Gerrymandering 101
Gerrymander: It’s a dirty word. Everyone knows it’s a political insult, but not everyone understands exactly what it means. And even many of those who know what gerrymandering is don’t fully grasp how it completely dominates American politics.
Welcome to Gerrymandering 101.
Pundits across the political spectrum are now noting that the 2010 Republican tsunami was bigger and more significant than it might appear on the surface, because the Republicans not only won a record number of federal races, they also utterly crushed the Democrats in local races, winning at least 675 seats in state legislatures. This spells doom for the Democrats because next year the states will re-draw the congressional district lines to accommodate the results of the 2010 census:
When the 2010 Census results are announced next month, the 435 House seats will be reapportioned to the states, and state officials will draw new district lines in each state. … Republicans look to have a bigger advantage in this redistricting cycle they’ve ever had before.
“Advantage”? Advantage in what? Isn’t drawing little squiggly lines on a map the most boring and least consequential job imaginable?
Think again. Remember this motto: He Who Draws The Lines Determines The Winners.
Yes, it’s that simple. If you can’t quite visualize how gerrymandering can possibly succeed — after all, the number of voters stays the same no matter how you group them, and if you exclude opposition voters from one district, you necessarily must include them in an adjacent district — keep reading. This essay explains in no uncertain terms how manipulating district boundaries can lead to a complete subversion of true representative government.
The G-Word
When commentators blithely note that Republicans will have a “redistricting advantage” next year because of their dominance in state houses, they gloss over the ugly details of what that means. Few are willing to speak The G-Word, but Jonathan Chait at The New Republic takes the plunge:
2. Redistricting. If that’s not a problem enough for Democrats, it’s about to get a lot worse. Republicans had their wave election at a very convenient time, putting themselves in position to control numerous state legislatures and thus control the next round of redistricting, which will last a decade. Partisan gerrymandering can be an extremely powerful tool, and combined with the natural geographic gerrymander, can give Republicans an overwhelming advantage, if not quite an absolute lock.
The reason even most liberals are keeping mute about the horrors of the upcoming Republican gerrymandering is that Democrats have been the most ardent practitioners of it whenever they’ve had the slightest chance. You may have wondered how America overall tends to prefer conservative policies (pollsters like to say “We’re a center/right country”) yet we often have a liberal or at least Democratic majority in the Congress. How can this be? Gerrymandering. It’s so powerful that it has at times fundamentally altered the political slant of our government. Many of the worst gerrymandered districts illustrated in tomorrow’s Part II of this essay (“The Top Ten Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts in the United States” — don’t miss it!) are the handiwork of Democratic politicians, so the Democrats would have no leg to stand on if they were to now turn around and criticize the Republicans for doing what they’ve been doing for decades — centuries, even. The Republicans have done it too, of course, but in the majority of states in recent cycles, the Democrats have had the advantage, and they’ve not been ashamed to use it.
But that brings up a question of morality: Should the Republican class of 2010 continue the partisan cheating? Is turnabout fair play? Just because the Democrats have attempted to skew the national dialogue for decades, does that give the Republicans the right to do so now? And if your answer is “No,” then how can we possibly stop the practice? Because if the Republicans refrain from gerrymandering the 2010 census, then the Democrats’ pre-existing gerrymandering will remain in place, allowing them to remain over-represented in future elections, and when they regain power they’ll continue redistricting the country to their advantage, laughing at the Republicans for not having done the same when they had the chance.
 |
| The original “Gerry-mander” district, from 1812 |
Gerrymander Nation
Gerrymandering is not a new phenomenon. It’s been around since the very beginnings of our nation, so long that one could fairly say that the United States has been built on the principle of gerrymandering. The very first congressional districts were somewhat gerrymandered, and it’s been downhill ever since. The phenomenon was finally noticed and properly named in 1812:
The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette newspaper on March 26, 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then governor Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander. … The term was a portmanteau of the governor’s last name and the word salamander.
A misshapen or lopsided district is not always due to political shenanigans. In a few cases, the apparent gerrymandering can be forgiven, because it’s following natural geographic features — coastlines, mountain ranges, rivers — or pre-existing zigzagging political divisions, such as state borders or city limits. But in every instance where the lines follow no natural contour, you can rest assured they were drawn to benefit the party in power.
Been reading Daley’s “Voting The Graveyard and Other Dirty Tricks” again, have you?
Zombie,
Thanks for the read. What’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander. If you can’t vote them into oblivion, gerrymander them into irrelevance.
Heh, I live *barely* inside MD-3. It’s infuriating.
You forgot the part where the opposition Party happily goes along with the proposed boundaries, because then their guy has a sinecure. He cannot possibly lose his great job! For professional politicians, there is nothing more valuable than a permanent position of power.
So what do Pubs do now/ Do they play the upright, nice guy, and redistrict it all fairly, giving the Dems an even chance to get back into the game? Surely the public will recognize the nobility of this and give the Pubs credit? Yes, for about a day or two. If they even hear of it. Then they’ll embrace the next Leftist meme about those evil Republicans, and elect the Dems who will undo the noble effort. No good deed goes unpunished.
Gerrymandering just is. We may SAY we want the more noble thing, but in practice, people are generally ignoble. For Pubbies to even discuss the idea of not gerrymandering is ridiculous. It is the same kind of Utopian thinking that the Libs engage in. Nice guys finish last. You just have to be a bastard about it.
