If you have ever looked at Congressional or even perhaps State Districts, you may have noticed that some seem to form peculiar shapes. Why would who ever draws these do that and not make them more like, well a box? The answer is simple, it is called a Gerrymander, drawing these political districts in such a manner that gives an advantage of one group of people over another to ensure the highest probability that a candidate of this specific group is elected to that office.
While I watched the results of the 2010 National Elections on TV, one commentator’s statement struck me more than any other one made that night. “Now that they have the power during redistricting”, in other words, to Gerrymander Congressional Districts to their favor.
Gerrymandering can undermine the entire electorate, have results that do not represent the people as a whole, can be used to consolidate power to one group or small number of groups or one party. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of it is, instead of the people voting and choosing who their politician will be, it is politicians choosing who will vote for them or their group or party.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the Gerrymander two different ways.
- To divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible
- To divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group
Who came up with this concept of Gerrymandering? It was Governor Elbridge Gerry of , a Founding Father who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the was a Delegate to the Constitution Convention, though he did not 
sign it, Massachusetts in 1812. When his own party, the Democratic-Republicans came into power over the Federalists, State Senate district was shaped so fantastically that it was compared by a Federalist as a salamander, another stated, “better call it a Gerrymander”. A satire cartoonist Elkana Tisdale published this infamous cartoon of the district. But this was not a new concept even this early in the history of the United States, Patrick Henry attempted to draw districts in Virginia to keep James Madison out of the First Congress. Henry failed, Madison was elected, and was the driving force in the First Congress for the Bill of Rights.
sign it, Massachusetts in 1812. When his own party, the Democratic-Republicans came into power over the Federalists, State Senate district was shaped so fantastically that it was compared by a Federalist as a salamander, another stated, “better call it a Gerrymander”. A satire cartoonist Elkana Tisdale published this infamous cartoon of the district. But this was not a new concept even this early in the history of the United States, Patrick Henry attempted to draw districts in Virginia to keep James Madison out of the First Congress. Henry failed, Madison was elected, and was the driving force in the First Congress for the Bill of Rights.Some arguments for the Gerrymander is it ensure certain groups are Represented, whether these groups may be a political party, racial, or ethnic group varies from place to place. But the end game for the Gerrymander is to ensure an outcome. Is this in the best interest of a Democratic-Republic, where the outcome is a foregone conclusion?
Most graphics of explaining the Gerrymander divide the “People” into two groups. Here there are an 36 Green areas and 28 Purple areas. Each “State” is divided into four districts, and this graphic shows how this “state” can be divided, equally and with an advantage to one group over the other.This is a very simple way of showing what the Gerrymander is. In the Top left box, the Green has more “People” in three of the four Districts, nearly ensuring a certain victory for Green. The lower Right does the same for the Purple group. The Top Right show equal division, where Green and Purple both have a two of the four districts, while in the Bottom right, the Green hold all four.
These charts show quickly how a Gerrymander can divide districts to show advantages, and some of the ways it can be done. But what this chart does not show is more than two groups. The United States is dominated by a two party system [though many other exists], but even in this two part system, about 1/3 of the Country is either Independent or a Third Party. This “Middle Third” is just as important as the other two groups, since since “Middle third” can have a substantial impact on elections.
GERRYMANDERING IN AMERICA
NON-PARTISAN STATE
In this “State” Group 1 [Green] and Group 3 [Yellow] each represent 35% each of the population, while group 2 [Black] represents 30% of the entire state population. Groups are evenly distributed among the four quadrants of the State, though some areas have a higher concentration of one group over another, the relative distribution is even.
Now the State will be divided into 20 even districts.
The areas are evenly divided 5x4 through out the state, no preference is given to any one group.
Scenario 1 (Equally divided State, no gerrymandering)
This is the resulting Distribution of Parties, 1, 2, and 3, through the States districts.The Solid Green and Orange represent district where Party 1 or 3 have at least 10 of the 20 area, or solid majority. The lighter Shade Green or Orange are districts where one party has at least 8 areas and the other party does not possess the same.
So with this equal districting, Party One has a Solid Majority in 6 districts to Party Three in 3. But Party Three has the advantage in 3 other districts, while Party One does in only 1 Additional. So with this equal districting Party One has a slight 7-6 advantage over Party Three in districts leaning one way or the other.
But perhaps the most interesting thing this equal districting does, is it is leaving 7 additional districts very much open to either Party.
In an even split election, where 90% vote for the Party [area] they “belong” 10% in the opposite party vote for the against “their party/area” and the remaining Independent vote 50% each way, Column 3 is the result.
Party 1 wins Eight Districts, Party 3 wins Nine Districts and three additional districts are in virtual ties. So in a normal split election [one party is not favored over another] either party can win the majority of seats, depending on how these three tied districts swing in matter of just a hand full of votes.
