No. Single member-districts are bad & need to go. It’s fine & probably correct to argue that the immediate solution that is more sellable politically right now is “fair maps,” but that’s a different claim & it’s not a better goal if we actually want to be a fully representative democracy.
More than 200 political scientists, legal scholars, and historians released an open letter calling on Congress to reject the United States’ winner-take-all elections.
The level of ambition is correct. I would start with DC statehood.
But see this new paper for why fair maps are a better goal than proportional representation—and how Congress can actually legislate fair maps, if there is a D trifecta in 2029, using partisan constitutional hardball:
papers.ssrn.com
<p>What would it take to end the present downward spiral of partisan gerrymandering in the United States? This essay, a revised and expanded version of a
1st 60 days of 2029:
- confirm 4-6 new SCOTUS judges
- DC statehood. DC Gov. appoints 101st & 102nd Senators
- independent prosecutor for 45/47 crimes
- 600-900 member House with multiparty proportional representation teed up for '30 midterms
>>>bigger reforms over 29-30 to follow<<<
Dennis Lytton
This is the end state of presidentialism—tyranny
Dems in '28 must run on neutering the presidency & making the House bigger & multiparty via proportional representation, I've argued recently in @liberalcurrents.com
www.liberalcurrents.com/proportional...
www.liberalcurrents.com/the-american...
www.liberalcurrents.com
Why we need a smaller presidency and a more powerful Congress.
