Gerrymandering by Computer 526
jefu writes "In the latest New Yorker there is an excellent article on redistricting and gerrymandering (more permanent URL). It discusses how recent gerrymandering is being done with the aid of computers. It also discusses how redistricting is polarizing voters and is making many seats in the House of Representatives 'safe seats' which effectively gives incumbents a permanent seat. It is not hard to see how this also tends to leave our 'elected' representatives in a position where voter input is less important to them than things like lobbying." Few articles about gerrymandering really get into how ugly and blatant it is.
Hmm (Score:2, Informative)
To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections. (Link [reference.com].)
Give me my karma, baby.
A comprehensive discussion of gerrymandering... (Score:5, Informative)
From the examples given in the FraudFactor article, both sides seem guilty of gerrymandering whenever possible.
Re:Who is Gerry Mander? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who is Gerry Mander? (Score:3, Informative)
Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts from 1810-12, signed a law that blatantly redrew districts to give his party an advantage (think 90% in one district of the opposition, 55% of your own party in the other x districts -- if you work the math out, it's a safe way for the ruling party to increase its representation.) Here's the link and a picture of the "Gerry Mander" editorial cartoon which we still remember: http://www2.uiuc.edu/ro/observer/archive/vol11/iss ue5/gerry.html [uiuc.edu]
Doing this stuff by computer is -scary-. It means that it's no more than an afterthought for a lawmaker to manipulate the rules of the electoral system.
At the same time, even "safe" incumbents have to do case work and at least occasionally vote the way their constituency wants; otherwise, the media will notice, the citizens will notice, and they'll get kicked out of office. We often underestimate the intelligence of the average voter.
Used for Evil...or Good? Depends on Perspective (Score:3, Informative)
All sorts of interesting articles and view points available via Google [google.com].
Here is an interesting page [state.wi.us] with a lot of resources on the subject.
Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Informative)
Also, in some cases the only way you could make a "fair" district is through gerrymandering. I live in a sensibly-shaped district, and my congresswoman generally wins with 90% of the vote.
Re:Independent electoral commission (Score:2, Informative)
Hopefully the courts will end up mandating such commissions...and they can really maintain their independence. I think they'll probably stay mostly independent, but it'll take a few more court cases.
Colorado (Score:3, Informative)
>While Texas was shifting its districts, the governing Republicans in Colorado did their own mid-cycle reapportionment, to solidify their hold
>on the one House seat in the state that produced a close election in 2002. (Legal challenges to the new Texas and Colorado districts are
>now pending.)
Background for this: In 2002, there were 4 republican seats, 2 democratic seats, and 1 intensely competetive seat (the republican won by 121 votes) In 2003, in the last 3 days of the session, republicans pushed through a redistricting which would essentially have guaranteed that 5 seats will remain republican until the next redistricting. Challenges were immediately filed on both legal and constitutional grounds; the legal case (in federal court) has been on hold pending the outcome of the constitutional case.
Before the Colorado Supreme Court, the democrats argued that the redistricting was unconstitutional; the republicans argued that not only did they have the right to redistrict, but AG Ken Salazar (the plantiff) didn't have the right to sue the state he works for. The court found 5-2 that the redistricting was unconstitutional and 7-0 that the AG has the duty to challenge laws he feels violate the Constitution.
Because the ruling was based in the Colorado constitution, it may or may not affect rulings in other redistrictings.
Re:Independent electoral commission (Score:4, Informative)
How much more fair do you want?
The number of people per district isn't the issue, it's the composition of each district. For example, even when all districts have exact equal populations, you can rig the process. You adjust the boundaries of the districts so that most of the districts have a mild majority of voters aligned with your party, and the rest have almost 100% opposition voters. If done right, you could end up with most of the seats even if fewer people actually vote for your party.
Example with 4 districts and 20 voters: (xxxoo xxxoo xxxoo ooooo). The party with 45% of the vote gets 75% of the seats.
One symptom of this process is an increasing fractal dimension of the districts (the ratio of district boundary to its area). You get this when a district is drawn with an amoeba-like shape to try to select for neighborhoods with certain pockets of voters.
Ok, Captain Retard, I will explain it then (Score:4, Informative)
A judge, chosen by the Chief Justice of each Province or Territory, who acts as chairperson and two civil servants chosen by the Speaker of the House. In practice, many commission members, aside from the chairpersons, have been university professors or non-elected officials of legislative assemblies. N.B. Sitting members of Parliament, the Provincial Legislatures or the Senate are not permitted by law to be members.
