrating that Republicans always manage to seize control just in time for redistricting, giving us gerrymandered states that ensure a Congress which inaccurately reflects the priorities and ideology of the citizens it represents. But since our nation is not symmetrical in shape, and since the population is not (and can never be) distributed anywhere close to evenly over the land, there will always be a question as to how to represent the general populace fairly and accurately. It is one of the fundamental challenges of a representative democracy.
Many Americans--regardless of political affiliation--see the Electoral College as antiquated and unnecessary. The methods of fixing that are relatively simple, even if the politics necessary to enact such a fix are not: we can either eliminate the College entirely and select the President by national popular vote, or we can retrofit the College to reflect the popular vote by having all states give their electors to the ticket that wins the popular vote.
We have already modified the way Senators are chosen. This used to take place at the state-goverment level; now, thanks to the 17th Amendment, each state's Senators are chosen through direct statewide election.
So how do we fix the House?
Why not select them like City Council or School Board members?
In most areas, local governing boards are selected from a pool. There is a set number of available seats (we'll call this "X"), and the ballot allows you to vote for up to X number of candidates from the pool. When the results are tallied, the top X vote-getters are given seats.
If this was done at the state level for the House of Representatives, it would make Congressional districts (and thus gerrymandering) completely obsolete; it would also radically alter the nature of political campaigning, shifting the focus to awareness and accomplishments rather than one-on-one tournaments. This seems more appropriate (and more likely to keep the candidates focused on tangible results rather than politicking) for the House, where the short 2-year terms keep Representatives ever-conscious of the next election cycle. The state's House delegation would--theoretically--reflect that state's political will as directly and accurately as possible.
Of course, there are some potential pitfalls:
- Long, burdensome ballots. Depending on how many House candidates there are, this could result in a burdensome list for voters to choose from. This could be especially problematic in large states like California, which has 53 seats.
- The potential for well-poisoning. As we have already seen a few times in the past, it is possible that one or more parties can try to bury the other party with "false-flag" candidates, fake Democrats or Republicans (or Libertarians or Greens or whatever other party suits your fancy) intended to draw votes away from the "real" candidates. However, this effect would be at least partly counteracted by the fact that voters are selecting a lineup, rather than just voting for one candidate.
- Concerns over local needs. The first argument against this plan would probably be that it will erode the voice of small communities that have special needs and interests, which may not be of as much interest or importance to candidates-at-large. This is a legitimate concern. On the other hand, many Representatives are already not "from" their Congressional district; district lines are redrawn every decade, for one thing, and it is common practice in many areas for candidates who have failed or who stand less of a chance in one region to relocate specifically to get a better shot at victory. Some states have laws in place to limit such carpet-bagging, but the fact remains that many Representatives are already "at large" in this sense, and many long-serving Representatives have represented multiple districts over their political careers.
- Name recognition. In order for this to work well, particularly in large states, voters will likely have to become more comfortable with doing their homework. Otherwise, it could simply devolve into a name-recognition contest, thus reinforcing the "incumbent rule."
Again, though: this is already the system most areas use for city-level representative bodies, so the challenges would not be new. The hope is that it would make gerrymandering obsolete and irrelevant, and give the American people a more representative House of Representatives. And as discussed above, it would fundamentally change the nature of House campaigning. It might even result in better, more productive candidates as they struggle to make a positive name for themselves.
...So, that's one possible idea for solving the gerrymandering mess (at least on the national level) once and for all. Any thoughts?