Over the past few weeks I’ve discussed the concept of gerrymandering and the numerous issues of it. For this week, however, I’d like to analyze the methods through which gerrymandering can be identified and dealt with.
Before we begin I’d just like to remind everyone that there are countless reasons behind [and methods of] gerrymandering. To rectify this issue we must first identify instances of it and agree on proper rules and regulations to it in order to balance out the adverse effects that it can have on voter representation [amongst other things].
The most general way to go about identifying gerrymandering is to examine the shapes of districts, as those effected by gerrymandering tend to be distorted or weirdly shaped. For example…
Evidently all three of these districts [amongst others across the nation] have rather odd shapes. From this observation comes a natural inclination to refer to these districts as gerrymandered–but in a court of law something can’t be deemed “wrong” simply because it looks like it is. It’s not a strong enough case. Subsequently political scientists have developed two [more definitive] ways to “measure” gerrymandering.
The first of those methods refers to something known as compactness.
Compactness attempts to quantify the degree to which districts are distorted [by gerrymandering]. It involves a mathematical calculation of a district’s area in relation to its perimeter. This calculation provides an estimate of how effectively the district contains its area. The system utilizes an index [of measures] that is developed by analyzing the area to perimeter ratio of a district in comparison to that of a circle. An index of 1 defines the district as a perfect circle, the most compact shape. When a district has an index lower than 1 it is less compact and thus more likely to be distorted [or gerrymandered].
Many state constitutions forbid the needless [and excessive] division of geo-political boundaries. Subsequently the compactness index allows for individuals to present clear evidence of said division, without relying on baseless claims regarding the “unusual” shape of a district.
The main issue with this method tends to be that it fails to take into account the fact that not every “unusually” shaped district is gerrymandered, and not every gerrymandered district is going to appear distorted. Moreover, this discrepancy is the main reason why this method is flawed, and as a result is rarely used in any real court cases.
Another method used to measure gerrymandering refers to examining something known as the efficiency gap.
This method focuses on comparing the voting power of each political party in a particular state. The efficiency gap calculates the amount of “wasted votes” from each party. It then compares said numbers to determine whether or not either party had some sort of advantage in regards to the number of votes that they received and the number of seats that they won.
The first step in determining the gap involves finding wasted votes. In this sense “wasted votes” refer to every vote cast for the losing party and any votes cast for the winning party that exceed a simple majority. After the total number of wasted votes [within each party] is calculated for a certain state, the net difference is calculated between the Democrats and Republicans.
For example, Policy Map provides a detailed example of the efficiency gap calculation. They explain that if Republicans waste 75 votes while Democrats waste 100 votes, the Democrats will have a net wasted value of 25.
The final calculation identifies whether or not one party won a larger number of seats in comparison to a neutral district plan. For example, a 40% efficiency gap for one party would mean that that party received 40% more of the seats than it deserved [based on the neutral district plan/proportionally fair share of its supporters].
The efficiency gap method is able to highlight cracking and packing gerrymandering methods through its focus on wasted votes–something both gerrymandering methods attempt to increase the number of. [They want to increase the number of wasted votes that their opposition has, while decreasing the amount that their candidate has]. Moreover, by centering around each political party’s respective voting power this method showcases and highlights the number of voters unable to contribute to the election based on a variety of reasons pertaining to their district.
Regardless of the effectivity of these methods, they both raise a clear point–that gerrymandering needs to be identified and dealt with. There are many ways that we, as a society, could go about eradicating the presence of unfair and distorted districts.
One way being to take cases of gerrymandering to court. In the previous parts I’ve mentioned a bit about court rulings in regards to gerrymandering, and some of theme have proven to be quite successful. For instance, as a result of the court process racial gerrymandering has been completely banned [and it is now illegal]. Partisan gerrymandering, however, is still very much present and technically legalized.
Another way to deal with the issue is to create IRCs (Independent Redistricting Commissions) dedicated to drawing fair maps. To put it simply if we can limit the power that self-serving politicians have in the district drawing process than we may be able to combat gerrymandering. Moreover, if IRCs allow voters to have more of a say in how district maps are drawn it is more likely that the interests of the people will be taken care of. IRCs will also be obligated to draw maps that meet certain requirements in compilation with the Voting Rights Act that is meant to ensure citizens equitable representation in the government.
Finally, similar to the first option, another solution is to lobby for the federal government to ban all gerrymandering. If gerrymandering become illegal on a federal level it will force state governments to crack down on the issue. Overall a federal ban would be the most effective way to ensure accurate voter representation and equity nationwide.
Furthermore, the issue of gerrymandering is undeniably a complicated one, but it is also a vital one. Gerrymandering, in any sense, deprives people of their right [as an American] to have equal representation in the government. There are many methods that could be utilized to combat the issue. No method is perfect, but all of them prove that something must be done to reduce the adverse effects that gerrymandering has on voter representation within the US.
SOURCES:
Court Cases and Gerrymandering – Vox
Gerrymandering Districts – Fulcrum
Is Gerrymandering Good Now? – Rothman
District Images – Fulcrom/Meyers
I thought that the methods you mentioned that political scientists use to measure gerrymandering were really interesting, and something I hadn’t learned about even as part of my deliberation research, and I agree that they are helpful in bringing evidence to court regarding gerrymandered districts. However, as you said, it is not a perfect system in identifying gerrymandered districts and it is important to address these, especially in court and legislation in order to get rid of gerrymandering so that every American’s vote counts. I agree that gerrymandering should be made illegal by the federal government because it will force states to crack down and make their districts more fair. And it will be beneficial to establish independent redistricting commissions in every state to make sure that happens. Good job with your research and I enjoyed reading your civic issues blogs!
Hi! I think this was a great last post for your civic issue blog and brought up a lot of ideas I hadn’t heard about before. Addressing gerrymandering and coming up with specific methods to counteract it are very important to keep voting fair. I think the methods you mentioned above all help but, as you said, getting the federal government to ban gerrymandering altogether would be the most effective. Redistricting with a group of un-biased parties would allow everyones vote to count equally and prevent the manipulation by a political party. Overall, this was a great post and very informative! Great work and thanks for informing me about gerrymandering!