Ending Gerrymandering with Squares and Seeds
Introducing Grid Redistricting
As an artist I like random grids. Here is an idea I have been thinking about for years so I got my editorial and research team at Chatwick & Co to help me work out the details. Obviously we are in the middle of a lot of political shenanigans related to Gerrymandering since the Rethuglicans are quaking in their boots (as they should be) about the expected backlash in the 2026 election and the impending impeachment of Donald Trump shortly there after. But - long term - what if we just fix this problem with the following? I’ll be presenting a Bill you can email to your State legislators.
Introducing Grid Redistricting: Ending Gerrymandering with Squares and Seeds
Every ten years, America goes through the ritual of redistricting. And every ten years, the same problem reappears: politicians draw the lines, and in drawing the lines, they draw their own power. They “choose their voters” instead of voters choosing them. The shapes of our congressional districts-their tortured salamanders and sprawling dragons - are the visual grammar of gerrymandering.
But what if we cut the problem off at its root?
What if we designed a process so simple, so transparent, and so reproducible that no human hand could twist it to advantage?
Enter: Grid Redistricting.
How It Works
Imagine laying a sheet of graph paper across your state. In dense cities the squares shrink to capture a manageable number of people; in rural plains the squares expand to cover the wide spaces between towns. This adaptive grid-like a quadtree branching into finer detail where the population grows thicker-becomes the foundation for drawing districts.
Here’s the key:
Each district is built from these squares until it reaches the target population.
A public lottery seed determines how the algorithm starts and resolves tie-breaks.
Minority communities large and compact enough to elect candidates of choice are protected as anchors, around which districts must be built.
The rest is left to math, transparency, and luck.
Anyone with the data and the seed can rerun the code and get the exact same districts. No closed-door meetings. No partisan “map rooms.” No secret favors carved into the lines. Just open-source geometry.
Why Randomness is Fairer Than Power
In a gerrymander, the lines are carefully engineered to waste the other side’s votes and shore up one’s own. In Grid Redistricting, the lines are generated by a transparent lottery. Yes, they will look different each cycle. But unpredictability is a feature, not a bug. It prevents incumbents from sitting comfortably in carved-out fiefdoms. It forces candidates to appeal to broader coalitions. And it restores the basic idea that representatives should serve people, not manipulate boundaries.
Think of it like shuffling a deck of cards before every game. Everyone can see the shuffle, everyone agrees the shuffle was fair, and then the game begins.
The Guardrails
Of course, fairness isn’t just about randomness. Grid Redistricting is designed with guardrails:
Equal population: every district has (nearly) the same number of people.
Contiguity: each district is one continuous shape.
Compactness: districts are reasonably tidy - squares, not snakes.
Voting Rights Act compliance: minority opportunity districts are preserved as “anchors,” ensuring the shuffle does not erase hard-won representation.
Transparency: every dataset, seed, and line of code is public. No black boxes.
The Trade-offs
Would this system end gerrymandering? Yes. But it comes with trade-offs. District lines might shift more often, creating some voter confusion. Communities could find themselves split one cycle and joined the next. Stability gives way to fluidity. Yet consider the alternative: decades of entrenched partisan map-making that erodes trust and hollows out democracy.
The deeper question is: what do we value more - stable lines, or fair elections?
A New Civic Ritual
Grid Redistricting could even become a new civic ritual. Picture election officials rolling the public lottery seed live on television. Picture the maps generated in real time, displayed for all to see. A nation watching as its political geography is shuffled openly, audibly, indisputably. Instead of backroom deals, a shared moment of democratic transparency.
Why Now?
We live in a time of growing cynicism about institutions. Gerrymandering is one of the most visible signs of democracy’s capture. If we can show that redistricting can be open, random, and fair, we can begin to restore faith where it has been eroded.
Grid Redistricting is not the only answer. But it is an answer. A clear, workable, auditable, nonpartisan system. A deck shuffled in public view.
Closing Thought
The shapes of our districts should not be the shapes of our distrust. They should be simple enough that a child can draw them, transparent enough that anyone can verify them, and fair enough that no party, no politician, no power broker can twist them to their ends.
Sometimes, democracy doesn’t need fancier tools. It just needs graph paper, a public seed, and the courage to trust the shuffle.
Grid Redistricting: Questions and Answers
Whenever a new idea enters the public square, the first response is often skepticism. Good. Democracy depends on questions. Here are some of the most common questions about Grid Redistricting—and why the answers point toward a fairer way of drawing lines.
Q: Won’t randomizing districts every election confuse voters?
A: Voters already adjust to new lines every ten years. Grid Redistricting doesn’t need to change every election—it can be run once a decade, or once every four years, depending on the policy chosen. If it does refresh each cycle, robust voter communication (clear maps, online lookups, mailers) makes the change manageable. The real confusion comes from gerrymanders, where voters feel the deck is stacked. Predictable fairness outweighs shifting lines.
Q: How does this help minority representation?
A: Random lines without protection could dilute minority communities. That’s why Grid Redistricting includes anchors—compact clusters where minority voters are numerous enough to elect candidates of choice. These anchors are preserved first, then the rest of the grid is built around them. This ensures the process complies with the Voting Rights Act and maintains fair representation.