Ah the willing abdication of principle. Hallmark of the right. “We would never do it. We have higher standards. But they did it. So we’ll do it too”
There is nothing, NOTHING different about today’s crop Republicans or conservatives or tea baggers. You’r all exactly the same as any liberal or Democrat who abuses power. Here’s the best part, you don’t have to believe me. all you have to do is watch. Rand Paul has already shown it to be true and he’s not even in Washington yet.
You promised to hold newly elected Republicans to task. So far you’ve failed. Not a very good track record.
This is interesting. So because you democrats use underhanded electoral tactics such as gerrymandering in order to seize and maintain power, you claim the moral high ground because you are forthright about your sleaziness? Meanwhile, the only way of dislodging you leftists with any future hope of fixing the system is to use the same tactics against you, and that makes us unethical? Am I understanding your point correctly?
Leftists do not have legitimate “points of view”, all they have are lies and fantasy. Even when they want to do something commendable, like ending the drug war, it’s always in service of some greater Marxist agenda.
You wag your finger and cluck disapprovingly, as if having no principles to abandon is a high moral place from which to judge others.
Let me correct myself. Libs like Your Sensei have not zero zero standards; they have exactly two – one for themselves and a different, more difficult one for us.
Really… we promised to hold the new Congress responsible, and we’ve “failed already.” As you yourself said, they haven’t even taken office yet! Nine days after the election, you propose that we kick them back out when they haven’t even officially arrived? Preposterous. You’re just annoyed because the first chance the Right had to clean House after Captain Wonderful’s election, they did. That’s how things work.
As usual, poor little Your Sensei received Koz’s talking points memo but ignored the suggested start date. Bad sensei. Tipped hand too early. Maturity might fix that.
Ah the willing abdication of principle. Hallmark of the right. “We would never do it. We have higher standards. But they did it. So we’ll do it too”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The same ol’, “See? You guys SuXors! You teabaggers you!” And you’re a praragon of virtue. Heh. I’m sure you’re ready to point us to all the posts you’ve made on the net bemoaning the Democrats immoral decades-long gerrymandering.
We eagerly await those links.
EVERYTHING about the left is projection.
The right fails because it fails to recognize this core trait of the left.
What’s the old line about “the most important thing a gentleman knows is when not to be one?”
The Democrats are down. Make sure you’ve got the knife in your palm when you check their pulse. Then straighten your tie and smile for the camera while they’re bleeding out.
Right now there’s a whole lot of ACORNs to be swept up before we even get back to something approaching a level playing field.
Wait! Don’t check the pulse. It’s a trick! Get an axe.
There’ll be plenty of time for hand-wringing about principles when the enemy is dead…
Given that anyone who thinks politics is about principles is one seriously naive idiot, I do hope that the new majority in the House will recognize that they were elected to fight and to win, not to play nice.
So true. You can’t play fairly and expect to be the victor if your opponent plays dirty. Gerrymandering is a strategy to gain ground in the political war zone. The goal is to advance your placement to better position yourself to achieve the desired goal, which naturally, is total control. Regardless of political affiliation or moral fiber, it’s become an S.O.P for those in power. Reps could take the moral high road but they’d lose too much ground to make it worthwhile. Living with any resulting guilt is easier than recouping from the setback. And so the cycle continues. Not a nice guy to be found.
Zombie – great read. Let me add my two cents, though. I think what makes such egregious gerrymandering possible is the small number of representatives in the House. When the Constitution was established, the ratio of representatives to population was much higher than it is today. Right now, one representative represents about 600,000 people (except in states at or below that threshhold which consequently have only one representative). I think we should reduce the number of people represented by one representative to about 200,000 by increasing the House to 1500 members. I know, it sounds like a big number, but this is a big country. The number of constituents represented by one congressman, in my opinion, is just too big for the congressman to interact in any meaningful way with his constituents. (Of course, 200,000 may be too big as well, but there may not be enough room on capital hill for any more).
Even with the increase number of representatives, gerrymandering would still occur as it did when the Constitution was young, but the increase in the number of representatives might act to mitigate its effects.
There is an unratified amendment to the US constitution that would do pretty much what you had in mind — but would increase the size of Congress to nearly 6,000!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_the_First
Article the first… After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
New Class Traitor,
If that amendment were ratified today, it would have absolutely zero effect, as the current makeup of the house with 435 congressmen already meets the final requirement:
“There shall not be less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”
435 is not less than 200, and every fifty thousand persons has LESS than one Representative, not more.
“…but there may not be enough room on capital hill for any more…”
I’m sure we could find an under-utilyzed domed stadium somewhere for them to meet in, with all of their offices in some adjacent business-park. Of course, returning to a part-time Congress would facilitate the process.
The Senate, if returned to its pre-17th Amendment condition, could meet via tele-conferencing, with the Senators remaining in their respective State Capitol’s except for Occassions of State. And the Capitol, could become a very nice museum.
Alas, if (as below) there’s actually serious consideration to this, we’re insanely misguided. You don’t return power to states by increasing the extent to which people look to Washington.
Cut federal taxes in half, curtail disbursement to states, and let state representatives face the heat of making momentous decisions for their people. Let those state legislatures be whatever size the states wish. Let representation be by those who are within walking distance of pitchfork/torch mobs — not 1500 miles away where effete e-mails via the House web site’s widget are the only way to informally redress grievances.
It’s insane. Starve the beast, don’t depend on it more. We don’t want Washington to be effective at anything but its proper mandate. We want states to be insanely effective and accountable to their people. So long as state legislators can shrug and say “that’s a Federal issue” the people will continue to be “represented” (wink, wink) in DC, rather than represented for real close to home where it counts — or should.