In addition to seeing a nearly even split, Five of the decided districts are also decided by less than 4% points. With these Five close districts in addition to the three tied districts, this means in this even split election 8 Districts could easily go to one party or the other.
Two additional districts are decided by less than 10% of the vote, making them at least competitive in the electorate. this brings the total of Tied-Close-Competitive Districts in this state to 10, half of the state.
So why does this matter? A competitive election is better to represent to wants, desires or will of the people. We will see later on, how in districts that are “gerrymandered, where this competition does not exist.
Using the same State and Districts, we can also see how a “Surge” or “Wave” election can effect the State as well.
In a Surge Election where Party 1 wins 90% of its party vote, 15% of Party 3’s vote and 60% of the Independent Vote it wins 15 of the 20 Districts. This surge election would equate to 54.8% of the total vote cast in the state. Even in this surge election 3 districts are close (<4%) and 2 others remained competitive (<10%).
In a Surge election for Party 3 (90%, 15% 60% as well), Party 3 also wins 15 seats. 5 Districts are close, and 2 others are competitive.
It is clear to see that many of the states districts are open to competition, and the “Middle Third” has substantial sway in the final out come of a district election.
| Party | Non-GM Popular Vote | Non-GM % Districts | Party 1 Surge Vote % | Party 1 Districts % | Party 3 Surge Vote % | Party 3 Districts % |
| 1 | 50% | 40% | 54.8% | 75% | 45.3% | 25% |
| 3 | 50% | 45% | 45.3% | 25% | 54.8% | 75% |
GERRYMANDERING OUT COMPETITION
Scenario 2 (Equally divided State, Gerrymandered to Party 1 Advantage)
Now what happens when we take that same State, and draw the district lines to favor either Party 1 or Party 3?
Here Districts are drawn to favor Party 1 over Party 3. Each District in green has a minimum of 10 Party 1 areas. Districts in range have a minimum of 10 Party 3 areas, and the Grey areas neither party 1 or 3 have 10 areas.Party 3 has the majority in 12 districts, while Party 3 does in 5 districts. Before an election even takes place this is the known result, unless a massive wave election takes place. On the norm each party can be content with these number being the minimum they will win.
Of the three “open” districts, none is truly open since Party 3 has least three times as many areas as Party 1 with a larger number of independent Party 2 areas. Over all Party 3 has a substantial advantage in these three districts. So if a normal split election were to occur [split being not a substantial trend towards one or the other] Party 1 will win 12 seats, and Party 3 will win 5 seats.
But what about if there is a surge election?
We can see in an even split election Party 1 beats Party 3 12-8 in Districts. 
But in a Surge Election where Party 3 has the advantage [90% Party 3, 60% IND, 15% Party1 votes], they gain NO additional seats. All of Party 1 seats have been protected. Only Five become Close (<4% difference) of which is 1 or Competitive (<10% difference) 4 additional districts, though there were ZERO close or competitive districts in a split vote. Even though the final Statewide vote was 54.8%-45.31% in favor of Party 3, Party 1’s Gerrymander has been able to secure ALL 12 of its seats in a surge election.
But in a Surge Election where Party 3 has the advantage [90% Party 3, 60% IND, 15% Party1 votes], they gain NO additional seats. All of Party 1 seats have been protected. Only Five become Close (<4% difference) of which is 1 or Competitive (<10% difference) 4 additional districts, though there were ZERO close or competitive districts in a split vote. Even though the final Statewide vote was 54.8%-45.31% in favor of Party 3, Party 1’s Gerrymander has been able to secure ALL 12 of its seats in a surge election.When the surge swings the other way to Party 1, (90%, 60%, 15%) Party 1 does not gains an additional seat, and only 1 district becomes competitive.
Party 1 has blocked Party 3 from gaining additional seats when the Electorate favors them retaining 60% of all seats, while getting only 45.3% of the vote.
In this Gerrymander, regardless of the sentiment of the people as a whole in the State, Party 1 retains it seats that it has been designed to keep.
| Party | Non-GM Popular Vote | Non-GM % Districts | Party 1 Surge Vote % | Party 1 Districts % | Party 3 Surge Vote % | Party 3 Districts % |
| 1 | 50% | 60% | 54.8% | 60% | 45.3% | 60% |
| 3 | 50% | 40% | 45.3% | 40% | 54.8% | 40% |
Scenario 3 (Equally Divided State, Gerrymandered to Party 3 Advantage)
How about when Party 3 Gerrymanders the State? [Note difference in Colors does not represent strength, but due to some drawing of districts, dark border could not be made and still show contiguous districts]
In this Gerrymander Party 3 has at least 10 areas in 11 Districts, and Party 1 does in 4.
