Gerrymandering
AP Human Geography
Printed in 1812, this political cartoon illustrates the electoral districts
drawn by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the incumbent
Democratic-Republican party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry
over the Federalists. The cartoon depicts the bizarre shape of one
district as a salamander, from which the term gerrymander is
derived.
There are two principal strategies behind gerrymandering:
maximizing the effective votes of supporters, and minimizing the
effective votes of opponents. One form of gerrymandering, packing,
is to place as many voters of one type into a single district to reduce
their influence in other districts. A second form, cracking, involves
spreading out voters of a particular type among many districts in
order to reduce their representation by denying them a sufficiently
large voting block in any particular district. The methods are typically
combined, creating a few "forfeit" seats for packed voters of one type
in order to secure even greater representation for voters of another
type.
Redrawing the balanced
electoral districts in this
example creates a
guaranteed 3-to-1
advantage in
representation for the
blue voters as 14 red
voters are packed into
the yellow district and
the remaining 18 are
cracked across the 3
blue districts.
Gerrymandering is effective because of the wasted
vote effect - by packing opposition voters into districts
they will already win (increasing excess votes for
winners) and by cracking the remainder among
districts where they are moved into the minority
(increasing votes for eventual losers), the number of
wasted votes among the opposition can be maximized.
Similarly, with supporters now holding narrow
margins in the unpacked districts, the number of
wasted votes among supporters is minimized.
Reduction in electoral competition
and voter turnout
The most immediate and obvious effect of
gerrymandering is for elections to become less
competitive in all districts, particularly packed ones. As
electoral margins of victory become significantly greater
and politicians have safe seats, the incentive for
meaningful campaigning is reduced. Similarly, voter
turnout is likely to be adversely affected as the chance of
influencing electoral results by voting becomes greatly
reduced and, correspondingly, political campaigns are
less likely to expend resources encouraging turnout.
Less Descriptive Representation

Gerrymandering also has significant effects on
the representation received by voters in
gerrymandered districts. Because
gerrymandering is designed to increase the
number of wasted votes among the electorate,
the relative representation of particular groups
can be drastically altered from their actual share
of the voting population. This effect can
significantly prevent a gerrymandered system
from achieving proportional and descriptive
representation, as the winners of elections are
increasingly determined by who is drawing the
districts rather than the preferences of the
voters.
Incumbent gerrymandering
Carved out with the aid of a computer, this congressional
district was the product of California's incumbent
gerrymandering. This is the district of Democrat Grace Flores
Napolitano, who ran unopposed in 2004, obtaining 100
percent of the vote.
Proposed reforms targeting
gerrymandering

Due to the myriad of issues associated with
gerrymandering and the subsequent impact it has
on competitive elections and democratic
accountability, various electoral reforms aimed at
making gerrymandering either more difficult or
less effective have been proposed. These reforms
can be controversial, however, and frequently
meet particularly strong opposition from groups
that are benefiting from gerrymandering who
stand to lose considerable influence in a more
representative government.
Using a neutral or cross-party body
to create districts

The most commonly advocated electoral reform proposal
targeted at gerrymandering is to change the redistricting
process. Under these proposals, an independent, and
presumably objective, commission is created and charged
with redistricting rather than the legislature doing the
redistricting. To help ensure neutrality, members of the
board can come from relatively apolitical sources such as
retired state judges or longstanding members of the
bureaucracy, possibly requiring adequate representation
from competing political parties. Additionally, members of
the board can be denied access to information that might
aid in gerrymandering, such as the demographic makeup or
voting patterns of the population. As a further constraint,
consensus requirements can be imposed to ensure that the
resulting district map reflects a wider perception of fairness,
such as a requirement for a supermajority approval of the
commission for any district proposal.
Changing the voting system

Because gerrymandering relies on the
wasted vote effect to be effective, the use
of a different voting system with fewer
wasted votes can help reduce
gerrymandering. The simplest system to
change to is straight proportional
representation, in which Gerrymandering
is impossible as every vote counts no
matter where it originated from.
What exactly is proportional
representation?

It is a voting system that assures that the
overall results are proportional to the
distribution of votes. If a party receives
30% of the vote it will get approximately
30% representation. In that type of
system your vote is always important. The
difference between 20% and 30% doesn’t
mean anything in a majority winner-takeall election, but it means the difference
between 20% and 30% representation in
a system that uses proportional
representation.
Where is proportional
representation currently in use?

ALGERIA, ANGOLA, ARGENTINA, AUSTRIA, BELGIUM,
BENIN, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, BRAZIL, BULGARIA,
BURKINA FASO, BURUNDI, CAMBODIA, CAPE VERDE,
CHILE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, CYPRUS, CZECH
REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL
SALVADOR, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ESTONIA,
FINLAND, GREECE, GUINEA-BISSAU, GUYANA, ICELAND,
INDONESIA, ISRAEL, LATVIA, LIBERIA, LIECHTENSTEIN,
LUXEMBOURG, MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE,
NAMIBIA, NETHERLANDS, NETHERLANDS ANTILLES, NEW
CALEDONIA, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PARAGUAY, PERU,
POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME
AND PRINCIPE, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SOUTH AFRICA,
SPAIN, SRI LANKA, SURINAME, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND,
THE STATE UNION OF SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO,
TURKEY, URUGUAY, WALLIS AND FUTUNA
Voter Turnout

