Gerrymandering

What Is Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts to give one political party or group an unfair advantage over others, or to dilute the voting power of a particular demographic. This controversial process, a key aspect of political economy, distorts the principle of fair representation within a representative democracy. While often associated with unusual, convoluted district shapes, gerrymandering can also result in seemingly regular districts that are nonetheless engineered to produce predetermined electoral outcomes. This manipulation undermines the fairness of the electoral system, potentially leading to a legislature that does not accurately reflect the preferences of the broader electorate.

History and Origin

The term "gerrymandering" originated in the United States in 1812. Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill that redrew state senatorial districts to favor his Democratic-Republican Party. One of these newly drawn districts in Essex County was so contorted that it was said to resemble a salamander. A political cartoon, published in the Boston Gazette on March 26, 1812, depicted this bizarre district as a mythical creature and famously dubbed it "The Gerry-mander," a portmanteau of Governor Gerry's name and "salamander." This satirical depiction quickly popularized the term, which has since been used to describe similar district manipulations across the globe.¹⁸, ¹⁹

Key Takeaways

• Gerrymandering involves redrawing electoral district boundaries to favor a specific political party or group.
• It primarily uses "cracking" (spreading opposition voters across multiple districts) and "packing" (concentrating opposition voters into a few districts) techniques.
• The practice can lead to uncompetitive elections, reduced voter turnout, and increased political polarization.
• While racial gerrymandering is illegal and can be challenged in federal courts, partisan gerrymandering currently faces no federal legal challenge based on the U.S. Constitution.
• Gerrymandering has significant implications for public policy and the allocation of economic resources.

Formula and Calculation

While there isn't a single, universally accepted "formula" for gerrymandering itself, analytical metrics are used to detect and quantify its effects. One such metric is the efficiency gap.

The efficiency gap measures the difference in "wasted votes" between two political parties in an election. Wasted votes are defined as:

1. Votes cast for a losing candidate.
2. Votes cast for a winning candidate that are in excess of the number needed to win (surplus votes).

The formula for the efficiency gap (EG) is:

Where:

• ( W_A ) = Wasted votes for Party A
• ( W_B ) = Wasted votes for Party B
• ( V ) = Total votes cast in the election

A significant positive or negative efficiency gap can indicate partisan gerrymandering, as it suggests one party's votes are being wasted more effectively than the other's, leading to a disproportionate number of seats won compared to their statewide vote share. This analysis often relies on sophisticated statistical models and demographic data.

Interpreting Gerrymandering

Interpreting gerrymandering involves analyzing whether electoral maps are drawn to genuinely represent populations or to manipulate election outcomes. When districts are interpreted as having been gerrymandered, it suggests that rather than voters choosing their representatives, the politicians in power have chosen their voters by strategically drawing boundaries.

This manipulation can manifest in several ways:

• Non-compact shapes: Districts may have bizarre, winding forms that connect disparate areas, indicating an artificial grouping of voters for partisan advantage.
• Disproportionate outcomes: A party may win a significantly higher percentage of legislative seats than its percentage of the statewide popular vote, signaling a skewed electoral landscape.
• Lack of competitive elections: Gerrymandered districts often become "safe seats" for one party, reducing the incentive for incumbents to appeal to a broad range of voters and potentially leading to less responsive governance. This can diminish the impact of individual votes.

Understanding these indicators is crucial for assessing the fairness of an electoral map and its impact on the representativeness of legislative bodies.

Hypothetical Example

Consider a hypothetical state with 100,000 voters evenly split between Party X and Party Y (50,000 voters each) and five legislative districts, each needing to represent approximately 20,000 voters.

Scenario A (Fairly Drawn Districts):
If districts are drawn compactly and without partisan intent, the outcome might be:

• District 1: 10,000 Party X, 10,000 Party Y (Competitive)
• District 2: 10,000 Party X, 10,000 Party Y (Competitive)
• District 3: 10,000 Party X, 10,000 Party Y (Competitive)
• District 4: 10,000 Party X, 10,000 Party Y (Competitive)
• District 5: 10,000 Party X, 10,000 Party Y (Competitive)
  In this scenario, each party might win 2 or 3 seats, reflecting their roughly equal statewide support.

Scenario B (Gerrymandered Districts - Packing and Cracking):
Now, imagine Party X controls the redistricting process and employs gerrymandering tactics:

• Packing: Party X concentrates Party Y voters into two "packed" districts, giving Party Y overwhelming majorities but limiting their overall representation.
  • District 1: 18,000 Party Y, 2,000 Party X (Party Y wins overwhelmingly)
  • District 2: 18,000 Party Y, 2,000 Party X (Party Y wins overwhelmingly)
• Cracking: Party X "cracks" the remaining Party Y voters, spreading them thinly across the other three districts, making them a minority in each.
  • District 3: 14,000 Party X, 6,000 Party Y (Party X wins comfortably)
  • District 4: 14,000 Party X, 6,000 Party Y (Party X wins comfortably)
  • District 5: 14,000 Party X, 6,000 Party Y (Party X wins comfortably)

In Scenario B, Party Y, despite having 50,000 voters statewide, wins only 2 out of 5 seats. Party X, also with 50,000 voters, wins 3 seats, gaining a majority through strategic district drawing. This illustrates how gerrymandering can manipulate election results without changing the overall statewide vote totals.

Practical Applications

Gerrymandering, while a political act, has tangible practical applications and implications within financial and regulatory spheres, particularly in the realm of fiscal policy and resource allocation.

