Gerrymandering

Edward Lazarus has written a very nice FindLaw column about Vieth v. Jubelirer the case before the Supreme Court asking whether Pennsylvania's political gerrymandering is constitutional. Lazarus explains why the Supreme Court should intervene in this matter. Even if one thinks that gerrymandering is constitutionally permissible, though, there remains a concern that it is deeply troubling to our democracy and we should encourage political debate about this matter. As Lazarus writes:

All this makes the trip to the polling place a nearly pointless exercise -- except in a symbolic sense -- for tens of millions of voters.

Is it surprising then that voter turnout is so low in this country? One proposed solution is to adopt a system like that used in Iowa which uses four non-partisan criteria as a basis for districting plans. While this would be a marked improvement over what's happening in Texas, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, there is a better solution. Multi-member districts.
Matthew Yglesias wrote about this a few weeks ago. He suggested what is essentially a single transferable vote system (STV). There are other possibilities, but we need to start giving these ideas serious consideration.

In order for multi-member districts to be adopted we would need congress to remove the single-member district requirement from federal law. At that point any given state would be able to switch if it so desired. No amendment would be necessary. Regardless of the outcome in Vieth I hope it encourages more debate on this topic.