Beyond the Border Wars: Representation, Scale, and Multi‐Member Districts

Proposed redistricting reforms often focus on fixing gerrymandered maps or restructuring elections to boost proportionality. Recent work shows that, averaged across all 50 states, multi‐member districts paired with proportional ranked‐choice voting can deliver near‐proportional outcomes while curbing the gains available to a partisan map‐drawer. We use the case of Pennsylvania to show that the effect of any given reform depends on how the size and location of a state's population clusters align with the size of its districts, a geographic interaction that resists one‐size‐fits‐all prescription. Moreover, complex relationships among population clusters, district size, and administrative units like counties may limit the benefits of multi‐member districts. Enlarging districts to elect multiple representatives increases the heterogeneity of district populations, increases competitiveness, and broadens opportunities for effective representation across most of the state. However, proportionality and opportunities for Black voters to elect preferred candidates move unevenly. We argue that the match between district magnitude and cluster size must be considered for reforms to succeed.