Gerrymandering is an intentional act of choosing voting districts with the aim of actively disadvantaging one or more groups. It has been identified through unusual district boundaries. The name was derived from the resemblance of a Massachusetts district to a Salamander in 1812. There are unexpected shapes to this day where districts practice in Gerrymandering and their shapes lead to zoomorphic comparison. Since 1812, the practice has continued to be used as a tool for dividing as well as distorting the electorate. The state legislature is responsible for drawing the maps for all districts and the electoral foxes use this opportunity to draw and defend their respective districts. Gerrymandering can be practiced using two approaches; parking which involves the concentration of voters and cracking which is the dividing of districts or voters and grouping them with larger blocks. The purpose of this position paper is to expound gerrymandering and its effects on the political process and policies of the U.S.
The U.S draws its electoral maps every 10 years in an attempt to equalize the population in each district. Parties use this opportunity to move district lines in an effort to engineer the social and political complexion of the inhabitants. It is a common practice to concentrate or divide the opposition voters (Kennedy, 2016). The voters, in this case, are spread out in order to dilute their influence or concentrated to a small number of districts. Gerrymandering in the U.S is used by a political party to gain an unfair advantage over its rival.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The congressional and legislative districts in the U.S. are manipulated after every ten years to obtain a preferred outcome. Gerrymandering can be in the form of racial where the minorities are diluted, partisan where a party shows its dominance by controlling the process and incumbent gerrymandering which involves the creation of safe seats for incumbents from the two sides of the aisle. The three forms use the same techniques which can either be packing or cracking (Bernstein & Duchin, 2017). The two approaches generate wasted votes reducing the opponent share of seats compared to the number of votes cast.
There is no party that is immune to Gerrymandering but according to a 2014 analysis by the Washington post eight out of ten highly gerrymandered districts in the U.S were drawn by the Republicans. It is therefore evident that the practice has led to the current shape of the districts from the North Carolina 12 th to Illinois 4 th appear like spilled inkblots as oppose to being coherent voting blocks. The districts appear to be accidental. A case example is the Illinois 4 th which has been nicknamed Latin Earmuffs since it connects two Latino areas through a thin line which is actually the size of a single road. The district packs Democrats ensuring that they vote in a safely democratic preserve. The move has weakened the power of the Latino vote including other Republican districts something that cannot be achieved through electoral maths. The packing of the Democrats in one district gives the Republicans a higher chance of winning the surrounding districts despite being outnumbered geographically.
The uncompetitive districts lead to a corrosive effect on democracy and its integrity. It ensures that a politician elected to represent a district that has the majority of its population being of either of the dominant party will not compromise. It discourages collaboration as the politicians strive to overcome any challenges from their competitors. Congressional representatives are unafraid of losing a general election but there is the fear of losing a tightly contested primary election (Klaas, 2017). The continued use of the practice leads to the pursuit of extreme position and insane pandering. Such an act leads to contemporary gridlock as well as endless bickering.
Gerrymandering violates the tenets of electoral apportionment which include the equality of the sizes of the different constituencies and their compactness. A 1964 ruling by the Supreme Court stated that the Districts should be constituted in such a way that they reflect substantial equality of the electorates. Political parties have continued to violate the court decision and continue to set boundaries using partisan lines while disregarding the local boundaries and continuity (Kennedy, 2016). It is a common practice for representatives from small towns in rural areas to limit representation of urban centers that are densely populated.
Gerrymandering disempowers and distorts the votes by the citizens leading to a sense of powerlessness and a decline in voter turnout. A good example is the Tea party activists who were eager to have their voices heard only to realize that their representative was strong liberal democrats or republicans in a blue or red district (Klaas, 2017). The representatives could not listen since the electoral map had already defined everything.
According to the 2012 House Elections, there was significant partisan bias. The Republicans won 234 seats from a possible of 435 whereas the Democrats (50.6%) won a slim majority of the popular vote. The Republicans lost only 8 seats from 2010 to 2012 despite the fact that their share of the popular vote fell by over 4% from 53.5% to 49.4%. The Republicans have won more seats in the past 1952 and 1996 despite winning fewer votes compared to the Democrats. The elections, in this case, seem to be a one-off event rather than representing a massive persistent bias (McGann, Smith, Latner & Keena, 2016).
The 2010 process of establishing voting boundaries produced a significant bias that affected even the 2017 elections. Analyst considers the uncontested seats and other local factors that play a significant role like the national vote swing. According to McGann, Smith, Latner & Keena (2016), there was a 5% bias in favor of the Republicans in a close election in case the two parties garnered the same votes and therefore the Republicans will attain a 55% of the seats. The, on the other hand, must win 54% of the entire vote if they are to achieve a 55% chance of winning the house race.
