Skip to main content

Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is the drawing of political district boundaries in order to gain an advantage to a specific political party. This idea began when former Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, signed a bill that re-drew the district lines in Massachusetts election districts in order to favor the Democratic-Republican party he was a part of. The district that was created resembled a salamander, hence the name Gerrymandering. Over the years, congressional districts have become required to abide by “certain features and desirable qualities.” These qualities include factors like compactness, contiguity or assuring the district is connected, population, partisan fairness, and racial fairness (Adler, 2019). 
There are two main types of gerrymandering called packing and cracking that both play a part in diminishing their opponents' voting power. Packing is essentially when a political parties voting power is concentrated in one congressional district in order to reduce their voting power in other districts. By reducing the voting power of one party in multiple districts, the party that is doing the packing can win more districts and, in theory, win the election.
Cracking is a different strategy used to decrease the voting power of a political party by splitting up their supporters among many districts. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to stop states from discriminating based on race and gerrymandering around certain minority groups. It stopped “cracking” or splitting up racial minority groups in order to ensure everyone got equal voting power. 
Racial gerrymandering is another form of redrawing electoral districts, but it is done to dilute the voting power of certain groups of people. This isn’t a “coincidental side effect of general gerrymandering, but an intentional attempt to suppress the votes of racial minorities” (Fiorillo, 2018).  In 1990, the Justice Department used the Voting Rights Act to “maximize the number of majority-minority districts in which a majority of constituents are non-white (Adler, 2019). This racial gerrymandering was, in legal terms stopped due to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but arguably still happens today and is very likely to be seen again (Adler, 2019). 
The pictures shown above give a visual of how gerrymandering works. The left shows some of the most gerrymandered districts in the country. As you can see these districts go all over the place in order to include or exclude certain voters in an effort to win more districts and therefore, elections. The picture on the right gives a simpler explanation of how gerrymandering can influence elections. If the districts were split up evenly, as in the second graph, then the yellow party would always win. The third graph is gerrymandered giving the green party a slight advantage but still loses to the yellow party. The fourth and fifth graphs really show how influential gerrymandering can be to elections. The green still has a strong disadvantage to the yellow party, but because of gerrymandering, the green was able to win the majority of the districts. 
While multiple supreme court cases have tried to stop or change the way districts are gerrymandered, it still happens today. This process often turns citizens away from voting due to the chance that the popular vote and the electoral college vote are not aligned. Because of this misrepresentation, one of the most valuable aspects of American democracy is in jeopardy, which, in my opinion, needs to be effectively changed. 
Works Cited
Duignan, Brian. “Gerrymandering.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 11 Oct. 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/gerrymandering.
Ingraham, Christopher. “America's Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 26 Apr. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/. 
Fiorillo, Steve. “Gerrymandering: Definition, History and Legality in 2018.” TheStreet, 2 Dec. 2018, www.thestreet.com/politics/what-is-gerrymandering-14796491. 

Adler, E. Scott, Jeffrey A. Jenkins, and Charles R. Shipan. 2019. The United States Congress. New York: Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-68019-5.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...
2 comments
Read more

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...
Post a Comment
Read more

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...
2 comments
Read more