• Impact on Economic Policy: When districts are drawn to favor one party, it can lead to a less competitive political environment. This lack of competition can reduce the incentive for elected officials to prioritize the economic interests of their constituents, especially those in less competitive districts. Research suggests that partisan redistricting can even affect individuals' access to credit, with less competitive districts potentially having reduced access.¹⁷
• Distortion of Resource Allocation: Gerrymandering can lead to the misallocation of public funds and resources. Politicians insulated by safe districts may prioritize projects and funding for their partisan bases rather than addressing the broader needs of the population. This can result in inefficiencies and waste, as resources are directed towards projects that may not be economically viable or beneficial to the wider community.¹⁶
• Influence on Trade Policies: In some cases, gerrymandering can influence trade policies and regional integration efforts. When politicians prioritize the interests of their own electoral districts for political gain, it may lead to protectionist trade policies that hinder broader economic development and cooperation.¹⁵
• Regulatory Environment: The long-term impact of gerrymandering can shape the overall regulatory environment. A legislature dominated by one party due to gerrymandering might pass laws and regulations that align strictly with its ideological agenda, potentially impacting businesses, industries, and overall market stability. For instance, a politically insulated legislature might be less inclined to enact policies that promote broad investor protection or market efficiency if such measures conflict with its partisan goals.

Limitations and Criticisms

Gerrymandering faces significant criticism for its undermining of democratic principles and its adverse effects on governance. A primary criticism is that it allows politicians to choose their voters, rather than the electorate choosing their representatives, leading to a system where electoral outcomes are largely predetermined.

• Reduced Accountability: When districts are gerrymandered to be "safe" for one party, incumbents face less pressure to be accountable to the broader electorate within their district. This can lead to legislators becoming less responsive to the diverse needs and preferences of their constituents, as their re-election is largely secured regardless of their performance.¹⁴
• Increased Polarization: Some argue that gerrymandering contributes to political polarization. In uncompetitive districts, candidates may only need to appeal to the most extreme elements of their party's base to win primaries, leading to more ideologically rigid representatives and making bipartisan compromise more difficult. While some research indicates that gerrymandering's effect on national partisan numbers might be smaller than commonly believed, its impact on the disempowerment of voters at the district level is significant.¹³
• Depressed Voter Turnout: Gerrymandering can lead to decreased voter engagement and turnout. If voters perceive that their vote in a heavily gerrymandered district will not meaningfully impact the election outcome, they may become disengaged from the political process, feeling their participation is futile.¹⁰, ¹¹, ¹²
• Legal Challenges and Judicial Restraint: While racial gerrymandering is prohibited under the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, partisan gerrymandering has largely been deemed a "nonjusticiable political question" by the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning federal courts generally will not intervene in such cases.⁹ This judicial restraint places the onus on state-level courts and reforms to address partisan gerrymandering. For example, in 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymandering claims.⁸ This decision has shifted the battleground to state courts, where challenges based on state constitutions are increasingly being pursued.

Gerrymandering vs. Redistricting

The terms "gerrymandering" and "redistricting" are often used interchangeably, but they represent distinct concepts within the broader framework of electoral boundary adjustments.⁷

Redistricting is the regular process of redrawing electoral district boundaries to ensure that each district contains a roughly equal population, adhering to the "one person, one vote" principle.⁶ This process is mandated by law, typically occurring every ten years after the decennial U.S. Census, to account for shifts in population demographics. Its primary purpose is to maintain fair representation based on population changes and compliance with laws like the Voting Rights Act.

Gerrymandering, conversely, is a specific and often controversial form of redistricting. It involves intentionally manipulating district boundaries for a partisan or group-specific advantage.⁵ While redistricting is a necessary and neutral administrative task aimed at achieving proportionality, gerrymandering is a politically motivated tactic designed to skew election results and consolidate political power. This manipulation can result in oddly shaped districts or strategically drawn lines that dilute the voting strength of certain groups through "cracking" or concentrate it through "packing," ultimately undermining fair electoral competition.

FAQs

Q: Is gerrymandering legal in the United States?
A: Racial gerrymandering, which dilutes the voting power of racial minority groups, is illegal under federal law, specifically the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.⁴ However, partisan gerrymandering, which is done purely for political party advantage, was ruled to be outside the purview of federal courts by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019's Rucho v. Common Cause ruling.³ This means challenges to partisan gerrymandering must often be brought under state constitutions in state courts.

Q: How does gerrymandering affect individuals?
A: Gerrymandering can make individual votes feel less meaningful, particularly in districts designed to be uncompetitive. This can lead to decreased civic participation and a perception that elected officials are less accountable to the diverse needs of their constituents. It can also influence the allocation of resources and the types of policies enacted, potentially impacting local economies and public services.²

Q: What are "cracking" and "packing" in gerrymandering?
A: These are two primary tactics used in gerrymandering. "Cracking" involves splitting a concentration of voters from a particular group or party across multiple districts so that they are a minority in each, thus diluting their collective voting strength. "Packing" is the opposite, where map drawers concentrate a large number of voters from a specific group or party into a very small number of districts, giving them overwhelming majorities in those few districts but reducing their influence in surrounding areas.¹

Q: Why is gerrymandering considered problematic for democracy?
A: Gerrymandering is considered problematic because it undermines the fundamental principle of fair representation, where the composition of legislative bodies should reflect the will of the electorate. By manipulating district boundaries, gerrymandering empowers politicians to effectively choose their voters, rather than voters choosing their representatives. This can lead to less competitive elections, reduced accountability of elected officials, and increased political polarization.