

America’s most gerrymandered congressional districts - grej
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/

======
twoodfin
Not really sure why this article from May is suddenly relevant on hn, but
anyway:

While gerrymandering does help explain the GOP's outsized representation in
the House relative to their national vote share, the increasing dominance of
the Democratic vote in large cities is probably more significant[1].
Essentially, if you wanted GOP representation in the House to mirror their
national vote share, you'd be forced to draw some pretty nonsensical districts
that sliced up urban centers so they could be mixed with the outlying (and
sometimes _way_ outlying) suburbs. Getting 90%+ of the vote in ward after ward
of Chicago doesn't help your guy in Deerfield when he loses by 2%.

[1] [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-
ca...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-
win.html)

~~~
exelius
This is exactly why the GOP probably won't lose the house anytime soon, but
national elections almost always go to the democrats. The GOP will probably
pick up a bunch of senate seats this year because of low turnout and an
abnormally strong anti-incumbent bias, but they have almost no chance at
winning the presidential election in a few years.

At this point, the parties have devolved to mirror the culture wars that have
beset this country since its founding: urban vs. rural. There's money on both
sides - agriculture and mineral wealth in rural areas, and finance/industrial
wealth in urban areas, so it's not a rich vs. poor thing. It's almost purely a
sociological divide along relative geographic lines at this point.

~~~
terrence_giggy
The ideological divide is between those who want relatively more government
control, and those who want relatively less government control.

I can tell you I'm personally a suburban, technical person who votes
Republican and it really isn't based upon social values.

~~~
exelius
Then the GOP has done an exceptionally good job of selling that they're about
less government control (when really, their stance on government intervention
depends on the issue).

Just look at all the GOP talking heads saying we need more restrictions on
travel from Africa, we need to restrict the definition of marriage, we need to
prevent abortion, we can't cut military spending, we need a huge border
patrol, etc. The GOP beats the drum of small government, but are the first to
enact big government when it suits their needs. See the Department of Homeland
Security, enacted by a republican president with a republican congress, and
which has in 12 years grown to become one of the biggest and most wasteful
government agencies out there.

Politicians lie. It's their job. So we can't judge them based on what they
say, we have to judge them based on what they do. And right now,
unfortunately, an individual politician doesn't have the ability to contradict
his party if he wants to keep his job. So we have to look at the party's track
record, and when we do, it's pretty obvious that there's no choice for
"relatively less government control". Both parties want more government
control; just that the democrats want it in the form of government bureaucracy
that creates dependency on the system, and the republicans want to dictate
what people can and cannot do, then enforce it with an increasingly
militarized police force.

~~~
terrence_giggy
Republicans are about "relatively" less government control then the only other
party I could rationally choose from in an election - the Democrats.

The choice here is not between good and bad. It is between two less than
optimal choices (which is most often the case in life).

------
panzagl
Why is 'compactness' valued? If a district should be people of a similar
background/interests, then the geography is messier- the NC 12th district is
basically the I-85 corridor, which may make more sense than a square of
arbitrary size. If a district is just supposed to be a random container of
voters to apportion representation, then base it on a voters' SSN or something
and remove geography entirely.

------
humanrebar
Well, the state boundaries themselves are gerrymandered in some cases. Do you
think it's an accident that a straight line through Kansas City divides
Missouri and Kansas?

At some level, all boundaries are arbitrary. Not to say they couldn't be more
just and logical, but it's not like the Texas panhandle is some sort of
platonic ideal.

An interesting show that goes into the history of state boundaries:
[http://www.history.com/shows/how-the-states-got-their-
shapes](http://www.history.com/shows/how-the-states-got-their-shapes)

...there may be superior written sources out there. I'd be interested in them
if anyone has any.

------
dangerlibrary
I've long wondered how much you could reduce (obviously not eliminate)
gerrymandering with a minimum compactness requirement for the shape of each
district. Or maybe a requirement that all districts must be convex polygons
(with allowances for concave state borders)? I think convex polygons map
pretty closely to what most people expect districts to look like, and it
prevents compact but still problematic "fat horseshoe" shaped districts.

I have a hard time figuring out if this is just a case of me reaching for my
mathematical hammer, or if this would actually help.

~~~
maxerickson
It's probably an overcorrection to never take into account whether the people
represented by a seat have something in common. A cartoon example would be 4
counties arranged in a square, where one of the counties has a city that is
roughly equal in population to the 3 other counties combined (or so). 2 equal
shaped districts, with the city chopped in half, is not obviously a better
arrangement than a district mostly comprised of the city and one mostly
comprised of the outlying areas.

I agree that "voting history" isn't a great thing to be considering as
something people have in common (at a minimum, it shouldn't be a high
priority).

~~~
dangerlibrary
I was thinking more that compactness and/or convex polygon-ness could just be
necessary constraints, not sufficient. You'd still get to draw the lines in
ways that split the state's population according to shifting population and
demographics, but you wouldn't be able to draw districts that are quite so
crazy looking.

------
GeneralMayhem
It's worth pointing out that Maryland as a whole would probably score poorly
on the metric they're using _because_ of geography. There's no excuse for the
3rd District, but because it's a small place with a lot of water, the other
districts look worse than they are because of having to work around the
coastline.

~~~
refurb
I agree. The analysis seems weak. Population growth isn't uniform across the
state, so why would districts be uniform? You'd constantly need to tweak each
one to keep the same number in each. Unless you want to completely redraw
_all_ the districts each election.

 _" In those six states, Republicans picked up about 11 more seats than you'd
expect from simply looking at the parties' vote shares."_

The fact is, we don't decide representation based on state-wide vote share, so
it's not a good proxy for "how it should be".

Keep in mind, I'm not supporting the current districting process. It should be
non-partisan and the folks getting elected should have no say in how they are
drawn.

------
splat
If you squint, some of those districts look like Julia sets. But I guess that
if you were selecting districts that have low compactness you would
necessarily be selecting for districts that look fractal-like.

------
TheHypnotist
I never understood why this is an acceptable thing to do. It's democracy
except you get to pick who votes for you and who doesn't, so, it's actually
not.

~~~
bdamm
The United States isn't a democracy, it's a republic.

~~~
john_b
It's a democratic republic, to be specific. Republicanism is the _form_ of the
government (representation of the people), democratic elections are the
_mechanism_ of selecting those representatives. You could have, e.g. a
technocratic, plutocratic, or a constitutional monarchial republic.

~~~
TheHypnotist
Right, the point is we still have a choice in who represents us, or what
appears to be the illusion of a choice.

