And never change them unless for population. Like it seems like that would be more fair ya know?
If weighted voting were in place this could be done.
Under weighted voting, the weight of a representative's vote in the legislative body is proportional to the population he represents.
Imagine if there were 100 members in a state house of representatives. We could divide the state population by 100 to determine a quota, or average population per representative.
Then we could take a county's population and divide it by the quota, and determine the representation for the county.
Let's say that Adams County has a population equal to 1.23 quotas. Then its representative would be entitled to 1.23 votes. Meanwhile Buchanan County has a population equal to 0.86 quotas. Its representative would be entitled to 0.86 votes.
The two representatives would have roughly equal strength, similar number of constituents, opportunity to make speeches, etc. Only during a roll call vote would we take into account the voting weights. We could also use weights of 123 and 86 if the clerk doesn't like decimal fractions, or even 12 and 9 if we don't mind a little bit of rounding. The whips could do the arithmetic in their head.
Now imagine Cleveland County had a population equivalent to 2.09 quotas. It could have a single representative with a voting weight of 2.09 or 209 or 21. But this might give that representative too much power, and this would be even worse as population concentrated in urban areas, A representative from Clark County, Nevada would have over 50% of the vote. He would decide every vote.
So we divide larger counties into two districts of somewhat similar population. Let's say West Cleveland with a population of 1.17 quotas and East Cleveland with a population of 0.92 quotas. We could divide along some recognizable feature such as the Grover River.
Now imagine Delano County with a population equivalent to 0.46 quotas, and neighboring Earl County with a population equivalent to 0.38 quotas. Rather than giving each county their own relatively powerless representative, we combine the two into a single district electing one representative with a voting weight of 0.84 quotas.
After each census we would adjust the voting weights. If Adams and Buchanan counties were rural counties, their voting weights would likely decline over time. But if one were a suburban county, its voting weight might grow. Eventually, we might have to combine the rural counties into a single district, or divide the suburban county into two districts. Perhaps Cleveland County would have to be divided into three districts, with perhaps creation of Center Cleveland along the banks of the Grover River (including the city of Groverton).
Meanwhile we might have to add Franklin County to the district with Delano and Earl counties to keep its voting weight to a reasonable level.
We could apply a simple rule that districts must have population between 2/3 (0.67) and 1-1/3 (1.33) quotas. This permits the simple practice of dividing a too large district into two districts, or combining two too small districts into a single district, where the new districts would be within the target range.
Most districts would not change every decade. They could be stable over decades.