After increasing for many decades, there
has been a trend of decreasing voter
turnout in most established democracies
since the 1960s. This issue has been much
studied, but scholars are divided on what
has caused it, with a wide array of
economic, demographic, cultural,
technological, and institutional factors
proposed as the cause of this decline.
Voters lining up outside a Baghdad polling
station during the 2005 Iraqi election. Voter
turnout was surprisingly high despite widespread
concerns of violent attacks on polling places.
Voter Turnout

There can also be regional differences in voter
turnout. One issue that arises in continentspanning nations, such as Canada, the United
States and Russia, is that of time zones. For
example, for voters in the western part of the
United States, national elections have often been
essentially decided well before polls close in their
region. This potentially depresses turnout on the
Pacific coast. Canada has partially resolved this
problem by banning the broadcasting of election
results in any region where the polls have not yet
closed.
Voter Turnout – Cultural Factors
Wealth and literacy have some effect on turnout, but are not reliable
measures. Countries such as Angola and Ethiopia have long had high
turnouts, but so have the wealthy states of Europe. The United Nations
Human Development Index shows some correlation between higher
standards of living and higher turnout. The age of a democracy is also an
important factor. Elections require considerable involvement by the
population, and it takes some time to develop the cultural habit of
voting, and the associated understanding of and confidence in the
electoral process. This factor may explain the lower turnouts in the
newer democracies of Eastern Europe and Latin America. Much of the
impetus to vote comes from a sense of civic duty, which takes time and
certain social conditions to develop. G. Bingham Powell lists four
major attitudes that have a strongly positive effect on voter
turnout, attitudes that can take decades to develop:
•trust in government
•degree of partisanship among the population
•interest in politics
•belief in the efficacy of voting
Voter Turnout

Demographics also have an effect. Older
people tend to vote more than youths, so
societies where the average age is
somewhat higher, such as Europe, have
higher turnouts than somewhat younger
countries such as Canada and the United
States. Populations that are more mobile
and those that have lower marriage rates
tend to have lower turnouts. In countries
that are highly multicultural and
multilingual, it can be difficult for national
election campaigns to engage all sectors
of the population.
Compulsory Voting - Australia

Australians have been required to vote in
federal elections since 1924. Concerned
that voter turnout had dipped below 60
percent, parliament enacted mandatory
voting after only 90 minutes of debate,
and it's gone largely unchallenged ever
since. Polls regularly show 70 percent to
80 percent of Australians support
mandatory voting. Lisa Hill, a research
fellow at the University of Adelaide,
explains it this way: "We're quite happy
with some forms of coercion that others
may not be happy with."
Compulsory Voting
Compulsory Voting


Actually, the voting part of "mandatory voting" is a
misnomer. All Australian citizens over the age of 18 must
register and show up at a polling station, but they need not
actually vote. They can deface their ballot or write in
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo (Australia's version of Lassie)—
or do nothing at all.
What happens if you don't show up on Election Day? You'll
receive a fairly polite form letter. At this point, you can
settle the matter by paying a $15 fine or offering any
number of excuses, including illness (no note from your
doctor required), travel, religious objections, or just plain
forgetfulness. For most people, the matter ends here. In
most elections, about a half-million registered voters don't
come to the polls. Ninety-five percent of them offer a valid
excuse, and the matter ends there. Five percent pay a fine.
Compulsory Voting

A few hundred cases each election actually end up in court.
Those who refuse to pay the fine or offer a plausible excuse
face escalating threats, similar to the ones you receive from
American Express when your balance is past due. The fine
jumps to $37 and, in extreme cases, a brief prison
sentence is imposed. But the Australian government clearly
doesn't want to imprison a lot of its citizens for not voting.
I've been able to find only a few cases of Aussies going to
jail over this in the past few decades—all conscientious
objectors courting arrest. A significant percentage of
Australians—about 15 percent of them—don't bother to
register at all. The government doesn't go after these
people, reserving fines and prosecutions only for those who
register and don't show up on Election Day. (Australia's 80plus percent registration rate is very high compared to
other democracies.)
Australia: Arguments used in
favor of compulsory voting:
• Voting is a civic duty comparable to other
duties citizens perform (e.g. taxation,
compulsory education, or jury duty).
• Parliament reflects more accurately the "will of
the electorate."
• Governments must consider the total
electorate in policy formulation and
management.
• Candidates can concentrate their campaigning
energies on issues rather than encouraging
voters to attend the poll.
• The voter isn’t actually compelled to vote for
anyone because voting is by secret ballot.
Australia: Arguments used
against compulsory voting:
• It is undemocratic to force people to vote - an
infringement of liberty.
• The "ignorant" and those with little interest in politics
are forced to the polls.
• It may increase the number of "donkey votes" (bad
votes that don't get counted).
• It may increase the number of informal votes (ballot
papers which are not marked according to the rules for
voting).
• It increases the number of safe, single-member
electorates - political parties then concentrate on the
more marginal electorates.
• Resources must be allocated to determine whether those
who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reasons.
Examples of Bushmanders!
Bullwinkle • (New York's 12th; Hispanic majority)
Pair of Ear Muffs • (Illinois's 4th; Hispanic majority)
Mark of Zorro • (Louisiana's 4th; black majority)
Satire
Man peers under locked ballot box
Date: 2005-03-31 Artist: Dale Cummings
Post-election America is red, white, black and blue
Date: 2004-11-03 Artist: JD Crowe
Bush vs. Gore 2000