8

I have heard a lot of outcry about gerrymandering voting districts.

I know there was a book by David Daley as well as the pending case in Wisconsin declaring the voting districts unconstitutional.

What I can't remember is the same sort of backlash by Republicans. Obviously gerrymandering is not a new concept, but it seems that all the news I hear about it is related to Republicans trying to suppress liberal (particularly urban and low-income) voting groups.

Has the Republican party ever seen the same sort of disparity that is quoted in the above Reuters article on Wisconsin?

Despite receiving 51 percent of the votes statewide in 2012, Democrats won only 39 of 99 Assembly seats. In 2014, Republicans won roughly the same percentage of votes statewide, but won 63 seats, a 24-seat disparity, judges wrote.

Improve this question
3
  • 3
    Wikipdeia. Is it possible you are paying more attention to democrat favoring media than republican favoring media? Gerrymandering seems to be pretty universal, the debate is who should it favor and how much.
    – user9389
    Feb 8, 2017 at 17:07
  • 2
    Note that some of the effects ascribed to gerrymandering, might be voluntary. If followers from one party flock to live near each other, the gerrymandering happens without redrawing districts. The outcome of the national popular vote versus the electoral college in the recent elections is an example.
    – Sjoerd
    Feb 9, 2017 at 12:48
  • Joe Walsh (R) claims his stint in the US congress was cut short to just one 2-year term due to redistricting in Illinois. He "mentions it" a couple of times per month on his daily radio show.
    – TTT
    Feb 9, 2017 at 17:03

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
14

Yes, everyone complains about gerrymandering when the gerrymandering doesn't help them.

To answer your questions specifically, there is an ongoing case in Maryland where the Democrats are accused of using gerrymandering to unseat Republican representative Roscoe Bartlett.

Improve this answer
8

Has the Republican party ever seen the same sort of disparity that is quoted in the above Reuters article on Wisconsin?

Despite receiving 51 percent of the votes statewide in 2012, Democrats won only 39 of 99 Assembly seats. In 2014, Republicans won roughly the same percentage of votes statewide, but won 63 seats, a 24-seat disparity, judges wrote.

Sure. In Massachusetts, 25% of voters are Republicans (and 33% of the two party vote). 0% of the congressional delegation is.

That's not really gerrymandering, as Republicans are spread across Massachusetts. If you want to look into actual gerrymandering, look at Maryland. Donald Trump won 33.9% of the vote in Maryland in 2016, but there is only one out of eight Representatives that is Republican. There were two prior to the last redistricting.

Trump won 40% of the vote in Connecticut, but Republicans won 0% of the five congressional seats.

Perhaps you don't remember, but in 1980 and 1990, Republicans complained about gerrymandering a lot. At that time, Republicans would use their domination of the governorships to counteract the Democratic domination in legislatures. There are probably even better examples from that time.

Note that this kind of disparity doesn't actually demonstrate gerrymandering. For example, Iowa had three of five seats held by Democrats in 2009. After 2014, they had only one of four. But that wasn't a Republican gerrymander. That was a good Republican year in the swing district and one of the Democrat-leaning districts. By most measures, Iowa has one Republican district, two Democratic districts, and one swing district. If anything, it's biased in favor of the Democrats.

Democrats built their coalition around urban populations. This gives them lots of safe legislative seats in overwhelmingly Democratic areas. But it gives Republicans more seats, albeit with lower support in each.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    That parties in the US get less seats than percentage of voters may also just be because the voting system is a majority voting system not a proportional one, similar to the UK but additionally with partisan district partitioning which allows gerrymandering. I'm a bit confused that half of your examples seem not to be examples of gerrymandering. Why present them at all?
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Feb 8, 2018 at 10:15
  • 3
    If one party wins 51% of the vote, spread evenly across all seats they get 100% of the seats. That's not gerrymandering, that's first past the post elections.
    – Jontia
    Nov 6, 2019 at 8:28
-10

I have heard a lot of outcry about gerrymandering voting districts.

there are perfectly good reasons for gerrymandering: to protect the minorities and to give them a voice, for example.

What I can't remember is the same sort of backlash by Republicans.

The republicans are angels, NOT.

in the 1990s they complained loudly about it. Both parties are doing it when they can. Both parties complain about it when they are on the receiving end of it.

Improve this answer
3
  • 7
    Sorry, but this answer is particularly poor. There are not citations, there are attacks against republicans, and it doesnt really answer the question. -1
    – David says Reinstate Monica
    Feb 8, 2017 at 16:59
  • 4
    Your 'perfectly good reason' is actually the exact opposite of what gerrymandering does.
    – user1530
    Feb 8, 2017 at 19:32
  • 1
    The first section probably needs a reference to the Voting Rights Act and the existence of Minority Majority districts. ballotpedia.org/Majority-minority_districts The Minority Majority districting rules should form a major part of any gerrymandering discussion and is an important point to highlight.
    – Jontia
    Nov 6, 2019 at 8:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .