Easy? Maybe in principle. Not so much in practice.
About as easy as convincing lifers to vote for term limits. Or really reforming campaign finance.
You're asking both parties to give up safe districts. (And the lifers in those safe districts to change the status quo) You're asking the Congressional Black Caucus to give up majority-minority districts.
Any change that favors one party, or is perceived that it might favor one party is dead out of the gate.
Find a dozen truly neutral people who would be interested to do it that don't have an agenda. That all parties would agree to. They can't even agree who won the last presidential election.
The easy solution is for a neutral third party to do it then.
Easy? Maybe in principle. Not so much in practice.
About as easy as convincing lifers to vote for term limits. Or really reforming campaign finance.
You're asking both parties to give up safe districts. (And the lifers in those safe districts to change the status quo) You're asking the Congressional Black Caucus to give up majority-minority districts.
Any change that favors one party, or is perceived that it might favor one party is dead out of the gate.
Find a dozen truly neutral people who would be interested to do it that don't have an agenda. That all parties would agree to. They can't even agree who won the last presidential election.
I guess you're right. At the end it seems the only option is to do away with everyone and start over from scratch. Which is not going to happen.