Gerrymandering, the process of redrawing the district lines for political advantage, was first coined in an editorial cartoon criticizing then-governor of Massachusetts and future Vice President, Elbridge Gerry (pronounced “Gary”) for approving a district map with a boundary so bent out of shape that it resembled a salamander (for a different kind of electoral math: Gerry + salamander = Gerrymander).
The process is controversial for its blatant audacity to manipulate American voters by giving healthy majorities to carved-out borders to vote for the party in charge, and either confining all your opponents to a single district or breaking them up across your new friendly territories. It’s a way for politicians to control who gets to vote for them and make sure they stay in power, regardless of the actual will of the people.
Before it was coined, James Madison is believed to have been one of the first targets, when Patrick Henry (Mr. “Give me Liberty or give me death”) tried to stop him from being elected to the House of Representatives by redrawing the Virginia 5th in time for the election of 1788. Running against none other than James Monroe, Madison was still able to win.
Luckily, we’re finally seeing process towards real reform. Just yesterday, judges struck down North Carolina’s district map as unconstitutional, which may have huge implications for the 2018 midterm elections once they submit a new plan later this month. There are two other challenges to gerrymandering before the Supreme Court right now, and I’m sure this ruling in North Carolina will contribute to those deliberations. If the Supreme Court also rules it unconstitutional, we could see badly needed reform happen quickly nationwide.
Regardless of your party affiliation or political ideology, the success of a representative democracy depends on having a proportionate voice within your elected government. Everything else is varying degrees of corruption.
I’ve a link off my website and my Facebook to this site. It is right on, and most Americans can’t even name the first four presidents, let alone them all. (I had them all down in fifth grade in which there were thirtysix at the time.)
Here’s another proof from my state: Pennsylvania has a more registered Democrats than Republicans, yet we have 5 Democrats and 13 Republicans in the House. They took my hometown of Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, which used to be in Districts 11 and 10, respectively, and ran them together in District 17 (which has a slight Republican majority, but a Democratic Rep). The three districts look like ripped sheets in the wind from New Jersey. I won’t even mention District 7 near Philadelphia which looks like Goofy (or Donald Duck) be kicking Pluto. If the states are so concerned about their rights, they should have House districts follow their county lines as much as possible (such as my current home in District 8).
Some years ago (at least 10, maybe 15), I made the second cut of a citizens group that would eventually draw district lines (it may have been for California State districts…). I would have been able to move to the next level but couldn’t get time off to attend the training session. I think we still have that process in place.
By a twist of fate, Oregon elected a Republican Secretary of State. His first visible act was to appoint an all-Republican Redistricting Commission. It didn’t take long for the Democratically-controlled House and Senate to strangle that new-born plan in its bassinette.
It’s an ongoing mystery to me that the courts have been so indifferent to election-rigging for so long. A little movement in the Voting Rights Act, largely gutted on specious reasoning by the Supremes recently.
A little defense of gerrymandering or packing and cracking. These things are the means. The question should be what are the ends? If geographic congruity is your goal you will still have mostly safe seats. Dems. tend to be in cities and Reps. in rural areas. My goal would be to maximize the number of competitive seats given voting patterns of the last ten years. If that means pie wedge shaped districts emanating from city centers, so be it. Requiring people to represent a mix of rural, suburban, and urban constituents would make them more responsive to all issues and they would better understand the complexity of issues. Of course remaining districts would be packed safe for the party that is in majority state wide. That would be the price of creating competitive responsive legislatures.
Brian Carroll creator over 6 years ago
Gerrymandering, the process of redrawing the district lines for political advantage, was first coined in an editorial cartoon criticizing then-governor of Massachusetts and future Vice President, Elbridge Gerry (pronounced “Gary”) for approving a district map with a boundary so bent out of shape that it resembled a salamander (for a different kind of electoral math: Gerry + salamander = Gerrymander).
The process is controversial for its blatant audacity to manipulate American voters by giving healthy majorities to carved-out borders to vote for the party in charge, and either confining all your opponents to a single district or breaking them up across your new friendly territories. It’s a way for politicians to control who gets to vote for them and make sure they stay in power, regardless of the actual will of the people.
