Hacker News Reader

Comment by mful | Hacker News Reader

There may be a better solution than an independent committee, but an independent committee is far, far better than the "whoever is in power creates districts in the way that most entrenches the governing party" system we have today.

Independent committees have historically been pretty effective anti-partisan solutions. One prominent example being the CBO, which both parties like to stand up for while in the opposition, and disparage while in power.

View on HN

Why is it better? It just means whichever side the independent goes with will benefit. "Replacing whoever is in power" with "whoever is in power, or not in power" is lateral at best.

When districts are competitive, both parties need to run candidates which appeal broadly to the electorate, because when ideologues/radicals win one of the party’s primaries, they end up losing in the general election.

When districts are not competitive (and especially when unlimited secret campaign donations are allowed), the primary campaigns end up driving candidates toward radical positions, because the primary is the only competitive stage of the process.

What we’ve seen with the GOP is a party that has moved sharply away from mainstream opinion, subjects all of its officeholders to strict purity tests, and is largely controlled by religious hard-liners and big donors (oil, defense, pharma, banks, telecoms, etc.), and has become increasingly anti-intellectual and overtly bigoted in the past few decades.

Insulating the commission means you won't allow a party to seize power and then cement it with gerrymandering, which is self-reinforcing. Cutting that loop means the commission can swing back and forth more easily and has the potential to even out. It can't possibly be worse than partisan gerrymandering.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com