# 538's take on gerrymandering (US politics) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 25, 2018, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444 "2018-01-25T13:30:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/41 "2018-01-25T17:16:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > When Democrats had total dominance from the 1930s-1970s, they were relying on a combination of the white working class and minority voters. The Republicans were primarily a party of the wealthy and educated elites. The urban/rural divide was not as stark. Republicans could win New York and California, and Democrats could win Montana and Nebraska. Because of the makeup of the party coalitions, neither side had a voter motivation gap, or a serious urban/rural problem. Elections consisted of motivating your party base and appealing to swing voters and it was a fair playing field, even though Democrats had a major advantage due to the sheer size of the white working class. > > But now, the white working class votes Republican and the Democrats are heavily reliant on minority voters. Further, due to the Republican Party going down the religion and racism rabbit hole, the Democrats have won the allegiance of upscale urban voters. So the Democratic coalition is very urban, and the minority portion of their base doesn’t vote reliably. So that creates multiple problems for the party which are framed as an issue of basic fairness. So in other words: you don’t have Facts to back up that Democrats didn’t care about the System as Long as they were winning, you just assert what you believe. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/42 "2018-01-25T17:20:41Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And in the American system, sure, you can run without party backing, but c’mon. The candidate has leverage over the party if he has a following. Lindsey Graham is not as conservative as the South Carolina state party, but he’s very popular in SC and the party’s ability to punish or remove him is limited. Lindsey Graham would never make a candidate slate in a proportional system. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/43 "2018-01-25T17:22:11Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > And this relates to plainly gerrymandered districts (so-called ‘horseshoe districts’ among others) how? It relates to how using compact districts still disadvantages Democrats, which is why some Democrats on this board don’t like compact districts except as a less bad alternative to what we have now. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/44 "2018-01-25T17:25:11Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > So in other words: you don’t have Facts to back up that Democrats didn’t care about the System as Long as they were winning, you just assert what you believe. Democrats enjoyed gerrymandering during that period. A lot. Democrats did not concern themselves with voter turnout. Every election, the media would lament how low voter participation was, but since it didn’t disadvantage Democrats in any way, it just wasn’t a partisan issue. There were no efforts to make voting easy. Democrats did want voting to be fair and opposed very real voter suppression in the South, but they did not need to come up with schemes like mail in ballots. Voter ID was broadly supported by everyone and Democrats didn’t expend any effort to oppose voter ID laws. Granted, Republicans didn’t expend any effort to pass them, because there was no partisan advantage in voter ID back then. But where there were voter ID laws, they just weren’t a partisan issue. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/45 "2018-01-25T17:33:06Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > What? The reason boundaries are drawn within states is because each state is assigned a number of seats. Ignoring the state borders would throw that out. Not arguing whether that’s a good idea, certainly some people would like it, but it’s a major change to the system. That’s why I said “for shits and giggles.” Was curious what a map like that would look like. And of course to actually get this off the ground, it would require Constitutional action to make a change like this. But instead of allocating districts to states based on their population, just cut the country into 435 districts. And instead of having state legislatures (or other state bodies) do the districting, have one national bi-partisan body do it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/46 "2018-01-25T17:38:32Z")
The big obstacle there is the concept of shared sovereignty. The states are sovereign entities united into a federal government. Once you create a truly national electoral system like that then the states have surrendered the most important part of their sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/47 "2018-01-25T17:42:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The candidate has leverage over the party if he has a following. Lindsey Graham is not as conservative as the South Carolina state party, but he’s very popular in SC and the party’s ability to punish or remove him is limited. Lindsey Graham would never make a candidate slate in a proportional system. And you know this how, exactly? Magic Crystal ball? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/48 "2018-01-25T17:43:13Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Are you saying that the only system you consider fair is proportional representation? > > And I quibble with your “consistently”. [In 2008, Democrats got 53% of the votes and 59% of the seats. Republicans got 42.6% of the votes, but only 40.9% of the seats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2008#Results). With the 2010 census and the Republican surge in state legislatures, they fixed that. They fixed it good and _hard_! But you knew that. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/49 "2018-01-25T17:45:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Democrats enjoyed gerrymandering during that period. A lot. Democrats did not concern themselves with voter turnout. Voter turnout is different from gerrymandering. > [@](#): > > There were no efforts to make voting easy. Democrats did want voting to be fair and opposed very real voter suppression in the South, but they did not need to come up with schemes like mail in ballots. “Did not Need to come up with?” What do you mean - that the Republicans introduced it first? > [@](#): > > Voter ID was broadly supported by everyone and Democrats didn’t expend any effort to oppose voter ID laws. Granted, Republicans didn’t expend any effort to pass them, because there was no partisan advantage in voter ID back then. But where there were voter ID laws, they just weren’t a partisan issue. Still no evidence that Democrats “didn’t care”, just vague assertions. Also, you can’t honestly cover 1930 to 1970 as one continous period without taking the flip due to the civil rights issue / Southern racists into account. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/50 "2018-01-25T17:48:45Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The big obstacle there is the concept of shared sovereignty. The states are sovereign entities united into a federal government. Once you create a truly national electoral system like that then the states have surrendered the most important part of their sovereignty. For the House of Representatives. The Senate would still do that. And the electoral college. And state governments. That being said, I concede it would never happen. I’m just more curious what a map in a system like this would look like. