Gerrymandering Essay

The Electoral Impact of Gerrymandering
American democracy is predicated on the belief that government is both representative of and accountable to its citizenry, but the current system is plagued by issues which limit the responsiveness of government. Many of these flaws are inherent within the American electoral system, and as such, there is little which can be done to completely eliminate these issues, save major electoral reform. Certainly, a new crop of issues would soon sprout if ever such extreme reforms were to occur. Of these existing electoral issues, gerrymandering may be the most prevalent and visible and as a result, it is viewed as a blight on the American electoral system. The belief among many Americans, or rather those who

are well enough informed to be aware of gerrymandering, is that partisan gerrymandering is the root of many of the evils which befall American electoral system.

From unresponsive and unrepresentative government to increasing polarization and political gridlock, gerrymandering, specifically partisan gerrymandering, is to blame. Furthermore, the “first past the post” system of American democracy only strengthens the effects of Gerrymandering as the winner of the election, and the winner alone, gains power. There is incredible initiative for parties to create as many favorable districts as possible so they may either retain or gain power. Given that many states grant the power of redistricting to the state legislature, concerns of unfair districting as a result of partisan interests are valid.
Prior to delving into the complex matter of gerrymandering it is important to understand the concept itself. The term ‘gerrymandering’ was introduced to the lexicon in 1812 as a result of then Governor Elbridge Gerry’s signing of a bill which approved the redistricting of Massachusetts. This redistricting allowed Gerry and his party to gain a significant electoral advantage, but, it included one particular district which snaked around the state. This oddly shaped district was said to resemble a salamander and as

a result, the Boston Gazette combined the governor’s name with the word salamander to form the portmanteau “gerrymander” in order to describe the districting plan.

“A plan is a gerrymander if it enables a party to convert its votes into seats more efficiently than its adversary” according to Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric M. McGhee . While this 1812 instance was the first time a name had been applied to this form of redistricting, it had existed since the earliest days of American democracy. Permitting state legislators to draw the borders of districts unsurprisingly, led them to draw districts that were beneficial to them, or their party. Even during the early stages of American democracy the drawing of politically motivated districts was viewed as an abuse of the power. The so-called “gerrymander” was represented as a monstrosity, an affront to democracy, and an abuse of power on the part of Governor Gerry and the Massachusetts state legislature. The long history of anti-gerrymandering sentiment and its continued prevalence in contemporary journalism would indicate that it is a major obstacle to fair and representative democracy. In some ways, this belief is correct. Gerrymandering, and redistricting in general can negatively affect proper political representation and it is possible that gerrymandering is partially

responsible for increasing polarization, though not as much as is commonly believed. Also, political scientists very much disagree over whether gerrymandering in any form results in a significant increases in polarization. The strong sense of anxiety the public feels concerning gerrymandering is not shared by most political scientists. As Erik J. Engstrom notes, “[T]he dominant theme of the political science literature is that the supposed dangers of redistricting are vastly overblown… the overall impact of gerrymandering on the national balance of power is modest.” This claim is supported by my research. Most authors reach the conclusion that concerns about gerrymandering are inflated and often wrongheaded. The amount of emphasis journalists place on gerrymandering often ignores the numerous other constant electoral elements which typically have a greater impact on election outcomes than gerrymandering. The oft discussed and reviled “partisan gerrymandering” is also far less culpable for the ills of American politics than one may expect it to be based on the sheer number of political opinion pieces denouncing it. While partisan gerrymandering poses problems for political representation, as I will discuss later, it also tends to produce more competitive elections. Although it sounds counterintuitive, bipartisan gerrymandering is believed to be more responsible for polarization than partisan gerrymandering as bipartisan gerrymandering makes efforts to support incumbents by making their seats safer and thus limiting competition in general elections.
Gerrymandering represents a unique issue within the American electoral process. It is resented by most, but the processes which allow for it, the one-person one-vote doctrine, and the ability for states to control intra-state voting, are popular among Americans and basic facets of American democracy. The problem which arises, generally speaking, is that individuals perceive gerrymandering as a way for politicians to undermine democracy and steal elections. This perception of gerrymandering/redistricting lacks nuance and is founded on, likely, a basic understanding of the concept. That is not to say this position is entirely incorrect though, only that the causes of such objectionable aspects are more complex and, according to many political scientists, not particularly severe. Approaching the issue of gerrymandering and the problems it causes the American electorate can be difficult. There is no shortage of scholarship related to redistricting, but there are a vast number of opinions and analyses to examine. Due to the limits of this essay, I will focus on the effects gerrymandering has on political polarization and representation and its efficacy. The two issues are closely related and there is much overlapping scholarship.
As I have previously mentioned, there is a distinction between partisan and bipartisan gerrymandering. A bipartisan plan is an incumbent protection plan, while a partisan plan is designed to create the maximum number of safely winnable distracts for in-party candidates. These approaches lead to substantially different representational outcomes. Bipartisan plans are more likely to increase polarization levels as the incumbent is offered more electoral protection and thus has a larger electoral blind spot. As a result, incumbents are able to push more extreme positions without the threat of any electoral punishment. In these instances, primary elections often prove to be more competitive than general elections as one party comes to dominate a districts. As a result, incumbents can be ousted by more extreme candidates during contentious primary elections. It becomes electorally disadvantageous for candidates to moderate their positions when there is little to no competition with the opposing party, and as a result of this occurring within both parties and all states, the two parties become more polarized. This theory of polarization is supported by the increased polarization in the House of Representatives in the 1990s. In the words of McCarthy et al., “the House of Representatives polarized at a greater rate than the Senate, presumably as a result of the 1990s redistricting. ” This claim is supported by the comparison of party mean and median data using common space NOMINATE. The authors of this piece immediately offer a critique of this evidence though, and conclude that polarization “can occur for reas]