Very interesting read. I am a former resident (and still own a home in) the town of Salisbury, MA. That’s the ‘head’ of the the original Gerry-Mander! Who knew?
What does the GOP do now? Nail them to the wall! The left has used the game brutally, especially lately. Let them be hoist on their own petard.
Didn’t we already do this thread?
I’m in NJ-6 …ugh. Had it not been for that we would have been able to dump Pallone.
However, it should be noted that in 2000 NJ used a “bipartisan” commission. There are reasons in the mechanics why that was still Democrat dominated, but there you have it.
Nice primer. Good comments, as well. Always a pleasure to read your work.
Aren’t a disproportionate number of the Black Caucus seats the result of gerrymandering? Urban districts are likely legit, on average, but non-urban Balck Caucus districts ae likely not so in many cases.
Be prepared for this to become a “civil rights” issue.
I live along I-85 in central NC and my congressional district runs from Raleigh to Charlotte and was formed just for a Black Caucus member–currently Mel Watt. I hope he enjoys this term a lot! It should be his last as our state has gone Republican for the first time in over 100 years!
Living in SC with the possibility of gaining a seat in the house, I am sure we are looking at a coming court battle. Jim Clyburn will not go quietly. Neither will Watt in NC. Watch out for the court battles!
Zombie:
“But that brings up a question of morality: Should the Republican class of 2010 continue the partisan cheating? Is turnabout fair play?”
Is imposing a socialist tyranny on Americans, (in the form of a clearly unconstitutional “Individual Mandate”), moral?
Is spending our nation into bankruptcy, and then cheapening our currency into the bargain, moral?
Is letting the entire wage-earning segment of the population to suffer a tax hike in a recession because of their desire to extort money from their class-warfare targets moral?
Is it moral to maintain their nanny state when we have DECADES of incontrovertible proof that these policies will condemn a significant sub-set of our fellow citizens to miserable, crime-ridden ghettos?
Is it moral to promote abortion to the point where the force of law is used to subsidize it?
It would be immoral NOT to take the opportunity, now that conservatives have a boot heel upon the Liberals’ necks, to thrust the spear into their heart, (electorally speaking), and let their political vehicle go the way of the Whigs.
This isn’t a game.
Elections had BETTER have consequences…or else why should we bother having elections?
We could always dispense with the head-count and instead have the battle.
Battles DO have consequences.
“Elections had BETTER have consequences…or else why should we bother having elections?
We could always dispense with the head-count and instead have the battle. Battles DO have consequences.”
Elections have consquences and that requires as a practical matter that every person must
pay attention to them. Your finger is nearly on the pulse of the problem. The fundamental issue for the next generation or so is – to oversimplfy of course – “Who will direct our lives?” The direction of the last 140 or so years has been toward an elite controlling everything of any consequence … of importance. More and more subjects, more and more laws, rules, regulations. Less and less predictability as the laws leave enormous – and consequential! – empty spaces to be filled by bureaucratic rules and judicial fiat. Elections were – in the long-long-ago – supposed to become a substitute for battles, doing away with the death, suffering and destruction of wealth. When an election is in reality – not just in rhetoric – just as important as a battle would be if fought over the same issues, people are more likely to consider a resort to actual battles to change the election results. Not hyperbole; consider how much more prevalent and open cheating is in elections now than formerly. Everyone knows that ACORN and similar organizations register fake voters and that someone votes for many of those fakes at election time. Ballots are not counted because the counters are of the opposite party. Absentee ballots are not sent out to military folks overseas in fear they would vote out those presently in power, despite strong laws directly the Federal government to compel the states to do otherwise. The enforcement of laws is now dependent on what color your skin is considered to be or what color the enforcers are. And this is overt and those who do it are unapologetic. You get my point? Wholesale change is needed to restrain the power of government at all levels and likewise to genuinely reform the electoral process. My suggestion? Do away with voting districts and make everyone at large and each legislator represents that number of people and has that number of votes in the legislature. With any-time recall and/or allowing voters to change their choice at any time, should work better than what we have.
Try some gerrymandering yourself:
http://www.redistrictinggame.org/
In a perfect world, we could draw fair lines and have fair lines forever.
We do not live in a perfect world. We need to take power now, even though the Republican politicians will (not might) become as entrenched, manipulative, and corrupt as the Democrats. Remember, 100 years ago, the Republicans were the party of corruption. “Each generation must fight it’s own battles.”
Gerrymandering is ‘just how it is’. The party in control is going to do it, and it should come as no surprise to anyone that they’ll draw up the lines to their advantage. I see nothing wrong with it.
To me this is no different than when a president gets elected and appoints judges. It should come as no surprise when they appoint judges that share their ideology most of the time. That’s ‘just how it is’.
If you don’t like it, and feel strongly about it, vote for a different result the next time around. Until then, to the victor will go the spoils. Elections have consequences.
I don’t expect the dems will go quietly on this. Anyone remember Texas several years ago? The dems left the state to prevent the republican legislature from acting.
Expect LOTS of lawsuits in the coming year or so regarding redistricting. I’m sure they will do so with fair results. All they need is a sympathetic liberal judge, and the respective state/federal laws will not matter. The said judge will probably just go ahead and draw up the lines themselves. (after seeing the NJ “supreme court” in action before the 2002 NJ senatorial election, literally nothing surprises me when it comes to liberal judges)
No more lawsuits. The Supreme Court ruled on two cases after the 2000 census. Pennsylvania, and then the infamous second redistricting in Texas. That was the one where Tom Delay made sure that Austin, which had the approximately 652,000 people per district that was the average after the 2000 census, was divided into five of the most ridiculaously gerrymandered districts in history solely to dilute the Democrats of Austin into becoming minorities in five districts instead of the majority in one.
