Gerrymandering

by Will Zahary Henderson

March 26, 2021

On March 26, 1812, 209 years ago from today, the Boston Gazette first published the term “Gerry-mander” to describe the redrawing of state senate election districts in Massachusetts under Governor Elbridge Gerry, that was said to unfairly benefit the Democratic-Republican party. For context: the two main parties at this time were the Democratic-Republican party (yes, they were once one party), and the Federalist party.

What does the term gerrymandering actually mean, though? Below is a political cartoon from 1812 that quite accurately displays the etymology of this portmanteau. The “Gerry,” of course, comes from the surname of the Massachusetts governor, while the “mander” is taken from the salamander shape attributed to one of the strange senate districts. Here’s a better look at how the district was shaped within the state of Massachusetts

What you may ask, now, is “how does this actually unfairly benefit the Democratic-Republican party?”

Well, the reason is that they know that in this salamander-shaped district there will be overwhelming support for the Federalist party, and they don’t want this support to spill into other districts. Because of the way state senate elections work, proportional representation is irrelevant, and thus what is important to the party is winning the most majorities; the margin by which they win is unimportant.

Let’s illustrate this a bit better. I've put together the following scenario:

In a two-way election with five districts where the winner is the candidate who carries the most districts, the winner only needs >30% of the popular vote given that they can shape the districts however they like. Despite the popular vote and the geographic distribution of voters remaining unchanged in both situations displayed, redrawing the district borders allows the loser of the popular vote to steal the election.

Of course, in real life we aren't dealing with five districts, each with five voters. If I had gone to the extreme and allowed there to be 1000 voters in each district, the winner would need only 30.06% of the popular vote, and with more voters in each district, this number approaches 30%. However, it would be incredibly difficult to gerrymander to this extreme; it is unlikely that one could reasonably create a district with near-total support for one party. If you aren't familiar with some of the instances of gerrymandering in American states, though, you may be surprised.

Generally speaking, the goal of the gerrymanderer in a swing state is either to pack in as many opponent voters as possible, or to comfortably secure just over half of the vote for their party in a district. Below are some fairly extreme examples of gerrymandering in United States congressional districts right now; the shapes of these districts are clearly unnatural, and they are clearly gerrymandered.

Texas's 35th district

Illinois's 4th district

Maryland's 3rd district

The pictures of congressional districts were retrieved from the Washington Post.

Google Sites

Report abuse