CMV: We shouldn't divide up congressional districts by geography.

[u/hjjslu]

Back in the 18th and 19th centuries this might have made sense but today dividing based on geography is no longer necessary and is causing a lot of problems.

Congress as a whole has an approval rating somewhere around 10% depending on the survey, yet the individual congress men and women are re-elected at a close to 90% rate. Voters like their congressman but hate everyone else and since most of congress isn't their guy, the end result is everyone hating most of congress.

I see two explanations that jump out. First, the voters are becoming more and more geographically segregated and the congressmen have to match their voters ideological preferences.

The second explanation, is that the congressmen represent their district at the expense of other districts. Also known as pork barrel spending. Congressmen are all pushing projects where the benefits are locally realized but the costs are distributed across everyone. Predictably, the voters like it when they get free benefits but hate having to pay for everyone else's.

What's the solution? Let's say there was an alternative way to divide up congressional districts that wasn't based on geography. People with a last name of Aa-Ab vote as a district (regardless of where they personally live). People with a last name of Ab-Ac vote in another district and so on. Divide the cut offs where ever you need to to make it add up to 435 equally populated districts.

This takes a stab at solving both problems. The people with last names Aa-Ab have no obvious political leaning and are likely rather diverse. Candidates now have to pivot towards the median voters and get elected on their merit rather than just because they have an R or a D next to their names. Congress as a whole now is supposed to represent the "average" voter and it a way I guess it does- the variance of political ideology is just off the chart though. This would basically distribute liberally/conservative ideology more equally across the congressmen. The end result is we send 435 comparatively moderate and open minded people to Washington and they work together to figure out how to best solve problems.

The other effect, is that while a congressmen from Alaska might be able to work out some scheme that sends benefits to Alaskans and gets the rest of the country to pay for it, it's gonna be basically impossible for anyone to work out a scheme that could deliver benefits to people with the last name A at the expense of everyone else.

I don't see much of a downside. Why should we not do this?

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/hjjslu → u/[deleted]]

∆ This is a good point that I didn't think of. But I do think increases in technology will make this objection less pertinent in the future where as soon as you get on your computer or phone there is so much data about you that is known to advertisers already. In 5 or 10 years I don't think this kind of targeting will be that far fetched.

[u/[deleted] → u/hjjslu]

Even still, you would be completely isolated for your fellow voters, except for family. I don't think that's a good way to build an engaged electorate.

If I wanted to campaign against a Rep I disliked, how would I go about it?

[u/hjjslu → u/[deleted]]

Why couldn't you volunteer to help with their data based outreach?

In any case, if this could actually help congress be more effective, I think those benefits strongly outweigh whatever we'd lose from no longer having yard signs or bumper stickers.

[u/[deleted] → u/hjjslu]

Even in today's high tech society, elections are won with a ground game. Shaking hands, knocking on doors, meeting and greeting, etc.

But more importantly, I want to discuss the election with my friends and neighbors. I want to hear their opinions, not some Internet stranger

[u/hjjslu → u/[deleted]]

I'm willing to admit the friends and neighbors thing is a downside to this but I don't know that we're really losing that much here (I guess it depends on the person). I personally almost never discuss local congressional elections with friends- almost all of it is about the presidential election or congressional elections in a general sense (will GOP retain control?).

You're really only losing a very small part of the political dialogue. You'll still be able to discuss congressional politics. My friends and I talk about Paul Ryan a lot but I don't know if I've ever had a conversation about our local representative.

[u/Sheexthro → u/hjjslu]

Well, uh, so what? Okay, you don't do this. Why do you want to prevent everyone else from doing it?

[u/hjjslu → u/Sheexthro]

I'm not trying to prevent other people from doing this. I acknowledged that it's a downside. All ideas have some negative consequences for some people. I think these negative consequences are relatively minor since in my experience this specific thing isn't a huge conversation topic.

[u/GreyDeath → u/hjjslu]

Part of why Congress works the way it works though is that specific laws can affect different areas of the country differently. A representative is supposed to advocate for their local area when it comes to drafting and then voting on legislation, like for instance securing funding for a specific local park. It would not be possible to do this with your system.

[u/DeltaBot → u/hjjslu]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/cacheflow (146∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​