Gerrymandering as a Threat to Democracy

A large portion of Chapter 11 was devoted to talking about representation in Congress, and specifically how Gerrymandering affects this representation. Gerrymandering is the redrawing of electoral district lines in an extreme and unlikely manner to give an advantage to a particular party or candidate. This redistricting is often managed by state legislatures who are relatively free to draw district lines however they choose. To pull off an effective gerrymander, a legislature usually uses two tactics called “cracking” and “packing”. Cracking spreads one party’s voters across multiple districts effectively denying them a majority in any single district. Packing puts voters of the rival party into one district which gives the rival party a huge margin of support in one district but cuts its chances of winning seats in multiple districts. For example, the Illinois 4^th district is nicknamed “the earmuffs” because it connects two predominantly Latino areas by a thin line that is effectively just one road. In doing so, it packs Democrats into a contorted district, ensuring that those voters cast ballots in a safely Democratic preserve. The net result is a weakening of the power of Latino votes and more Republican districts. Because Democrats are packed together as tightly as possible in district, Republicans have a chance to win surrounding districts even though they are vastly outnumbered geographically.

Gerrymandering is thought to reduce political competition within districts, perpetuate the tenure of incumbents, and create legislative majorities in state legislatures and in the House of Representatives that do not reflect the views of the majority of citizens. All of these effects of Gerrymandering distort American democracy and circumvents the principle of one vote, one person that underlies our Democracy. In the 2016 elections for the House of Representatives, only 17 seats out of 435 races were decided by a margin of 5% or less. 33 seats in total were decided by a margin of 10% or less. In other words, more than 9 out of 10 House races were landslides where the campaign was a foregone conclusion before ballots were even cast. There was no true competition in these Congressional races and that is not healthy for a system of government that, at its core, is defined by political competition. The decline in the number of competitive districts in the House elections means that the vast majority of districts in the US are safely Republican or safety Democratic where candidates need not appeal to the general constituency but only to members of their party, contributing to the ever-deepening partisan divide in Congress.

However, gerrymandering is embedded in the Constitution that expressly assigns power to each state to prescribe its own redistricting rules, and proponents would argue that gerrymandering simply reflects the basic human instinct for people to join groups that reflect their own interests and identity. Instead of abandoning gerrymandering, why not use it to achieve a different objective—to create as many competitive districts as possible? This would address several issues simultaneously like reduce the number of representatives who are permanent fixtures in Washington, increase voter participation, weaken the influence of special interests, and provide incentive for compromise in Washington.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/02/10/gerrymandering-is-the-biggest-obstacle-to-genuine-democracy-in-the-united-states-so-why-is-no-one-protesting/?utm_term=.e4983a9438aa

4 Responses to "Gerrymandering as a Threat to Democracy"

Gwynna Ryan says:

April 9, 2018 at 3:02 pm

Sophia,

This is a really interesting post and an extremely relevant one as the November 2018 midterm elections grow closer and closer. Political polarization has undoubtedly been increasing in recent years, and people often point to gerrymandering as a probable cause for this phenomenon. Yet the redrawing of districts is necessary as populations grow and shift throughout the country, and as you’ve mentioned, redistricting is a right given to the states in the Constitution. So essentially, redistricting cannot be avoided. If certain problems are to be fixed in this process, some others must be sacrificed. For example, if the goal of redistricting is to create more competitive elections, than nonwhite representation cannot be prioritized. In the example of the Illinois 4th district that you used, these two neighborhoods were connected with the intention of giving the Latino residents a voice and representation that they would not have enjoyed otherwise. If they had not been connected, these neighborhoods would have been swallowed by majority white districts that might have negatively affected these minority groups as a loss of representation. This is not to say that gerrymandering isn’t a problem, but redistricting can most accurately be described as a necessary evil.
Hannah Grow says:

April 10, 2018 at 6:15 pm

Dear Sophia,

Thank you for this compelling post about gerrymandering, and I especially appreciated you calling into question whether or not gerrymandering could be turned on its head and used to make more competitive districts instead. While I agree that this would be an interesting tactic, I have to agree with Gwynna that it is unfortunately a necessary evil in combating unequal racial representation. That being said, I do believe there needs to be some sort of limitation on the extent to which politicians should be allowed to gerrymander, seeing as it is negatively effecting our democracy.

