It is hard to deny that gerrymandering (rewriting legislative House districts to strengthen each parties hold on their respective districts) exists. Check out this cool photo essay and take a look at some of the wacky shapes of these districts. Like I said, it is hard to deny it happens. Both parties do it, but many Democrats blame this practice is abused by Republican state legislatures. The result is that the Democrats can not win back the House, despite having a majority of voters in many of the states where they hold far fewer House seats.
There are essentially two theories that explain the discrepancy between the number of Democratic votes cast in a state and the number of seats held by the Democrats in the House. The first theory is the tendency for Democrats to move to urban areas, while Republicans typically reside in rural areas (people tend to congregate in like-minded communities as illustrated in the NPR article from a previous post). This "Big Sort" builds up enormously lopsided, pro-Democrat urban districts that are few in number. The Republicans win by small margins in their many rural districts. The result is that, statewide, more Democratic votes are cast, but Republicans win more seats in the House (winning more seats obviously being the objective for each party). The second theory is that it is caused by the practice of Republican state legislatures rewriting the district boundaries in their favor, making it impossible for the Democrats to make inroads in these Republican districts. Read this NYTimes article by Nate Cohn (both "the Big Sort" and gerrymandering), this rebuttal by David Weigel (gerrymandering is the main cause for Democratic losses) and finally read this analysis by Jonathan Bernstein (Dems can't blame gerrymandering).
What do you think? Is it the "Big Sort," gerrymandering, or both? There are three distinct opinions here, all backed up by their own analysis. Who do you agree with? Is gerrymandering (as a practice - by either party) fair? Does gerrymandering compromise democracy in any way? Do you have a better idea of how to split up districts? Should there be a uniform way to divide people of a state into separate representative districts? Should the 'supermajorities' in the cities be broken up? Are Democrats to blame? Republicans? Or is this just the way politics will always be? Commentary is welcome below!
17 comments:
I feel that Gerrymandering may be partially responsible for for Democrats inability to gain more house seats, however, I think that massive clumping is also to blame. I think district lines should be drawn simply by city or local government. A set standard for how district lines are to be drawn would eliminate either parties bias in where they divide districts. Yet, if district lines were drawn like this, clumping and geography may still make it difficult for democrats to gain more house seats. The articles and NPR posts in last weeks blog referenced how people tend to relocate to areas with similar political views, and while I don't agree with it completely, i do think there are many areas which are predominately republican or predominately democratic and obviously this is going to affect district votes.If districts were simply split up by city or local government, no one would have the right to really complain about it. Both parties are to blame, as each tries to draw district lines to help benefit them.
I think that gerrymandering is not the problem in this situation, what is to blame is the location of people and where they live based on their political views. Major cities such as Philadelphia and Dallas may have large populations but it is their political views in the town that causes the problems. People live where they feel that they are one with their political views and also around other people who have the same views as them. The Big Sort is the blame because people will crowd around in the same area, leaving very few towns and they have less of a representation. The more little towns that are available and like-minded people are present, the more votes the party will have because there are more small groups then few large groups. The elections are based on how many groups and not really how many people are in the group, which is something I think they should change.
I think both the Big Sort and gerrymandering play a role in this case. It is a rather unique characteristic of the Democratic party to always be in high concentrations in urban areas, and Republicans drawing lines clearly gives them advantages to win seats in the House. I think Bernstein's analysis is overall correct because it addresses both sides. Bernstein also mentions that there is no reason to keep Democrats in urban areas, but the Republicans drawing lines to represent urban areas and rural areas supports the communities interests. It doesn't matter how the lines are drawn when people in a certain area are inclined to vote a certain way, and in the end their vote speaks with the majority in that given population. This case is just an issue of a democratic political system that is composed of two powerful parties, who have to be win votes in order to pass policy on a higher federal government level. Democrats and Republicans are both to blame because Republicans draw the lines but Democrats could encourage voters to move to rural areas, or start to concentrate their campaigns in rural areas. Democrats gaining votes in rural areas would give them more of a chance to win seats back in the House.