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/51 "2018-01-25T17:52:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > While it’s fair, if you want proportional representation, rigging districts to be competitive doesn’t really get you there except in a strict party sense. … Which is interesting but of _no_ relevance to the post you responded to or anything else I said (and you were responding to me). The best metric of “fairness”, you have agreed, would be proportional representation. This does not necessarily mean that any proposed method of achieving that does so, or does so without resulting in other possibly worse problems, but it is the best metric. Should _efforts_ that are clearly _intended_ to create greater unfairness be allowed? The answer to that question really is the same whether or not at any specific period of time those efforts are very effective, or completely ineffective, or which direction they push the result to. The end may not be a completely fair result as some unfairness may be unavoidable. I believe it is. But minimizing unfairness and _disallowing acted on intent to introduce greater unfairness_ are still worthwhile goals. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/52 "2018-01-25T17:53:43Z")
It’s an interesting idea, to be sure, and one that I think has merit. There are a lot of people of similar culture who live across state boundaries and have little relation to the rest of their state. Kansas residents of KC, New Jersey residents of the NY metro area, DC metro residents… You know, one totally constitutional thing you could do is land trades between states. Border adjustments require simple statutes. You could put all of Kansas City in Missouri and all of the NY metro area in New York. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/53 "2018-01-25T17:57:38Z")
Toss in at least one “congressman at large” (or elector at large) in every state, given to whichever party was the most disadvantaged due to the distributions of votes and you both reduce (but don’t eliminate) the effects of gerrymandering, and incentivize voting even in currently uncompetitive districts/state. Sure, the at large congressman isn’t then beholden to a particular district, but congressmen appear to be mostly beholden to their campaign donors and lobbyists anyway. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/54 "2018-01-25T17:58:41Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Which is interesting but of _no_ relevance to the post you responded to or anything else I said (and you were responding to me). > > The best metric of “fairness”, you have agreed, would be proportional representation. This does not necessarily mean that any proposed method of achieving that does so, or does so without resulting in other possibly worse problems, but it is the best metric. > > Should _efforts_ that are clearly _intended_ to create greater unfairness be allowed? The answer to that question really is the same whether or not at any specific period of time those efforts are very effective, or completely ineffective, or which direction they push the result to. > > The end may not be a completely fair result as some unfairness may be unavoidable. I believe it is. But minimizing unfairness and _disallowing acted on intent to introduce greater unfairness_ are still worthwhile goals. As I said, the process should be fair and blind to outcomes. When you design any process to produce a certain outcome, it will almost never be fair. That’s why I can’t support trying to create party parity through gerrymandering. The outcome might be the fairest result, but the process involved would be unfair and quite a bit silly. Interestingly enough, the 2020 census appears to once again be beneficial to red states. California for the first time is predicted to not even gain a seat or EV. [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/congressional-seats-for-16-states-could-change-with-2020-census?slide=17](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/congressional-seats-for-16-states-could-change-with-2020-census?slide=17) What’s crazy about our system is that Montana is going to double their House representation while Rhode Island’s will be cut in half, from two to an at large seat. Texas, as usual, will gain big, 3 or 4 seats. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/55 "2018-01-25T17:59:59Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Toss in at least one “congressman at large” (or elector at large) in every state, given to whichever party was the most disadvantaged due to the distributions of votes and you both reduce (but don’t eliminate) the effects of gerrymandering, and incentivize voting even in currently uncompetitive districts/state. > > Sure, the at large congressman isn’t then beholden to a particular district, but congressmen appear to be mostly beholden to their campaign donors and lobbyists anyway. What’s funny about that idea is that at large elections were how they used to make sure no minorities got elected. One effect would certainly be a lower proportion of minority legislators, since you’d be adding 50 or more at large legislators to the House. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/56 "2018-01-25T18:12:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Interestingly enough, the 2020 census appears to once again be beneficial to red states. As in, states that are now red, if barely. Consider that the imbalances in population increase are attributable to internal migration from the free states, and to immigration by people who just may not be inclined to vote for an anti-immigrant party, and give it another shot. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/57 "2018-01-25T18:27:10Z")
In the short term though that benefits Republicans. If Texas is 60% GOP, and you add enough Democrats to make it 55% GOP, Texas still is red, quite red in fact. And with more EVs and Congressmen. At the same time, illinois and New York lose representation. Maybe eventually Texas will turn, but that time is a long way off and a lot will have changed by then. For one thing, Texas will have a much lower proportion of immigrants by then. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/58 "2018-01-25T18:32:16Z")
Easier than trying to persuade people you have the right policies, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/59 "2018-01-25T18:35:15Z")
I think the GOP is doing a better job of that than Democrats, who would prefer to change the system so they don’t have to persuade people who actually vote and live outside city centers to support them. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/60 "2018-01-25T18:35:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Yes, there’s no way to get around the fact that less populous states that lean red, like Wyoming and the Dakotas, give a permanent advantage to Republicans of a handful of seats, and that advantage cannot be erased through the drawing of districts in other states. > > But what are your thoughts on drawing districts on the proportionally partisan basis? That would seem to have the advantage of both increasing the number of competitive seats, eliminating Republican efforts to minimize minority representation in Congress, and minimize the so-called efficiency gap. Seems like a reasonable starting point. But will that eliminate Democrat gerrymandering? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444.md?page=4)