A very simple but unbusiness-like concept that would fix a flawed U.S. political system.

Would making congressional districts square make a better civic landscape?

It’s a simple, no-cost, easy to apply, intuitively obvious, and sure-to-work idea that would revolutionize how we organize to get the nation’s business done. 

Two objections stand in the way, though.  First, it’s completely antithetical to—albeit perfectly consistent with--the way we currently apply ourselves to operating a representative government.  What’s proposed is so drastic a reversal of the way business is conducted—and how political parties apply themselves to implementing the “market concept”—it’s inconceivable to think that any departure from a devotion to the entrenched, cultivated political constituencies could ever be contemplated. Second, it would work so well, if implemented, that it would immediately force both political parties to work harder and more creatively in the pursuit of a serving the Republic rather than the political establishments of Democrats and Republicans of today.  So what’s the idea? 

The idea.

Make it a requirement that all congressional districts by have four right angles; yes, you understand it right…they would have to be rectangular in shape—that’s the concept, plain and simple!  After decades of gerrymandering, many congressional districts have become very, very odd-shaped bastions based on political purity and uniformity—for one party or the other—that encourages politicians to [1] take their constituent base for granted by [2] throwing the equivalent of civic “red-meat solutions” to an entrenched, safe--and sometimes wacky--electorate. 

[How else would you explain—among many others--the predictable, safe re-election of Bernie Sanders [I-VT], Joe Wilson [R-SC], Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], or Barney Frank [D-MA]?  They each have a built-in, pure, homogenous voting district [albeit very unrepresentative of the rest of the country] they don’t have to work hard to appeal to!] 

The current issue of THE WEEK reports on Joe Keohane’s recent Boston Globe column [Squaresville, USA, how to fix American politics one right angle at a time, November 22, 2009] that proposed this:  

For years, electoral maps have been gerrymandered “to pack friendly voters into a single district to protect incumbents, or to disperse unfriendly voters to undercut an opponent.” That’s why Alabama’s 7th congressional “looks like the Challenger explosion,” while the Texas 29th resembles “a griffon that’s been run over by a lawn mower.” 

Such contortions have practically become the norm, and they often produce extremely partisan representatives who prefer “tossing red meat to their bases” to solving the nation’s problems. A lot of this nonsense would be eliminated “simply by mandating that every district have four corners, each one a right angle. Districts could be wide, or long, or square, depending on population.” But they would have to be rectangular, so politicians would be prevented from “equipping their districts with tentacles” to draw in certain voters. 

Why it’s so radically beautiful.

Wow!  What an un-business-like concept!  One whereby the cultivation [i.e., an application of the marketing concept] of a loyal, devoted constituency [i.e., highly refined market segmentation] with appealing messages [i.e., advertise with the most promising offer to a select audience] has led to voting-block bases that have very little in common with the rest of the population!  Keohane’s concept, by contrast, would effectively force politicians—from both parties—to fight in the world of ideas for the best civic solutions that face our nation—requiring the voters to be engaged in the national debate in a way many [a close majority for both parties] don’t have to today. 

What it would do.

I seriously doubt that Mr. Koehane and I have very much, politically-speaking, in common, but we do share the belief that this is a terrific idea, albeit one that will likely never happen.  Nonetheless, editorializes THE WEEK:  “States aren’t perfect squares, so some flexibility would be needed. But it can be done, and we’d end up with lawmakers who must at least consider divergent views and seek some middle ground. And it would give new meaning to the phrase ‘fair and square’.”

To make sure you get a "tweet" with every new blog, follow "keithmurrayblog" on Twitter!  Think others might like to read this?  Re-TWEET it to your followers with the SHARE ARTICLE tab below!