In both cases, the Supremes ruled that partisan gerrymandering is totally constitutional because the process of redistricting after the decennial census is specifically left to the states. Scalia was quite eloquent in the Pennsylvania decision on the negatives of gerrymandering, but still voted to affirm the practice.
Iowa uses a nonpartisan commission, and is considered to have the most consistently competitive (no cracking, no packing) congressional districts in the U.S.
Because of the Civil Rights legislation, some gerrymandering in urban areas results from the legal requirement to pack minorities into a district.
Both parties do it and no way is the current map a result of some Democratic legacy.
With all due respect to zombie,an excellent source is “Bushmanders & bullwinkles: how politicians manipulate electronic maps and census data to win elections”, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, c2001). author is Mark Stephen Monmonier, Distinguished Professor of Geography at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University.
Disclosure: I did some graduate work in gerrymandering in 2003 until the headaches forced me to stop. Made the mistake of trying to map New York City, but there was zero overlap between City Council, Assembly, State Senate, Congressional Districts, Fire and Police Precincts. I was trying to see how communities of interest could benefit from a few common boundaries. The first clue that things made no sense was that there more state assembly districts than city council districts than police precincts.
I live in the heavily Gerrymandered district deliberately and explicitly designed by the SC legislature to send a Black man to the Congress. . .in this case House Majority leader (not for long, fortunately) Jim Clyburn.
Ironically, now that Tim Scott has won the SC first Congressional district, deliberately “packed” to be mostly white voters, there will be ANOTHER Black Congressman from SC. . .this time a Republican.
It would be great if the SC legislature could use Tim Scotts election as an excuse to break the Clyburn Gerrymander, but I’m not holding my breath for that.
That’s a deep delve into a rather dry topic, Zombie. However, it does seem that manipulating the shape of voting districts is certainly a form of affecting outcomes.
Republicans look to have a bigger advantage in this redistricting cycle they’ve ever had before.
Much to the sorrow of Georgie Soros who, reportedly, had dumped considerable sums into his “secretary of state” project, built as “a vehicle to support “reform-minded” candidates for secretary of state.”
(yeah, George, we know what you mean by “reform minded”)
Presumably the secretary of state plays a significant role in the redistricting that must take place, by law, following the 2010 census (?) and George was looking to further mess with the US of A through this particular device.
Based on what happened in Texas between 2002-2006, what you can expect to see over the next two years is tons of court challenges by Democrats to the redistricting plans in Republican-controlled states, either to force the map redrawing into the courts (where long-term appointments may make things more favorable to the Dems) or simply as a attempt to run out the clock to 2012, when they hope the next election will restore them to power, and then they can control the redistricting lines (and you might even have after-the-fact lawsuits, so that lines drawn in time for the 2012 election are then court-ordered to be changed again for 2014).
One error Zombie makes here is offering a false dilemma. He claims that Republicans must either gerrymander or keep the current gerrymandered districts. Gerrymandering is not the same as redistricting. The Republicans could attempt to redistrict in a fair way, eliminating the Democrats’ current gerrymandered advantage, but not becoming tyrants themselves. Done openly, this would be one step toward proving the Republicans are genuinely doing what’s best for the US and give them credibility for other projects, like cutting spending.
On the other hand, if Republicans gerrymander their own long-term majority, their jobs become safe and they are free to ignore the people they are supposed to be serving. That would lead to ever-bigger government, more spending, and a speedier end to our republic.
this is a very good point. Very noble. Most times, I would agree, but not at this juncture. We are engaged in Cold Civil War with a ruthless enemy. It is going to take us many years to undo all the damage. The next census is another 10 years. We NEED those 10 years. This is not about attaining political power, or just holding it. It is about denying it to the enemy. Yes, enemy. This is a fight to the finish. We win this now, or forget it. No more Mr.-Nice-Guy.
And if the Republican Party politicians were completely selfless, deeply honest men and women who only wanted the best for the nation, I might be tempted. Sadly, they have proven time and time again that they are not selfless, honest, or primarily concerned with the fate of this great nation. Consequently, we need to have the power to hold their feet to the fire, and gerrymandered districts take that power away from us.
We all recognize that gerrymandering is indefensible in principle and should be eliminated. But what do you do when you have one political party that has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will do anything, no matter how unethical, illegal, or downright unconstitutional, to advance their agenda? A party that has taken the country to a place it does not want to go, with the gerrymander being a significant factor in their success. There is no question that the Democrats will most definitely gerrymander districts again when they get the chance.
To be all fair and principled against such an opponent will only result in us all being bent over and rogered good and hard. I am sure Democrats feel the same way about Republicans. Therein lies the rub. Reality is rarely fair and principled. I say beggar thy enemy before they beggar thou.
I don’t trust Republicans any more than I trust Democrats. If you do, well, that’s naive.
Sorry, just part of that unfair reality you were talking about. No one in DC has your or my best interests at heart; they have to be forced to consider us or they will just go happily about shoving our money down their pants and running the nation into the ground.
The only way we can force them to consider us is by retaining a credible threat of voting them out. The Democrats cheat, so they don’t fear being voted out. If the Republicans get good at cheating, they won’t fear being voted out either.
This isn’t nobility I’m talking about. It’s reality.
I’ll be very disappointed if the Illinois 4th Congressional ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IL04_109.gif )is not included in the top ten.