Before reading the articles and by just reading the explanation in the original post, it seems that the Big Sort is a major problem, and I can definitely see how that is prevalent and a problem (even in Jacksonville). After reading the articles, I side more with the idea that both gerrymandering and the Big Sort have a part in causing "wasted votes" for Democrats. I agree the most with Bernstein, because he addresses both Cohn's and Weigel's argument and comes to a compromise. I don't think it compromises democracy, because without it democracy would be compromised even more, since minority's would have even less of a say in their vote than they do now. I think putting more emphasis on the population in the groups instead of how many groups there are.
I believe that Gerrymandering may be one of the factors as to why the Democrats are not winning as many house seats as the Republicans. By reading all the articles my opinion has not changed and I simply believe that it is just how politics will be. Last week we discussed how political ideology shaped the geography of the United States and that is what seems to be the case here. Many Republicans win house seats just simply by the location of its voters. If the Democrats were to win more in the rural areas than perhaps they would have more seats in house. Until that changes the Republicans will continue to gain more House seats and the Democrats won't.
I think that while gerrymandering leads to some house seats lost from the democrats, it is not as big a problem as the clusters of likeminded voters. People are always going to settle around others that have the same opinions and mindset as each other, therefore after the democrats have the majority, any vote after that is a wasted vote. Because what the republicans are winning are not votes of the people but rather surface area of the country. I believe that a new way to implement districts should include breaking down large urban areas into smaller districts and grouping rural districts together so that the true population reflects the amount of house seats. Therefore the party that wins the most votes should win the seat in that district as it should be in the first place.
The gerrymandering issue is a issue due to location location location.If the democrats don't like what is being done then they should propose so sort of district zoning law,in which it would restrict all parties from making favorable zoning districts.But the problem is both of the main parties have been gerrymandering for a long time.So if they really don't like it then they should not do it either.This also goes for the Republicans.This is what makes us a democracy.until laws are passed gerrymandering will go on with both parties being at fault,this is like rough housing no complaining when you get hurt you decided to play the game.we should let this go ,if it is seen as a big issue then vote on making some district zoning deal where each party has a equal chance at getting half of the seats.
The "Big Sort" does seem like an issue that could only get worse. States might not be adequately represented. However, gerrymandering is also a big issue because it seems like it could potentially be a little bias. Parties aren't represented here because opposing parties can use the power of their majority and maximize the number of their representatives. For example, because the Republican party often wins by small margins in their rural districts, they win more seats in the House, which could cause minority groups to be underrepresented, or not represented at all. A better way to handle this would be to set up an authorized sort of group that only handles redistricting. The people in this "group" would not be actively involved in or concerned with politics.
-Ahmani Joseph
I believe that Gerrymandering is somewhat an issue in preventing the democrats from winning back the house. However, I also feel that the democrats are also in a way sabotaging themselves by constantly “clumping”, as said by Bernstein, in urban areas instead of branching out to the more rural areas. After reading these three articles, I stand with Bernstein on the issue of Gerrymandering. This is mostly because I like how he pulled information from both the standpoints of Cohn and Weigel. I do not in any way believe that the practice of Gerrymandering if fair unless both sides get equal chances to rewrite legislative house districts. It does compromise democracy because, to me it does not seem to fully be for all of the people if a majority is manning the house. I also believe that splitting up the districts is unnecessary. People should just vote based off of their own beliefs and prerogatives. However, I do believe that democrats are partly to blame for this issue for the sole purpose of not reaching out for votes beyond the urban areas.
(1B)
I believe that while gerrymandering plays a partial role in the democrats not being able to win back the house but, “massive clumping” is the real situation. The democrats end up hurting their party by gaining voters in the more populated areas, but leaving the more rural areas out. And this relates back to more and more people with the same political views tend to reside in the same geographical area. So what should happen here is some type of limit placed on how many counties or cities the political parties gather, specifically it should be equal for both sides. So when it comes down to who is to blame, no one because both parties are flawed. Democrats will not gain the house because of what the Republicans are doing yes, but what they are not doing, reaching out in other areas. Yes gerrymandering is a problem, but really massive clumping is the issue.