Five additional districts neither Party 1 nor Party 3 have at least 10 areas. In these five districts, Party 1 has more areas than Party 3 in 4 districts, with two of them by only 1 area each. The other two Party 1 holds a better than 4:1 advantage. The fifth District Party 3 has a 1 area advantage.
So in a completely even split election Party 3 will beat Party 1 12-8 with Party 3 having a before election majority in 11 districts.
How does this Gerrymander do in a surge election?
In a Normal Split Election Party 3 wins 12-4 over Party 1, with only three districts being competitive and none being close. In a surge election (90%, 60% 15%), Party 1 now wins 14 Districts to Party 1 winning 6. This is different that when Party 1 Gerrymandered, some has to to do with distribution, and some with how the Districts are drawn, but the point remains the same. While Party 3 wins 14 districts, NO districts are close or competitive. Even though only 54.8% of the state votes for Party 3, they end up controlling 70% of the seats from the state.When the surge swing towards Party 1, Party one does manage to take a seat, one seat from Party 4 to take 9 in all, with no Close or Competitive races. While winning 54.8% of the statewide vote, in one of the better election years, are only able to manage 45% of the State districts.
These are examples of an evenly split state between two parties, with a typical Independent party, and how the Party in power at the time of drawing districts can consolidate is power, to prevent it from loosing power in most elections.
| Party | Non-GM Popular Vote | Non-GM % Districts | Party 1 Surge Vote % | Party 1 Districts % | Party 3 Surge Vote % | Party 3 Districts % |
| 1 | 50% | 40% | 54.8% | 30% | 45.3% | 45% |
| 3 | 50% | 60% | 45.3% | 70% | 54.8% | 55% |
PARTISAN STATE
Scenario 4 (Party 1 State, Not Gerrymandered)
In this State the distribution distribution for Party affiliation is Party 1 = 45% of the populous, Independents = 30% and Party 3 = 25%. Bases solely on population distribution, Party 1 has the clear advantage in winning districts, by outnumbering party 3 nearly 2:1. A clear population center has been added in the Southeast corner strongly favoring Party 1, while the Northwest portion does have more Party 3 and Independent areas.
Based solely off of population, it would be reasonable to assume Party 1 should have a clear advantage in 9 districts, Party 3 in 5, while the remaining 6 neither party should have a majority of areas.
When the districts are are evenly divided, once again 5x4, the distribution of how secure districts play out is like this. Party 1 has 10 or more areas in 9 districts, with at least 8 areas in 2 additional districts. Party 3 has 10 or more areas in zero districts, but it does have at least 8 areas in five districts. Four district neither part has more than 7 areas nor an advantage of more than 1 area over the other. As it sits, in a normal split election it would be reasonable to suggest Party 1 would win 11 districts (55%), Party 3 would win 5 districts (25%) while the remaining 4 (20%) remaining very competitive.
This is how it plays out, in even split and surge elections.
In an even split election (Own party wins 90% of their parties vote, 50% of Independent Votes, and 10% of the opposing party votes), in this State the final Vote percentages would be 58% Party 1 to 42% Party 3. This would tend to mean a 12-8 District split in favor of Party 1. The actual results are very similar. Party 1 wins 12 districts, Party 3 wins 7 districts, while 1 is tied (meaning a very small number of actual votes decides the outcome). 3 of these districts are Close (<4%) with one of them being extremely close (tie). So in an even split election the results the results it would 12 or 13 Districts for Party 1 and 7-8 Districts for Party 3, which tends to reflect both the general population and vote totals of the State.
Now when there is a surge election (90%, 60%, 15%), Party 1 gains no additional seats, 3 of the districts are close, with 2 less than 1% from a Party 1 victory. With just a little push in these 2 or three districts Party 1 could end up winning 13-15 seats. This surge vote would result in an overall state popular vote of of 63.5%-36.5% in favor of Party 1. Using these percentages, a nominal split would be 13-7, very close to the ending district split.
If Party 3 has the surge election, it will loose the popular vote 52.8%-48.2%, very close overall in the State. In the districts Party 3 would win 9 seats to Party 1 winning 11, and the only close district goes to Party 3. This 9-11 split is fairly close to the actual popular vote split which would be 10-10, perhaps how close the split is is even more expressed when compared to the inherent disadvantage Party 3 starts off at in the state.
| Party | Non-GM Popular Vote | Non-GM % Districts | Party 1 Surge Vote % | Party 1 Districts % | Party 3 Surge Vote % | Party 3 Districts % |
| 1 | 58% | 60% | 62.3% | 75% | 52.8% | 55% |
| 3 | 42% | 35% | 37.8% | 25% | 47.3% | 45% |
Scenario 5 (Party 1 State gerrymandered to Party 1 Advantage)
What happens when Party 1 Gerrymanders the state for its advantage?
