By HAYDEN C.T. PARSONS
Guest Columnist
Too often we treat our political system the same way we treat a chronic illness: we manage symptoms while ignoring the underlying disease.
Redistricting, gerrymandering, and representation in Congress have become headline issues across the nation – and nowhere more prominently than here in Indiana.
As states consider redrawing Congressional boundaries for partisan advantage mid-decade, we are again confronted with fundamental questions: What is the purpose of district lines? How should representation be apportioned? And to what extent should states aim for proportionality?
Our entrenched two-party divide has led to states being designated with the label “red” or “blue” as though the entire population possesses a singular ideological identity. This framing erases nuance. Worse, when polarized supermajorities treat states as partisan trophies, they lose sight of the purpose of the U.S. House of Representatives itself: to reflect the varied views of a state’s population. Efforts to manipulate district boundaries for partisan advantage – gerrymandering – so that an entire delegation belongs to one party fundamentally contradict that purpose. Yet, the earliest example comes from its namesake, Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, who, as Massachusetts governor, opposed the legislature’s partisan boundaries drawn by his Democratic-Republican Party colleagues, but signed the bill anyway.
Some call this clever political gamesmanship; others see it as a raw power grab. But both sides of this debate miss the deeper issue.
Nationally, single-member districts have been mandatory since the 1967 Congressional Apportionment Act. Single-member districts are not just vulnerable to gerrymandering – they incentivize it. While some states use independent or nonpartisan redistricting commissions, others, like Indiana, allow the legislature to draw its own lines (with a back-up commission composed of legislative leadership under Ind. Code § 3-3-2-2).
No matter who draws the maps, every iteration inherently carries some degree of bias. Since Congress mandates single-member districts for House elections, states cannot even consider alternative – and potentially more fair – methods of representation.
If the purpose of House representation is (1) to proportionally allocate the number of representatives among the states, and (2) to represent the interests of the citizens within those states – unlike the Senate, which was originally appointed rather than elected – then each vote should meaningfully contribute to the interests of each voter.
It may surprise many Americans to learn that single-member districts were not always the norm. From 1932 through 1968, states were free to choose their own methods. Several elected their entire House delegation at-large; others used districts but supplemented them with additional at-large seats.
The flaw was not the at-large format itself – it was that voters could cast multiple votes, one for each available seat, allowing the party with the most support to sweep every position since most voters would vote only for candidates of their preferred party. A simple reform – single non-transferable votes – could have solved this imbalance. Ironically, despite imperfect implementation, that 36-year window produced more third-party representation in Congress than any era since. Parties like the Progressive Party, the American Labor Party, and the Farmer-Labor Party gained seats and broadened the national conversation.
If our goal is truly to “make our vote count,” then we must treat the infection, not slap on a band-aid. Constantly chasing the dream of “fair” district lines will never fix the structural problem. Instead, we should call on Congress to lift the single-member-district mandate and allow states to explore systems that could produce more proportional, representative outcomes, such as a uniquely American adaptation of Mixed Member Proportional Representation.
Restoring real representation begins by restoring real choice. It is time we stop fighting over the shape of our districts and start demanding the freedom to choose better systems altogether.
Hayden C.T. Parsons is an attorney-at-law with the firm HCTP Law, P.C. in Noblesville.
A voice of reason in our modern political climate. Proportional representation would be a great first step.