Is Gerrymandering Unconstitutional?

[Davka]

A recent study revealed that the last 4 elections - 2010, 2012, and 2014 - showed the same pattern across the nation: The majority of Americans voted for Democrats, but because of gerrymandered districts, the great majority of seats were 'won" by Republicans. This is not only true on a national level, it is also the case on a state level in nearly every single swing state.

The result is that we no longer have proportional representation in this country. If we did, the House and Senate would be far closer to a 50/50 split today. Instead, the widespread creation of safe seats have not only given the Republicans an unearned majority, it has made the primaries the only election that really matters. The result is that traditional Republicans are running against far-right Republicans, creating an extremist legislature.

Now That's What I Call Gerrymandering!
Gerrymanders, Part 1: Busting the both-sides-do-it myth

In personal terms, this means that - even though I live in the most liberal area in North Carolina - my vote was rendered null and void by the careful creation of safe Republican seats via dilution of the Democrat vote. Asheville, a college town and a hippie mecca, is represented in both the State House and in D.C. by Republican legislators.

This strikes me as an abrogation of my Constitutional right to proportionate representation. In fact, it strikes me as so blatantly in opposition to the spirit and letter of the Constitution, that I am considering asking the ACLU to take up a suit against the State of North Carolina. I would like top take this idea to a Constitutional scholar at a local University, and ask for help in crafting my initial argument. But even before taking this step, I thought I'd ask folks here what they think. If you were to approach a Constitutional scholar for help in suing the State, how would you word your verbal argument?

 

[ksen]

I'd start with,

"Dear Mr. President"

and go from there.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'd start with,

"Dear Mr. President"

and go from there.

Actually, you need to send that letter to the majority leader in your State House of Representatives. That is who draws district lines.

 

[maxparrish]

A recent study revealed that the last 4 elections - 2010, 2012, and 2014 - showed the same pattern across the nation: The majority of Americans voted for Democrats, but because of gerrymandered districts, the great majority of seats were 'won" by Republicans. This is not only true on a national level, it is also the case on a state level in nearly every single swing state.

The result is that we no longer have proportional representation in this country. If we did, the House and Senate would be far closer to a 50/50 split today. Instead, the widespread creation of safe seats have not only given the Republicans an unearned majority, it has made the primaries the only election that really matters. The result is that traditional Republicans are running against far-right Republicans, creating an extremist legislature.

Now That's What I Call Gerrymandering!
Gerrymanders, Part 1: Busting the both-sides-do-it myth

In personal terms, this means that - even though I live in the most liberal area in North Carolina - my vote was rendered null and void by the careful creation of safe Republican seats via dilution of the Democrat vote. Asheville, a college town and a hippie mecca, is represented in both the State House and in D.C. by Republican legislators.

This strikes me as an abrogation of my Constitutional right to proportionate representation. In fact, it strikes me as so blatantly in opposition to the spirit and letter of the Constitution, that I am considering asking the ACLU to take up a suit against the State of North Carolina. I would like top take this idea to a Constitutional scholar at a local University, and ask for help in crafting my initial argument. But even before taking this step, I thought I'd ask folks here what they think. If you were to approach a Constitutional scholar for help in suing the State, how would you word your verbal argument?

My suggestion is that you familiarize yourself with the literature before spending too much effort. You will find a few facts that may dissuade you:

First, gerrymandering is not the primary contributor to the Republican majority of house seats (47 or 48 seats over the Democrats). Cohn, the policywonk of the NYTimes writes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/u...ant-win.html?ref=politics&_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0

Democrats often blame gerrymandering, but that’s not the whole story. More than ever, the kind of place where Americans live — metropolitan or rural — dictates their political views. The country is increasingly divided between liberal cities and close-in suburbs, on one hand, and conservative exurbs and rural areas, on the other. Even in red states, the counties containing the large cities — like Dallas, Atlanta, St. Louis and Birmingham — lean Democratic.

Democrats often blame gerrymandering, but that’s not the whole story. More than ever, the kind of place where Americans live — metropolitan or rural — dictates their political views. The country is increasingly divided between liberal cities and close-in suburbs, on one hand, and conservative exurbs and rural areas, on the other. Even in red states, the counties containing the large cities — like Dallas, Atlanta, St. Louis and Birmingham — lean Democratic.

...The gap between staggering Democratic margins in cities and the somewhat smaller Republican margins in the rest of the country allows Democrats to win key states in presidential and Senate elections, like Florida and Michigan. But the expanded Democratic margins in metropolitan areas are all but wasted in the House, since most of these urban districts already voted for Democrats. The result is that Democrats have built national and statewide majorities by making Democratic-leaning congressional districts even more Democratic, not by winning new areas that might turn congressional districts from red to blue.

The political scientists Jowei Chen, of the University of Michigan, and Jonathan Rodden, of Stanford University, estimate that gerrymandering costs Democrats about six to eight seats in the House. Even so, “by far the most important factor contributing to the Republican advantage,” Mr. Chen says, “is the natural geographic factor of Democrats’ being overwhelmingly concentrated in these urban districts, especially in states like Michigan and Florida.”...

