Democracy vs Gerrymandering

Let’s start with a rather completely neutral explanation and historical review of what “gerrymandering” really is. Try England’s Encyclopedia Britannica’s perspective: “gerrymandering, in U.S. politics, drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one party an unfair advantage over its rivals. The term is derived from the name of Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, whose administration enacted a law in 1812 defining new state senatorial districts. The law consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans. The outline of one of these districts was thought to resemble a salamander. A satirical cartoon by Elkanah Tisdale appeared in the Boston Gazette; it graphically transformed the districts into a fabulous animal, ‘The Gerry-mander,’ fixing the term in the popular imagination. [See above image]

“Gerrymandering has been condemned because it violates two basic tenets of electoral apportionment—compactness and equality of size of constituencies. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 1964 stated that districts should be drawn to reflect substantial equality of population. However, using studies of regional voting behaviour, the majority parties in certain state legislatures continue to set district boundaries along partisan lines without regard for local boundaries or even contiguity. For example, in some states, representatives from rural and small town districts seek to limit the representation of more densely populated urban centres.” You mean “cities” where Democrats usually outnumber Republicans?

The modern Republican Party depends increasingly on their support in rural communities, and seems dedicated to disenfranchising urban areas where support for the GOP is falling. Today the net effect of such GOP-gerrymandering efforts generally gives an urban vote 5/8^th of the voting power a rural vote. Take a look at this chart from the Wall Street Journal:

But when given the chance, the Democrats definitely embraced the same technique. In the carpet-bagging post-Civil War days, the Democratic Party solidified its hold on the New South by rejiggering congressional and state districts to insure their control, creating a rather giant political machine. That machine functioned quite well until savvy social conservatives turned to the power of the church in the Bible Belt in the 1960s, and the tide shifted toward the Republican Party. Oh, where they can get away with it even today, Dems still do! As minorities continue to increase their share of the American population, in existing GOP strongholds – particularly pronounced in the South and in states with vast rural districts in the mid-West and West – the Republican leadership began quivering at the writing on the wall, challenging their supremacy in these conservative areas. Their response? While we control the state legislatures, which set the defining lines for such political districts, let’s make sure conservatives trump Democratic enclaves wherever we find them.

It’s a strategy that has served the GOP well. By the way, it’s not about winning every district; it’s either about either diluting your opponents so they cannot win or putting all your opponents in the least amount of districts possible so you can win the rest. The resultant district maps are downright bizarre, but they make the case. Take a few samples from one particular state, North Carolina, that has gerrymandering down to a fine art (from the Washington Post, May 15^th).

NORTH CAROLINA'S 4TH DISTRICT

NORTH CAROLINA'S 1ST DISTRICT 

NORTH CAROLINA'S 12TH DISTRICT

There are tons of examples all across the country, but you only have to look at these maps to see how gerrymandering skewers democracy. Since the elected state legislators control districting, and gerrymandering gets them elected, the system sort of perpetuates itself until there is such an overwhelming demographic shift – which can take decades – that reverses the trend.

But even where courts have ruled against such biased redistricting, the perpetrators gather to “address the court’s concerns” and redistrict in a way that… er… accomplishes their original goal in a new way. And if there is an election pending, it’s as likely as not that the biased districts become the basis for the election until they are redrawn by another court order. Like what’s happening in Florida right now: “With Florida’s election schedule in disarray after a judge ruled the state’s congressional map unconstitutional, state lawmakers moved one step closer to resolving the uncertainty during a special session on [August 8^th] in Tallahassee.

“Redistricting committees for both the state [GOP-controlled] House and Senate on Friday approved a redesigned congressional map — drawn in private by the two Republican committee heads, members of their staff and outside lawyers — that they expect will comply with the court’s orders. The redrafted map makes relatively minor changes to the two congressional districts that were ordered redrawn: the Fifth District, held by Representative Corrine Brown, a Democrat, and the 10th District, held by Representative Daniel Webster, a Republican… In all, seven districts in Central Florida would be slightly affected by the rejiggered map, which is expected to be approved early next week by the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature…

“But the League of Women Voters of Florida, part of a coalition that sued the Legislature over redistricting, said the new map fell short of the court mandate. The new boundaries still pack African-Americans into the Fifth District, the group said, benefiting Republican incumbents in surrounding districts.” New York Times, August 8^th (emphasis added). The GOP isn’t going away lightly!

While the court will review this redrawn redistricting effort, which accomplishes virtually nothing, it is equally clear that courts aren’t particularly well-equipped themselves to fix the problem. But address this issue seems to be a must, particularly in an increasingly polarized nation where Congressional gridlock threatens to take the whole country down with it. When we boast of the “American model of democracy” as the best model for representative governance, exactly whom are we kidding? It does seem as if we have got hypocrisy down sto a science.

 I’m Peter Dekom, and it does seem increasingly obvious that America is both fact-averse and deeply threatened by any notion of true representative democracy.