It’s there, trust me.
I have been saying for some time, that when I am all-powerfull dictator, and that day is coming, I will change the laws so that any congressional district must be determined by a pre-existing county line, (that may encompass mutliple counties, of course), and for highly populated counties (also known as “cities”), the line must be a five-years pre-existing borough, ward, district, etc etc.
Obviously there remain a few bugs in this to be worked out, but it strikes me as hugely beneficial in many ways.
– It will take away the power of representatives to “choose their own voters”.
– It will force virtually all representatives parties closer to the center.
– It will foster closer relationships between representatives and state and local governments.
– It will depoliticize resdistricting, if not virtually end it.
This will be the law of the land upon my ascension, so be prepared.
Now, about my “death penalty for car alarms…..”
When your ship is headed for an iceberg of epic proportions, you don’t question the life-saver’s intentions when he helps you into the life-boat, you just get in, pray for the best and STFU.
How about NC-12?
I’m writing from Australia. We have a truly independent (non-partisan) Commission that sets electoral boundaries.
http://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/index.htm
The major whinge from Australians is that some electorates are underpoulated wrt others – but this generally represents the sheer size of some, and consquently the practical difficulties of representation – see Kalgoorlie (world’s biggest electorate).
Perhaps your consitution forbids any but local pollies drawing the boundaries? If so, you should consider a new amendment.
Perhaps someone could consider the ratio between the boundary and the area af a circle or a hexagon. Eliminate squiggliness.
Claiming that the AEC is independent/impartial is naive in the extreme.
Finagling around district voting boundaries in order to gain some (alleged or perceived) political advantage is wrong.
You can’t defeat these scoundrels by becoming like them, you should never devolve into the posture of someone like current attorney general Eric Holder, attempting to gain a perceived advantage for this or that group by applying the law subjectively, selectively.
Defeat ‘em by unyielding insistence on the rule of law (what’s left of it, anyway).
The road back doesn’t mean resorting to simply another flavor of dirty tricks.
But we cannot keep turning the other cheek either. We must defeat them using the same tactics they have used against us. When they are relegated to the trash heap and progressivism is destroyed then we can return to honest and fair elections.
Look we will never win urban districts nor other black of hispanic districts. We will never win San Fran or Philly. Therefore we should limit the reach and voting gains of progressives to those districts. If they want to elect Maxine Waters and Clyburn types okay by me. As long as they have no power. Essentially that is what voting has become: RACE voting and votes. Odummer proved it.
And if it takes gerrymandering to keep it that way, fine by me.
This nobility crap is fine in a nation that is not threatened by immoral progressives who hate America.
A lot of Gerrymandering to elect Democratic Party congressmen who are ethnic and racial minorities actually assists Republicans, as it concentrates Democratic Party minority voters into fewer districts.
Forget nobility. The Republicans are not trusted for very good reasons. If they are allowed to gerrymander, their seats become much safer, and they will not need to listen to the voters nearly as much, which means they’ll be just as bad as the Democrats. It’s that simple.
At least the American system has the presumption of equal weight between districts. This is not true in Canada, the UK, and Australia.
To favor geographic representation, an urban resident in, say London UK, or Toronto, Canada can find that their vote is effectively worth, for example, one half of a vote from a citizen in a rural part of the country. This occurs when the electoral voting area (district, constituency, riding) does not have equal numbers of people in it.
Gonna admit that I’ve lost any desire to read Zombie since the self-righteous screed outlining how he’s the true voice of reason on the right.
There are some simple geometric rules that can be applied to prevent the worst. An easy one is ratio of perimeter to area. A circle is most efficient at 3.14, a square is 4, a rectangle 10×1 has a ratio of 22. Limiting districts to follow major geographic separations, be one piece, and have a ratio of 30 with the major separation boundary not included. Well they also must fit within the max and min population bounds.
Gerrymandering has been around a long time, who thinks county lines made real sense when drawn are dreaming. In Washington, Jefferson County looks pretty rectangular but has Olympic National Park right in the center. The west side has to drive over 2 hours in a loop to get to the courthouse. They are disenfranchised.
Busting the worst districts, shifting boundaries so the Jim McDermott’s get pushed from a lock to a place they must fight for. It gets very juicy when the state is adding or subtracting districts, the majority gets a nice new open district, the minority gets a district where two of their incumbents reside.
Notice the recent Electoral “Popular Vote” BS. We can’t recount the whole country so how do we assign EC votes to the popular majority – absolute stupidity. I would want the Electoral College to be statewide for only the 2 senators, the rest should be the winner in each district. Each congressional is basically balanced population wise and is small enough to do a recount in. It doesn’t change the big state – small state balance which is important. Most importantly, it passes the smell test when you try and explain how we do it to a foreigner.
One way to cut down on the abuses of gerrymandering is this approach, which seems good to me. It’s a way to cut down on the abuses. Wouldn’t necessarily fix the problems on page 2, but might work in the real world w/ larger sample sets:
1) For each proposed district, draw the bounding rectangle around it. That has area A.
2) Subtract off any parts of the bounding rectangle that aren’t part of the state from area A, call it area A’.
3) The proposed district must fill 75% of A’. If not, toss out and restart.
This will give some leeway to get districts w/ equal populations, but would reject districts like Maryland-3 as above. I’d be curious to see what % of the bounding rectangle Maryland-3 fills.
I live in a district that is overwhelming Democrat – my so-called rep. is debbie whatshername-shitz. You may have heard of her. I have not been represented in the 15 years I’ve lived here. Send an email or letter and you get back a DNC talking point propaganda flyer.
