Bloodless Coup

So do any of those districts strike you, as a Floridian, as gerrymandered atrocities that break all traditional norms of districting (you know, putting somewhat similar communities together). I mean Florida is famous for being the scene of a Republican gerrymander (it elects 18 Republican representatives versus just 7 Democrats), but just eye-balling these the only one that stands out as a "c'mon, you've got to be kidding me" district is the 3rd (where the GOP seems to have gone to great lengths to stick every librul and dark-skinned person it can find in that quarter of the state).

Oh, btw, Foley's district strikes my less-informed eye as the 2nd silliest looking one, after the 3rd.

Funny that you mention the third, in which I also used to vote. I think Foley's is maybe worse, but that's because it's the area where I grew up, and the 3rd is where I only spent about 5 years of my life and thus know the surrounding communities less well. But yeah, it cold stops at Gainesville, with nothing to the west. Alachua county, aside from Gainesville, is pretty right. I mean, I remember driving from Gainesville to Jacksonville in the late 80s and seeing a guy by the side of the road (near Starke? in Starke?) holding a sign that said "Klan rally today parking $2." Not really a nice area.

As time goes on, I become more and more convinced that bringing sanity back to Congress involves having districts that are "normal" or "logical" or just "geometric." In other word, just draw some more or less random lines, and have the best candidate win. Sure, some will be more left-leaning, and some will be more right-leaning (such is the nature of random lines), but most will represent the views of the majority of people in that area (more socially conservative in the midwest, more liberal in San Francisco).

I remember reading a proposal on Calpundit/Kevin Drum/Washington Monthly that argued that California should just draw horizontal lines through the state (from the Pacific to the borders with Arizona/Nevada) such that it divided the state into as many districts are necessary for sufficient House of Representatives districts. I always liked that idea: no fancy lines, no weird shapes: just geometrically simple districts where politicians from both parties had to appeal to the "average" voter. What a concept.

geometrically simple districts

Like, say, counties?

That would be just fine by me. Or, at least, it would be better than the ugly mess they use today.

You know how hard it is for me to say anything nice about Iowa, but...

Well it's probably important to remember that Iowa uses a supposedly non-partisan commission to draw its congressional districts (as opposed to, say, Jeb Bush and his Republican cronies in the state legislature).

And personally I think "compactness" is overrated, though a lot of districting laws (and of course the Supreme Court rulings on districting) value compactness and say that districts should be geometrically simple. My response to that is - why? All that compactness represents is clean lines on land - and last time I checked land didn't get to cast any ballots. I think appropriate districting relies upon uniting communities of common interests. And sure sometimes that can look ugly, but if it helps to unite a community and ensure a representative is actually representative of the district, that strikes me as the way to go.

That said, what really irks me is when you unite communities without much in common in a hideous mess of a district that looks like it was drawn by Jackson Pollock. Like, say, going out of one's way to add Gainesville into the Florida 3rd, even though it might not have much in common with the rest of the district.