What does gerrymandering/redistricting practically speaking look like on the ground? How does it impact a voter?
If I’m living in Queens, New York or Collins Avenue in Miami, if I’m a Democrat or Republican and my community is redistricted to favor one party or the other, how exactly does that impact me? Does the political party in power improve services/amenities in certain areas rather than others to influence me as a voter？
Generally speaking, the usual gerrymandering strategy works like this:
“Let’s rope all the heavily-Otherparty area into the fewest number of districts possible, which means they’ll have a huge majority there. Then we’ll try to have the maximum number of OurParty districts outside of their territory, which means we’ll have a thin majority but will be favored to win all those districts”.
On the ground, that may mean that the concentrated Otherparty areas are such a sure win for Otherparty that the party chiefs don’t find it necessary to court voters in those districts. And it may mean that the gerrymandering party that set all this up has to court their likely voters since their margins are thinner.
Note, however, that the gerrymandering party may do that courting by throwing [party-color] meat to the base rather than rendering services to the citizenry, so you as an average ordinary resident may not be the beneficiary of a political party pandering to you.
Thanks AHuter3., I understand the theory of it, but on a practical level, how does my neighborhood reflect that gerrymandering? When we talk of redistricting it’s all well and good to see it on paper but how do neighborhoods change? I’m not quite sure what gerrymandering looks like when implemented on the ground? How is is practically effected? Perhaps I’ll see more voting registration offices for the majority party or get more of the majority party campaigners knocking on my door.
That will vary with the political winds of fortune and whatnot. Let’s say you’re in one of the gerrymandering party’s thin-majority districts that were designed to let them claim more than their share of statewide seats. If the political winds seem to favor the OtherParty, expect a lot of OtherParty presence on the ground trying to turn out the vote and pull off an upset. If the winds are blowing the other direction, probably not so much. Or suppose OtherParty’s incumbent in the heavily gerrymandered district gets caught doing something really reprehensible. Maybe gerrymandering party puts some rare effort into picking off that seat despite the odds that they themselves set up. Or it’s a [party-color] wave year and even unlikely districts are up for grabs for the moment.
Thanks AHunter. That makes sense now.
In a strongly gerrymandered district, the real competition is usually in the majority party’s primary. If you are registered with the majority party and/or have voted in that party’s primary in the past, they will know this and you will be deluged in advertising, mailers, phone calls, texts, doorknockers, fundraising appeals, etc.
And of course, the biggest effect is that you can end up with laws that neither you nor a majority of the other people of your state actually want, but you’re stuck with them anyway because the other party has gerrimandered themselves into permanent power and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Agree completely.
At a more micro level, the practical effect of a being in a gerrymandered environment is that the power of your vote to affect your district’s representation is reduced to substantially zero.
if you’re in one of the many [thin majority for the gerrymandering party] then whether you are with or against that party doesn’t matter. No natter how you vote or even whether you vote, the gerrymandering rep is elected.
And if you’re in one of the few [fat majority for the non-gerrymandering party] then whether you are with or against that party doesn’t matter. No matter how you vote or even whether you vote, the non-gerrymandering rep is elected.
The only person who has any real voting power is the person in one of the many [thin majority for the gerrymandering party] districts who has been a supporter of the gerrymandering party but loses interest or faith and so abstains or votes for the other side. That voter, and only that voter, has some influence over the outcome.
Various WAGs have described gerrymandering as a system that permits the politicians to choose their voters, while prohibiting the voters from choosing their politicians. That is wee bit of an exaggeration, but it’s uncomfortably close to the complete story.
So circling back to the OP’s question of “Does being in any of these 4 possible positions produce more or better government services, more responsive politicians, etc.,?”
The answer is “no” for all 4 groups of voters because again the pols have arranged the game so they can’t lose and voters can’t be relevant. Making voters happy is a useless distraction from their own agenda. Up until the point they cause mass defections to the other party. And of course in a hyperpartisan country and era, the barrier to switching parties is very very high.