Slashdot Mirror
Mathematicians Study Effects of Gerrymandering On 2012 Election
HughPickens.com writes Gerrymandering is the practice of establishing a political advantage for a particular party by manipulating district boundaries to concentrate all your opponents' votes in a few districts while keeping your party's supporters as a majority in the remaining districts. For example, in North Carolina in 2012 Republicans ended up winning nine out of 13 congressional seats even though more North Carolinians voted for Democrats than Republicans statewide. Now Jessica Jones reports that researchers at Duke are studying the mathematical explanation for the discrepancy. Mathematicians Jonathan Mattingly and Christy Vaughn created a series of district maps using the same vote totals from 2012, but with different borders. Their work was governed by two principles of redistricting: a federal rule requires each district have roughly the same population and a state rule requires congressional districts to be compact. Using those principles as a guide, they created a mathematical algorithm to randomly redraw the boundaries of the state's 13 congressional districts. "We just used the actual vote counts from 2012 and just retabulated them under the different districtings," says Vaughn. "If someone voted for a particular candidate in the 2012 election and one of our redrawn maps assigned where they live to a new congressional district, we assumed that they would still vote for the same political party."
The results were startling. After re-running the election 100 times with a randomly drawn nonpartisan map each time, the average simulated election result was 7 or 8 U.S. House seats for the Democrats and 5 or 6 for Republicans. The maximum number of Republican seats that emerged from any of the simulations was eight. The actual outcome of the election — four Democratic representatives and nine Republicans – did not occur in any of the simulations. "If we really want our elections to reflect the will of the people, then I think we have to put in safeguards to protect our democracy so redistrictings don't end up so biased that they essentially fix the elections before they get started," says Mattingly. But North Carolina State Senator Bob Rucho is unimpressed. "I'm saying these maps aren't gerrymandered," says Rucho. "It was a matter of what the candidates actually was able to tell the voters and if the voters agreed with them. Why would you call that uncompetitive?"
The results were startling. After re-running the election 100 times with a randomly drawn nonpartisan map each time, the average simulated election result was 7 or 8 U.S. House seats for the Democrats and 5 or 6 for Republicans. The maximum number of Republican seats that emerged from any of the simulations was eight. The actual outcome of the election — four Democratic representatives and nine Republicans – did not occur in any of the simulations. "If we really want our elections to reflect the will of the people, then I think we have to put in safeguards to protect our democracy so redistrictings don't end up so biased that they essentially fix the elections before they get started," says Mattingly. But North Carolina State Senator Bob Rucho is unimpressed. "I'm saying these maps aren't gerrymandered," says Rucho. "It was a matter of what the candidates actually was able to tell the voters and if the voters agreed with them. Why would you call that uncompetitive?"
Not according to a comment by Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola University, in one of the linked articles and acknowledged by Mattingly - he did say that incorporating it might be an option for further research though. This was apparently a "proof of concept" with deliberately simple rules, but given the interest and positive feedback it seems to be generating I'd like to see what happens if this could be adapated to include a more complete set of rules, not to mention be adapted for other countries where this is a problem.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
From Redrawing the Lines (just a site I found with a quick Google search, no special reason to pick it other than it is what I found):
Are states permitted to create new majority- minority districts?
States are permitted and sometimes required to create new majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Act to avoid diluting minority voting strength during redistricting. States with significant minority population growth over the course of the last decade, for instance, may need to create new majority-minority districts to ensure that redistricting plans comply with the requirements of Section 2 of the Act. Plans that dilute minority voting strength by failing to create feasible majority-minority districts may be quickly challenged following adoption. Since Section 2 litigation can be both costly and time- consuming, officials in many states set out to draw plans that fairly reflect minority voting strength at the beginning of the redistricting process. The need to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to avoid minority vote dilution can serve as a compelling justification for both preserving and creating new majority-minority districts, which helps protect these districts from constitutional attack.
From Cornell University, we have:
Vote Dilution
Section 2 of the VRA, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1973, prohibits drawing election districts in ways that improperly dilute minorities’ voting power. This prohibition applies to states, counties, cities, school districts, and any other governmental unit that holds elections. Two typical forms of vote dilution involve “cracking” a minority community between several election districts, and “submerging” minority communities in multi-member districts. Cracking occurs when election officials split a single minority community into enough different election districts that even if the community voted as a bloc, it could not influence any single districts’ elections. Alternately, election officials might dilute a minority community’s voting power by submerging it in a multi-member district with enough non-minority voters to routinely defeat the minority community’s chosen candidates. See Gerrymandering.
Personally, I find it all to be a bunch of bullcrap. Have you seen those voting districts that are along, squiggly lines that wander all over the place? Give me big squares, randomly generated with approval from a set of judges or something like that, and get the god damned legislators out of the district drawing business. I don't care who it "hurts" or "helps", it is ridiculous to have some of the districts that we do.
Love sees no species.
They created an algorithm that constructed constituency boundaries randomly, but in such a way that obeyed the rules. They constructed 100 such random maps. The average of these had 7-8 Democrat seats, 5-6 Republican seats. The actual results were 9 Republican, 4 Democrat, using maps drawn up by the Republicans (note: TFA didn't say what the results would have been with the previous set of maps, which had been drawn up by the Democrats). This means that, although the Republicans lost the popular vote in the state, and they lost the geographically weighted vote according to 100 randomly drawn electoral maps, they still ended up winning the state overall.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's typically during these periods we have the most stable system :)
The German tweak is a 5% minimum threshold to get into the parliament, only recognised minorities are exempted.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
...as TFA seems to imply. In the People's Republic of Maryland, the Democrats managed to gerrymander wacko-conservative Western MD into laughably liberal Montgomery County in an effort to dilute the conservative's strength.
