Gerrymandering: funny-shaped districts aren't the problem

[Garrett78]

Much is made of the odd shapes that gerrymandered districts take. And "nice-looking maps" have been drawn up by computers that ensure all districts are compact and that there isn't as much disparity in terms of population size. The latter is important, but there are some major problems with making districts 'compact'.

But it's important to note that because of their simplicity, these maps don't take several factors into account — factors many people think are quite important in ensuring good representation.

For instance, they don't try to keep historical neighborhoods or regions intact. They don't try to ensure representation of racial minorities. And they don't pay any attention to striking a balance between political parties, or ensuring that districts are competitive. "Pretty little districts," John Sides wrote at the Monkey Cage, "could actually be pretty terrible."

So, let's focus less on the odd shapes. Because that's really not the problem.

[stopdiggin]

1. good point

but are we ever going to have any kind of consensus on how to balance these objectives? Or even if all of these objectives are desirable and worthy?

[Merlot]

3. Having a committee of actual humans drawing the maps instead of computers

is a good start. An impartial committee can take all those things into consideration.

[Garrett78]

5. People are drawing the lines currently. A computer can be programmed to consider many factors.

I think it should be a committee with the assistance of technology.

[Garrett78]

6. That's the question on which to focus. Way too much is made of the odd shapes.

I would hope most would agree that we shouldn't have a huge disparity in terms of population size (with some districts having 1.5 or even 2 times as many people as other districts).

I also think it's vital that we not minimize the influence of persons of color, which is what currently happens and what would happen if districts were drawn as described in the link in my OP (forming those "pretty" compact districts).

An argument can be made that districts should be allowed to cross state lines (or maybe we should just get rid of states).

An argument can also be made that we should have many more districts, as no single Representative should be representing a half million or a million people.

This is a hugely important topic, and it doesn't do us any good to focus on the wrong problem.

[shawn703]

2. I'd make that compromise

“Pretty little districts” where everyone’s vote is equal to everyone else’s is a better system than what we have now. A computer isn’t going to care about the makeup of a district or what party it will help or hurt. And if they cut through neighborhoods one way, they’ll cut through them the other too, and the result will be consensus candidates that will need to find ways to represent the interests of different groups of people to win election and maintain support.

[Garrett78]

4. A computer can be programmed to take numerous factors into account.

"Pretty little districts" are just as likely to minimize the influence of persons of color, which is arguably the #1 problem with gerrymandering.

[stopdiggin]

7. going with Garrett here

technology can definitely help us. A machine is only going to give you the prejudices (or strengths) that you ask for. But first of all -- us humans are going to have to hash out what we WANT.

For instance .. I personally care a whole lot less about "historic neighborhoods or regions" -- than I do about proportional party representation in the legislature. So that would be my #1 weight/task for a computer program .. probably followed by some combination of demographic factors -- with preserving neighborhoods somewhere well down the list. Other people are probably going to disagree on those priorities.

[Garrett78]

8. My priorities:

Making sure there isn't nearly as much population size disparity as there is currently, making sure the power of persons of color isn't minimized, and having as many competitive districts as possible.

All of that would inevitably result in odd-shaped districts (so what) and it would help if districts were allowed to cross state lines (we could get rid of states and the electoral college and be just fine).

[crickets]

9. K&R for visibility

[Wounded Bear]

10. I sincerely think one of the biggest problems is the size of the House...

It was frozen at 435 in the 1920's and hasn't been readdressed since, which leads to the less populous rural states gain more and more power in the Electoral College, while the larger states are losing power. It should probably be closer to 1000 by now.

I agree that fighting over the "funny shapes" is kind of a distraction. Obviously, though, in most cases those shapes were laid out to support some political agenda. That is the problem, and it is wrong, even if Dems do it like happened in Maryland. It has been more prevalent, though, in swing states where Repubs took temporary control of their legislatures and tried to make their control permanent, regardless of demographic shifts. The old "politicians selecting their voters" instead of vice versa.

My state (WA) has a fairly good map, with districts that mostly make geographic sense, and reflects the blue majority found in the population centers without totally freezing out the red minority in the rural counties. We utilize a panel system with reps from both major parties and a (supposedly impartial) judge. It's a model that many states could use rather than just letting the legislature do it.

[Garrett78]

12. I agree that the size of the House should be greatly expanded.

In addition to the problem of small states having undue influence, no single Representative should be representing a million people or even half a million. Of course, in reality, they mostly just represent moneyed interests, but that's a whole other discussion.

I'm all for a huge expansion of the House and doing away with the anti-democratic Senate (and Electoral College). We could also just get rid of states (drawing fair, representative district boundaries would be easier without the restriction of having to stay inside arbitrary state lines). But major structural reform is pretty much impossible for the very reasons why it's so desperately needed.

In states with a large but heavily concentrated POC population, ensuring that districts don't concentrate POC, thus minimizing their power, would make funny-shaped districts unavoidable. The odd shapes of districts isn't the issue. The reasoning behind where the lines are drawn is the problem.

And currently there is way too much disparity between districts in terms of population size. It's absurd to have some districts with one and a half or even two times as many people as other districts.

Let's face it, the whole damn US Constitution should have been rewritten, and I'm sure the founders would be shocked to learn that it hasn't been (especially if they knew just how drastically society/the country/the world had changed). But a constitutional convention would be an absolute disaster (with states like Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, et al. having a hugely disproportionate influence).

[yortsed snacilbuper]

11. Gerrymandering explained

[Garrett78]

13. Anything approaching perfect representation will require squiggly boundary lines.

Especially when POC and liberals in general tend to be concentrated.