Can “At-Large” Districts Push Extremists Out of Congress

Next month, Virginians will vote on whether to authorize a new Congressional map that could yield as many as four new Democratic seats.

It’s the latest move in the gerrymandering wars touched off by President Donald Trump, when he demanded that Texas redraw its Congressional districts to help ensure a Republican majority after the midterms this fall. Since then, legislatures in at least ten states, including Indiana, Missouri, Maryland, Illinois, and California, have approved or are considering new maps. It’s a race to the bottom with partisan rancor as the prize. Just 36 House seats are considered competitive this fall, according to The Cook Political Report, while 375 seats are pre-ordained to be red or blue. (In contrast, as many as 164 seats were “swing” seats in 1998.)

Gerrymandered districts tend to produce more ideological and extremist candidates. Members in “safe” seats don’t worry about making overtures to the other side of the aisle and are even rewarded by their base for fringe positions. So it’s no surprise that Congress has become increasingly gridlocked as gerrymandering has become de riguer.

But why continue this march to madness where the only likely outcomes are intractable entrenchment and unbridgeable divides? Instead of fighting over districts, why have them at all?

Organizations like FairVote have argued for reforms like “multi-member districts” and “proportional representation,” along with ranked-choice voting, as ways to break what political scientist Lee Drutman has called the “two-party doom loop.”

Here’s one more idea: At-large districts.

At-large districts are something I’ve been pushing for since 2016, and I admit this idea doesn’t have the comprehensive sweep of other proposals for reform (you can read a critique here). But what it does have going for it is simplicity. People already know what “at-large” districts are from their city councils and school boards. It also has intuitive appeal: A member forced to represent an entire state is likely to be more “moderate” than someone representing a heavily gerrymandered district. If one of the problems bedeviling Congress is the presence of extremists, at-large districts could help reduce their number. And as a toe in the water for electoral reforms, they could also pave the way for bigger changes.

Take the example of Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, who put out a press release in 2022 bragging about his recognition as “the most conservative member of Congress by the American Conservative Union.” An avid election denier, he was subpoenaed over Arizona’s “fake electors” scheme after the 2020 election. He’s caught flak for speaking at a white nationalist convention alongside then colleague former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Gosar represents a heavily gerrymandered district that sprawls across the largely rural, western-most edge of Arizona. The Cook Partisan Voting Index rates it as the most Republican-leaning district in the state.

Gosar is also not typical of Arizona, which is otherwise a swing state. But because of gerrymandering, Gosar was able to win 65.3 percent of the vote in his district in 2024. Given that Donald Trump’s statewide margin in Arizona was just 52.2 percent, could a candidate like Gosar win statewide in at “at-large” seat? Probably not.

In theory, the winning candidate for an at-large House seat in a state like Arizona would be more like the state’s other “at-large” officeholders—i.e. its senators. Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego are both relatively centrist, as were former Senators John McCain and (for better or worse) Kyrsten Sinema.

Encouraging states to convert one or more of their seats into at-large districts could help replace the Paul Gosars of Congress with members who better reflect the ideological makeup of their state and who might be more interested in progress over partisanship.

Is this a perfect solution? No. But it could be a start.

New at the Monthly…

Can “constitutional Republicans” save democracy? Republicans, it turns out, are not monolithic. New research finds that GOP voters come in three distinct varieties, depending on their loyalties—whether to Trump, to the Republican party, or to the US Constitution. And it’s this latter group, the “constitutional Republicans” who may end up helping save democracy. They are not RINOs or “Never Trumpers,” according to the nonprofit Public Agenda, but conservatives who respect the rule of law and disapprove of Trump. They also exist in large enough numbers to make a difference. Dying to know more? For this week’s podcast, I spoke with Public Agenda’s Andrew Seligsohn and Sarah Bryner. I guarantee you’ll feel better about democracy when you hear about their results. Watch/read/listen here.

Paradise lost. Newport, Oregon, is an idyllic coastal town that should seem far removed from the chaos of Trump’s immigration crackdowns in Portland, Minneapolis, and other urban centers. But as Legal Affairs Editor Garrett Epps reports, no corner of country is safe from the impacts of Trump’s deportation campaign. Immigration officials commandeered a Coast Guard helicopter otherwise used for rescues of local fishermen lost at sea. Then, ICE began plans for a nearby detention center, which would have strained local resources and dramatically reshaped the community. “Newport does not want to be part of the new society that mass deportations will produce,” Garrett writes. “But it’s getting a taste of it.” Read here.

