Congress, facing public pressure about the gerrymandering issue, passes a law abolishing Congressional districts (which are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution), and requires members of the House of Representatives to be elected in statewide elections.

States with more than one seat in the House are required to use either Single Transferable Vote (STV) or Proportional Approval Voting (PAV), allowing proportional representation without the use of party lists.

Since there are no districts, gerrymandering is not possible without redrawing state borders.

Would this be a viable end to gerrymandering, and perhaps of the rigid two-party system? Or could it create more chaos than it solves?

(Same response as the other what if election thread)

House districts were codified into law on December 14th, 1967 via Public Law 90-196.

Quote:

---

In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of subsection (a) of section 22 of the Act of June 18, 1929, entitled "An Act to provide for apportionment of Representatives" (46 Stat. 26), as amended, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).

---

The entire point of the hypothetical is that that law would be repealed and replaced by something else.

In the words of Samir Na...Naga...Nagonnaworkhereanymore, "it is terrible, this idea you have."

Let's take New York as an example. With at-large, statewide voting, western and up-state New York might as well forget about having any representation in the House, as almost all elected reps would assuredly come from NYC.

Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio would dominate Texas, pushing out representation from other areas of the state.

At-large representatives simply do not work to represent a large area with a diverse range of economic and political interests.

ABattJudd said:

---

In the words of Samir Na...Naga...Nagonnaworkhereanymore, "it is terrible, this idea you have."

Let's take New York as an example. With at-large, statewide voting, western and up-state New York might as well forget about having any representation in the House, as almost all elected reps would assuredly come from NYC.

Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio would dominate Texas, pushing out representation from other areas of the state.

At-large representatives simply do not work to represent a large area with a diverse range of economic and political interests.

---

I'm not sure if you fully understand what proportional representation is. However, it might still be worthwhile to separate urban and rural districts to limit the impact of big-city voting shenanigans.

Perhaps a compromise where Texas would be divided into 5 districts:

• Houston metro area (10 seats)
  
• DFW metroplex (10 seats)
  
• San Antonio metro area (3 seats)
  
• Austin metro area (3 seats)
  
• Rest of the state (12 seats)

Though, San Antonio and Austin would be small for multimember districts, and may need to be combined.