(1B) Bernstein's analysis of both the Republican and Democratic positions was the article I agreed with the most because each side is correct is some way. His article highlighted each sides rights and wrong which allowed him to be the most unbiased of all of the three articles. Gerrymandering might have been the cause of some seats in the House to be lost to Democrats but not enough seats for them to fully control the House. Clumping seems to be more of the issue for Democrats rather than gerrymandering. I think that the way districts are split up should remain the same because it has simply always been that way. I do not believe it should be changed just because the Democrats are complaining. Changing something to suit the Democrats would just cause a big uproar to the Republicans. The House has always been counted this way so no reason for change. Gerrymandering is happening but it happens on both sides of the political spectrum so I think that makes it fair. It just so happens that Republicans are keeping the House because of it either because they do a better job at gerrymandering or because Democrats are suffering from massive clumping. Either way I think it is fair because both parties do it. I do not really believe gerrymandering compromises democracy because while Republicans control the house, the Democrats do control the Senate as well as the Presidency so both political parties are represented on our government and neither party has total control which is what we want.
Gerrymandering may have some impact on the inability for Democrats to gain more seats, but I believe that the massive clumping is the main cause. Some people gravitate towards regions where others with the same, or similar, political views are, resulting in a large collection of votes for the same thing. The Republicans are winning the votes of the rural areas, while the Democrats are winning the votes of the cities. I believe that since both parties contribute to the separation of districts, no specific party is to be blamed more than the other, because this is how politics will always be. However, because this is how it is, I believe that until the Democrats reach out to more rural areas, they won't win those votes, or any more seats in the house.
I believe that the "Gerrymandering issue" is mainly just due to massive clumping. People have a natural inclination to gravitate to people that are similar to them; in this case, political ideology. The process of massive clumping has caused the "Big Sort." If people with common beliefs did not congregate in the same regions, they wouldn't have become the majority and transformed their environment to fit their beliefs. Politics will always be this way in the United States because of the way our government is set up. All our citizens have basic freedoms and it is not in our governments control to "break up" these majorities. Politics in America reflect what the people want and when people naturally choose to be with similar people, clusters build up and become more distinct as a whole.
I feel gerrymandering is not the complete reason for why the Democrats are not winning as many seats in the house as the Republicans, but instead "clumping" could be the bigger reason. If the Democrats could win more districts with smaller margins, then overall the outcome would be a greater gain and less "wasted votes." I agree with Bernstein when he points out the way the populations are distributed is the problem for Democrats, essentially making it much harder to enact partisan gerrymandering.
(4A) I believe that gerrymandering is not fair for either party; it can compromise democracy by clumping people together, instead of everyone having a chance to vote any way the want to. And I do not believe that there is any way to divide people up into districts and that it should not be done at all. I don't believe that either the democrats or the republicans are truly to blame for it, I think that gerrymandering is just an example of the true nature of politics.
I think that gerrymandering isn't the huge problem here. The huge problem is the population and how they fix the numbers up in each place. Having a community that goes along with the same political views doesn't help create for fair representation for everyone else. Clumping people together causes issues because they are known as one because they all have the same political ideology.The article that I thought was the most logical was Bernstein because he makes sure to tell both sides of the argument, so it could remove the bias and helps the reader understand the argument enough to make their own opinions.I think this is the way politics will always be. The numbers won't change much and peoples political ideologies stay the same no matter how much candidates try to change them or pursue them to try and vote differently.
I believe that Gerrymandering is one of the factors pertaining to why the Democrats are not winning as many house seats as the Republicans are. After reading all of the articles, my opinion still stands the same. I personally think that politics will always be unfair. Geography seems to shape our political ideologies in America. As one of the theories suggested, Republican gravitate to the more rural locations, and Democrats tend to reside in the urban area. If Democrats were to win a larger amount in the rural areas, it's possible that they might have more seats in the house. However, I don't see that as being very likely to happen. I think that the party that has the most votes should win the seat in that district, which would allow for uniformity throughout.
Post a Comment