Paul Rosenzweig in the NYU Democracy Project: “Why Districts?”

Society for the Rule of Law Charter Member Paul Rosenzweig has submitted a new piece on reforming congressional representation in 100 Ideas in 100 Days. 

In order to combat hyper-partisanship and promote democratic engagement, the NYU Democracy Project has been publishing a cross-ideological series of articles from front rank leaders and thinkers who advocate nuanced and diverse approaches on strengthening American representative government. In his submission Why Districts?, Paul Rosenzweig explores alternatives to the House of Representatives’ single district structure.

Rosenzweig explains that the United States is not constitutionally bound to elect representatives by individual congressional districts. Federal law, 2 USC §2c, orders that, “there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established…” In the event that a state gains new seats and that new districting legislation fails to pass, “additional Representative or Representatives shall be elected from the State at large.” 2USC §2a (c). Congress has authority to determine how States elect their Representatives and already has exercised its authority, on a temporary basis, to depart from district-based allocation. Rosenzweig notes that if Congress can depart from single-district apportionment in a contingency, then “it likewise has the power to mandate that statewide at-large elections distribute seats on a proportional basis.”

Rosenzweig argues that proportionately electing Congresspeople from a state will undo distortions created by gerrymandering and better represent the American people. “…Bereft of the security of gerrymandered districts, candidates would need to run more centrist campaigns that appealed to a broader electorate.” Forcing representatives to campaign across an entire state would compel more broadly-appealing electoral platforms. Rosenzweig notes that modern gerrymandering robs single-district voting of its original purpose- “to allow localities with distinct economic, social, and cultural interests to have direct representation.” Current abuses of gerrymandering, “whose very purpose is to disaggregate communities with distinctive social interests to diminish their power through the creation of bizarrely drawn districts,” necessitate different approaches to representation. Statewide congressional elections that allot House seats based on proportional representation would both express the voting preferences of greater numbers of citizens and compel elected officials to moderate their policies and rhetoric.

Read the rest of Paul’s piece here.

Read the full series here.

# # #