If
you
asked
me
to
name
one
thing
that
seems
politically
feasible
and
would
help
fix
what
ails
America,
I’d
tell
you
that
it’s
solving
the
problem
of
gerrymandered
Congressional
districts.
In
a
gerrymandered
district,
the
general
election
is
deliberately
made
noncompetitive. The
district
is
gerrymandered
so
far
to
the
left
or
right
that
the
Democratic
or
Republican
candidate
will
win
the
general
election,
no
matter
the
candidate
from
the
opposing
party.
Politicians
know
this
and
act
accordingly. Republicans
govern
from
the
hard
right
to
avoid
a
primary
challenge
that
could
cost
them
their
seat;
Democrats
govern
from
the
hard
left
for
the
same
reason.
There’s
also
no
reason
to
compromise
in
a
gerrymandered
world. In
a
fair
general
election,
being
known
for
compromise
might
win
you
a
few
votes
from
moderates
in
the
opposing
party,
but
those
votes
are
irrelevant
in
today’s
world. Elected
officials
stake
out
radical
positions
and
refuse
to
compromise
(thus
avoiding
primary
challenges)
and
then
win
their
general
elections
in
gerrymandered
districts.
We,
the
unfortunate
public,
suffer
the
result. We
live
in
a
world
without
compromise
or
sanity.
This
is
what
makes
particularly
galling
Texas
Republicans’
recent
decision
to
engage
in
midcycle
redistricting
—
gerrymandering
districts
in
between
the
customary
once
in
a
decade
(corresponding
to
a
decennial
census). Republicans
want
to
create
more
safe
Republican
seats,
increasing
the
odds
that
Republicans
will
maintain
control
of
the
House
of
Representatives
in
2026. Democrats
are
of
course
threatening
to
respond
in
kind,
proposing
to
engage
in
midcycle
redistricting
of
their
own
to
create
more
Democratic
seats
to
offset
the
new
Republican
ones.
If
you
want
to
improve
the
American
political
system,
let
nonpartisan
bodies
design
Congressional
districts
with
a
mandate
to
create
as
many
competitive
districts
as
reasonably
possible. More
competitive
races
would
punish
the
loonies
of
both
the
right
and
left
and
would
encourage
legislative
compromises. That
would
be
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
(I
know
that
crafting
Congressional
districts
is
tricky,
and
creating
competitive
districts
is
hard. That’s
fine. Don’t
let
the
perfect
be
the
enemy
of
the
good. Strive
for
more
competitive
districts. Let’s
at
least
head
the
right
way.)
Texas
Republicans
are
running
straight
in
the
other
direction.
Shame
on
them. Shame
on
the
Democrats,
too,
although
one
can
at
least
understand
that,
if
one
party
is
going
to
gerrymander
to
keep
control
of
Congress,
the
other
party
feels
compelled
to
do
its
own
gerrymandering
to
avoid
ceding
ground
to
its
opponent.
Fixing
gerrymandering
is
one
thing
that
we
should
be
able
to
do,
and
that
would
begin
to
cure
American
politics.
But
we
seemingly
won’t
do
it.
If
you
asked
me
to
name
one
thing
that
would
improve
the
legislative
process
a
little
bit,
and
shouldn’t
be
too
hard
to
implement,
it
would
be
to
ban
trading
of
individual
securities
by
members
of
Congress.
Certain members
of
Congress seem
to
have
made
a
killing
by
buying
or
selling
securities
just
before
Congress
took
legislative
action
that
benefited
(or
harmed)
a
particular
industry. This
stinks;
it
shouldn’t
be
allowed. All
members
of
Congress
should
be
required
to
invest
only
through
mutual
funds
or
blind
trusts
to
avoid
unfair
and
unseemly
trading
based
on
nonpublic
information.
But
Congress
won’t
pass
that
law.
Why
not?
Senator Rick
Scott objects
to
the
idea
that
lawmakers
should
be
required
to
put
their
holdings
in
mutual
funds,
implying
this
would
diminish
rich
legislators’
investment
returns,
which
just
isn’t
fair.
Cry
me
a
river,
you
sanctimonious
jerk.
Who
says
we
need
Rick
Scott,
or
anyone
vaguely
like
him,
in
Congress?
There
are
plenty
of
people
with
fewer
investments
than
Scott
who
would
be
glad
to
serve
in
Congress
even
if
stock
trading
by
members
of
Congress
were
completely
banned. Let’s
elect
one
of
those
people
instead
of
self-righteous
assholes
like
Scott.
In
fact,
there
are
probably
even
a
few
rich
people
in
this
country
who
are
able
to
think: “I’m
going
to
serve
in
Congress
for
a
short
while.
The
interest
of
America
matters
more
than
my
own
personal
self-interest,
and
I’m
perfectly
happy
to
sacrifice
a
portion
of
my
investment
returns
for
the
brief
time
when
I’m
serving
in
Congress. America
comes
first;
where
do
I
sign
up
for
a
mutual
fund
or
a
blind
trust?”
But
Rick
Scott
doesn’t
think
that
way.
That
thought
has
apparently
never
entered
his
smug
little
brain.
I
don’t
know
who’ll
run
against
Scott
when
he’s
next
up
for
re-election,
but
if
I
were
a
Floridian,
the
choice
is
clear:
Vote
for
the
other
guy.
Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].