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."
Gerrymandering is an old, old game. There's already a solution for it; computer models exist that can generate maps that are fair. But with all the yelling the Democrats are doing right now, they'd never consider adopting a map-based system because then they'd lose the opportunity to gerrymander next time.
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?
New map shows that Canada really is part of the United States!
:)
Okay, off to RTFA now, eh?
"An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
Gerrymandering isn't the only way incumbents stay in power. Campaign finance reform also allows them to stay in power. This is because of the drive to keep money out of politics just further reinforces the edge that incumbents have finacially.
It takes money to win unfortunately, and if you restrict the ability to raise money, you impede the ability for a challenge to run a competitive campaign.
If you are concerned about low turnover in the US house, gerrymandering or increasing the number of representatives is not the place to be looking. These are non-issues. Allow donors to give as much money to a candidate as they desire. Then the campaign will be more competitive.
-Brent
The BBC is talking about this as if this were the Republicans in Texas coming out of the blue and just turning this on the Democrats. What a load of shit.
a nual/tx.htm
For those of you who don't remember, or don't care, Texas was a Democrat state a rather short period of time ago (about 20 years). Most of the uproar is from the Republicans trying to reverse the grossly partisan gerrymandering that took place just a little while ago to keep the Republicans from coming to power.
The Texas Constitution requires new boundaries to be drawn every 10 years. In 1991, the last redistricting, both the Senate and the House were strongly controlled by Democrats ( 77% in the Senate and 62 % in the House). http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/rem
That explains very well with maps what exactly happened in 1991, and even further back.
Take my area for example. US District 21 extends from San Antonio all the way to El Paso, making it one of the largest districts in Texas. This was created to make a very strong Republican District so that the rest of the districts in the area could feed off of the Democrats.
Even though the Bexar County Area is about 65% Republican, our representation in the state legislature is 70% Democrat. And one of those 3 Republicans is a moderate.
Another interesting fact is that while it is illegal to redistrict based on race, it is perfectly legal to do it based on Political Parties.
If the number of reps increased, we'd have to rename "pork" to "beef" or "elephant." It's a problem when you have too many cooks, because it spoils the pot. An increase in the numbers would decrease the bill-making efficiency.
Then again, maybe slowing down congress is just what this country needs. We already have too many federal laws.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
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
Oh my god, what's wrong with the "biased" media, somehow this got into the article:
"There is little sympathy for him (Frost) either.
"Prior to last year's map redistricting, the most significant gerrymander in Texas was carried out by the Democrats in 1991.
"They carved up the state to favour their side, and the figure at the helm that year was a certain... Martin Frost.
Of course you didn't read the article. No, facts might be inconvienent for your world-view.
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