David, as you said: National action will not likely succeed any time soon. That means no multi-member districts for the US House for a long time. It's not hard to imagine the lack of sufficient national alignment extending through 2028. (Or maybe Biden will step aside and Pete Buttigieg and Liz Cheney can put together an anti-MAGA unity ticket for '24, Evan McMullin-like, but let's not hold our breath.)
Historically, reforms come to Washington DC only with sustained pressure and after having been road-tested in the states. DC usually does not reform itself.
So, as you suggest, look to the states. A two-pronged approach is needed, not one. You're right that states where lawmakers run the process are doomed to meaningless elections. In those states, if there is sufficient political will, citizens need to be demanding initiatives as much as trying again to create truly independent, effective citizen commissions using what is now known about what doesn't work and what does.
Among the approximately two dozen states that have citizen initiatives, ... In swing-state Michigan, which has sufficient political will, and California, which is a one-party state but nevertheless has a very strong initiative history, and perhaps some other initiative states where there may be sufficient political will (CO, AZ?), a public conversation about fixing unresponsive democracy and reducing wasted votes for both R and D voters needs to be started, independent of the parties. This applies as much to initiative states that have succeeded in redistricting reform as those that have not.
Voters in a US state deserve as good representation as voters in other large democracies typically have, called the cube root rule. Probably only New Hampshire has an adequately sized (actually overly large) state lower house - and they love it.
The solution to unresponsive democracy involves fewer voters per representative, always having a representative of your own political persuasion to represent your views, multi-member districts and a more proportional election method for a state's lower house. A compensatory seat tier and going unicameral also could figure in the discussion (Nebraska's been unicameral for 85 years).
As you said, big fixes take time and require activist education and much public discussion. They start as strange ideas, become campaigns and succeed in states before nationally.
I think you might want to add a comment on Washington State. The state has a semi-independent redistricting commission, but it was very dysfunctional this year. They missed their deadline to create maps and violated the state's open meetings law. The state Supreme Court let them get away with it because they didn't want to get involved. I think this is a great example of where the institutional design of the redistricting commission in WA has been overlooked and will cause problems going forward if it is not reformed. It is also a sign that sometimes once you have a "reform" institution in place it will be very hard to change into something more effective. So I think reformers need to be very careful in designing their reforms.
David, as you said: National action will not likely succeed any time soon. That means no multi-member districts for the US House for a long time. It's not hard to imagine the lack of sufficient national alignment extending through 2028. (Or maybe Biden will step aside and Pete Buttigieg and Liz Cheney can put together an anti-MAGA unity ticket for '24, Evan McMullin-like, but let's not hold our breath.)
Historically, reforms come to Washington DC only with sustained pressure and after having been road-tested in the states. DC usually does not reform itself.
So, as you suggest, look to the states. A two-pronged approach is needed, not one. You're right that states where lawmakers run the process are doomed to meaningless elections. In those states, if there is sufficient political will, citizens need to be demanding initiatives as much as trying again to create truly independent, effective citizen commissions using what is now known about what doesn't work and what does.
Among the approximately two dozen states that have citizen initiatives, ... In swing-state Michigan, which has sufficient political will, and California, which is a one-party state but nevertheless has a very strong initiative history, and perhaps some other initiative states where there may be sufficient political will (CO, AZ?), a public conversation about fixing unresponsive democracy and reducing wasted votes for both R and D voters needs to be started, independent of the parties. This applies as much to initiative states that have succeeded in redistricting reform as those that have not.
Voters in a US state deserve as good representation as voters in other large democracies typically have, called the cube root rule. Probably only New Hampshire has an adequately sized (actually overly large) state lower house - and they love it.
The solution to unresponsive democracy involves fewer voters per representative, always having a representative of your own political persuasion to represent your views, multi-member districts and a more proportional election method for a state's lower house. A compensatory seat tier and going unicameral also could figure in the discussion (Nebraska's been unicameral for 85 years).
As you said, big fixes take time and require activist education and much public discussion. They start as strange ideas, become campaigns and succeed in states before nationally.
I think you might want to add a comment on Washington State. The state has a semi-independent redistricting commission, but it was very dysfunctional this year. They missed their deadline to create maps and violated the state's open meetings law. The state Supreme Court let them get away with it because they didn't want to get involved. I think this is a great example of where the institutional design of the redistricting commission in WA has been overlooked and will cause problems going forward if it is not reformed. It is also a sign that sometimes once you have a "reform" institution in place it will be very hard to change into something more effective. So I think reformers need to be very careful in designing their reforms.