Have you ever wondered why politicians from both parties keep getting elected again and again and again? Why do we have “safe districts” where the incumbent doesn’t even need to campaign and is assured of re-election? Why, in short, are many – if not most – elections rigged for the incumbent? The answer has its roots in the early days of the republic when politicians realized they could draw lines around their own districts to ensure only loyal partisans were included. This is Gerrymandering.
So, who was Gerry? As it turns out, “Gerry” was Elbridge Gerry, the governor of Massachusetts in 1812, who approved a new map for State Senators that favored his political party. One of these new districts in the Boston area resembled a salamander in that it meandered in and out of the area with the only prerequisite for inclusion being a predominant number of Democratic-Republicans. Hence the moniker “gerrymandering” for willfully drawing political districts that only include like-minded constituents or dilute the number of potential opponents. In this way, it’s possible to create a district where one party is practically guaranteed to win elections in perpetuity since it contains the maximum possible number of like-minded constituents. If, through the years, the population changes, the state legislatures can simply re-draw the gerrymander’s silhouette to encompass faithful voters. A sinister coda to this plan is to draw a district with just enough opponents inside to ensure that their vote is wasted within the rigged district. This reduces the number of “enemy” voters whose votes might have been effective in electing an opponent in an adjoining district.
So, this is legal? Well, of course it is! States have the responsibility for drawing election boundaries within their borders. There’s no set way to do it. A state legislature controlled by a party can create boundaries according to whatever conditions they desire. Courts have (at times) found some of these gerrymandered districts to be illegal due to civil rights concerns – meaning that they have been found to disenfranchise minority groups – but never on the basis of consolidating voters of a certain political “team” to create “safe” districts for a particular party.
What’s the problem, you may ask? What’s wrong with drawing districts that only contain like-minded voters? Well, despite the fact that just looking at some of these preposterous district borders shocks the conscience (really, just looking at these districts triggers a primal “this is unnatural and wrong” reflex), the existence of these districts perpetuates the life of the unnatural animals known as “career politicians”. I am regularly shocked whenever I see that a district is “uncontested” during an election. Are the constituents in this district so disengaged from their fates that they are comfortable electing the same person again and again to represent them? Has their community, wants, needs and aspirations fossilized so much that there is never a need for change, for discussion, for the contestation of new ideas? Where is the American ideal that venerates competition? Where is the outrage over positions unearned? How do we allow the bedrock of our democracy – the ability to choose our representatives – be undermined by self-serving politicians manipulating the system to stay in office forever? The answer is that we’ve given up our freedoms to the politicians. We’ve allowed them to make and remake election rules that are designed to keep the same people in power forever. That is a sad commentary on the American people. But it can be changed.
We, as a constituency, should demand an end to gerrymandering. We should let our state representatives know that we will not support it in the future and demand reform. What would that reform look like? Well, one solution is to draw our districts geometrically, without regard for the political leanings of the population contained therein. Let’s look at an example. For ease of viewing (and drawing), let’s take a notional rectangular shaped state, like some of those in the interior of the country. You could start by choosing a corner (I chose the upper right) and drawing – or pulling – a square or rectangle until you encompass the number of voters needed in a district. You would then begin the process again to draw an adjoining district, and continue (and adjust) until you accounted for all districts necessary. Please see below for a hypothetical example:
What’s the advantage? Citizens who truly wish to represent the citizens of their district must espouse ideals, a platform or ideas that resonate with a majority of the inhabitants of the district. The district may include Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, rural and urban, old and young, religious and non-religious. It may include Independents, minorities, and immigrants. It forces the candidate to compete for EVERY vote – not just pander to a safe majority of voters specifically chosen by the legislature to ensure a pre-determined outcome. It forces the winner to work hard while in office to truly represent the will of the people. After all, he or she owes their position to the people in their district, not some magical district border drawn by like-minded cronies in the state legislature. It creates a much-needed competition of ideas between candidates who finally need to legitimately earn the trust of every voter – not just take their support for granted.
There are initiatives out there to stop gerrymandering. Arnold Schwarzenegger (yes, THE Terminator and former governor of California) is leading a nationwide effort to combat gerrymandering (no, really – look it up). We – as full voting members of this country – need to educate ourselves on how we can be a part of the effort. Make no mistake – gerrymandered districts are a tool of the career politicians of the two-party system to rob you of your choices and of legitimate representation. It is a perversion of the ideals set down by the founding fathers and should be outlawed now. The power is in your hands.