In his Farewell Address of 1796, President George Washington wisely advised against the dangers of political parties, cautioning that they may become “potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people.” Unfortunately, this warning has come true in an even worse fashion than he probably imagined. While the existence of political parties can help like-minded individuals wield enough power to achieve common goals, they have often been a negative force, creating more division than necessary and harming national unity.
One symptom of excess partisanship is the process of setting districts, commonly known as “gerrymandering.” It is, not coincidentally, an enormously exacerbating factor in the political environment, as the process favors whichever group controls it. This tends to make districts more partisan than necessary, leading to an artificially adversarial group of decision-makers.
As a potential alternative to the current process of district-setting, it could instead be a matter purely of geography and population. In one scheme of how this might work, a geographic center would serve as a starting point to generate districts of equal population, beginning with 360 degrees divided by the relevant number of districts then shrinking or expanding each district evenly until the process creates districts of equal population.
For a hypothetical example of applying this process to congressional districts, let us look at Connecticut, which has five representatives in Congress for its 3.5 million citizens. Its geographic center lies in the town of Berlin. By starting due north at this point and dividing 360 degrees by five (for the number of representatives), the process would start with five “proto-districts” of 72 degrees each. At that point, the process would measure the population in each proto-district. Those with a higher population would reduce their borders by a degree on each side while ones with lower populations would increase their borders by a degree on each side. The population would then be measured again. This process would repeat until five final districts of equal size emerge, with approximately 700,000 people in each. (Note that in larger states such as Texas, an initial division into north-south or north-south-east-west zones – measured from the geographic center of the area – could happen before proto-districts form in each.)
While a nation of pie-shaped districts would be strange at first, a quick look at history shows numerous districts with unusual shapes. Establishing districts purely by geography and population almost guarantees a more representative group of constituents, so elected officials would have to reflect a more moderate group of citizens than districts drawn to favor a particular group. This would create a less partisan group of politicians who would be more prone to work together productively.
Understandably, the current political establishment would not readily accept this loss of power. To help gain cooperation, a long delay in enactment after passage – even 30 years or more – could be necessary. Additionally, it could be tried in an experimental fashion at local levels of government to show its benefits before expanding to national representation.
While it would be a difficult notion to pass, the idea of “geometrical districts” could prove an enormously effective means of calming the political discourse, preserving the political party system but tempering its excesses. Passage and implementation would require statesmanship rather than partisanship, a dubious prospect in the present environment. The country has never improved by appealing to the status quo, though, and perhaps if enough people tire of partisan excess, this idea could take hold.