Some Thoughts on Gerrymandering Wars
A little self-promotion.
Steven L. Taylor
·
Monday, May 4, 2026
·
16 comments
I have a piece up at Liberal Currents, Lessons from the Redistricting Wars, for anyone who might be interested.
Here are the basic lessons:
There are three key lessons I hope are learned here: lines are more important than people in our system, making changes to the electoral system is possible, and when both sides are threatened, there is hope for more positive change.
Click on through above to read more!
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter and/or
BlueSky.
Excellent points, thank you for the article.
While the current battle is for the House, we have a similar – arguably worse – “district” problem in the Senate, a body with lots of power and inherently rural majorities built in to the system.
The “poking at the margins” solution might be to break up large, blue states like California so that we can have 8 or 10 senators instead of just 2 representing 12% of America, but no serious politician will gain ground on that idea.
The best solution would be to create permanent and ongoing accountability. The threat of “no confidence” style votes/dissolving the government would do more to temper both the Executive and Legislative branches of government than anything else.
@Tony W: Thanks! And yes, the Senate presents a truly massive problem for real representation at the national level.
Alas, the kind of accountability of which you speak is impossible under presidentialism and fixed-term elections.
Your piece contains a structure that says “PR is the best, but if we can’t do this, we should do (independent commissions or some such)”.
In your shoes, I would have stopped at “PR is the best way out of this.” I would have spent more time on why. I would not have given people the out of commissions. Commissions can be doctored, or more importantly, they can be overruled, as we saw this year.
I think PR is more of a one-way door. Once it’s established, it’s a very tricky business to walk it back. So it seems to me.
I think you are overly optimistic about the possibility of change. If the issue were only gerrymandering then maybe there is a hope, but look at all of the attempts to stop people from voting. The parties, much more the GOP at present, value power and are willing to forego having a true democracy if that is part of the price for winning. There is nothing to indicate that the GOP would be willing to even consider such changes. Maybe if they lose a bunch of elections due to gerrymandering but to be honest I am not sure if Democrats would then be willing to give up gerrymandering. Just dont see anyone willing to unilaterally disarm. Yes, some blue states did for a while but it didnt and wont last as long as the red states wont do the same.
Steve
@steve222: I don’t know that Republican voters and Republican leadership is particularly aligned on this one. I mean, some of them are, but it doesn’t seem like it’s a voting issue for them.
@Jay L. Gischer: You may be right. I dont remember any GOP running for office on a promise of increased gerrymandering though they have run a lot on the idea that there are a lot of illegal voters and they have spent millions/billions of dollars looking fro fraudulent voters and efforts to keep the wrong kind of people voting. That said, even if its not a broad issue among voters its something their leadership practices in an awful lot of their states.
Just to create an (probably poor) analogy, I dont think most Republicans think it’s a good idea to separate immigrant families, but they keep voting for people who do think it is a good idea. So while they might in theory think gerrymandering has problems, they keep voting for people who aggressively pursue it.
Steve
@Jay L. Gischer: The funny thing is that when I suggest we swing for the fences, I am told that it is impossible! I am trying to balance, especially in this essay, the scope of the problem with a pragmatic suggestion. As I do repeatedly note on the piece: all single seat districts system are flawed.
And yes, PR is a one-way door that I would gladly walk through.
@steve222: I am somewhat optimistic that if Dems play hardball there will be at least some potential for moderate reforms I limited areas. But I am hardly in an optimistic mood about all the reforms we actually need.
I am also moderately optimistic that maybe the basic level of understanding of the basic problem is on the rise.
@steve222:
Nor do I. But that isn’t what I arguing.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I have a Trump-supporting cousin who was saying that California was already gerrymandered because Republicans got 40% of the vote but only 17% of the House seats. When I said “If you want proportional representation then I agree completely” it was enough to make him immediately oppose the idea. I don’t think he had ever considered it before, but just knowing that his Democratic cousin supported it was enough to convince him it was A Bad Thing. I don’t know how to overcome that reflexive partisanship
@Steven L. Taylor: Well, to be fair, I thought it was impossible, until I saw all the whining about the Virginia redistricting. And then we had the VRA gutted and now I’m wondering if it isn’t time. Obviously, it would take getting somebody prominent on board.
I mean, if everybody on either side of the aisle is thinking, “this system sucks!” there’s an opportunity.
I continue to believe that as terrible as Trump and MAGA are, they will also present rare opportunities. In some sense, precisely because they are so terrible (and incompetent).
@Steven L. Taylor: @Steven L. Taylor: While I don’t see any momentum towards PR, it would pretty much have to happen nationally by an act of Congress. Otherwise, states would effectively be unilaterally disarming in the gerrymandering wars.
@Steven L. Taylor: One idea that might be actually feasible would be a constitutional amendment that made the impeachment/conviction process subject only to a majority vote in both houses of Congress.
Of course, there would be spasms of retributive impeachments/convictions early on while we adjust to the new accountability, but I think, over time, things would become much more moderate.
@James Joyner: There is little momentum for PR, but more now than when we noted on ADD over a decade ago the US is nearly unique in having no national discussions about electoral reform.
And yes, it would require congressional action. I am not suggesting a piecemeal approach.
@Tony W: That would not create the mechanism you are hoping for.
The whole notion of a “no-confidence” vote is that it is something the majority does to itself because it is unhappy with the prime minister, and wants to trigger a change of government (but not party control), or they think that new elections will solidify their majority.
What are you suggesting would be a way for opposition parties during periods of divided government to punish the party in the White House, but for majority parties during times of unified government to do nothing.
Further, since impeachment and removal would keep the government (i.e., the cabinet and partisan control of the WH) unchanged, it really lacks the kind of force such maneuvers have in parliamentary systems.
@Steven L. Taylor: I agree it wouldn’t solve every problem, but it feels like a way to build at least a modicum of ongoing accountability into our very broken system without tearing the whole thing down and going full parliamentary.
I suppose, since we’re talking about a constitutional amendment anyway, we could build in provisions to call for new elections of the full house and the president/vice-president upon impeachment, with the VP taking over control until the election can be held.