All politicians suck.
Duke is a private university. And its main external funding comes from a rich industrialist's foundation.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
first past the post isn't what's doing that, not having instant runoff style ballots is.
Yes it is. With proportional voting a minor party with 15% in every district would get one candidate in a state of 11 districts like this case. In a two party system, aka first past the post, they would get none.
Anecdotal evidence? Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands and more use proportional representation systems to some extent. Hardly unstable countries.
If I could design a voting process, I would use the condorcet method and proportional representation.
I don’t think you understand how this works. The states draw their own districts, which explains Republicans’ desire over the last several years to capture as many state legislatures as possible.
You’re actually making the OP’s point: Democrats lost so many seats in the House this year BECAUSE of the Republicans’ gerrymandering. Without it, Republicans lose votes each year, as the will of the voters is actually expressed.
I live in a very liberal state. The powerful majority engages in gerrymandering in order to prevent an "unfortunate outcome" arising from concentrations of conservative voters. So, for example, the county I live in, which is about 50-50 conservative/liberal, is divided in half for federal elections; half is districted with the very liberal county to the west, and half with the very liberal county to our east. The idea that the party with the popular majority doesn't really have to gerrymander seems to ignore the reality that any political party that is in power wants to stay in power and will take whatever legal steps it can to do so. Oh, and the powerful liberals are just as wealthy (if not more so) as the conservatives in my state.
Personally, I find it all to be a bunch of bullcrap. Have you seen those voting districts that are along, squiggly lines that wander all over the place?
Yeah, and you know what? One of the most famous ones is in North Carolina, the site of this study.
And guess who created it and why? Democrats did, in order to secure a minority voting block big enough to elect a black person to Congress. Ever since, it's been one of the most litigated districts in the U.S.
I'm always shocked at how many people don't realize that this is one of the primary LEGAL rationales for gerrymandering -- back in the 1980s and 1990s you even saw unholy alliances between minority leaders and conservative Republicans conspiring to create awkward districts in some states that would give each group what they wanted: the minorities got enough people together in a district to elect a minority to Congress, and the Republicans got to excise many of those annoying mostly Democratic minority voters from their districts.
We are still living with that legacy in many states, and I frankly have found news coverage in recent years of gerrymandering to be lacking in discussion of this issue. It's not all just Republicans who have taken control of state legislatures -- we've also had a committed effort for quite a few decades to segregate voter districts in such a way that would allow more minorities in Congress.
But of course that creates a problem, because it ends up disenfranching non-minority Democrats who get stuck in all the surrounding districts that can no longer elect a Democrat because a large portion of Democrats were deliberately removed from swing districts to create the minority-majority district.
So the Democrats end up in a Catch-22. If they want to promote Congressional "diversity," they can create districts where minorities get elected, but they can end up screwing themselves over in the process because then all the surrounding districts become more Republican and make it more difficult for Democrats to actually achieve an overall Congressional majority.
It's certainly not the only issue that has led to Republican majorities in Congress -- but it's one that's not often talked about, and it has had some significant effects.
They're only required to gerrymander minority districts if they have a history suppressing minority votes.
False. Legislators are required to draw districts in such a way that minority votes will NOT be diluted. Thus, if they are forced to redraw districts (say, due to new allocations of the number of representatives after a census), they are REQUIRED to take minority distribution into account and produce a new set of districts which will not negatively affect minority voters.
It has been easier for these issues to end up in the courts in places that have a history of suppressing minority votes -- but the restrictions are binding on all states, regardless of past wrongs.
What's really startling (not really) is the fact gerrymandering is worse in blue states than red ones, but we only ever hear (on this site) that it's all the evil republicans while the democrats are the poor victims.
You have any evidence for that not startling fact? I have no doubt that both parties do it but the Republicans have always seemed to be particularly egregious when it comes to electioneering.
I stole this Sig
Enjoy - from The Washington Post
Ken
You ought to be shocked at the original purpose of those laws: Segregationist states in the former Confederacy were preventing blacks from registering to vote (which also kept them off juries), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... by methods including killing them if they tried to as late as 1963 vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... In 2000, the Florida Secretary of State eliminated enough black voters from the voting rolls, by falsely accusing them of being felons, to give the vote, and the presidency, to George W. Bush. http://www.gregpalast.com/flor... So black voters are denied the right to vote, in violation of the constitution, even today. That's the purpose of the picture ID laws.
Racism benefited the Democratic Party, while the Democratic Party was the party of racism. When the Democratic Party tried to reform itself, by giving constitutional rights to blacks, the Republican Party opportunistically took their place as the party of racism. Good for the Republicans, bad for America.
When did the Republican Party become the party of racism? Was it when they supplied the necessary votes to pass the Civil Rights Act by voting for it in higher percentages than the Democrats? Or was it when Richard Nixon implemented the "Southern Strategy" of actually enforcing the desegregation of schools, especially in the South?
According to John Dean, in a series of articles for FindlLaw about his experience in the Republican party, it happened when some win-at-any-cost Republican strategists decided that there was a large lower-class religious population in the South, who were already being manipulated by preachers, who could also be manipulated by Republicans.