No easy out on Iran. The Trump administration has failed to learn the lessons of history when it comes to wars of choice, argues Politics Editor Bill Scher. In fact, American is littered with failures, dating back to the War of 1812, when the United States declared war on Great Britain and got the White House burned down for its troubles. Like past leaders, Trump has fallen for the lie that ending a war is as easy as starting one. “America has been torn between jingoistic cockiness and pacific skittishness when it comes to war,” Bill writes. “Trump, as did Bush, is trying to appeal to both sides of that coin, boasting that the spoils of war will come easy without sacrifice.” Read here.

Bipartisan bright spots in higher ed. In a hopeful sign that progress is still possible, higher education reforms passed under the Trump administration are winning praise across the partisan spectrum, reports journalist Jon Marcus in a new piece courtesy of The Hechinger Report. Among the reforms being lauded is Pell eligibility for short-term training programs (something we’ve advocated for ages), and new standards denying federal financial aid to programs that fail to deliver value (e.g., high-priced cosmetology schools). Even controversial provisions, like increases in the endowment tax, have won fans from both parties. Surprised? Read here.

Drill, baby, drill. But for heat, not oil. Contributing writer and publisher emeritus Markos Kounalakis and Theo Snoey write about the potential for geothermal energy to meet the insatiable energy needs of AI data centers. “This renewable energy technology, once considered a niche, has been revitalized by bipartisan politics, financial backing, and, especially, new drilling technology,” Markos and Theo write. And it can piggyback on the infrastructure already in place for drilling for oil. Read here.

Plus…

• Contributing writer David Masciotra shares his reflections from the memorial service for civil rights icon Jesse Jackson, who was laid to rest last week.
• HEA Group Founder and President Michael Itzkowitz urges colleges and universities to embrace outcomes data—even (and especially) when it’s not in their favor.
• University of Utah economist Hal Singer argues that one reason prices at the pump are soaring is price-gouging by oil refiners.
• Health policy expert Merrill Goozner offers his take on what candidates should be saying on health care for the midterms.
• Evolutionary anthropologist Robert Lynch warns that encouraging laziness might be the biggest threat posed by AI.
• Politics Editor Bill Scher writes about how some Democrats are tackling the affordability challenge by borrowing the go-play from the GOP’s playbook: tax cuts. (And don’t miss the recording of his livestream with Matt Lewis.)

Coda (disunity edition)…

YouTube’s biggest rage machine. If you haven’t checked out the YouTube channel Jubilee, which has 10.7 million subscribers (and counting), you should. Or at least read Chris Murphy’s profile of the site and its founder in Vanity Fair. Jubilee treats politics as gladiatorial combat and is best known for its “debate” formats pitting one liberal against 20 conservatives and vice versa. Charlie Kirk rose to prominence for his skill in “owning” the clueless kids dispatched against him on this channel, while liberals like Mehdi Hasan were forced to confront professional Nazis (that’s one of the criticisms leveled against the platform). Its most pernicious impact on politics, however, might be the endless (and viral) clips it circulates of vicious takedowns and irresponsible, fact-free one-upmanship. It’s all about “winning” (clicks) and never about compromise (zzzz), which is the opposite of what governance should be.

Trump’s “Ministry of Truth.” An investigation by The Washington Post’s Karin Brulliard and Brady Dennis recently revealed the existence of a secret government database tracking exhibits at national parks that the Trump administration believes “disparage” America. As one result, the agency is on track to “review”—and scrub—thousands of references to slavery, climate change, and other inconvenient truths from official accounts of US history at these sites. For instance, the Post reports, “at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park in West Virginia, staff members have asked federal officials to decide whether a document that describes an abolitionist’s murder by a mob might ‘denigrate the murderers.’” Yep, it’s Orwell’s 1984 in real life.

Red, white and blue (or maybe just white). In another distressing acting of erasure, the Smithsonian won’t be holding its annual, iconic Folklife Festival this summer on the National Mall. That’s because it’s been evicted by a Trump-centric, Trump-mandated “Great American State Fair” as part of the “Trump250” celebrations over the Fourth of July, according to The New York Times. If you’ve never had a chance to go to the Folklife Festival, which debuted in 1967, it was always an amazing and eclectic celebration of global and Indigenous cultures, featuring food, music, art, and history. (I remember one year being entranced by a yurt.) Details of the Trump State Fair are scant, reports the Times, but a pitch document obtained by the paper envisions “anchor pavilions” with “national pillars such as Arts & Culture, Innovation + Technology, Faith & Family, Made in America and Grown in America.”

Thanks as always for your readership and support. And please share this newsletter if you found it of interest.

I’m out next Sunday for spring break, so you’ll be hearing instead from the redoubtable Bill Scher. Have a great week!

Anne Kim, Senior Editor

The post Can “At-Large” Districts Push Extremists Out of Congress appeared first on Washington Monthly.