And Tobin explains:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/07/11/blame-voting-rights-act-for-democrat-troubles-south/

(the)Republican Party that has been the unwitting beneficiary of a legal principle created by liberals. It was, after all, a liberal-dominated judiciary that has treated the Voting Rights Act as not merely a mandate to ensure, as it should, that the government see that every citizen’s right to vote is protected, but that district lines must be drawn in order to see to it that minorities would constitute a plurality or majority in as many places as possible. That has led to the creation, not just in the South but in various places around the United States, of districts that are geographic absurdities but which serve to guarantee that blacks and Hispanics can elect one of their one to legislative bodies.

In other words, the courts endorsed gerrymandering so as to insure that blacks (and hispanics) will be able to elect someone of the same color-ethnicity. However, it also results in highly concentrated minority districts that works to the disadvantage of democrats in general.

In the meantime, and on a personal note, I have often thought of moving to Ashville (or Boone). Never been to either city but I would be curious as to your likes/dislikes of those areas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is the OP accurate regarding 2014? I can not find evidence that Democrats won a plurality of House votes in 2014. It appears the Republicans won a majority of the total votes.

My suggestion is that you familiarize yourself with the literature before spending too much effort. You will find a few facts that may dissuade you:

First, gerrymandering is not the primary contributor to the Republican majority of house seats (47 or 48 seats over the Democrats). Cohn, the policywonk of the NYTimes writes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/u...ant-win.html?ref=politics&_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0

Democrats often blame gerrymandering, but that’s not the whole story. More than ever, the kind of place where Americans live — metropolitan or rural — dictates their political views. The country is increasingly divided between liberal cities and close-in suburbs, on one hand, and conservative exurbs and rural areas, on the other. Even in red states, the counties containing the large cities — like Dallas, Atlanta, St. Louis and Birmingham — lean Democratic.

Democrats often blame gerrymandering, but that’s not the whole story. More than ever, the kind of place where Americans live — metropolitan or rural — dictates their political views. The country is increasingly divided between liberal cities and close-in suburbs, on one hand, and conservative exurbs and rural areas, on the other. Even in red states, the counties containing the large cities — like Dallas, Atlanta, St. Louis and Birmingham — lean Democratic.

Oi! Not that again. There is no Gerrymandering... the Democrats all just live in the same district. That's the Gerrymandering part!!!

 

[ksen]

I'd start with,

"Dear Mr. President"

and go from there.

Actually, you need to send that letter to the majority leader in your State House of Representatives. That is who draws district lines.

I was just giving him the name of a constitutional scholar.

 

[dismal]

This strikes me as an abrogation of my Constitutional right to proportionate representation.

This is not a thing.

And academic studies show gerrymandering has litte effect on election results.

And according to Wikipedia the 2014 congressional elections were won by Republicans 51-45 and the Republicans won 52-45 in 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2010

 

[Davka]

- - - Updated - - -

 

[dismal]

Is the OP accurate regarding 2014? I can not find evidence that Democrats won a plurality of House votes in 2014. It appears the Republicans won a majority of the total votes.

My suggestion is that you familiarize yourself with the literature before spending too much effort. You will find a few facts that may dissuade you:

First, gerrymandering is not the primary contributor to the Republican majority of house seats (47 or 48 seats over the Democrats). Cohn, the policywonk of the NYTimes writes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/u...ant-win.html?ref=politics&_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0

Oi! Not that again. There is no Gerrymandering... the Democrats all just live in the same district. That's the Gerrymandering part!!!

You seem to have messed up with the reading comprehension again. What that says is that Democrats often live in high concentrations in small geographic areas know as "cities".

Thus if you use neutral criteria (that involve geographic contiguity) to draw districts you end up with democrats in high concentration in districts within these "cities".

 

[dismal]

- - - Updated - - -

This analysis betrays a woeful understand of how are election system works. You are not even slightly entitled to representation in proportion to your vote share.

If the country were uniformly divided 55% one party and 45% the other, the 55% party would get 100% of the seats. In the last 2 presidential elections the Republicans have had 40+% of the votes and 0% of the presidents.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is the OP accurate regarding 2014? I can not find evidence that Democrats won a plurality of House votes in 2014. It appears the Republicans won a majority of the total votes.
Oi! Not that again. There is no Gerrymandering... the Democrats all just live in the same district. That's the Gerrymandering part!!!

You seem to have messed up with the reading comprehension again. What that says is that Democrats often live in high concentrations in small geographic areas know as "cities".

As soon as Representation is based on area and not population, your point will have some meaning.

 

[dismal]

You seem to have messed up with the reading comprehension again. What that says is that Democrats often live in high concentrations in small geographic areas know as "cities".

As soon as Representation is based on area and not population, your point will have some meaning.

This may come as a surprise to you but our elections are based on an area. States, districts, cities. These things are geographical areas.

But your failure to understand this does explain the poor quality of your posts on this topic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As soon as Representation is based on area and not population, your point will have some meaning.

