Deep down inside, everybody knows that gerrymandering is
wrong. It is politics at its worst,
where politicians do what they want to try to stay in office or to give their
political party huge advantages in elections and policy decisions.
A big reason it has been put up with is that it is portrayed
as being necessary, and, of course, the supposed beneficiaries of this practice
are minorities, who could not possibly succeed in life without the help of
government due to the inherent racism of white people which keeps them trapped
in poverty and hopelessness. While
gerrymandering won’t solve this problem entirely, it is believed and promoted
that gerrymandering will ensure minority representation in the political
process, and that is considered a necessary part of any government efforts to help
the disadvantaged demographic.
Is this true? I don’t
believe so. Why? For example, there are 435 Representatives in
Congress. Having a handful of, say,
black Representatives is not going to pass any bills if the needs and wants of
the black community are so very different from those of whites. But if minorities are a substantial voting bloc
in any district, the Representative, white or black, would be sure to work with
them, because he knows his election may very well depend on their vote. In this case, there will far more districts
with the interests of minorities in mind and far more likelihood that anything could
and would be done.
Let me say this again in another way, because this is the
most important point here. Having a
majority minority district actually reduces the influence of that minority in the
political process, because it concentrates its power on the fewest number of
Representatives. If the minorities were
represented in more districts, they would have more Representatives interested
in getting and retaining their votes.
And this assumes, of course, that the needs of minorities
are different from the needs of everybody else.
I can’t imagine, for example, that a Representative would only try to
help some of the schools in his district.
The real danger of gerrymandering lies elsewhere
though. We know that gerrymandering is
done to dilute the votes of the opposing party or to concentrate them in the
fewest districts to minimize their overall number of elected officials. That alone is enough to discourage any
opposition to the majority party. I live
in Illinois, which is a prime example.
However, who says that that is the only criterion they use
when they divvy up the districts?
Districts can be drawn to dilute or concentrate voters by any measurable
demographic: income, age, religion, sexual orientation, education, ethnicity,
even their positions on particular issues, like abortion. There is no end to the mischief which someone
can do with a computer and the power to draw voting districts.
I agree with the use of computers, but any and all
demographic information should not be a part of the process. The computer should only be used to calculate
the number of residents in each district, following the natural boundaries of
geography and existing borders as much as possible. People living in the same areas will have
more in common with their neighbors than artificially constructed districts
that pick and choose their constituents.
This is not a problem which we can expect politicians to
solve without the public demanding it.
You need to start talking about it everywhere.