With Party 1 Gerrymandering the districts of the state, it has been able to draw 14 districts with at least 10 areas of Party 1. Only 3 districts have Party 3 holding at least 10 areas, and three additional districts where neither party has 10. Of the 3 “Independent” Districts, Party 1 has a 2:1 advantage over Party 3 in one, while party 3 holds the better advantage in the other 2. The way these districts are drawn ensures Party 1 will win 15 districts (75%) though in a split election it wins only 58% of the vote. Party 3 is secure in winning 5 districts.
In a split election no races are close or competitive, both Parties easily win the districts in all cases.In a surge election in Favor of Party 1, it gains no additional seats, and once again no races are competitive. Only in a surge election for Party 3 does a district shift, only 1, and that district is won 51%-49% a very close race. The overall statewide popular vote is 52.8%-47.2% to Party 1, and no other districts are close or competitive.
This is an example of a Party drawing districts that not only give it a disproportionate advantage, but also the ability to keep it even when the popular vote is only slightly in favor of the them, they keep no less than 70% of the districts.
| Party | Non-GM Popular Vote | Non-GM % Districts | Party 1 Surge Vote % | Party 1 Districts % | Party 3 Surge Vote % | Party 3 Districts % |
| 1 | 58% | 75% | 62.3% | 75% | 52.8% | 70% |
| 3 | 42% | 75% | 37.8% | 25% | 47.3% | 30% |
Scenario 6 (Party 1 State, Gerrymandered to Party 3 Advantage)
Using the same State, but drawn by Party 3, we can end up with districts arranged like this.
Even though Party 3 is outnumbered by Party 1 45%-25%, Party 3 has been able to draw Districts that give them at least 10 areas in 6 Districts. This represents 30% of the districts, close to their actual percentage. But the main thing they have been able to do is also give themselves an advantage in all five of the “Independent” districts, by ensuring Party 3 controlled more areas than Party 1. In an even split election, this will ensure Party 3 wins the District. This was done by drawing the districts so Party 1 had only 10 areas in its 6 districts and that Party 1 had very large majorities in the 9 Districts for them. This was able limit the remaining number of Party 1 areas to be used in independent districts to a smaller number.
In an even split election (90%, 50%, 10%) Party 1 wins 11 (55%) of the 20 Districts, though it will receive only 42% of the Statewide vote. Three Districts are Competitive (<10%) and none are Close (<4%).In a surge Election for Party 3, they gain no more districts, remaining at 11 (55%) while still gaining only 47.3% of the statewide popular vote, with no districts close or Competitive.
In a party 1 surge election Party 1 will now win all 5 of the “Independent “ Districts for 14 (70%) in all, while receiving 62% of the vote.
What his does show in close elections, or when the climate favors Party 3 even only slightly, despite being outnumbered almost 2:1 in the State they can win a majority of the districts. It will take a surge election for Party 1 to gain control of the majority of the districts.
| Party | Non-GM Popular Vote | Non-GM % Districts | Party 1 Surge Vote % | Party 1 Districts % | Party 3 Surge Vote % | Party 3 Districts % |
| 1 | 58% | 45% | 62.3% | 70% | 52.8% | 45% |
| 3 | 42% | 55% | 37.8% | 30% | 47.3% | 55% |
CONCLUSION
Gerrymandering to ensure certain districts or a group of districts end with results in a certain way is contrary to Democratic and Republican principles, since it removes a large factor in those principles which choice. By drawing Districts to ensure one party or group will win prevents a statewide profile of that state in representation. It also fosters seats that are nearly if not impossible to be challengeable. Perhaps the worse consequence of having “safe” districts is for one it prevents a competitive election, but it also holds who is elected less accountable for their actions since they are nearly assured re-election based on how the districts are drawn.When Politicians are concerned about their own political safety, they will be much more prone to have the ear of those who elect them, but if they are not concerned with re-election they may be more prone to act in manners not in the best interest of the people.
Gerrymandering also prevents competitive elections on the whole, though the sentiment of the people of a state may express one thing, the nature of Gerrymandering can ignore this sentiment are return a predetermined outcome, which may be starkly different from how the people have spoken in their vote.
But what may be the greatest ill of Gerrymanders is that is politicians choosing who will vote for them or their group. Who will ensure their ideals or beliefs safety in an elected body, regardless of what the people desire it too be. Politicians should never be allowed to choose who votes for them, this can only breed corruption to ensure power is maintained, and ignores what those who they represent may desire. Elections should always and forever be the people choosing who they desire to represent the, never the other way around.
So may request to the States as they draw their Political Districts in 2011 is, do not Gerrymander, do not favor one group or party, let the districts be free and competitive by nature of how the people are. Ensure the will of the people can be heard through each and every election, do not let one politician think he is safe in his elected seat, LET THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE BE EXPRESSED BY ITS COLLECTIVE VOTE, and not predetermine what party or group will or should win, before even one vote is cast.
No comments :
Post a Comment