# 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:** 4
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/61 "2018-01-25T18:51:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Easier than trying to persuade people you have the right policies, isn’t it? Aren’t all political parties trying to persuade people that they have the right policies? The most persuasive usually hold more seats in both the legislative and executive branches of state and federal governments. There are several examples of both the Democrat and Republican parties resorting to gerrymandering in order to insure re-election of Democrat and Republican representatives. Some people believe that all gerrymandering should be stopped. Some people prefer to concentrate their efforts on ending Republican gerrymandering because that better suits their purpose. As far as I can tell, some people become very frustrated, and angry, when the voters refuse to be persuaded by their arguments, tactics, Groupthink. ---
**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, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/62 "2018-01-25T20:13:39Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > As far as I can tell, some people become very frustrated, and angry, when the voters refuse to be persuaded by their arguments And that’s why they resort to gerrymandering and obstructionism, among other trickery, to avoid dealing with democracy. On that we can agree. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/63 "2018-01-25T20:59:15Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > …The GOP consistently gets more representatives than the percentage of votes should indicate… > [@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). > [@elucidator](#): > > With the 2010 census and the Republican surge in state legislatures, they fixed that. They fixed it good and hard! But you knew that. [In 2016](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016), the Dems got 48% of the total vote, and the GOP got 49%. The Dems picked up 6 seats (about 1.4% of the seats). [In 2014](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014), the Dems got 46% of the total vote, the GOP got 51%. The GOP picked up 13 seats (about 3.0% of the seats). ---
**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, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/64 "2018-01-25T21:17:02Z")
It would be far more helpful to note the total seats won, since they were all up, don’tcha think? Wonder why you left that out. From your same source: 2016: Dems 48%, Reps 49%, but Dems 194 seats to Reps 241. 2014: Dems 46%, Reps 51%, but Dems 188 seats to Reps 247. Whatcha think? ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/65 "2018-01-25T21:27:47Z")
> [@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). Extra seats GOP won over what their % of votes dictates 2016 - 27 2014 - 24 2012 - 27 2010 - 17 2008 - minus 7 2006 - 9 2004 - 17 2002 - 12 2000 - 14 1998 - 13 1996 - 16 1994 - 4 Get your weak ass cherry picking shit out of here. ---
**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, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/66 "2018-01-25T21:31:56Z")
The 2008 election was something historically different for other reasons, wasn’t it? It drew Democratic voters into the polls who hadn’t usually bothered, in vast numbers. The result then is an illustration of how over-greedy gerrymandering works against you in a strong tide. Without it, there’s nothing to fear except the weakness of your own arguments. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/67 "2018-01-25T21:33:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It would be far more helpful to note the total seats won, since they were all up, don’tcha think? Wonder why you left that out. > > From your same source: > 2016: Dems 48%, Reps 49%, but Dems 194 seats to Reps 241. > 2014: Dems 46%, Reps 51%, but Dems 188 seats to Reps 247. > > Whatcha think? I think that incumbents have, for a long time, had a big advantage in House elections, so most of the time, once you’re in , you’re in. There was a big change in 2010 which resulted in a 63 seat swing to the GOP, but the GOP also had a 52% - 45% advantage in the overall vote that year. In 2010, the economy was still bad and there was a lot of negative sentiment about the ACA (justified or unjustified, is debatable), which made it go against that norm. So, normally you don’t see big swings in the House, but we’re still living with the after-effects of the 2010 election where the GOP won, and won big. But not because of some “fix” they put in place. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/68 "2018-01-25T21:40:12Z")
Missed the edit window. [Congressional Stagnation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States) has been a noted “thing” for about 50 years. ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/69 "2018-01-25T22:14:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And that’s why they resort to gerrymandering and obstructionism, among other trickery, to avoid dealing with democracy. On that we can agree. Are you referring to Democrat gerrymandering, or Republican gerrymandering, or both? Do you think we just agreed that Democrats and Republicans resort to gerrymandering, and that the practice should be stopped by both sides? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2018, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/70 "2018-01-26T08:32:07Z")
No, they want the system rigged to be fair. No, it doesn’t make sense. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2018, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/71 "2018-01-26T13:56:40Z")
> [@](#): > > **Elucidator** > > With the 2010 census and the Republican surge in state legislatures, they fixed that. They fixed it good and hard! But you knew that. > [@](#): > > **ElvisL1ves** > > Wonder why you left that out. > [@](#): > > **Snarky\_Kong** > > Get your weak ass cherry picking shit out of here. Guys, I realize emotions can run high. Ascribing motives and such to your interlocutors is never a good idea. Let’s everyone just dial back the personal cracks. I hate to see this become a train wreck with multiple warnings. ---