Second, the commissions hold hearings that the public is entitled and encouraged to attend. There is a specific Parliamentary committee that forwards complaints and suggestions to the commissions, but the commission is under no obligation to consider them. The commssions are required to draw boundaries based upon population density, mainly, but other factors are considered.
After forty years of an independent commission, a certain amount of trial and error and fine tuning has resulted in a process that is indeed independent and effective. I cannot recall a single instance where boundary disputes were referred to a court for resolution.
Racial Gerrymandering (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
The term comes from an election (in Chicago?) where the mayor (Gerry) came up with a set of fixed boundaries, one of which was in the shape of a salamander (lizard). Hence gerymander.
Any experienced pol will tall you that this type of trickery has a much bigger impact on an election than outright fixing of the polls. The way to cheat is by fixing the rules and by keeping opposing voters from the polls. During seggregation that is exactly how they stopped black people voting in Missisippi, any black man who dared to vote was liable to be lynched. The KKK and the police would man roadblocks to keep blacks from the polls and then there were the litteracy tests.
One of the big impacts on the Florida outcome was the state law that prohibits someone who has ever been convicted of a fellony from ever voting. This is another holdover from seggragation, litteracy tests were struck down but not felony disenfranchisement even though the intent (and effect) was largely the same - disproportionately disenfranchise black voters.
Click on my sig and you will see an article by a UK journalist who is one of the few who reported on this aspect of the Florida fix at the time the fix was in.
The answer BTW is not to try to fix the system to make it harder to gerrymander, change the electoral system to Single Transferable Vote and multi-member constituencies. That way you also create a way for the minor parties to be represented. With the increasing corruption of the Republican party Democrats should seriously consider this even if only as a self-interested move.
Regardless, there is a better way to get Tom DeLay and King George out of office. Get so many voters to the polls to vote against them that it does not matter how they try to rig the vote, they fail.
Re:A comprehensive discussion of gerrymandering... (Score:5, Informative)
Elegant solution (Score:5, Informative)
Single Transferable Voting [wikipedia.org], aka Proportional Representation.
This simulataneously removes the problem of voters voting against their consciences for fear of wasting their vote. In the PR system, no votes are wasted. It has been used in Ireland [aceproject.org] and other European countries for quite some time now, and the constitution is designed to allow for coalition governments. Just about all of the smaller parties have been players in coalition governments at one time or another.
Re:Independent electoral commission (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The fair vote initiative (Score:3, Informative)
Germany has had stable government since the last war. After the mid 50's or so, there were 3 parties around. 2 big ones and a small one. The first real changes of government were when the small one changed sides which it did some time around 1970 and back again in 1981. Now there is another small party around which means the larger main party can more or less choose their partner. Works as designed.
Italy traditionally had instable coalitions which had one main aim - keeping the communists out of government. After the Soviet Union fell, the communists finally formed a government for a while. I would not call Italy's political system a success, a system where the same party has a perpetual lease on power (the Christian Democrats, now defunct and having been replaced by Berlusconi's people) just breeds corruption. The CDs were in bed with Mafia-like organisations for years.
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)
You miss out one little detail, the judge had thrown out the map previously because it flunked the civil rights issue. So much for your 'less biased sources'.
I don't quite remember the numbers (read too lazy to look up) but the Texas legislature had PREVIOUSLY been gerrymandered to benefit the Democrats to the extreme that they now have a 3-4 congressional seat advantage, despite the fact that the state consistently votes overwhelmingly Republican.
That is not the result of gerrymandering, it is the result of incumbency. Texas has been Democratic for decades. The recent GOP advances came in the wake of a long tenure by Democrats. DeLay and cronies are upset that voters do not want to trade their existing democrats in for republicans to do his bidding.
Given the corrupt way the bill was forced through - changing the rules to fit the deed there is no moral reason the courts should defer to the legislature on this one.
If it had gone the other way ... (Score:3, Informative)
You're right, though. The New York Times sponsored a post-election recount of the paper ballots (yay paper ballots). Theie study came out with the result that the NY Times didn't want to see, so they barely mentioned that their study had finished, and that, according to their count, Bush got more votes.
A pox on both their houses.