Now That's What I Call Gerrymandering!

[FriendlyFire]

Now That's What I Call Gerrymandering!

Americans woke up on November 7 having elected a Democratic president, expanded the Democratic majority in the Senate, and preserved the Republican majority in the House.

That's not what they voted for, though. Most Americans voted for Democratic representation in the House. The votes are still being counted, but as of now it looks as if Democrats have a slight edge in the popular vote for House seats, 49 percent-48.2 percent, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. Still, as the Post's Aaron Blake notes, the 233-195 seat majority the GOP will likely end up with represents the GOP's "second-biggest House majority in 60 years and their third-biggest since the Great Depression."

So how did Republicans keep their House majority despite more Americans voting for the other party—something that has only happened three times in the last hundred years, according to political analyst Richard Winger? Because they drew the lines.

After Republicans swept into power in state legislatures in 2010, the GOP gerrymandered key states, redrawing House district boundaries to favor Republicans. In Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates received half of the votes in House contests, but Republicans will claim about three-quarters of the congressional seats. The same is true in North Carolina. More than half the voters in that state voted for Democratic representation, yet Republicans will fill about 70 percent of the seats. Democrats drew more votes in Michigan than Republicans, but they'll take only 5 out of the state's 14 congressional seats.

epublicans point to Illinois and Maryland as examples of Democrats playing the same game, and it is true that Democrats in those states drew maps favorable to their interests. In Maryland, Democrats got 62 percent of the combined vote in House races and 88 percent of the congressional seats; in Illinois they won 54 percent of the vote and about two-thirds of the congressional seats.

Redistricting only happens once every 10 years. So Americans may have to learn to live with a Republican House, no matter how they vote.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...andering-house-representatives-election-chart

Oh Republicans, only managed to control the house thanks to massive, gerrymandering
Iam sure there will be no blow back from this right ? RIGHT ?

 

[warpus]

Why was gerrymandering allowed to get to this sort of crazy extent? I mean, I don't care if it benefits the Republicans, the Democrats, or the Communists, it's pretty damn undemocratic.

 

[Mango Elephant]

What we ought to do is draw congressional lines along county borders, right?

 

[Princeps]

I wouldn't call the USA a democracy anymore.

 

[azzaman333]

Oh Republicans, only managed to control the house thanks to massive, gerrymandering
Iam sure there will be no blow back from this right ? RIGHT ?

Well, it's not like the democrats wouldn't have done it themselves given the chance. Doesn't make it any more acceptable, but to blame just the Republicans for it is a bit harsh. Plus, it's not like there's a shortage of negatives that the Republicans can just as easily, if not easier, be blamed for.

 

[Cutlass]

So who's doing all the voter fraud? It's not ACORN.

 

[Camikaze]

Courtesy of Ahriman:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...errymander_the_state_s_electoral_college.html

Via Ari Berman, this is sort of disturbing -- a proposal to split up Virginia's electoral votes by congressional district. This is the text of SB723.

Provides that the Commonwealth's electoral votes shall be allocated by congressional district. Receipt by a slate of presidential electors of the highest number of votes in a congressional district constitutes the election of the congressional district elector of that slate. Receipt by a slate of electors of the highest number of votes in a majority of congressional districts constitutes the election of the two at-large electors of that slate. In the event no slate receives the highest number of votes in a majority of districts, receipt by a slate of the highest number of votes statewide shall constitute election of the two at-large electors of that slate.​

[...]
In 2012, Mitt Romney would have lost Virginia and won 9 of Virginia's 13 electors.

 

[downtown]

Part of this isn't actually Gerrymandering. Democratic voters are overwhelmingly more concentrated than Republican voters, so carving up districts that are closer to 50-50 is going to be really hard. While Gerrymandering absolutely has a lot to do with this, I think we'd still see some sort of disparity even if say, computers drew up the boundaries.

Just using County lines was found unconstitutional in Baker v Carr.

 

[Deviate]

Just using County lines was found unconstitutional in Baker v Carr.

Thanks for this post.

 

[Leoreth]

Just using County lines was found unconstitutional in Baker v Carr.

Ironically, at least as far as I gather, the intent of this ruling was to prevent making some votes worth less than others.

 

[downtown]

Ironically, at least as far as I gather, the intent of this ruling was to prevent making some votes worth less than others.

Yup, and using county lines would do exactly that. Can't really see a way to do it that wouldn't inflate rural votes.

Think of a place like Chicago, which is basically one county, and *dominated* by democrats. If you carve up the place to make all districts statewide fairly competitive, you're gerrymandering the city way worse than before and including communities that have nothing in common with each other. If you use the county line, you're either under representing the city, or backing a few districts as basically 100% dem seats, which will make other seats less competitive.

There isn't an easy answer when people aren't so evenly distributed, politically.

 

[warpus]

Yup, and using county lines would do exactly that. Can't really see a way to do it that wouldn't inflate rural votes.

Think of a place like Chicago, which is basically one county, and *dominated* by democrats. If you carve up the place to make all districts statewide fairly competitive, you're gerrymandering the city way worse than before and including communities that have nothing in common with each other. If you use the county line, you're either under representing the city, or backing a few districts as basically 100% dem seats, which will make other seats less competitive.

There isn't an easy answer when people aren't so evenly distributed, politically.

Haven't both parties been, over the years, carving out the districts in a way to get as many votes as they can?

To me that only compounds the problem, instead of doing the opposite.

 

[downtown]

Haven't both parties been, over the years, carving out the districts in a way to get as many votes as they can?

To me that only compounds the problem, instead of doing the opposite.