In this election, Florida voters were given the option in voting on Redistricting. Both Amendments passed overwhelmingly.
They read as follows:
NO. 5 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ARTICLE III, SECTION 21
Standards For Legislature To Follow In Legislative Redistricting
Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
The fiscal impact cannot be determined precisely. State government and state courts may incur additional costs if litigation increases beyond the number or complexity of cases which would have occurred in the amendment’s absence.
YES
NO
NO. 6 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ARTICLE III, SECTION 20
Standards For Legislature To Follow In Congressional Redistricting
Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
The fiscal impact cannot be determined precisely. State government and state courts may incur additional costs if litigation increases beyond the number or complexity of cases which would have occurred in the amendment’s absence.
YES
NO
Whether or not they will ultimately make a difference, actual application and time will tell.
As much as part of me wants to say, in the spirit of “fair play”, let’s put an end to gerrymandering,…..NO. It is time to give Democrats a taste of their own medicine, although we are doing it for a different reason.
We are trying to save the country!
I see that the new Journolist (whatever that may be now) has started to slip Alinsky’s Rule #4 under Tactics into the political meme.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
Watch for more ‘innocent’ stories like this one throughout the various strata of media in the near future.
We can firewall the fraud, by making sure that those precincts which always end up with the polls held open due to surges in “late voting”, otherwise known as getting your people in to vote for those who “didn’t show”, are lumped into lost cause Democrat districts, that would be great.
I’m surprised you are didn’t mention the most substantial backfire of all, the Democrats’ redistricting of 2002, which resulted in them losing control of the Georgia legislature (for the first time ever) and resulting in the election of Saxby Chambliss to the senate and the removal of Bob Barr from Congress.
Georgia gained two seats after the 2000 census, but the Democratic controlled Georgia Assembly (and the Democratic Party governor) redrew the lines to put congressmen Saxby Chambliss and Jack Kingston (both Republicans) into the First District, AND representatives Bob Barr and John Linder (both Republicans) into the Seventh District. Chambliss decided instead to run for senate (against Max Cleland) and Bob Barr lost to Linder in the primary. Instead of producing a 7-6 Democratic majority, they ended up with a 8-5 Republican majority, and two Republican senators. They also failed in their effort to extend their gerrymander in the state assembly and senate, and lost it (along with the governorship). Oops. Can you say “Epic fail”?
The real battles are in the States that lose or gain representation in Congress after the Re-apportionment. If there is no change, everyone’s (incumbents) job is relatively safe, so it’s just a matter of a little fine-tuning.
But, having to pare-down to a reduced number, every pol of the opposition party is on the hot-seat for he/she knows that their district can just disappear, and they’ll have to run, if they so choose, in a district that may be completely foreign to them.
When a state gains representation, the natural tendency is for the party in power to draw the new districts to consolidate the electability of the existing incumbents, while providing new avenues for favored members of the party to compete for.
Texas and Florida will be real battlefields over the results of re-districting, since they will gain so many seats.
California, some say, might even lose a seat. Since the lines will be drawn by an “independent commission” utilyzing restrictions to greatly reduce “Gerrymandering”, the Dems that control the State Capitol could actually lose a seat or two in a fair re-districting.
Republicans won 65 seats in the senate that were on offer, and only 56% of the house seats. That shows the power of gerrymandering, or if you prefer, the difficulty in gerrymandering a state boundary.
I can’t wait to see if the “Bullwinkle District,” so-called because it resembles the head of Bullwinkle the Moose, which was gerrymandered out of a lengthy strip of the Brooklyn waterfront and the Lower East Side of Manhattan in order to guarantee a Latino representative from New York, will make the cut in tomorrow’s exciting installment.
The dirty pols (of both parties) need hyper-accurate data in order to gerrymander the way they do. The #1 source of all this data, of course, is the census, with its myriad questions about race, income, etc.
The solution is obvious. Reduce the census to the only question the Constitution requires or allows — the number of persons in each household. Not only would the pols be deprived of their precious data, the cost of conducting the census would plummet (the form would fit on a post card) and our privacy would be wrested back from the various federal snoop groups. A major win-win.
Best explanation I’ve seen! Thanks … Every state will have to have contiguous, roughly equal sized population districts.
What is needed is an objective measure of “compactness”.
Here it is: miles of district border.
Linear Programing Problem: minimize the “total” number of miles of district borders, under population constraints.
Proposed rule: Have a prize, of $1,000,000, to the first person or organization which submits the Best redistricting plan for the state, based on the official 2010 Census population numbers.
Each district must be contiguous.
There will be an average number of people per district, of AvP. The maximum difference between a district’s P and AvP is 4% (plus or minus).
Each population absolute difference is also counted as a (+) mile for the objective minimization.
Additional border modifications to reduce counted miles:
District Borders which are on a county border are discounted at 50%.
Borders on a city border are discounted at 50% (or an added 10% discount to a county border).
Borders on a school district border are discounted at 20% (or an added 5% to county or city border).
Each contestant shall produce the full map of the districts, with the populations, miles, and discounts, itemized for each district.
Because the Reps ARE a majority, getting it right AND FAIR, now, is more important than majority domination now. Tho, if done at Federal level, too — it can be a requirement for any state (like NY or CA?) that comes asking for Fed $ for bailout.
If the Feds have the cash that blue states need … let them change (for the better) to get it.
Interesting proposal. One caveat: In several states (including Florida, where I live), every county is also its own school district. IOW, county and school boundaries are exactly the same. In such states, the rewards/penalties would have to be modified.