**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 26, 2018, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/72 "2018-01-26T14:10:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > … rigged to be fair … That’s an … interesting … phrase which, no, doesn’t make any sense. I will state explicitly that I want a system in which intentional contrivances that attempt to rig it to be unfair (or further unfair) are disallowed, independent of which direction the effort is aimed and independent of how effective or ineffective the effort is. I will further state that the _benchmark_ for fairness (but not for intentionality) would be proportional representation, and that structural features that create systemic partisan advantages that favor one or the other party toward representation disproportionate to their vote shares should ideally be minimized. Creating a system that includes maximizing fairness, or perhaps better phrased as minimizing structural unfairness, as one of its goals, is not “rigging” it. I am not yet convinced that any specific model to achieve that is best and I do not believe that fairness as defined that by benchmark overrides all other considerations. Nor do I believe that any major overhaul is remotely likely. The best we can realistically hope for is disallowing clear contrivances to intentionally maximize a partisan advantage. **addie** , do you agree that designing the system with the intent to produce a specific outcome, such as partisan advantage, is by its very nature unfair, whether or not it is a very effective effort? ---
**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 26, 2018, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/73 "2018-01-26T15:02:58Z")
In terms of the history of partisan gerrymandering, or at least extreme partisan gerrymandering with success in producing significant partisan asymmetry, [here’s Wang’s analysis](http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94580). > [@](#): > > … Partisan gerrymandering is at an all-time high. In an amicus brief in Whitford, Professors Heather Gerken, Jonathan N. Katz, Gary King, Larry Sabato, and I proposed partisan asymmetry to identify extreme gerrymanders, and explained how it can be defined with commonly-used statistical tools. … > > … Before 2000, extreme partisan gerrymanders occurred only once per decade. For example, in the 1980’s the biggest offense occurred in California, when Democratic political boss Phil Burton obtained as many as five seats for his party. But in the two redistricting cycles since 2000, such offenses have proliferated. However, the current cycle is also a time in which partisan gerrymanders were considered to be permissible. With a standard in place to brush back would-be offenders, egregious cases of partisan asymmetry are likely to become less frequent in the future. … > > … Once a state has been found to fail multiple statistical tests, this finding can be combined with information about partisan control over redistricting to define an overall pattern of intents and effects. The process can be easily managed by a court, and the involvement from expert witnesses can be minimal. A partisan-symmetry standard based on lopsided or reliable wins will successfully identify many of the worst offenders. Such a standard is stringent, and does not burden courts, so the Court need not fear that they will invite a flood of new lawsuits post-2020. … FWIW. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/74 "2018-01-26T15:26:20Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Are you referring to Democrat gerrymandering, or Republican gerrymandering, or both? How about providing your favorite examples of egregious current Democratic gerrymandering, if you’re going to stick with bothsidesism? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2018, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/75 "2018-01-26T16:42:38Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How about providing your favorite examples of egregious current Democratic gerrymandering, if you’re going to stick with bothsidesism? Again? My favorite example would be Illinois’ 4th Congressional District. It resembles the letter “C”. \*Illinois’ 4th Congressional District includes part of Cook County. On March 30, 2012, the 4th District was included in a list released by the National Journal of the top ten most contorted congressional districts due to redistricting.[3] [3] National Journal, “Modern Gerrymanders: 10 Most Contorted Congressional Districts—MAPS,” accessed March 31, 2012\* [https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois'\_4th\_Congressional\_District](https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois%27_4th_Congressional_District) ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2018, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/76 "2018-01-26T16:50:18Z")
nm ---
**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 26, 2018, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/77 "2018-01-26T16:58:23Z")
IL 4 was certainly egregiously gerrymandered (with those defending it resorting to me-tooism, arguing [against unilateral political disarmament](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-remap-illinois-perspec-0629-20150628-story.html)). Do you agree that such clear attempts to gain advantage should be disallowed, whichever side does it? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2018, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/78 "2018-01-26T17:31:03Z")
One district vs. entire states? Really? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/79 "2018-01-26T17:59:31Z")
#bothsiderism apparently… ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2018, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444/80 "2018-01-27T05:59:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > One district vs. entire states? Really? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > One district vs. entire states? Really? Ok, let’s take California. (please: take it!) 😛 Seriously, the Democrats have had control of the Legislature in California so long that I barely recall the State Senate being Republican (1970), and with the brief exception of the '95-6 session in the State Assembly, that’s been in Democratic just as long. Yet the people of the state were so upset with the redistricting that they agreed to change the process to eliminate the direct control of the legislature in 2008. One can easily see why when one looks at the [map for Assembly districts in 2001!](http://statewidedatabase.org/gis/) Note that, in the 2002 general election for the 80 Assembly districts, the Democrats polled 53.41% of the votes, but received 60% of the seats! Two years later, while the Republicans were winning the Presidency again, the Democrats were reduced to 52.61% of the votes for Assemblymen, but retained the same number of seats (60%). In short, Democrats are just as good at playing the gerrymandering game as Republicans, when it suits them. The results in California probably would be even worse these days, given the advent of computer-based district drawing and the fact that the Legislature is almost filled with a super-majority of Democrats. But, of course, the districts are drawn by an independent commission now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/538s-take-on-gerrymandering-us-politics/807444.md?page=5)