Before it was coined, James Madison is believed to have been one of the first targets, when Patrick Henry (Mr. “Give me Liberty or give me death”) tried to stop him from being elected to the House of Representatives by redrawing the Virginia 5th in time for the election of 1788. Running against none other than James Monroe, Madison was still able to win.
Luckily, we’re finally seeing process towards real reform. Just yesterday, judges struck down North Carolina’s district map as unconstitutional, which may have huge implications for the 2018 midterm elections once they submit a new plan later this month. There are two other challenges to gerrymandering before the Supreme Court right now, and I’m sure this ruling in North Carolina will contribute to those deliberations. If the Supreme Court also rules it unconstitutional, we could see badly needed reform happen quickly nationwide.
Regardless of your party affiliation or political ideology, the success of a representative democracy depends on having a proportionate voice within your elected government. Everything else is varying degrees of corruption.
Masterskrain Premium Member over 6 years ago
Sometimes a picture IS worth a thousand words! Very well done, Brian!!
Dani Rice over 6 years ago
The Cherokee Nation recently asked for districts to be redrawn by an outside group. One precinct looped out to encircle a single house!
VegaAlopex over 6 years ago
I’ve a link off my website and my Facebook to this site. It is right on, and most Americans can’t even name the first four presidents, let alone them all. (I had them all down in fifth grade in which there were thirtysix at the time.)
Here’s another proof from my state: Pennsylvania has a more registered Democrats than Republicans, yet we have 5 Democrats and 13 Republicans in the House. They took my hometown of Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, which used to be in Districts 11 and 10, respectively, and ran them together in District 17 (which has a slight Republican majority, but a Democratic Rep). The three districts look like ripped sheets in the wind from New Jersey. I won’t even mention District 7 near Philadelphia which looks like Goofy (or Donald Duck) be kicking Pluto. If the states are so concerned about their rights, they should have House districts follow their county lines as much as possible (such as my current home in District 8).
MyTBaron Premium Member over 6 years ago
What?! A metaphor?! Voices cut off?! In a comic?! Nice!
Fido (aka Felix Rex) Premium Member over 6 years ago
Some years ago (at least 10, maybe 15), I made the second cut of a citizens group that would eventually draw district lines (it may have been for California State districts…). I would have been able to move to the next level but couldn’t get time off to attend the training session. I think we still have that process in place.
braindead Premium Member over 6 years ago
Brian, I assume those ‘panels’ are in the shape of actual districts.
Of course, many districts are shaped more like a weird microbe than a salamander and you couldn’t show recognizable cartoons in those shapes.
Scoutmaster77 over 6 years ago
As an amateur historian, I really appreciate your “comic strip.” Keep up the good work.
Scoutmaster77 over 6 years ago
As an amateur historian, I really appreciate your “comic strip.” Keep up the good work.
Fenshaw over 6 years ago
By a twist of fate, Oregon elected a Republican Secretary of State. His first visible act was to appoint an all-Republican Redistricting Commission. It didn’t take long for the Democratically-controlled House and Senate to strangle that new-born plan in its bassinette.
AndrewSihler over 6 years ago
It’s an ongoing mystery to me that the courts have been so indifferent to election-rigging for so long. A little movement in the Voting Rights Act, largely gutted on specious reasoning by the Supremes recently.
face.less_b over 6 years ago
A little defense of gerrymandering or packing and cracking. These things are the means. The question should be what are the ends? If geographic congruity is your goal you will still have mostly safe seats. Dems. tend to be in cities and Reps. in rural areas. My goal would be to maximize the number of competitive seats given voting patterns of the last ten years. If that means pie wedge shaped districts emanating from city centers, so be it. Requiring people to represent a mix of rural, suburban, and urban constituents would make them more responsive to all issues and they would better understand the complexity of issues. Of course remaining districts would be packed safe for the party that is in majority state wide. That would be the price of creating competitive responsive legislatures.