by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
Boiling down Tuesday’s Daily Journal to a single sentence: Too many gerrymandering critics seem to believe that a fairer election redistricting process will produce results that align more closely with proportional representation.
They ignore the fact that a system employing geographic districts can produce results that vary widely from proportional representation. So getting rid of gerrymandering won’t necessarily produce the results these critics hope to see.
A Twitter feud invoking my column included the suggestion that I oppose redistricting reform. Actually, I’ve been a vocal proponent for years. When I pointed out this fact …
Interrupting this Twitter feud, I note that John Hood and I agree on redistricting reform. The column cited above warns that changing the redistricting process won't guarantee proportional representation. Too many gerrymandering critics seem to miss that point.
— Mitch Kokai (@mitchkokai) November 28, 2018
… a young man responded.
I don't think the goal is proportional representation its that for example like in Wisconsin, when democrats win a majority of the vote, republicans don't keep a supermajority in both chambers, make it more fair. First past the post can't match PR
— Akhil (@karandikara99) November 28, 2018
To which I reply: You’re proving my point. If your goal is results that reflect statewide vote totals more closely (“When Democrats win a majority of the vote …”), don’t expect redistricting reform to solve the problem you perceive.