The Ultimate Solution to Gerrymandering

 Gerrymandered maps have become the norm across the country. Endless court cases are being litigated, judgments rendered, district maps thrown out, and the problem continues. Why? Because our electoral system promises rich rewards to parties to cheat, and no consequences. Indeed, courts have found maps illegal, and allowed elections to go ahead, using them, anyway, on the argument that it would disrupt the imminent election to change. Never mind that the reason the election was imminent was the legal delays filed by the party set to win based on the map.

There is a solution to this problem. It's actually pretty easy. All we have to do is dispense with electoral districts, and adopt the Single Transferable Vote. This is a system used in many countries in Europe, designed to make the outcomes of multi-candidate elections reflective of the population. Consider a state with 4 representatives, and a population that is 51% Republican, 46% Democrat, and 3% "Other." If the candidates are all reasonable and competent, the likely outcome of simple majority voting is that all 4 Republicans will win. Even though the state is largely 50/50, the Democrats get no representation.

In STV, to win a seat, you need not get 51% of the vote, you only need to reach a quota set by the number of available seats. In this case, that might be 25% of the vote. As in Instant Run-Off, voters choose their second, third, and fourth choices. Anyone who gets 25% of the first-choice votes wins. Then, any votes over 25% transfer to the second choice. The process is repeated. If seats remain and no one has 25%, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and those votes transfer. The process repeats until all four seats are filled.

Consider the 4-rep state above:

 

Voters	1st Place	2nd Place	3rd Place	4th Place
30	Rep 1	Rep 2	Rep 3	Rep 4
15	Rep 2	Rep 1	Rep 3	Rep 4
6	Rep 3	Rep 2	Rep 1	Rep 4
26	Dem 1	Dem 2	Dem 3	Dem 4
13	Dem 2	Dem 1	Dem 3	Dem 4
7	Dem 3	Dem 2	Dem1	Dem 4
3	Lib	Lib Un	Ind 1	Ind 2

1. Rep 1 & Dem 1 each meet the threshold (25) and win two seats.
2. Rep 1 has 5 extra votes, they transfer to Rep 2 who now has 20. 
3. Dem 1 has 1 extra vote, it transfers to Dem 2 who now has 14.
4. The 3 votes for minor party candidates are eliminated, as are Rep 4 and Dem 4, who so far have no votes. Next, Rep 3 is in last place. He is eliminated, and his votes go to Rep 2, giving him 26, and he wins a seat.
5. Rep 2 has 1 extra vote. This transfers to Rep 1, but he's already won, so it goes to Rep 4, but he's eliminated, so it is discarded.
6. Now, Dem 3 is in last place, so he is eliminated. Dem 2 is the last candidate in the race, so he wins the fourth seat.

The state winds up with 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats, mirroring the diversity of the state. No district maps are needed, there is no game to play to stack the deck in your favor. The only way for Republicans to win 3 seats is if they have a candidate who appeals to some Democratic voters more than the remaining Democratic candidates (say, if he's a moderate while they are progressives). But in this case, a 3-1 Republican majority would again represent the state better than either a 2-2 split or a 4-0 domination.

It's not a perfect system. Some of the weaknesses of IRV likely apply here. The largest states would probably need to make some large districts so they aren't trying to fill more than 6-10 seats at a time, which would be unwieldy. But the potential for gerrymandering caused by, say, cutting Michigan in half is much smaller than cutting it into 16 pieces. In return, we have a chance to elect representatives that actually reflect the diversity of American opinion. I think it's worth it.