I wish to address only one question raised by Zombie, the “question of ethics” namely, whether Republicans doing the same thing in gerrymandering as democRATS is “ethical.”
Zombie, it’s war my friend, and please get it.
In war, one side doesn’t ask whether it’s ethical to kill the other side; because if it does, it won’t survive to tell the story.
Putting a stop to gerrymandering is absolutely the right thing to do. But not by unilaterally forswearing the practice, as hypocritical liberal commentators will no doubt be urging Republicans to do over the next year.
If Democrats want to exercise their newly valued principle of hearing the voice of the electoral minority, fine. Let’s abolish gerrymandering – by passing a law, or a constitutional amendment, specifying the geometric limits of Congressional districts.
Besides, Zombie is overplaying the partisan R vs D element to gerrymandering. The most common form is neither Option 2 or Option 3, but Option 4: Incumbent Protection Gerrymandering. This is the kind of gerrymandering that happens when Republicans and Democrats “work together” to “get things done,” where “things” are “their easy reelection in exchange for giving the same to their colleague across the aisle.”
In California we’ve known how bad Gerrymandering is, and have tried to do something about it several times. Normally through ballot initatives. Sure it passed this time but I’m not holding my breath that the “Impartial” redistricting will help any here. My state is doomed, and I’m looking for the lifeboats.
Zombie left out one thing: when SCotUS upheld the Texas mid-cycle remap, they ruled that states could re-map at any time, as long as the districts were still equal in population per the previous census, and still had the appropriate number of majority-minority districts.
I think this is Constitutionally correct: there is nothing that says the map has to be the same.
So far, no one has opened this can of worms, but it could start happening very soon.
The extremes of modern gerrymandering and the possibility of continual remapping are a consequence of technology. With computer-based systems, it is now practical to draw extravagantly convoluted maps (and know exactly how they should affect elections); and to re-remap easily.
Re-remapping could be an extremely powerful tool for partisan finagling and defense of incumbents.
Suppose districts are redrawn before every election. The new map could be kept secret from outsiders until a few days before candidate filing. Insurgents would not know what districts they are in and could not plan their campaigns.
When a seat becomes “open”, it could be redistricted to be safe for one party, with dominant incumbents in neighboring districts each contributing a bit of their safe territory and taking some of the open seat. These swaps could be undone before the next election.
WRT Zombie’s examples: historically, Option 2 was the most common way of drawing districts. There were many many cases in the past of a party sweeping all districts in a state without getting over 55% in any district. Such states often “swung back” at the next election.
Great column.
While it might be satisfying to see the Republicans gerrymander districts to the same degree the Democrats have in the past, in the end we should try to do away with gerrymandering altogether. The only way I can think of to do that is to devise a fair algorithm for drawing districts and use it, with no exceptions, even if it leads to odd outcomes in edge cases.
I’m thinking that we should use something reminiscent of Delauney triangulation. Something like that probably would draw a few districts pretty oddly, but that would be a small price to pay to get rid of gerrymandering. But the really important thing would be to decide on an algorithm and then use it with no exceptions, no matter how odd the edge cases were- once you let an exception into the system you’re sunk.
Now that he knows Gerrymandering will be used to reduce his nefarious, traitorous influence even more, very intersting that Lawrence O’Donnell — MSNBC’s self-proclaimed socialist — listed Gerrymandering as one of the evils of America….
Now, if I only had the ability to checkbox which cable offerings I want to pay for. That would really show them what I think of MSNBC.
“Is this the end of real democracy?”
Please. It’s an example of how democracy can be played. And, as you have noted in the article, the playing of it can backfire.
It’s our turn to control the game now so let’s play it right. In my area, Marlin Stutzman won with 66% of the vote. Meanwhile less than a mile from my house, Joe Donnelly squeaked by 49 to 48. Well, boys, time to move the buoys back to where they were in 1990.
Bye-bye, Joe Donnelly. Or, welcome to the Republican party.
Your play, Joe.
You may have wondered how America overall tends to prefer conservative policies (pollsters like to say “We’re a center/right country”) yet we often have a liberal or at least Democratic majority in the Congress. How can this be? Gerrymandering.
In all fairness, that’s an oversimplification; there are other factors than gerrymandering that contribute to Democrat victories in Congress. (The tendency of the Republican Party to shoot itself in both feet every so often, for example. And hey, it’s not unheard of for Democrats to get it right, Republicans to get it wrong, and the American people to see what’s going on, all in the same election.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
I am suspicious of California’s “independent” redistricting commission – but its better than what we have now.
The GOP should take the high road, and legislate that district lines should be drawn by a computer program that totally disregards party registration. Only City and County boundaries, major roads and highways and natural geographic features should divide districts.
You should have seen the first Congressional district specifically created for Barbara Boxer out here in California.
It included the “old money” sections of Marin County (Ross, Mill Valley) with Alcatraz and the poorest sections of San Francisco (Hunters Point, the Fillmore) and included most of SF’s public housing.
Districts MUST be drawn. The questtions are who draws them and how does one draw them for the greatest justice to the voters?
I like a lot of the proposals people have made here, but I think we’re forgetting something important. The objective is not, or should not be, to have “safe” Congressional districts in the right percentages.
The objective should be to do away with “safe” districts. Let the bastards fear for their jobs, every time!
So here’s another proposal — which, no doubt, has disadvantages immediately obvious to people who (unlike me) actually know what they’re doing.
Every census comes two years after a statewide election, during which we can tally the total statewide votes for the major parties. So let’s redraw the district lines every ten years, doing our best to make sure that every district reflects the statewide percentages.
