Slashdot Mirror
Gerrymandering Using Census Clustering And GIS
dpplgngr writes "According to this BBC article, Map redrawing angers U.S. Democrats, Republicans in Texas are making use of Census data and mapping software to redraw districts, signficantly altering the election process, and resulting in the lowest overturn of incumbents in history."
I think one very effective way to reduce the effects of gerrymandering, and other seeming corruption, is an increase in the size of representatives in the House, which was locked at 433 in 1911 (with provisions for the allowance of representatives for New Mexico and Arizona, when they became states). With the admittance of Alaska and Hawaii, it was temporarily raised to 467. After the 1960 census, it dropped to 435 again.
If the 2000 census is correct, we have around 294 million people in the United States. This makes for a ratio of one representative : 675,862 constituents. In 1910, the ratio was about 1 : 200,000.
I don't foresee the population of the United States coming down any time soon, which is all the reason you need to see that this issue is only becoming more important, not less -- having a veritable Senator for your district who cannot be voted out and is distant from your needs breeds apathy and alienation.
While many people I've talked to think that the number of representatives is fixed by the Constitution, it isn't -- it was fixed by Congress, and Congress can unfix it as well.
Observe what Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution has to say on the subject:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three."
So apparently, they thought 30,000 : 1 was a bit of a low ratio to be sensible. By that count, we'd have 9,800 representatives. But having only 1,200 reps would mean having a ratio of 1 : 245,000; more than halfing the current 1 : almost 700,000 ratio.
There are obviously logistical problems, like voting, space, offices, and so on. Also, it would significantly limit the amount of power reps currently have, which I can see as a good thing and a bad thing. But in a day where it seems nobody doesn't have a lawyer, why would it be so crazy to think that everyone should know their representative?
It's interesting to note that the only one of the first twelve constitutional amendments proposed by the first Congress that has not (yet) been ratified was a mechanism for automatically increasing the size of the House with the census. It was still linear so even that would prove to be unworkable today, but it's interesting that it's quite possibly the first outright alteration (as opposed to an addition) of the constitution proposed and passed by Congress.
There are arguments for a cube root formula here and there that sounds reasonable, but I don't see it happening any time soon, what with the House of Representatives becoming a career often spanning decades (why bother with the biennial elections at that point?). It would reduce the power and influence of individual members of Congress, and I give it as much a chance of passing Congress as, say... a repeal of the federal law that requires single-member districts (now that would kill gerrymandering in its tracks).
If states start making noise about calling for a constitutional convention in which to propose such an amendment, the House might take action, but otherwise...
Count this as a published patent.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Apologies for my naivety (and perhaps ignorance), but could you explain to me - as a non-US citizen and not particularly au-fait with US politics - how gerrymandering is not classed as effectively cheating?
From what I've just read, it appears that this is simply a way of increasing the vote for a particular party within the newly-drawn district, and thus lands more seats.
I agree. Frankly, expecting a little bit less in terms of proposals and more in terms of votes would go a long way -- I prefer as many laws to keep water coming out of my faucet as needed, and no more. (Not to mention that bill-making efficiency is abundant when wanted and completely absent when political; I don't think more voices in the room could be a bad thing.)
However, it's not like we have 435 people working together anyway; most work is done in committee, where I don't think increasing the size by 20 persons could hurt. Increasing the number of reps in the interest of fairness, with an expense being a limitation of power, is I think, a fair trade. Not only would you find elections becoming more fair financially, as there would be more local contribution to the candidate and less need to support a candidate who can't vote in your interest (this could go the other way, also, since more people need media time, more people need exorbitant contributions). You might also find more third-party candidates spring up, as people realize they (candidates) have more of a chance than before.
But this is a NEW big deal. Not because gerrymandering is new, but because its become so very powerful and accurate. It used to be that the House was the agent of change and the Senate was supposed to be the cautionary brake. Now the House has become gerrymandered so badly its considered even more stable for incumbents than the Senate. The House of Representatives has basically lost all purpose--in the space of a few decades of computer modelling, the House has become almost invulnerable to popular will. Much like the Senate pre-17th amendment, representatives are de facto appointed by the state legislatures. Except that those same legislatures are gerrymandering themselves as well. Without correction, we will have a self appointed Politburo running state governments and the House.
