What Can Be Done to Eliminate It
What is Gerrymandering?
In simple terms gerrymandering is the process of drawing political boundaries that give a particular party an advantage over the opposing party. Gerrymandering is NOT something that our founding fathers foresaw. They envisioned a representative government that is proportional to the various views of its people. For example, if 60% of the population is from the Elephant Party and 40% are from the Donkey Party, then elected representatives should be in the same proportion.
The practice is named after Governor Elbridge Gerry, Massachusetts. In 1812 the governor, concerned over the growing strength of the Federalist Party, managed to pass a law that allowed for redistricting. The sole purpose of this legislation was to create voting districts that gave advantage to the Governor’s Democratic-Republicans. One of the districts was so distorted that Boston Gazette journalist Elkanah Tisdale labeled the salamander shaped district “The Gerry-mander.” This term has continued through to the present day.
Whatever their labels, both parties continued to use the practice to their advantage. The views of the people were eventually subjugated to the welfare of the party. Partisan politics has become more important than representing the people who are supposed to be represented.
In 1965, to make voting districts more representative of voter demographics, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that districts should reflect substantial equality of population. This measure was designed to overcome districts that might have been racially biased. However, many jurisdictions continued to create politically advantageous districts. While the Supreme Court has heard a number of cases regarding partisan gerrymandering, it has not established a clear standard. In 2018 the Court looked at cases in Texas, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Maryland. According to Steve Vladeck, University of Texas Law School professor, “The common thread in the court’s gerrymandering decisions this term (2018) has been to generally make it harder for plaintiffs to bring these claims, and to generally allow states more flexibility and deference in drawing congressional and state district lines.” The issue that clouds what is blatantly political is the Constitutional issue of “one person, one vote.” In the North Carolina case, Gill v. Whitford, where on a 9-0 vote, the Court determined that the plaintiffs failed to prove that “concrete and particularized” injury [racial bias] denied anyone the right to vote. (de Vogue, Ariane and Watkins, Eli, CNN, June 25, 2018).
A Simple Example
Let us consider a simple example of how gerrymandering works. Let us suppose that a state has a large minority population located in the northwest part of the state. The rest of the state is mixed race but heavily dominated by a white majority. The interests in the minority population lean toward a donkey party. In general, the rest of the state leans toward an elephant party. The districting as reflected by the 1975 U.S. Supreme Court ruling is fair. However, in a recent move to consolidate elephant power in the state, the majority elephant party decides to change the boundaries in the northwest portion of the state. They move the lines so that a portion of the minority population is moved into a district that is dominated by the elephant party. They, likewise, move a large portion of an elephant dominated district into the remaining donkey dominated minority district. In both cases, the old minority district’s donkey vote is diluted. The elephant party now controls the entire state. The process is exactly what has recently happened in Texas, Louisiana, and California. In many areas, the gerrymandered districts are extremely convoluted, appearing as thin wavy lines or distorted figures.
What should be done?
Is there a better way of defining voting districts other than Gerrymandering? There are several far better ways to design voting districts than the political gerrymander‑friendly system we use now. The most effective alternatives replace single‑member, winner‑take‑all districts with systems that either dilute the power of line‑drawing or eliminate district lines entirely.
Gerrymandering thrives because each district elects one representative. Winning requires only a plurality, not proportional support. Line‑drawing manufactures safe seats even in competitive states by drawing districts that minimize one parties voting numbers in favor of the other party.
Given the Supreme Court’s 1965 decision, jurisdictions need to be held accountable for their districting. This simple step would ensure that the vision of our founding fathers is restored. Today’s technology allows for computer programs that can create districts representative of population diversity. I fact, some state legislatures have tried other methods such as the following:
- Advisory commissions – composed of non-legislators, appointed by legislators. This is an advisory body. The legislators retain redistricting powers.
- Backup commissions—composed of non-legislators, appointed by legislators. This group provides input when an impasse on redistricting is apparent.
- Politician commissions—composed of non-elected, but political officials.
- Independent commissions– composed of non-legislators and non-public officials, generally prohibited from running for public office for a specified period after the completion of their term on the commission. This type of commission is viewed as being the most independent of political considerations.
The use of these non‑partisan or bipartisan bodies helps in that they remove direct self‑interest, increase transparency, and produce more compact and competitive districts.
However, any reform that keeps single‑member districts can reduce gerrymandering, but it can’t eliminate the incentive. This approach is still constrained by the single‑member district model. Commissions can be captured or influenced. And “Fairness” criteria can conflict (compactness vs. minority representation). States like California, Arizona, Michigan, and Colorado have adopted this approach. But as is evident from the recent California redistricting vote, it too can be manipulated.
Algorithmic or “Computational” Redistricting
Algorithmic Redistricting is an open‑source algorithm generated map based on neutral criteria (population equality, compactness, contiguity). It is transparent and reproducible, removes human bias, and allows courts to compare enacted maps to a neutral baseline.
However, as with all algorithms, the program simplyreflects the criteria chosen — and choosing criteria is political. In the end, there are still single‑member districts.
Multi‑Member Districts + Proportional Representation
The U.S. used multi‑member districts in various forms until the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act (UCDA) mandated single‑member districts.
States are divided into larger districts electing 3–5 representatives each. Seats are allocated proportionally. Voters rank the candidates. The top vote talliers are elected. Gerrymandering becomes mathematically ineffective. Minority viewpoints get representation. It reduces polarization by rewarding coalition‑building. The system could easily be introduced, since Congress could repeal the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act without a constitutional amendment.
This may be the most powerful anti‑gerrymandering reform.
Ranked‑Choice Voting (RCV)
Voters rank candidates; votes transfer until someone reaches a majority. This approach reduces the incentive to draw “safe” districts and encourages broader appeal. The system works especially well when paired with the multi‑member districts just discussed above. On its own, RCV doesn’t eliminate gerrymandering — but it softens its effects.
At‑Large or Statewide Proportional Representation
This systemeliminates districts entirely. The entire state votes as one district, and seats are allocated proportionally. Gerrymandering becomes impossible. Representation mirrors statewide vote share. This system might require federal statutory change due to the 1967 UCDA, in that it could weaken local geographic representation.
Hybrid Systems (Used in Germany, New Zealand, Japan)
- Mixed‑Member Proportional: Voters cast two ballots: one for a district representative, one for a party.
- Party seats are adjusted to ensure proportionality.
This system preserves local representation, ensures proportional outcomes, and makes gerrymandering largely irrelevant.
Which System Is Most Effective?
Multi‑member districts with proportional representation are the strongest reform. This is the model recommended by political scientists across the ideological spectrum and endorsed by the 2022 American Academy of Arts & Sciences report on democratic reform. Independent commissions are the most politically feasible. Multi‑member districts + PR are the most transformative and legally possible via congressional statute. Algorithmic redistricting is a strong intermediate step.
Conclusions
Gerrymandered districting was never about representing people; it was designed to give a political party control of the system. Many of our founding fathers warned against the formation of political parties. Loyalty to a party platform or leader ignores the fact that our system mandates that our elected officials represent their constituents, not their party. While common ideas may be used to form coalitions, the blind loyalty to a political party is the antithesis of what this country stands for. Multi-member districts with proportional representation, as recommended by political scientists, is a relatively easy fix, if only our elected representatives had the courage to enact appropriate legislation!
Thoughts from the Middle by Robert J. Fischer 