United States Gerrymandering, Visualized

[Direckshun]

This is amazing.

Just... enjoy this. This is beautiful.

http://uxblog.idvsolutions.com/2010/...d-to-know.html

Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Gerrymandering
Monday, October 25, 2010

http://youtu.be/5k4N2uh8ZnI

What the Deuce is Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is the practice of carving up representative districts in a…creative fashion to benefit one party or another. The early ideal for carving up our new nation into representative districts was relative compactness. In 1812 Elbridge Gerry (sounds like “jerry”), governor of Massachusetts, carved up his state into curious districts that would benefit his party, causing political commentators of the time to lampoon the districting as looking like a salamander. The Boston Gazette ran a cartoon of the "Gerrymander" and the rest is history. By the way, this original gerrymander seems to me pretty tame compared to some you are likely to see today.



Who Benefits from Gerrymandering?

The sticky wicket of districting is, like history, the folks in charge get to decide. It is impossible to realistically separate the drawing of districts from political advantage, which, realistically, gets banged out during an over-nighter locked-door wheel-and-deal session probably devoid of even the idea of math.

There is no consistent gotcha finger you can point at a gerrymandered district, however. Sometimes the guy twisting his long waxy mustache is the party that lost that district. Why? Because often the strategy is to pack in a supermajority of opposition voters into one district and write that off as a guaranteed loss, but then be assured to win the surrounding districts.

Other times the benefit falls to the winner of the gerrymandered district that encompasses a minority enclave, which, otherwise, would not have “their own” representation in congress.

Wikipedia has a great section on the various possible goals and benefactors of a gerrymandered district in an authoritative tone that I can't hope to equal.



Why is Gerrymandering Important to Understand?

The United States is a representative republic…not a pure democracy. Each voter does not vote on each bill. Instead, we vote on representatives who act as our proxy in congress. How do we lump ourselves up for representation? Districts. Districts! So, geography is one of the single biggest factors driving our representative republic. And, considering how important districting is, the rules for defining them are pretty loosey goosey.

So let’s use extremes as examples, as that’s a pretty helpful tool for illustration in this case. Suppose folks in the United States are the product of an absolute melting pot; where we live doesn’t have much to do with how we think, and in turn how we might vote. In this case divvying up people into geographic districts is a simple task of finding the most evenly populated compact voronoi shapes, and think nothing else of it. Alternatively, consider the United States as a conglomerate of segregated socio-economic-politico-ethnic camps who vie for representative leverage. Drawing representative districts then becomes primarily a political (rather than geometric) task and the resulting territories may be impossibly undulating and complex in an effort to grab even populations of “like minded” folks.

The reality is somewhere in-between. And my sense is that wherever your notion of relative American mixedness (in reality and idealistically) falls within that spectrum will pretty well predict your relative comfort with gerrymandering. So you can take that for whatever it’s worth.

Our Gerrymander Mojo Rating...

...is the perimeter divided by the square root of the area. The ratio of perimeter to area will give you a good idea of the relative splatteredness of a shape. And, taking the square root of the area will ensure that the ratio is consistent at all scales (so large districts aren't biased towards compactness). If something is nice and compact (like a circle or...Wyoming), the result is a small number. If something is hopelessly undulating (like Illinois' 4th congressional district), the number will be large. A rough index like this is a good starting point for looking into potential Gerrymanders, and might lead to some interesting questions.



Two predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods on either side of Chicago, linked by a precarious stretch of Interstate 294, form the interesting 4th Congressional District of Illinois.



The state of Wyoming (which is, in it's entirety, a single congressional district) can't believe how compact it is.

Caveats

Wait a second, what makes relatively compact shapes so special? Even if you consider the population of the U.S. as wholly mixed and you reject boundaries characterized by ethnicity and wealth and so on, you still have to admit that the patterns of our nation’s development (and the patterns of human settlement in general) are complex and meandering in shape and influence and awkward squiggly groupings thereof are more accurate delineations than arbitrary compact cookie cutter shapes. What’s more, the complex geographic landscape that we settle into (like meandering rivers and valleys) certainly isn’t characterized by highly efficient shapes of elegant compactness.

What I mean to say is that coming up with an ideal district shape philosophy is hard, and lots of factors go into the forming of a district that are not necessarily nefarious or even political in nature (but...come on). Districts that skirt rivers or coastlines, or straddle mountain ranges will wreak havoc on our simple index of Gerrymandering; keep this in mind as you browse our maps. In short, ratings like ours should be taken with a grain of salt.