Q: Why squares? Why not follow counties or neighborhoods?
A: Counties and neighborhoods are valuable, but they’re also often split under partisan maps. Squares provide a neutral, easy-to-understand geometry. They can be adjusted in size based on population density, producing compact districts naturally. The algorithm can still prefer not to split counties or cities when possible, but it starts from a neutral foundation.
Q: Isn’t randomness unfair? What if one side gets lucky?
A: Randomness is fairer than manipulation. Think of shuffling a deck before dealing cards: sometimes you get a good hand, sometimes not, but everyone knows the shuffle was clean. To keep things transparent, the random “seed” that drives the process is drawn publicly and published. Anyone can rerun the algorithm and confirm the result. No secrets, no tricks.
Q: What about stability and accountability? Don’t voters need consistent districts to hold representatives responsible?
A: Stability matters. That’s why reformers can set the frequency of redraws: once per decade, every four years, or every election. The system is flexible. The key point is how the maps are drawn, not how often. Whether maps change each decade or each cycle, voters know they were created by open rules, not political insiders.
Q: How does this compare to independent commissions?
A: Commissions remove direct partisan control but still rely on human judgment. Grid Redistricting goes further: it removes the possibility of bias entirely by using a transparent algorithm. Commissions could even adopt this system themselves, turning their role into oversight rather than line-drawing.
Q: Couldn’t bad actors game the system anyway?
A: With closed-door maps, yes—manipulation thrives. With Grid Redistricting, the algorithm, the data, and the random seed are public. If someone tries to cheat, the mismatch shows immediately. The only way to “game” the system is to roll the dice in front of everyone, with the same seed and the same results.
Q: Why do this now?
A: Because gerrymandering has reached levels of precision that the Founders could never have imagined. Sophisticated software lets politicians sculpt districts block by block to maximize partisan advantage. If technology created the problem, technology can also help solve it. Grid Redistricting uses the same computing power, but flips the purpose: from manipulation to fairness.
Q: What’s the catch?
A: The main trade-off is between stability and fairness. Lines may change more often, which requires adjustment. Communities may be split differently over time. But in exchange, we end the cycle of politicians drawing lines to entrench themselves. The trade-off is worth it.
Final Word
Grid Redistricting isn’t about making perfect maps—it’s about making fair maps. The promise is simple: equal population, minority protection, public transparency, and freedom from partisan distortion. If we can agree to shuffle the deck in full view, we can restore one of the most basic principles of democracy: voters choose their representatives, not the other way around.
“Upon the Citizen Rests the Fate of the Nation”
Myself, I am a studio artist and a citizen. My job and my duty is to start the conversation and seed the imagination. It is up to others in the right places to nurture it into a reality. We all have a part to play. What’s your part? Do it.
Hashtags to use: #CreativeFreedomAct #CultureShiftAct #CreativeSocietyAct
web address: https://www.touchonian.com/s/creative-freedom-act
I think this is a good solution for the way things are going right now, but since we can no longer trust our Senators and Representatives to do what is best for the people, my feeling is we simplify, simplify, simplify. This method of Squares and Seeds is one way to accomplish this, but it is still pandering to a broken system, which needs to be abolished. My "In Your Dreams" solution is to give the power back to the people, and let our Congress be administrators of what the constitutional laws actually are, rather than finding ways to game the system.
I strongly believe in "1 person 1 vote", and a trusted Department of Fact Checking to keep the rhetoric honest and in real time, monitoring the antics of politicians, the Supreme Courts, both in States and Federal levels, and reporting when they are lying or misrepresenting the truth (A I would be good for that). And here is the biggest "Dream On": Political contributions can only be made to One Pot earmarked for Elections rather than to separate parties, and split the money equally among parties who are running for election, and have been vetted as legitimate legal candidates, where it would be the only legal way to make and distribute contributions.
House and Senate Voting should be blind and not open for scrutiny. Why? If money and Power Influencers were not allowed, they would be more likely to vote for what their constituents want and their conscience, than doing the will of the wealthy and/or powerful people blackmailing them in exchange for money, jobs, status, power...etc.
Part of the money collected could also be to support "mail-in ballots", transportation to and from voting facilities, and also to thwart efforts to "rig" turn-outs, through wide-spread and on-going marketing so the word would inform nearly everyone who chooses to vote what the laws and procedures are.
There should be detailed and definitive job-descriptions for ALL government officials, ESPECIALLY candidates for President. Also, there should be term limits for any and all Government positions.
Why does this need to be done? Because mostly all politicians are dishonest and want to be assured of their jobs and the resulting aggrandizement. Lobbyists would have to comply with the fact-checking department and have their campaigns pre-approved by a non-partisan committee, perhaps only allowing pre-approved brochures or documents to be distributed in sessions, no verbal communication...In other words, available for fact-checking without lies.
The results? Politicians would be less likely to be coerced by money/power and probably more willing to be honest about their platforms, and voters would be more assured about who and what they are voting for.
Power to the people! Let honesty and transparency prevail!
Just sayin'.
Oh, and overturn "Citizens United".
Excellent idea. Let’s do it!!