Dems are 'so out of touch' with the American people, says Newt Gingrich
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
9 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House
Meanwhile, national Democratic Party leaders are Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up There are no saints or villains in this saga. Republicans and Democrats are engaging in a bare-knuckled fight for power, and what each side condemns is Advertisement The cause of all this drama is not inherent Republican or Democratic perfidy. It is an institutional flaw: With only 435 seats, the US House is far too small — which means each congressional district is far too large. The average district now encompasses nearly 760,000 people. That is a constituency vastly greater than any member of Congress can effectively or fairly represent. And because congressional districts are so large, each one is a political prize well worth gerrymandering. When each district must corral so many people, a single line on the map has an outsize political impact. Under such circumstances, partisan cartography becomes irresistible — and bitter, recurring fights like the one in Texas are inevitable. Happily, there is a structural remedy that would dramatically curtail the constant court fights, political retaliation, and vicious maneuvering surrounding redistricting. Congress ought to expand the size of the House from the current 435 members to 1,500. No constitutional amendment would be needed — it would require only a simple statute to restore each House district to a more manageable size, and thereby make gerrymandering far less tempting. That would be a return to what the framers of the Constitution intended. The House of Representatives was conceived as Advertisement And there it froze. Congress didn't expand the House following the 1920 census, because of a political standoff. Many members resented the A House of 435 might have been workable during the Hoover administration. It makes no sense now. If the House were expanded to 1,500 members, the average congressional district would have about 225,000 people — still larger than its counterparts in many other modern democracies, but far more manageable than today's bloated mega-districts. Granted, that would require more chairs in the House chamber and perhaps smaller offices and staffs for each member. But the payoff would be enormous: Not only would the House be more representative, it would also be less susceptible to gerrymandering. Here's why: When each congressional district contains three-quarters of a million seats, a carefully crafted border can determine the balance of thousands of votes — enough to flip a seat. That makes each boundary line a powerful political weapon. But when districts are a third or a quarter of that size, no single line carries as much weight. Shifting a few neighborhoods or towns from one district to another would affect far fewer voters, making it harder for mapmakers to engineer outcomes with surgical precision. Smaller districts mean smaller levers — reducing the scope for mischief. Advertisement And the more districts there are, the less potent those engineering tactics become. Gerrymandering works best when the map has fewer, larger pieces — which makes it easier to 'pack' opposition voters into a handful of districts, and to 'crack' the rest among multiple other districts, thinning out their numbers to ensure that they lose everywhere else. But multiply the number of districts, and that strategy loses force. The cartographer's advantage fades as the map gets more granular. When each puzzle piece covers a smaller slice of territory, the lines become less predictable and harder to weaponize. Last but definitely not least, in a 1,500-member House, voters would be likelier to know their elected representative — and to be known in return. In districts limited to 225,000 constituents, there would be room for more local voices, more diversity of all kinds, more candidates who reflect the communities they serve. Much smaller districts means much less expensive campaigns — and lower barriers to entry for challengers. It also encourages lawmakers to stay grounded in the concerns of their neighbors rather than the noise of national partisanship. Congress blundered badly when it froze the House at 435 seats. The chaos emanating from Texas is only the latest consequence of that blunder. Advertisement It doesn't have to be this way. Enlarging the House to 1,500 members would end the gerrymandering wars. Better still, it would revive the ideal of a legislature that truly speaks for the people — restoring the people's House to its constitutional roots. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
New York Times
10 minutes ago
- New York Times
In a Trump-Putin Summit, Ukraine Fears Losing Say Over Its Future
For nearly three years of the war in Ukraine, Washington's rallying cry in backing a fight against a Russian invasion was 'no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine.' But when President Trump meets President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Alaska on Friday, the Ukrainians will not be there, barring any last-minute invitation. And Kyiv's swift rejection of Mr. Trump's declaration to reporters that he is already negotiating with the Russian leadership over what he vaguely called 'land swaps,' with no mention of the security guarantees or arms supplies for Ukraine, underscores the enormous risks for the Ukrainians — and the political perils for Mr. Trump. Ukraine's fear for these past six months has been that Mr. Trump's image of a 'peace accord' is a deal struck directly between him and Mr. Putin — much as Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill divided up Europe at the Yalta conference in 1945. That meeting has become synonymous with historical debates over what can go wrong when great powers carve up the world, smaller powers suffer the consequences and free people find themselves cast under authoritarian rule. Mr. Zelensky himself invited such comparisons in a speech to his people hours after Mr. Trump raised the specter of deciding Ukraine's fate in a one-on-one meeting in Alaska, territory that was once part of the Russian empire. (While Mr. Putin has made clear that he regards Ukraine as rightful Russian territory dating back to the days of Peter the Great, the Russian leader has not called for the reversal of the $7.2 million sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867, during a period of financial distress for the empire.) 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier,' Mr. Zelensky said, noting that the Ukrainian constitution prohibits such a deal. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
10 minutes ago
- New York Times
Mamdani Tries to Build Bridges to Black Voters Who Snubbed Him in June
In the heart of working-class Queens, Zohran Mamdani, the newly minted Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, received polite applause as he stepped to the pulpit before a recent Sunday audience at an African Methodist Episcopal church. He praised the rich history of the Greater Allen A.M.E. Church, and that of a former senior pastor who was also a congressman and prominent academic. And then he turned to his objective that day: preaching his political message to the largely unconverted. Just over one-third of voters in the church's corner of Southeast Queens supported Mr. Mamdani, according to precinct data from the June 24 primary, a signal that he has much work to do in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Indeed, when Mr. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state assemblyman, spoke of his plans to freeze rents in rent-stabilized apartments, audible whispers and groans could be heard from the parishioners, many of them homeowners. In his landmark victory in the Democratic primary, Mr. Mamdani was able to assemble a diverse alliance that included people who had voted for President Trump, immigrants, infrequent voters and newly registered ones. It did not, however, appear to include a majority of Black voters — a traditional requisite for any citywide Democratic candidate. The ability of Mr. Mamdani, who is Indian American, to easily win without winning the Black vote marked a shift in the city's political landscape, scrambling traditional assumptions about New York's Black electorate and the influence it holds in city politics. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