Partisan gerrymandering which tries to distribute the votes for the opponent was for a long t.ime considered to be a political question that was beyond the judicial remedy. The practice created districts that had unequal populations or some that discriminated based on race. According to Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), the court ruled that partisan gerrymandering was justifiable. Further suits brought to the court have not succeeded in challenging the instance of partisan gerrymandering, therefore, proving that the exercise is futile. It was in 2016 that a three-judge bench invalidated the map for Wisconsin on first amendment as well as equal protection grounds.
Many legal efforts contesting partisan gerrymandering have faced significant empirical challenges. It is difficult to devise a measure for partisan gerrymandering that can be determined as satisfactory by the courts. Traditionally, the focus was placed on symmetry and responsiveness as a measure of partisan fairness (Caughey, Tausanovitch & Warshaw, 2017). The two measures, however, have significant shortcomings for example; they are counterfactual quantities that cannot be determined using observed data alone. The same must be simulated using strong assumptions.
An alternative to the traditional measures is the use of the efficiency gap formulated by Stephanopoulos and McGhee (2015). The model determines the difference in the wasted votes for a party divided by total votes cast. The Efficiency gap can be calculated using observes votes irrespective of the differences between the leading party and the other. The two proposed an efficiency gap of 7% as a judicial threshold where the scheme for drawing new districts would be regarded as unconstitutional.
Partisan gerrymandering affects the partisan scoreboard and the representation of the citizens. Democracy is an attribute of how the government is responsive to the needs of the citizens who should be treated as politically equal. The citizens participate in the political process by electing government officials who in most case are affiliated to political parties. The officials are responsible for representing and formulating policies on behalf of the citizens. Elections, therefore, induce congruence through policy preference where officials are incentivized using threats of electoral reward or punishment in pursuit of responsive policies or through the selection of officials who have similar policy preference with those of the citizens. Citizens, therefore, vote to influence the policy implementation by the government. It is therefore critical to understand the relationship between the distribution of partisan support and composition (Caughey, Tausanovitch & Warshaw, 2017). A relationship between votes and seats that systematically advantages a party over another will tilt the influence in favor of one group that will enjoy more voice and influence over government policies compared to the other group.
Partisan gerrymandering despite making it easier for a candidate to win biases the relationship between the seats and the votes. Similarly, it undermines the congruence of the voters and their preference and skews the composition of the legislature as well as ideological character for making policies away from the preferences of the voter. Such a scenario is true even if the Democrats and Republican candidates in one district adopt a similar policy position. The situation is worsened if the parties have polarized ideologies (Caughey, Tausanovitch & Warshaw, 2017). Partisan gerrymandering, therefore, undermines the influence of the citizens relative to the advantage party and biases the entire political process. Gerrymandering presents an inaccurate representation of the voting choices of the electorate while creating an unfair advantage for parties that create the boundaries.
The current process of electing the congress allows noncompetitive elections as the winner takes all rules. It promotes noncompetitive elections unrepresentative outcomes and highly polarized legislators. Gerrymandering deprives the citizens’ meaningful participation in a democratic process and presents a conflict of interest as legislators are prone to protect personal and party interests. Legislators are also influenced by conflicts of interest when determining the composition of the population in a district (Kennedy, 2016). The public believes that gerrymandering is responsible for the flaws in the system and encourages the growth of noncompetitive electoral districts. The practice has distorted the electoral process and contributes to the conflict of interest.
Gerrymandering can have significant consequences like undermining the advantage of the incumbent, drawing voters to districts that have a different incumbent in search of re-election. The new constituencies rely on partisanship and the political condition prevailing at the time. There are also conflicts in policies and political processes as the partisanship plays a significant role in determining the preferred course of action. Americans tailor districts for political purposes. Such acts affect the relevant voters, their allegiance, identity as well as political priorities. Gerrymandering can also have significant effects on the health of democracy. It can be used to protect the incumbent from any challenges or to eliminate challengers or even develop skewed representation. Similarly, it can be used to dilute minority votes.
References
Bernstein, M., & Duchin, M. (2017). A Formula Goes to Court: Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap. Notices Of The American Mathematical Society , 64 (09), 1020-1024. doi: 10.1090/noti1573
Caughey, D., Tausanovitch, C., & Warshaw, C. (2017). Partisan Gerrymandering and the Political Process: Effects on Roll-Call Voting and State Policies. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, And Policy , 16 (4), 453-469. doi: 10.1089/elj.2017.0452
Kennedy, S. (2016). Electoral Integrity: How Gerrymandering Matters. Public Integrity , 19 (3), 265-273. doi: 10.1080/10999922.2016.1225480
Klaas, B. (2017). Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to genuine democracy in the United States. So why is no one protesting?. Retrieved from 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/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6d41cb1b465d
McGann, A., Smith, C., Latner, M., & Keena, A. (2016). Gerrymandering in America: The House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Popular Sovereignty . New York: Cambridge University Press.
