I have already told you why it won't work at the county level. There are counties in this country with fewer residents than neccesary to comprise a full Congressional district.

The reason you can't have one "senator" per county is becuase it violates the Constitution. Unlike states (which are sovereign entities under our Consitution), counties are not sovereign territories. The United States of America is a creation of the sovereign states which comprise it. States are not a creation of the counties which are in it. Counties are the creation of the states themselves, not the other way around. Hence, it is a violation of equal protection to give the votes of citizens of different counties different representative weight by giving each county equal representation regardless of its population.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I admit I have not been paying as much attention to this argument as I should, but thanks for the clarification.

If we are discussing voting districts for federal elections, then couldn't two or more counties comprise the proportionality of population required for a full congressional district?

Why don't we go back to the basics. What is fundamentally wrong with gerrymandering to begin with?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

It creates a situation where "power" of a single Party can be maintained indefinately in a given district. These are commonly termed "safe seats". One of the beauties of "safe seats" is that they are not usually well contested by the other Party, admitting "fiat accompli", I suppose.

Other problems of safe seats:

1) They generate long standing members of the Congress. Sometimes to the point where the incumbant is completely detached from the realities of his constituents, having been "seduced" by the DC way of life. It also garners the Congressperson of long standing choice "power committee" spots within the machinations of the Congress, making his position even more secure. Moreover, they really begin to feel like they can do no wrong, after all they have been here for X number of years now, yes?

2) A safe seat is often a place where a "Party Hack" is given his/her just reward for long service to the Party. Since there is no real competition for the seat by the other Party, the "machine" picks the person for the slot, not really the voters, they merely vote for whom they are given to vote for.

3) Safe seats are also prone to retiring Congressional types "picking" their replacements. I cite Moynahan "willing" his Senate seat to Mz Clinton and Kennedy wanting to get Caroline in his seat..... (and did I hear a rumor that Ted's wife is now in the mix?). You know it is getting bad when these Congressional slots are treated like an inheritance, to keep it in the family. (One of the reasons why I refer to the lot of them as "elected nobility".)

4) Safe seats are also "used" by the Representatives of those Districts. Said Congressperson will lavish money via "pork" for his district, thereby keeping his job intact. Hence we end up with real geniouses like Maxine Waters and Barney Franks holding down safe seats forever to the greater detriment of the whole Nation overall.

Aside from that..... I guess there is nothing wrong with "gerrymandering". You want an example? Check out NC's 13th District. All the rest of them are contiguous and consist of adjacent Counties and Regions. The 13th was chiseled out of the middle of the State and looks more like a river valley "state park area" rather than a Congressional District.

But, that's just my opinion.

LS

__________________
The first sign of impending serfdom is when you trade your self determination, your individual responsibility and your vote to the Government in return for subsistance.

In the first place, let's say for the sake of argument, that special voting districts are a waste of resources if we already have voting districts called counties. Would we have the expense of periodic litigation over voting districts if they are indistinguishable from counties?

In the second place, it could be perceived that redrawing lines on a map for political purposes can lead to "unfairness" when done simply for the purpose of retaining incumbents. If that is the case, why not let the incumbents retain themselves within county voting districts. Redrawing "jigsaw puzzle" type of maps can be perceived as catering to special interests instead of the population in general; as should be the case for the general populace of the county instead of a "special purpose" district merely for the sake of voting for someone that can be done by counties.

In the third place, I think special "pork barrel" districts detract from, duly or not, deserved pork for counties as counties. It could also lead to inefficiencies in infrastructure upgrades due to conflicting priorities from someone concerned with a district that is not a county. It may also be that counties may have more "leverage" over wealthier constituents if voting districts and counties are indistinguishable.

HA! It was the GOP who pushed the VRA, before they alienated all the minorities, and the Dems picked up the ball in the 70s and 80s.

The 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution should repealed.

Support Jim Crow.