Suppose that, in 2008, the state of New Dakota voted 55% Republican and 45% Democrat. After the 2010 census, therefore, new districts should be assigned, adhering as closely as possible to county lines and natural geography… but with the borders adjusted so that each district reflects that 55% / 45% split. If it’s not feasible to do that in a particular district, let another district in the same state counterbalance by tilting the same amount in the other direction.
This would no doubt present problems in states with major rural areas (which tend to be sparsely populated, and vote Republican) and major metropolitan cities (which are densely populated, and vote Democrat). So we’d no longer have a Congressional district for Manhattan alone, say; some upstate communities would have to be included as well, to reflect the statewide percentages.
Whatever disadvantages this scheme has, they should apply equally to Democrats as to Republicans… and a re-balancing would take place every ten years, making the situation self-correcting.
No doubt we’d still have candidates running unopposed here and there. But the barrier to entry would not be as high as it is now, where running against an entrenched incumbent in a gerrymandered district is basically a lost cause in the first place.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline (MA-04, unfortunately!)
Another factor that was not discussed is that the USDoJ Civil Rights Division requires the states to gerrymander majority black congressional districts. Doing that concentrates the Democrat vote in safe districts, but makes about 240 districts either majority R or even.
Wouldn’t it be nice to adopt a standard along the lines of “simplest convex polygon with no more than X sides, unless dictated by actual geographic features”? Put some hard geometry into the requirements, and end this ridiculousness. A roughly circular shaped town should have a roughly circular shaped district, etc.
Also, I think the Republicans need to spread this message far and wide. This is a very specific, easy to understand (with the proper visual aids) concept, that should be drummed into people’s heads. Yet another example of DemocRAT dirty tactics, and it should be aired out.
So now you know what gerrymandering looks like – can you do it yourself?
The Redistricting game:
http://www.redistrictinggame.org/
There were 2 state constitution ballot measures in Florida that passed on November 2nd, requiring that both state and congressional districts be compact and logically drawn using existing geographic and political borders. Hopefully it will curb gerrymandering here in Florida.
Being gerrymandered into a Democrat district I am hoping this really works. I am so sick of Cathy Castor and her liberal cronies I am ready to move to Odessa to escape. Of course my house value is worthless so I am stuck. Gee thanks Cathy, Barney et al, and your idiot mother too, and the Tampa Tribune, and the St Pete Times.
Gerrymandering is not inevitable; at least five states do not have gerrymandering and have bipartisan redistricting commissions that prevent gerrymandering.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=WA
All it takes is the will to give it up.
Great post! (as usual)
Democracy was over a long time ago. Read about Woodrow Wilson. Theodore Roosevelt. As long as politicians control any process, it will be corrupt. However, if the GOP can destroy the Democrats, using gerrymandering, then get on with it. You know every lawyer in the US will be suing to stop them, but so what.
This article helped me learn that not only does Gerrymandering protect a Career Politician, it can also skew the representation in the House of Representatives. Using Gerrymandering, it is possible for a minority to have majority representation as in Option 3. Who knows how many times Option 3 occurs but it has to make us wonder if we are really being represented. I am still convinced that Term Limits and the shorter the better is the solution to removing the ruling class and restoring grassroots representation. Even with the occurence of Gerrymandering, Term Limits would guarantee the end of the elitist, Career Politicians and their misplaced priorities. Short term limits will ultimately devolve the power of the over-reaching National Government and allow it to revert back to the States. Career Politicians are good at winning but are not good at ruling. A 10 trillion dollar national debt is the proof of that.
59 I_C_James:
Even with the occurence of Gerrymandering, Term Limits would guarantee the end of the elitist, Career Politicians and their misplaced priorities.
A play upon ‘if you build it’: If you take away the bennies then they will not come. They’ll stay home and serve a minimal number of terms. If they don’t have a Boeing 767 to shuttle back and forth weekly, don’t have a retirement plan, don’t have any more health care options than their ‘subjects’, maybe we’ll have less Rulers and more Representatives.
Maybe if their staff funding is reduced significantly, we’ll have less 2,000 page bills generated that no one has read nor understands.
I can hope.
tom
Gerrymandering = dysfunctional Congress !!!
Not only is Gerrymandering dirty politics, it actually DESTROYS a functioning democracy. Gerrymandering leads to non-competition between parties. I live in a district in Austin Texas that is a Democratic district. Democrats are a minority in Texas, but because of Gerrymandering my representative tends to the left of middle of the road. We are surrounded by Republicans that tend to the right of the middle of the road. When these idiots get together in Washington, it is deadlock. Texas is chopped up (to the Republican’s advantage) in such a way that very few sitting representatives (of either party!) have to worry about their seat. Once they are in, they are in. Gerrymandering moves the power from the voters to the parties in a very dysfunctional way and is severely undermining our country and even bringing us to the brink of financial ruin because our Congress is now incapable rational middle of the road behavior. The individual members of all parties need to be outraged at what the Gerrymandering gamesmanship has led to. Especially the ‘winners’ of this game, because they have effectively given up their votes as surely as they have taken away their opponents right to vote. In Texas, Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona, Illinois, New Jersey and I am sure other states, we are living in a country where we have effectively given up our right to vote for representatives and have turned this right wholly over to our parties. These parties no longer represent the typical voter and have overtly conspired to deprive the typical voter of their civil right to vote. They are feloniously criminal organizations by definition.
Od dawna szukałem artykułu na temat Zombie » Gerrymandering 101 . Dzięki