Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

eloel- t1_iuic567 wrote

When electing representatives, we often divide cities/states into parts and let each of them elect their own representative. This seems reasonable at first look, but raises the question of who decides where the divides are.

Gerrymandering is when the lines are drawn intentionally to give a certain political faction an advantage.

For example, let's say you have a city of 21 people, and we need 3 representatives. If 8 of them want to vote for A, and 13 want to vote for B, one would expect a 1/2 divide in favor of B.

You could, however, rig the field. If you split the 21 into groups so that it's 4a/3b, 4a/3b, 0a/7b, you can get A more representatives than B. This is gerrymandering.

112

toocoolforthebaroque t1_iuiicat wrote

This is a great explanation!

Just to add to it: gerrymandering can be done for a certain political advantage, as well as boosting any group. Racial gerrymandering, minority-language group gerrymandering, and rural/urban gerrymandering are still too-common examples.

18

cookerg t1_iuillon wrote

Gerrymandering can be a good or bad thing. Let's say an area can elect three representatives, and lets say a third of the population is a minority group which lives spread across two or three neighbourhoods and usually votes for party A, while the rest of the population usually votes for Party B.

If you encircle those minority neighbourhoods into one district, then the minority can essentially elect one of the three representatives. If you divide up the minority group so they are spread across all three districts, then their votes may not count.

2

HeKnee t1_iuiwnrk wrote

Is that a good thing though? In your example, making 2 districts of strong group A, and 1 district of strong group B you are encouraging extreme views that dont work well together (basically what we have now). The minority group is always the loser no matter what because 2 beats 1.

If we just went by proportion it could isolate minority groups, but would more than likely foster electing 3 moderate candidates that appeal to the majority of people in the middle and actually accomplish things instead of fighting for opposite goals. In this case minority groups become the swing voters that decide elections so their concerns get amplified and are more likely to be addressed by whatever party is in power.

2

Robert-Connorson OP t1_iuiecy2 wrote

Ohh. I’m starting to get it now. Thank you.

9

bulksalty t1_iuiolfl wrote

There's a very nice browser game where you need to redistrict with specific goals to show how districts can be made and gerrymandered.

The name comes from a governor (perhaps of Massachusetts) named Gerry who drew a district that looked somewhat like a salamander (the creature was quickly named a 'Gerrymander'.

3

100jad t1_iuijk8x wrote

> You could, however, rig the field. If you split the 21 into groups so that it's 4a/3b, 4a/3b, 0a/7b, you can get A more representatives than B. This is gerrymandering.

Or you could get 3/4, 3/4, 2/5 and end up with a 0/3 divide in representatives.

It can go both ways.

4

toocoolforthebaroque t1_iuii9qq wrote

This is a great explanation!

Just to add to it: gerrymandering can be done for a certain political advantage, as well as boosting any group. Racial gerrymandering, minority-language group gerrymandering, and rural/urban gerrymandering are still too-common examples.

1

eloel- t1_iuij08s wrote

Of course, good point! We indeed also try to answer questions like "if you have 10 people, split 6/4 or 7/3, how do you elect 2 representatives?", which are much harder to intuit an answer from compared to the case I described. No matter which way you swing that, you can't split equitably so you start finding other reasonable splits.

2