With the emergence of gerrymandering-squared in Texas, I want to make an important point. We'll never have fair congressional districts until they are derived by algorithm, with no human intervention, depending only on population and location. I have such an algorithm. There are many others. They all aim for reasonably shaped districts with approximately equal populations. My algorithm clusters US Census block groups with well-defined populations and locations (longitude-latitude) into ideal districts subject to each state's apportionment of 435 House seats.
It's worth noting that congressional apportionment used to be like the Wild West, as districting is now. However, since 1941 we have had a legislated apportionment algorithm. It's not perfect, but at least we have one. After each decennial census, the Census Bureau runs the algorithm, announces the results, and there is barely a whimper, notwithstanding some questionable calls like Montana and Rhode Island each getting two seats in 2020 at the expense of New York and Ohio. In any event, we need the same sort of setup for congressional districting, i.e., Census runs a legislated districting algorithm after each decennial census, they announce the results, and the case is closed for the next ten years.
Finally, the House of Representatives is way too small. It has had 435 seats for the past hundred years while US population has more than tripled. I'm not suggesting tripling House seats, but some have suggested adding 150-160. That in itself would enhance fair, proportional representation in the House, and in the Electoral College.
https://github.com/raagnew/IdealCongressionalDistricting
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/bob.agnew/vizzes
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/09/opinion/expanded-house-representatives-size.html
https://www.raagnew.com/us-congressional-apportionments.html
------------------------------
Robert Agnew
Analytics Consultant
Palm Coast FL
------------------------------