Skip to main content
The Ezra Klein Show

How to End the Gerrymandering Doom Loop Forever

74 min episode · 2 min read
·
Lee Drutman

Episode

74 min

Read time

2 min

Topics

Design & UX, Science & Discovery, History

AI-Generated Summary

Key Takeaways

  • Gerrymandering mechanics: A party controlling a state legislature can use algorithms to convert a 60-40 voter split into near-total seat dominance. The 2024 post-Callais landscape shows Southern states targeting up to 19 majority-minority districts, with Florida moving from 24-4 to 28-4 Republican, Mississippi going 4-0, and South Carolina going 7-0, eliminating Black congressional representation across the region.
  • Competitive election collapse: Meaningful toss-up House races have dropped from roughly 50 per cycle two decades ago to just 15 in the current election. Senate vote correlation with presidential results has risen from 0.20 in 2000 to over 0.90 in 2024, while House correlation now sits at 0.98, meaning individual candidate quality is nearly irrelevant to electoral outcomes.
  • Proportional representation design: Multi-member districts of 5-8 seats eliminate gerrymandering incentives because minority parties still earn seats proportional to their vote share. Under an open-list system, voters choose a candidate within a party list; all votes aggregate to determine seat allocation. A party winning 40% in an 8-seat district earns 3-4 seats rather than zero representation.
  • Multiparty threshold math: Single-member districts force third parties into spoiler roles because winning requires 51% of one district. Multi-member districts lower the viability threshold to roughly 20% per seat, enabling new parties to form and grow. This structural shift explains why the U.S. has two parties by design, not by voter preference — polls consistently show Americans want more choices.
  • Expanding the House as political lubricant: Congress froze House membership at 435 in 1911 despite the population tripling since then. Adding 150 seats — roughly a one-third increase — would allow incumbents to retain their districts while new proportional seats are created, reducing the political cost of reform and improving constituent-to-representative ratios from the current 765,000-per-member average.

What It Covers

Ezra Klein and political scientist Lee Drutman examine how the 2024 Callais Supreme Court ruling gutted the Voting Rights Act, triggering an all-out gerrymandering war costing Democrats 7-10 House seats, and why proportional representation with multi-member districts offers the only structural solution to permanently end partisan map manipulation.

Key Questions Answered

  • Gerrymandering mechanics: A party controlling a state legislature can use algorithms to convert a 60-40 voter split into near-total seat dominance. The 2024 post-Callais landscape shows Southern states targeting up to 19 majority-minority districts, with Florida moving from 24-4 to 28-4 Republican, Mississippi going 4-0, and South Carolina going 7-0, eliminating Black congressional representation across the region.
  • Competitive election collapse: Meaningful toss-up House races have dropped from roughly 50 per cycle two decades ago to just 15 in the current election. Senate vote correlation with presidential results has risen from 0.20 in 2000 to over 0.90 in 2024, while House correlation now sits at 0.98, meaning individual candidate quality is nearly irrelevant to electoral outcomes.
  • Proportional representation design: Multi-member districts of 5-8 seats eliminate gerrymandering incentives because minority parties still earn seats proportional to their vote share. Under an open-list system, voters choose a candidate within a party list; all votes aggregate to determine seat allocation. A party winning 40% in an 8-seat district earns 3-4 seats rather than zero representation.
  • Multiparty threshold math: Single-member districts force third parties into spoiler roles because winning requires 51% of one district. Multi-member districts lower the viability threshold to roughly 20% per seat, enabling new parties to form and grow. This structural shift explains why the U.S. has two parties by design, not by voter preference — polls consistently show Americans want more choices.
  • Expanding the House as political lubricant: Congress froze House membership at 435 in 1911 despite the population tripling since then. Adding 150 seats — roughly a one-third increase — would allow incumbents to retain their districts while new proportional seats are created, reducing the political cost of reform and improving constituent-to-representative ratios from the current 765,000-per-member average.
  • Reform pathway conditions: Historical transitions to proportional representation require three converging factors: intense public dissatisfaction with the status quo, consensus on a specific alternative, and a political window where the party in power calculates that locking in fair rules beats the certainty of losing the next redistricting cycle. For Democrats, 2029-2030 represents that window before the next census gerrymander.

Notable Moment

Drutman reveals that Brazil's multiparty system enabled accountability after Bolsonaro's coup attempt because coalition partners could distance themselves from him. In the U.S. binary system, Republican legislators faced an impossible choice: condemn Trump or hand power to Democrats, making accountability structurally impossible regardless of individual political courage.

Know someone who'd find this useful?

Episode Transcript

I'm Jonathan Swan. I'm a White House reporter for The New York Times. Our job as reporters is to dig out information that powerful people don't want published, to take you into rooms that you would not otherwise have access to. There's no robot that can go and talk to someone who was in the situation room and find out what was really said. In order to get original information that's not public, we actually need journalists to do that. I'm asking you to consider subscribing to The New York Times. Independent journalism is important, and without you, we simply can't do it. It. Go back a couple of weeks, and Democrats thought they were drawing nearly even with Republicans in the gerrymandering wars. Yes. Texas had tried this aggressive mid cycle redistricting, but California countered them. And that was the pattern we were seeing. For every red state that was doing a big redistricting, there was a blue state now trying to match it. But then in the past couple weeks, Democrats caught a series of very bad breaks. One was a Supreme Court decision in Calais, which gutted the Voting Rights Act, gutted one of the last boundaries on what you could do in terms of partisan and racial redistricting. And the second was that Virginia, which had paused their commission and drawn new maps, had its new maps thrown out by their courts. And so now Democrats are gonna be down depending on who you talk to, something like seven to 10 seats from these redistricting fights. So I think there are two questions here. One is what this means for this midterm and the fights over gerrymandering that will come after it. And the second is how can we actually put an end to this? Because this is a disaster for our democracy. This is exactly how our system is not supposed to work. Lee Druptmann is a senior fellow in the political reform program at New America. He's the author of the 2020 book, Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop, The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. He writes a newsletter under current events, and he is one of the most persistent and thoughtful advocates for something you see in a lot of other countries. Something that might be an answer we need to turn to here, which is proportional representation. As always, my email, EzraKleinshow@nytimes.com. Lee Drutman, welcome to the show. Hey. It's real treat to be having this conversation, Ezra. So before we get into everything that has happened with gerrymandering over the past couple of weeks, months, years, what is gerrymandering? What is gerrymandering? That that is a great question that nobody has the perfect answer to. Gerrymandering is an old word. It goes back to 1812 when the Boston Gazette coined the phrase for Elbridge Gerry, who was one of the signers of the declaration of independence. And he was a a big poohbah in Massachusetts politics, and he drew these …

Get the full transcript (13,119 words) + summary by email — free

One-time email with the complete transcript and AI summary of this episode. No account needed.

One email, no spam. We’ll also show you what SignalCast does.

Browse all The Ezra Klein Show transcripts →

You just read a 3-minute summary of a 71-minute episode.

Get The Ezra Klein Show summarized like this every Monday — plus up to 2 more podcasts, free.

Pick Your Podcasts — Free

Keep Reading

More from The Ezra Klein Show

We summarize every new episode. Want them in your inbox?

Similar Episodes

Related episodes from other podcasts

Explore Related Topics

This podcast is featured in Best Politics Podcasts (2026) — ranked and reviewed with AI summaries.

You're clearly into The Ezra Klein Show.

Every Monday, we deliver AI summaries of the latest episodes from The Ezra Klein Show and 192+ other podcasts. Free for one show.

Start My Monday Digest

No credit card · Unsubscribe anytime