I live in California, so my state’s fight with Texas’ mid-census redrawing of voting districts, known as gerrymandering, in order to gain more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives is an issue that’s only growing bigger.
I didn’t really learn about the practice until I read a Harper’s Magazine article in the early 2000s. I remember wondering how gerrymandering could be legal. The system sounded like an absolute usurping of citizen representation.
I assume most of us agree that the voting district boundaries where we live should reflect already-established geographical locations, such as counties, towns or rural areas. If those places have more voters of one political party over another, that fact should be expressed in the number of U.S. House seats allotted. Over time, if the area naturally shifts politically, then the representation should, as well.
After my research for this post, my attitude has not changed: redrawing of voting district boundaries to keep one political party in power over another seems is an outright cheat..
History
The term “gerrymander” comes from 1812 Massachusetts, when Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a redistricting bill that created an oddly shaped district to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. A cartoonist said the district looked like a salamander, hence “Gerry-mander.”
Proponents claimed gerrymandering was a constitutionally legal, efficient, and practical tool for the ruling party to protect its agenda and reflect the state’s majority politics.
Opponents immediately saw it as manipulation. They said it undermined fair representation and allowed politicians to “choose their voters” instead of the other way around.
Actual Alternatives
There are four modern methods of redrawing districts that:
- reflect actual political representation
- respect logical/geographic borders
- protect against partisan abuse
Independent Redistricting Commissions
These commissions are created by nonpartisan citizen panels rather than by state legislatures. In varying forms, they’re used in California, Arizona, Colorado, and Michigan. The strengths are that such commissions remove the direct self-interest of lawmakers, increase transparency and often include public hearings.
Unfortunately, they’re still subject to political pressure in how members are appointed, and commissions can deadlock.
Criteria + Algorithmic Maps
Maps are drawn by computer programs that following strict rules, such as:
- equal population
- compact districts rather than oddly shaped
- districts that are whole, rather than not split apart
- respect for existing political/geographic boundaries
- compliance with the Voting Rights Act, which protects protecting minority representation
An advantage is that a variety of maps can be created and then an independent body can choose the one that’s most balanced.
This presents a transparent system that’s fast, scalable and reduces bias. The trick is that the criteria, such as “compactness” vs. “partisan fairness,” can be politicized.
Proportional Representation (PR) Systems
This system means that a state awards seats based on vote share. If a party wins 40% of votes statewide, it gets about 40% of seats. That eliminates gerrymandering and gives representation to minority parties in every state.
But — it’s a big but — the system would require changing federal law, and possibly the Constitution, since wording now states that there can be only one House member per district.
Hybrid Models
Some reformers suggest keeping single-member districts, but making them follow strict geographic borders, like those of counties. Or we could use algorithms to test maps for partisan bias, which is known as an “efficiency gap” or “mean-median test,” and reject the biased ones. A last idea is to involve public map submissions and have transparent debates.
But Alas, Politicians Love Our Current System…
…because the current system allows for legal abuse.
It’s bad enough that over time, Republican and Democratic lawmakers have passed laws that purposely whittled down the number of political parties to only two, and that most Americans are unhappy with.
The Current Situation
President Trump’s request that Republican-dominated states redraw their districts to ensure tht Republicans keep control of the House has triggered a redistricting war where all Americans lose.
Let’s look at California where I live.
As a voter, I want Congressional districts to be as fair as possible. If a person moves to a district where a certain political party dominates, that person should be assured their vote will be represented.
I’m also a huge believer in deliberative democracy and am proud that my state has a California Citizens Redistricting Commission the includes 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 unaffiliated or other party members. They’re selected through a multi-step process involving a state auditor, legislative strikes, and random draws to keep the group independent.
Lastly, I feel democracy depends on at least two parties having an equal chance to gain voter trust.
So the situation is thus: the president’s move pits my love for democracy against my appreciation for CCRC and the fairness it represents. If I don’t want to have one party dominate in America, which would be like China, North Korea and Vietnam, then I have to choose against a fair and democratically-created system. And the last is what’s led to Governor Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50, which would set aside the CCRC for three years in order to redistrict the state to keep Republicans from a significant advantage.
I hate the thought that Republicans in current Republican-dominated districts are faced with having their votes forfeited. But I hate the idea of a one-party America even more.
My question for you
How do you think we Americans can get Congress to outlaw gerrymandering and institute more fair systems for redistricting?
Subscribe
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
Vigilant Positivity 