I work in politics. The program that we use for this is Caliper's Mapitude. It's a bad-ass little package. Perhaps the most amusing function is the ability to pinpoint an address (the incumbent's) and construct a district that includes every house in the neighborhood but that one, pitting two incumbents of the same party against each other and leaving an open seat for the redistricting party. I'd love to own a copy, just to play with, but for $500, I'd rather have a new iPod. :)
I don't know why I couch this is "this party" and "other party" language -- it's the Republicans, because they had dominance in many states after the 2000 census, just as technology had advanced sufficiently to turn redistricting into more of a science. If we Democrats had the majority then, we probably would have dome the same thing (though I'd like to hope I'd have argued against it in favor of redistricting by disinterested parties, not that what I say matters to anybody in any way).
-Waldo Jaquith
"So the map was drawn by a nonpartisan panel of federal judges, based on the 2000 Census figures"
/.'s slant, this parent is proof of it.
That is not totally true, and quite misleading. First of all, two of the Judges on the 3 judge panel were Democrat appointments.
Second, the judge's drew up their own House map, but accepted the Senate map.
Third, They approved the new map that the BBC is reporting on.
Fourth, even though Texas voted more then 60% Republican in 2000, 17 out of our 32 seats went to Democrats.( Before U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall of Rockwall switched to the Republican Party.)
"As a Texan, I have to say that is a totally false and highly partisan mischaracterization of the situation prior to the Republican's abusive redistricting."
Ok, then how do you reconcile the fact that a majority of Texans voted Republican, yet a majority of the US Reps. were Democrat? Last time I checked, the 53% majority enjoyed by the Democrats was a hell of a lot farther from the 39.1% they received in the Presidential campaign then the 65% majority the Republicans would receive from the best case scenario as a result of the redistricting is from their 60%. (All stats in that last statement have been referenced somewhere else in my post, find them.)
Who's being partisan now? Oh, and by the way, I'm not a Republican. I plan on voting for Badnarik.
If anyone doubted
Gerrymandering and single-seat districts are the biggest barriers to third parties gaining significant representation. One of my professors recently suggested that it could be argued that this system violates the First and Fourteenth Amendements (limits free speech, discriminates against certain individuals). I am no legal expert, but it seems plausible. Just a matter of getting the Supreme Court to agree.
Typo, it should be Newsmax, and that your a rabid wacko is pretty clear. I am suprised your response wasn't in all caps.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Here in the UK we have an independent Boundary Commission that re-draws Parliamentary seats. It can receive submissions from the political parties, but it is required to produce a map that ensures constituencies of roughly equal population (about 70K electors IIRC), and - crucially - form a distinct community, or part of one (i.e. a town can be split into two or more constituencies if the population is sufficient).
Now, the distinct community bit is obviously open to intepretation, but it does mean that some of the strange districts some US states have come up with straggling long thin arms halfway across the state wouldn't be allowed.
Admittedly, sometimes balancing the requirements of population vs community can come up with oddities: at present the Western Isles of Scotland are rather over represented with one MP for around 30K electorate, whereas the Isle of Wight is under-represented with one MP for around 100K as it's not quite big enough to qualify for two constituencies. In both cases the Commission felt that the places were too distinct a community, being islands, to be combined with seats on the mainland.
I know US posters will respond that there's no way in thousand years that the politicians would willingly give up this power, but surely in those states that allow popular initiative it ought to be feasible to set up a pressure group to campaign for it?
I was going to post something about proportional representation, and why it would stop gerrymandering... but, heck, I know the answers I'll be getting:
The founding fathers designed the system, they knew what they were doing yadda yadda. sure... it 's not perfect, but it's served us pretty well... yadda yadda We're the most stable democracy in the world yadda yadda.
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
I was told by a friend that Iowa has a law that says that district borders have to be as close to squares/rectangles as possible. While this isn't a complete solution to gerrymandering, it does make it a TON harder to do because you can't just go around a group of people and make those weird borders to suit your needs. Maybe this should become a national election law.
Good grief, the Democrats in California did the same thing after the 2000 census using computer generated maps to lock in their large majorities in state and federal office. The Republicans decided not to fight it this time and hang on to their safe districts.