This may come as a surprise to you but our elections are based on an area. States, districts, cities. These things are geographical areas.

I suppose you could have come up with a worse response. Representatives each represent a common number of people (not a common sized area), unless they represent a 1'er state.

 

[dismal]

This may come as a surprise to you but our elections are based on an area. States, districts, cities. These things are geographical areas.

I suppose you could have come up with a worse response. Representatives each represent a common number of people (not a common sized area), unless they represent a 1'er state.

I didn't say they represent a common sized area. I said our elections are based on an area. I also gave examples of areas within which elections are contested such as states, districts and cities.

 

[fromderinside]

I suppose you could have come up with a worse response. Representatives each represent a common number of people (not a common sized area), unless they represent a 1'er state.

I didn't say they represent a common sized area. I said our elections are based on an area. I also gave examples of areas within which elections are contested such as states, districts and cities.

The problem isn't so much with gerrymandering although its a bitch to live in a district where my vote is worth less than that of some dude in Wyoming. The real problem is with apportionment. Imagine a country of 90 million where each representative is beholding to 210000 citizens in 1913, but in 2013 is beholding to 670000 citizens. Put another way citizens in 2013 have lost 2/3 of their voice compared to 1913 in the house. In practice that translate sto business have a greater voice now than they did in the bad old days when cartels and monopolies were all the rage.

Doesn't feel right does it. Yet its true. Not only is the individual voter with less voice in populous states in the Senate every voter is with less voice in the federal government. If one pause to check out the states they'll find similar power loses of their votes. When was the last time your state legislature increased the number of members? 50 years, one hundred years? In the same time how much has population increased? 100%, 200%, 400%?

Just as founding fathers worried about too few voters per representative they also saw problems with too many voters per representative. It was in the early 20th century when government officials secured power by constraining membership to their clubs.

So suggest land is important for determining representation. I agree. There should not be more than 100 votes per acre.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I suppose you could have come up with a worse response. Representatives each represent a common number of people (not a common sized area), unless they represent a 1'er state.

I didn't say they represent a common sized area. I said our elections are based on an area. I also gave examples of areas within which elections are contested such as states, districts and cities.

I've seen Calabi triangles less obtuse than that remark.

I didn't say they represent a common sized area. I said our elections are based on an area. I also gave examples of areas within which elections are contested such as states, districts and cities.

The problem isn't so much with gerrymandering although its a bitch to live in a district where my vote is worth less than that of some dude in Wyoming. The real problem is with apportionment. Imagine a country of 90 million where each representative is beholding to 210000 citizens in 1913, but in 2013 is beholding to 670000 citizens. Put another way citizens in 2013 have lost 2/3 of their voice compared to 1913 in the house. In practice that translate sto business have a greater voice now than they did in the bad old days when cartels and monopolies were all the rage.

That is a very strong point. Time to cull the herd. Speaking of which, is it time to consolidate the big ass, over represented in the Senate states?

 

[Bronzeage]

As soon as Representation is based on area and not population, your point will have some meaning.

This may come as a surprise to you but our elections are based on an area. States, districts, cities. These things are geographical areas.

But your failure to understand this does explain the poor quality of your posts on this topic.

So why does Texas have 36 Congressional districts and Alaska only has one?

 

[dismal]

This may come as a surprise to you but our elections are based on an area. States, districts, cities. These things are geographical areas.

But your failure to understand this does explain the poor quality of your posts on this topic.

So why does Texas have 36 Congressional districts and Alaska only has one?

Be patient, they'll cover that in 3rd grade.

 

[dismal]

I didn't say they represent a common sized area. I said our elections are based on an area. I also gave examples of areas within which elections are contested such as states, districts and cities.

The problem isn't so much with gerrymandering although its a bitch to live in a district where my vote is worth less than that of some dude in Wyoming. The real problem is with apportionment. Imagine a country of 90 million where each representative is beholding to 210000 citizens in 1913, but in 2013 is beholding to 670000 citizens. Put another way citizens in 2013 have lost 2/3 of their voice compared to 1913 in the house. In practice that translate sto business have a greater voice now than they did in the bad old days when cartels and monopolies were all the rage.

Doesn't feel right does it. Yet its true. Not only is the individual voter with less voice in populous states in the Senate every voter is with less voice in the federal government. If one pause to check out the states they'll find similar power loses of their votes. When was the last time your state legislature increased the number of members? 50 years, one hundred years? In the same time how much has population increased? 100%, 200%, 400%?

Just as founding fathers worried about too few voters per representative they also saw problems with too many voters per representative. It was in the early 20th century when government officials secured power by constraining membership to their clubs.

So suggest land is important for determining representation. I agree. There should not be more than 100 votes per acre.

If it makes you feel better a person in Wyoming's vote is worth approximately zero.

 

[Davka]

So why does Texas have 36 Congressional districts and Alaska only has one?

Be patient, they'll cover that in 3rd grade.

I'm taking it you're still in 2nd, then?