The Best Way to Fix Gerrymandering is to Make it Useless

Responding to the Supreme Court's partisan gerrymandering decision, Lee Drutman wrote for the New York Times about how to  make Congressional districts more competitive. 

The only way to make most districts truly competitive in today’s regionally polarized politics is to expand them. For example, a single-member district in Manhattan is a cakewalk for a Democratic incumbent. But a five-member district in Manhattan — which would combine that borough and parts of others — could yield a New York City Republican, and maybe a Michael Bloomberg-style independent, because such candidates could win a seat with 20 percent of the vote instead of 50. This would bring much-needed ideologically diversity to Washington, instead of having two parties whose representatives primarily come from places where they are most likely to be surrounded by like-minded partisans who tug them toward ever more extreme, no-compromise positions. It also doesn’t penalize the party of cities.

Such a reform would also expand voter participation. With more competitive elections, citizens would be more motivated by the possibility of their vote actually mattering, and parties and candidates would put in more effort to mobilize voters. With more parties and candidates running, there’d be more likelihood that voters would feel excited about at least one of the candidates.

If there’s a silver lining to the justices’ punt on gerrymandering, it may be this: Perhaps it can motivate reformers to look beyond both the Supreme Court and past the single-winner district.