Some Interesting Districts (other than the two up there)...



Illinois has more than one intriguing district. Like it's cousin, the 4th, the 17th district is a clear recipient of political maneuvering and has been nicknamed the "Rabbit on a Skateboard."



California's 23rd district encompasses a very thin stretch of much of California's southern coast.



The Wall Street Journal called North Carolina's relatively new district (1990) "political pornography." This district led to a Supreme Court case over gerrymandering in 1993. You can't make this stuff up.



Florida's 22nd district has fingers that meander into several cities. This district was at the center of the 2000 Presidential Election recount.



The districts surrounding Maryland's 3rd district can be forgiven because their complex coastlines blow out our index. But that 3rd District got cranked right out of the gerrymander factory.



New Jersey's 6th district's already interesting shape generates additional interest with the inclusion of a lobe connected by a thin stretch of beach.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

I didn't think you'd have the balls to try to back up your statement.

No Democratically-controlled (or Republican-controlled) gerrymandering process has ever resulted in something as extreme as a 9-point, 21-seat swing from what the popular vote wanted in modern history.

This is literally the most egregious example of gerrymandering in modern history.

I would guess that's probably true for all of American history, as well, but I only went back a few decades.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

No Democratically-controlled (or Republican-controlled) gerrymandering process has ever resulted in something as extreme as a 9-point, 21-seat swing from what the popular vote wanted in modern history.

This is literally the most egregious example of gerrymandering in modern history.

I would guess that's probably true for all of American history, as well, but I only went back a few decades.

The provides specific examples and times please. Did you know some incumbents lost in their gerrymandered districts too.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

No Democratically-controlled (or Republican-controlled) gerrymandering process has ever resulted in something as extreme as a 9-point, 21-seat swing from what the popular vote wanted in modern history.

This is literally the most egregious example of gerrymandering in modern history.

I would guess that's probably true for all of American history, as well, but I only went back a few decades.

I assume you have proof of this? You've checked every election?

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

No Democratically-controlled (or Republican-controlled) gerrymandering process has ever resulted in something as extreme as a 9-point, 21-seat swing from what the popular vote wanted in modern history.

This is literally the most egregious example of gerrymandering in modern history.

I would guess that's probably true for all of American history, as well, but I only went back a few decades.

Going to need to link, or present some evidence, otherwise you are just full of crap.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Going to need to link, or present some evidence, otherwise you are just full of crap.

He knows he is full of crap. Even if he were able to find some sort of "proof" to back up his claim regarding this specific example of gerrymandering, the fact remains that both parties have engaged in this practice ever since elections began, and only a total ****ing moron would claim otherwise.

[whoman69]

All states need to adopt the non partisan method of choosing districts that was put in place in Iowa.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Going to need to link, or present some evidence, otherwise you are just full of crap.

Originally Posted by Brainiac

He knows he is full of crap. Even if he were able to find some sort of "proof" to back up his claim regarding this specific example of gerrymandering

http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/11...for-u-s-house/

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenjoy:

Prior to 2012, there have been only three other congressional elections in the last hundred years in which one major party won more popular votes for U.S. House, yet the other major party won more seats. They were 1914, 1942, and 1952.

In 1914, Republicans won 5,871,614 popular votes to Democrats’ 5,793,581. But Democrats won 231 seats, Republicans won 193 seats, and minor parties won 11 seats.

In 1942, Republicans won 14,256,160 popular votes to Democrats’ 13,014,467. But Democrats won 222 seats, Republicans won 209 seats, and minor parties won 4 seats.

In 1952, Democrats won 28,693,013 popular votes to Republicans’ 28,413,596. But Republicans won 221 seats, Democrats won 213, and one independent won.

[Iowanian]

not unlike your anus, gerrymandering is a 2 way street.

The Dems spend PLENTY of time and effort during redistricting trying to modify boundaries to suit their political needs.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Probably the one I said was wrong.

Even on your own video, the worst examples seem to be all democratic areas though..., right?

[DementedLogic]

Just curious... what makes Wyoming's gerrymandering more impressive than North or South Dakota?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

Just curious... what makes Wyoming's gerrymandering more impressive than North or South Dakota?

It must be better because it's a squarer state. Either that or because it's the district that once sent Dick Cheney to the House.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It must be better because it's a squarer state. Either that or because it's the district that once sent Dick Cheney to the House.

Hence the reason why this colored map doesn't show anything relevant.