Gerrymandering in the US

As far as I understand it, gerrymandering is the drawing of electoral boundaries in a partisan fashion so as to increase the chances of winning an elected position by excluding those who might be unsympathetic to your campaign.

It is a common enough occurance in so called Western democracies today, let alone 3rd world sham democracies, and historically, in England, home of the mother of parliaments, so called "rotton boroughs" dominated the House of COmmons till the 19th century.
In japan electoral boundaries are massively skewed so as to give rural voters a vote worth equivalent to 3 city voters (to generalise), which allows the LDP to retain control in the lower house relatively easily, even despite 10 years of recession.

In my own home country of NEw Zealand, this type of pro rural gerrymandering was pretty common until a few decades ago, sure not to the degree of japan, but usually at least a 5% bias.

Now the reason I bring this up is, that this year is an electoral year in the US, and as such, media attention is begining to focus on the coming electoral battles. I have read several articles in the Economist (a british based newspaper/magazine that is pro american) recently that discuss US congressional gerrymandering.
Now you could say that the fact small rural states dominate the Senate is a form of gerrymandering in its own right, but i will ignore that, and it isn't reallly the point of this thread.

The articles dealt primarily with the fact that due to certain legislation in the last 30 years, and two party control over most of the congressional district boundaries comissions the current congressional race has very few "open races". IT states that most congressional races have, due to officially sanctioned gerrymandering become closed races, where the real fight is in the party primary, not the actual election.

To me it is a fundamental of modern democracy that electoral districts be drawn in a fair, non partisan fashion, leaving the electoral decision up to the voters, not party placemen. How come Americans have let this happen?

Note: Luckily not all american states are gerrymandered, there are four states (Iowa being the only one i can remember at this stage) that have non partisan congressional boundary commissions.

this site deals with this issue (found it on google)

http://www.voting.ukscientists.com/uschoic2.h

here is a dictionary definition or two for you as well:

ger·ry·man·der Pronunciation Key (jr-mndr, gr-)
tr.v. ger·ry·man·dered, ger·ry·man·der·ing, ger·ry·man·ders
To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections.

n.
The act, process, or an instance of gerrymandering.
A district or configuration of districts differing widely in size or population because of gerrymandering.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[After Gerry, Elbridge + (sala)mander(from the shape of an election district created while Gerry was governor of Massachusetts).]
Word History: ?An official statement of the returns of voters for senators give twenty nine friends of peace, and eleven gerrymanders.? So reported the May 12, 1813, edition of the Massachusetts Spy. A gerrymander sounds like a strange political beast, which it is, considered from a historical perspective. This beast was named by combining the word salamander, ?a small lizardlike amphibian,? with the last name of Elbridge Gerry, a former governor of Massachusettsa state noted for its varied, often colorful political fauna. Gerry (whose name, incidentally, was pronounced with a hard g, though gerrymander is now commonly pronounced with a soft g) was immortalized in this word because an election district created by members of his party in 1812 looked like a salamander. According to one version of gerrymander's coining, the shape of the district attracted the eye of the painter Gilbert Stuart, who noticed it on a map in a newspaper editor's office. Stuart decorated the outline of the district with a head, w

 

Arbitrary changes in voting areas was made illegal in the US long ago. This used to be a problem for us, but not any more. Voting districts are essentially set barring a population influx for this very reason.

 

Humble Extra is right, there is still way too much corruption in setting districts in a partisan fashion.

 

Take a look at the districts in Alabama --

[image=http://www.acn.net/gsa/maps/gsa_AL.gif]

The Seventh District was drawn to ensure a minority Democrat Representative. You can see that it has little to do with geography, as the boundary takes it right along either side of an interstate for many miles.

AYBABTU?

 

Whoa, that's some example!

I'm affraid that Gerrymandering is a big problem these days, and often one that goes unnoticed.

 

A former Premier of the Australian state of Queensland stayed in power for decades because of his Gerrymandering.

Very sneaky!!

I think it;s always funny to look at the different shapes of electoral districts.

'Look, there's an octopus!'

 

This has been a big issue in my state, Utah, recently. The huge Republican majority in the state legislature changed one of the 3 Congressional districts to basically screw the Democrat candidate. They changed it to take out the city dwellers and make it much more rural and Republican. I like the Democratic guy (2 of his main aides were in the same Government class at my HS a few years back), but now he isn't in my district anymore, but as a Republican I want them to retain control of the House. I will be voting for the Republican in my district, but I hate the way they run the state legislature so I will vote for the Democrats on that one. They don't even have 1/3 of either body.

