WEDNESDAY: Olsen is seeking a system that's fair!

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2026

We Americans aren't built for such work: Yesterday, we discussed a perfectly sensible notion advanced by Henry Olden. Writing in the Washington, the conservative leaner said this:   

How to escape the gerrymandering trap

[...]

No one doubts that popular majorities in states such as Texas and Florida would select a majority of Republican representatives under a fair map. Democrats should, however, be able to elect some 40 to 45 percent of those members, since that’s their usual share of the statewide vote. But Florida’s new map has 24 districts—86 percent—that would have been won by Donald Trump in 2024, while four would have been won by Kamala Harris.

Democrats practice these dark arts, too. Trump got 38 percent of Californians’ votes in 2024. The state has 52 House seats, so with fair districts, Republicans should elect about 20 members. But Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Newsomander—so dubbed by Republicans—created just four seats the GOP can reasonably be expected to win, plus a couple more where they have a fair shot.   

Olsen is seeking basic fairness. Later, he explicitly says how this whole thing, ideally, would work:

A proportional representation system limits the potential for distortion by ensuring that the share of seats a party wins is approximately the same as the share of votes it receives. If Democrats win 60 percent of a state’s votes, for example, they would be awarded 60 percent of the seats.

We agree—on its face, that does seem like a fair way to do things. It may not always be quite that easy, but that does seem fair.

Yesterday, we went to offer two basic points:   

There is no political tradition, no established practice, in which the various states have tried to create their districts that way. Also, there is at present no federal law or constitutional provision which says that the states must do that.    

We might have added a third point—under current circumstances, it's crazy to think that we'll be able to achieve some such reform around here. For starters, consider this:

In his column, Olsen goes on to describe some (fairly complicated) procedures which certain other countries have devised to produce something resembling proportional representation. This is his first example: 

Switzerland’s election system would be the easiest to implement in the United States. The Alpine nation has a federal, bicameral legislature like America’s. Each Swiss canton—the equivalent of a U.S. state—elects members to the country’s lower house by proportional representation, with a canton’s total number of representatives determined by population. Parties put up lists of candidates, in order of preference, and they secure a number of seats corresponding to the percentage of votes their list wins: In a 10-seat canton, a party with 30 percent support would have its top three listed candidates seated.  

Easiest to implement? Columnist Olsen, please! Switzerland is a nation of nine million people, divided into 26 cantons. The typical canton is extremely small as compared to American states. 

What makes sense there wouldn't work here. Please don't make us explain it.

The same is true for Finland's system, which Olsen moves to next. Finland's population is even smaller—5.6 million. On its face, what works for low population, one culture Finland wouldn't make much sense here.

Olsen goes on to describe complicated systems currently employed by two larger nations—Japan and Germany. But at this point, you must remember this:  

Given the current state of our nation's Red/Blue political warfare, there is zero chance—no chance at all—that any complex new way of creating House districts could ever get through the American Congress, let alone survive a battle with provisions of the Constitution, if any such roadblocks came to exist.   

Given our ongoing status as a failed state, there is exactly zero chance that our Congress is going to devise and pass some miraculous plan which creates something resembling proportional representation in the House for our two political parties on a state-by-state basis.  Dreaming dreams about 60/40 splits isn't going to get us there.   

Meanwhile, the ongoing war about redistricting continues to provide daily fodder for people who might want to observe the way a failed state will aggressively fail to deal with its basic challenges. 

A new decision about Alabama's congressional districts was released by the Supreme Court last evening. From NBC News:

Supreme Court allows Alabama to use congressional map that eliminates a majority-Black district

This brings us back to the ongoing American pursuit of something resembling proportional representation for Black citizens in the various states.

This topic has been a jumble for decades; it remains a tangled conceptual jumble today.  Our parties fall back on their talking points—on their dueling agitprop—with each new bump in the long, winding road which has now come to this place.

We may visit this new decision tomorrow, but the jumble surrounding this highly fraught topic has prevailed for the past four decades. The jumble—the muddles; the conceptual confusion—has gone on and on, down through the many long years and the many thick muddles of language.

Simply put, we humans aren't built for this type of work, especially where, understandably, emotions and feelings are strong.

Tomorrow: We don't think she should have said it!