Sunday, January 6, 2013

Redistricting vs. Gerrymandering

Redistricting is the process in which state legislatures redraw district lines in their state during elections.  Elections don't work in the fashion of a straight vote; each district is worth a certain number of electoral votes, and the majority of the votes in that district wins the district in an all-or-nothing fashion.  Therefore, it is possible to theoretically group all Republicans in as few districts as possible, or to draw the lines so that they lose out on the district by only a few votes in order to win as many districts as possible for the Democratic Party.  Of course, the opposite also possible.  When there is a biased intention during redistricting, it becomes known as gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is no doubt a serious issue, with the possibility of overthrowing entire elections (the most obvious example being the 2000 election, where President Bush won the electoral vote without winning the popular vote).  Therefore, may attempts are made to reduce the effects of gerrymandering.  Such rules are as follows:


  1. Districts must be apportioned based on population.
  2. District lines must be unbroken.
  3. Purposeful gerrymandering is illegal.
  4. Redrawing districts in favor of minority representation is constitutional if it is not based on race.
  5. States may redistrict more than every 10 years.
Many of these, mainly 3 and 4, are difficult to regulate.  Gerrymandering is a problem that consistently plagues democracies around the world.

Many have suggested ways to avoid gerrymandering, the most obvious being to switch to a direct popular vote, abolishing the Electoral College altogether.  However, this leads to problems of its own.  The Electoral College helps to protect state rights by giving each state a set number of votes.  Small states would be at a severe disadvantage, as representatives typically have little use for them and therefore they typically get less political weight.  The Electoral College helps to offset this effect and getting rid of it would be detrimental.

No comments:

Post a Comment