 

well, as i said, its a problem the world over, just seems particulary blatent in the US at present........and what with elections coming up.........if any of you guys have access to the Economist magazine or website they have a few good articles about this, starting from May i think

 

This really becomes a big issue every ten years after the census. As states gain and lose seats in the House of Representatives, the state legislators scramble to maximize any advantage they can get.

There are more than a few old examples of congressional districts that are no wider than a highway for many miles just to connect two areas that vote predominantly for one part over the other.

 

I forgot to mention the fact that Utah was fighting for a fourth seat in the House, but lost it to South Carolina because we have so many LDS missionaries out of the state, I soon to be one myself. It even went to the US Supreme Court.

 

My father suggested an interesting metric for districting. That we use a math equation to become the great equalizer.

A circle would be hard to have some odd tampering with. A ratio between the square root of the area divided by the circumference = pi ^ .5 / 2

Then you could assign a +- 10% Epsilon tolerance.

I think my dad had a pretty good idea there. If anyone is a polisci major that would be a good subject for a thesis/research report.

--Joey

 

Thats a good idea actually!

Being a Political Science Major who loves (and is good at) Maths I am very intrigued by this.

 

wait, a polsci major good at math?!
thats one of the reasons i did pols! cos i was crap at maths

 

I think math is good because it gives you a different perspective in thinking. Often times it helps you weed through a problem that has multiple factors.

I wish more polisci students were good at math and science.

--Joey

 

I took AP poli sci at my HS and did very well, but I don't know what I want to do. Lucky for me I am taking 2 years off so I can decide later.

 

I used to study IT originally when I started at University

Then I joined the Australian Liberal Party.

Politics is VERY addictive!

 

I was a chemistry major for a while, but then I hit a calculus roadblock. I couldn't have cared any less about the proper way to find the area under a curve. So I decided to double in political science and history.

That said, statistics analysis and manipulation still played an important role in my studies. I once showed, using statistical analysis, that in the 1992 US Presidential election people with syphilis were almost certain to have voted for Bill Clinton, and people who voted for Bill Clinton almost certainly had syphilis. The relationship was too direct to dispute.

Of course, once I started adding variables such as income, education level, race, religion, and age, the direct Clinton/syphilis relationship began to break down, but it sure was fun to watch all the idiots try to defend that one for a while.

Anyway, back to gerrymandering, which is bad. What message does it send when legislatures take steps to guarantee that a certain group wins an election? Does that not perpetuate divisiveness, racism, and the like?

AYBABTU?

 

well i understand there was a piece of legislation meant to encourage blacks in congress, allowed districts to be drawn around areas solidly black............and made surrounding republican seats alot safer....

 

I agree that Gerrymandering is wrong. Some of these districts are ridiculously-shaped. I think the districts ought to be drawn up proportionately according to the state's area and be kept static.

 

Maths AND Politics? Ewwwww!

Heck, there are enough economists in the world anyway!

E_S

 

Speaking of economics, why haven't I started my Micro assignment thats due tomorrow!!!!! NOOOOO!!!!

Anyway gerrymandering is obviously wrong because it is antidemocratic. But it sure is a clever way of staying in power

 

clever but not that subtle

 

Anakin: "If it works"

 

I agree with you that this is a problem that not only reflects poorly on the parties involved (both of 'em are guilty) but also makes democracies in general look bad.

The problem is what to do about it. Can we expect that the people who are elected from those districts will voluntarily re-configure them so that they aren't guaranteed re-election? I doubt it. Would the leaders of the parties allow for the legislation to proceed which would damage their chances of control? It's highly unlikely. Does anyone have any ideas other than an executive order (in the US it might work, but I doubt it, and in most other countries the head of the government is not able to issue that sort of decree)?

 

Wisconsin lost a Representative in the House after the 2000 Census.
No 2 incumbents have to square off, however, as one of the ones who would have dropped out to run for Governor (he lost, sadly, in the primary.) Anyways, his district was split among 2 other districts - one ALL SUBURBAN district and one mostly URBAN district.
Now, in the Suburban district (mine, sadly) we have a Republican Congressman who is "running" for reelection in a district so heavily conservative that the Democrats aren't even bothering to run a candidate - his only opponent is an Independent that no one has ever heard of. The Urban district is the same way, except with the Democrats - it is so liberal that the incumbent Democrat's only "challenge" is from a Green Party candidate.
Is it just me, or is this Gerrymandering by BOTH sides?