Mostly, yes. Democrats didn't help themselves when they began to push for majority-minority districts. Studies found that minorities almost never win congressional elections if they aren't representing a minority-majority seat, so Dems sought to create districts that would ensure minority representatives in the legislature.

This means you end up creating some SuperDem seats, and consequently, make neighboring districts less competitive, giving Republicans more safe seats.

 

[ace99]

Courtesy of Ahriman:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...errymander_the_state_s_electoral_college.html

I wouldn't be too concerned about any of that, there are proposals in Penn, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan but the way I see it, there are too many possible consequences to that, it's difficult to say how things will go, no state wants to reduce their own power and importance by splitting their electoral votes. And in the long term it would push other states to consider the National Popular Vote compact which in my view would be a good thing.

 

[Leoreth]

There isn't an easy answer when people aren't so evenly distributed, politically.

Yeah, unless you want to move to proportional representation entirely. I think the whole gerrymandering process is strongly undermining the main justification for single member districts, namely that your have a representative who comes from "your" district and can therefore represent it better than an arbitrary list candidate from somewhere else in the state. But if the district borders change on the whims of the ruling party anyway, and often group regions or communities together that have nothing in common, that whole idea becomes pointless.

Aren't there some states that leave districting to bipartisan commissions? Are they doing better?

 

[Cutlass]

Yup, and using county lines would do exactly that. Can't really see a way to do it that wouldn't inflate rural votes.

Think of a place like Chicago, which is basically one county, and *dominated* by democrats. If you carve up the place to make all districts statewide fairly competitive, you're gerrymandering the city way worse than before and including communities that have nothing in common with each other. If you use the county line, you're either under representing the city, or backing a few districts as basically 100% dem seats, which will make other seats less competitive.

There isn't an easy answer when people aren't so evenly distributed, politically.

That assumes that county lines are the only consideration in drawing districts. Clearly that can't work because of population differences. But county lines can be one part of the considerations for districts.

 

[downtown]

Why would a county line be a better draw than city limit lines, or even halfway through a city? Because the lines are smoother? There are gerrymandered districts that have more homogenous interests than some that have neater boundaries.

 

[JollyRoger]

This could hurt the Republicans in a wave election because they have lower margins of safety in their districts in these states. 2006 and 2008 were such years. 2010 was the GOP getting a lot of these narrow districts back.

And concentrations can be gerymandered away. I think Austin, Texas is carved into 4 parts with the outlying suburban and rural areas so that there is not a single Democrat winning with Austin voters. Places in Dallas and Houston give the Dems landslide victories for a couple of seats so that the rest of the metropolitan areas can be carved into as many GOP districts as possible.

 

[downtown]

Lemme give you an example. This is my congressional district. It's famous for being one of the most screwy lookin' shapes in the US, and is represented by Democrat Luis Gutierrez.

This seat includes many heavily Latino neighborhoods in the near west side of Chicago, along with a few heavily Latino suburban areas farther west. Rep.Gutierrez has been one of the strongest advocates for immigration reform in Congress, and has been in tune specifically to issues of great interest to urban latinos.

This district could be easily redrawn to just include Chicago neighborhoods, and be only a few miles long. However, such a district would include more heavily gentrified, (and white) neighborhoods, with very different policy concerns and issues. If districts in Chicago were drawn along other preexisting lines, it is possible that a city with only around a third white residents would hold nearly congressional seat. There may not be an immigration advocate in Congress. Certainly, the Humboldt Park neighborhood where I live has more in common with Cicero (farther away) than Lincoln Park, a more posh neighborhood less than three miles away.

Does this matter? It's not like any situation here is particularly ideal.

 

[Antilogic]

Haven't both parties been, over the years, carving out the districts in a way to get as many votes as they can?

To me that only compounds the problem, instead of doing the opposite.

In addition to what DT said: It's also important to note that a state that does not change its electoral vote total can still redistrict after each census, and a single party has been more dominant in each redistricting period since 1980. In 1980, Reagan's Republicans swept in, it was an off-year and still somewhat friendly Republican environment in 1990, in 2000 Bush and a handful of key states had Republican governments, and in 2010 there was a large Republican sweep. At the state level (especially in the old industrial Midwest), the Republicans are dominating the redistricting process and have heavily gerrymandered these states.

Yeah, unless you want to move to proportional representation entirely. I think the whole gerrymandering process is strongly undermining the main justification for single member districts, namely that your have a representative who comes from "your" district and can therefore represent it better than an arbitrary list candidate from somewhere else in the state. But if the district borders change on the whims of the ruling party anyway, and often group regions or communities together that have nothing in common, that whole idea becomes pointless.

Aren't there some states that leave districting to bipartisan commissions? Are they doing better?

It's possible to institute a hybridized system of rural districts and sticky regions with at-large proportional representation, but without addressing the core problem of how the district lines are drawn it won't matter.

The states with non-partisan commissions seem to be happy and de-mandering their districts, but it's a slow process.

This could hurt the Republicans in a wave election because they have lower margins of safety in their districts in these states. 2006 and 2008 were such years. 2010 was the GOP getting a lot of these narrow districts back.

And concentrations can be gerymandered away. I think Austin, Texas is carved into 4 parts with the outlying suburban and rural areas so that there is not a single Democrat winning with Austin voters. Places in Dallas and Houston give the Dems landslide victories for a couple of seats so that the rest of the metropolitan areas can be carved into as many GOP districts as possible.

Cincinnati has the same problem (as do many Midwestern cities)--it is part of 3 districts, and despite being a Democratic stronghold Ohio has been heavily gerrymandered by Republicans such that the Democrats can't win the districts.