In recent news there has been a lot of talk about using something called “the efficiency gap” to determine whether or not politicians are unfairly gerrymandering their districts. The efficiency gap mathematically computes the number of wasted votes that happen in an election divided by the total number of votes, and determines if that percent is above or below a threshold percentage, which is currently 7%. However, an article I read draws attention to the flaws of using the efficiency gap as a determination of effective gerrymandering. The most important thing that they address is the efficiency gap’s inability to fully account for natural, geographic partisanship. While I think this is undoubtedly a valid point, I think the natural geographic partisanship can easily be sniffed out by courts, and is not enough to completely write off the efficiency gap as a tool. Additionally, the only other methods being proposed to tackle unfair gerrymandering would be to have third parties responsible for the redistricting. I think in any case, it would be incautious to assume that this is a reliable method. I hope the efficiency gap is something that becomes far more integrated in our democracy and believe that although gerrymandering is a necessary evil, the efficiency gap should be used as an effective tool in limiting the abuse of this practice.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/03/upshot/how-the-new-math-of-gerrymandering-works-supreme-court.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/the-debate-over-gerrymandering-is-fundamentally-changing.html
Jacob Weis says:

April 10, 2018 at 10:49 pm

Sophia,

I thought your post was well said. Gerrymandering is an unfortunate event that takes place in our country. Many people within the United States value democracy yet gerrymandering is an ingrained part of our society, which doesn’t add up. Non partisans individuals should be given the role of redistricting. But the fact of the matter is that there is no one way or perfect system to go about this process. Although, some ways are better than others such as eliminating discrimination.
Virginia Myers says:

April 11, 2018 at 10:17 am

Dear Sophia,

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough post about gerrymandering. As we discussed in class, reapportionment means that every Congress person has to represent the same amount of people, and if I have less of my Congress person’s attention or time, that’s a question of my popular sovereignty. The rationale used for drawing districts is gerrymandering. In the 2012 presidential election, Philadelphia was around 50% Democratic and 50% Republican, but because of gerrymandering and because Republicans control the census, 80% of the districts are represented by Republicans. This is because the states are getting popular representation as a district.

Vote suppression, gerrymandering, unlimited campaign spending, and institutions that over-represent white rural voters such as the Senate and the Electoral College, means Republicans have been able to lose the popular vote and still win elections. Executive orders further exacerbates the lack of popular sovereignty because Republican candidates win elections despite not winning the majority of votes and Republican Congresses are incapable of fulfilling their “incoherent campaign promises.” As a result, the Republican president is elected by a minority and enacts the right-wing’s demands through executive orders. This system does not represent our American and democratic ideals. As you mentioned, no true competition in Congressional races is not healthy for “a system of government that is defined by political competition at its core.”

So, you are proposing to use gerrymandering to create as many competitive districts as possible. How would this occur? Brookings scholars found that gerrymandering is not the primary cause of polarization, “though this conclusion doesn’t mean that redistricting reform isn’t necessary.” Instead, the bigger issue is that Americans are sorting themselves politically, regardless of how congressional district boundaries are drawn. Elaine Kamarck explains it: “The bigger problem with relying on gerrymandering reform to increase competition is that in recent years Americans seem to have ‘sorted themselves’ into like-minded communities…In recent years, red states have gotten redder, blue states bluer and the same holds for counties. Thus even in the unlikely event of across the board redistricting reform, the increase in competitive congressional districts may not be very big.” Perhaps the issue isn’t changing gerrymandering, but instead encouraging the country to continue living around people with opposing views to expand their thinking and political attitudes.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lemieux-executive-commentary/commentary-blame-the-constitution-for-trumps-undemocratic-executive-orders-idUSKBN1CN2NR
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/

Comments are closed.