It’s always nice to be recognized and in his latest Washington Post column Henry Olsen identifies the Illinois legislative leadership as the heavyweight champions of gerrymandering:
The new map is so brazen that progressive elections analyst Drew Savicki found it would create up to 85 districts expected to be Democratic in the 118-seat state House, even though only 69 Democrats would be elected in a map that fairly reflected the proportional strength of each party. So while Democrats would naturally win a majority because they dominate the state, the Democratic plan would net them nearly 80 percent of the seats from less than 60 percent of the votes.
It’s true that Republicans also pass egregious gerrymanders that use all the same techniques. I focus on the Illinois Democratic plan because it is the first plan to be finished after data from the 2020 Census was fully released in August, and because it demonstrates that no party has a lock on political virtue.
I’m still searching for a definition of “democracy” that would encompass this sort of sleight-of-hand while distinguishing democracy from oligarchy.
There is one thing missing from Mr. Olsen’s account. Gerrymandering is a strategy by which those who have the power to do so help themselves and their allies and injure their political opponents regardless of to which party or race those opponents belong.
This comment isn’t to deny gerrymandering is occurring, or that it is good for the public.
But in plurality first past the post system; the leading party will tend to get legislative seats in excess proportion to their vote share.
For example, in Canada, where non-partisan panels made of judges decide district boundaries; you have elections where the first place party wins 55% of vote; the 2nd place party wins 33% of the vote, yet the 1st place party won 78% of the seats (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Alberta_general_election)
An egregious example of gerrymandering would be a 50/50 vote share but one party gets 75% of the seats. But a 58% vote share leading a projected 72% of the seats in State legislature is “normal” for a first past the post voting system.
If one wants a legislative body in proportion to each parties vote share; the only answer is to adopt a proportional voting system.
PS : maybe the question is why Illinois Republicans (and really minority parties in most states) never seem to be able to attract more voters over long stretches of time (decades). In most democratic polities, its common for parties to lose 10-25% of the vote after being in power for a decade or more.
“…maybe the question is why Illinois Republicans (and really minority parties in most states) never seem to be able to attract more voters over long stretches of time (decades). In most democratic polities, its common for parties to lose 10-25% of the vote after being in power for a decade or more.â€
Traditional Big Cities and their relative population ratio to the state as a whole. Look at a red / blue map by county in any election.
“2016
Two years ago, all 18 of Pennsylvania’s congressional districts were up for grabs.
Democrats won 45.9 percent of the statewide two-party vote. They won five out of 18 seats — less than 28 percent.
2018
Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court tossed out the congressional map as a partisan gerrymander that favored Republicans. The court created its own map.
Democrats made big gains, winning 55.1 percent of the two-party vote. They won nine out of 18 seats.”
Steve
Yep. When Republicans have the power to do so, they gerrymander for political advantage. When Democrats have the power to do so, they gerrymander for political advantage.