Gerrymandering

[swansont]

Ran across this:

The 20 most gerrymandered congressional districts in the US

http://www.slate.com/id/2208216/slideshow/2208554/fs/0//entry/2208555/

 

Some of these are amazing,with the tenuous connection between parts of the districts. Are there any rules about this? I wonder if some mathematical limitation could be placed on how much surface length/area you have, or some limit to how convex or concave the district could be.

Edited January 16, 2009 by swansont
fix typo

[iNow]

Ahh... The sweet freedom laden smell of democracy. Nice find.

[npts2020]

For the most part the lines are drawn by whatever political party is in charge at the time. Sometimes the grossest abuses are challenged in court but rarely with any success.

[jackson33]

Frankly, I can't think of a more 'Democratic' process in our 'Representative' form of government. No doubt the prevailing 'Party Affiliation' of State Legislatures will determine where districts end, but it remains the choice of the peoples of that States by representation.

 

Limitations are based on the most current 'Census' of the total USA. Today the 435 seats represent the 2000 National Census and took effect for the 2003 Seatings. (Pop. 2000 281,421,906...and each member should represent as close to about 650,000 as possible. The object of the State Legislature's is to keep the total population of each District as close to that 650k as possible. The results through years is what you seeing in districts as districts have been gain (most all the top 20 "gerrymandered") or as they were lost making it easy to shrink into blocks...

 

Congress established the limit arbitrarily in 1911 at 435, from the Constitutional 40k per district and made it official in the 'Reapportionment Act' of 1929, specifically under their authority.

 

Size of Districts by area vary more than you might imagine. Alaska the largest with one district, same in 6 other States (one district), while California with 53 Districts has around 23 in the LA area alone.

 

The projected 2010 Census, estimates Texas will gain 4 seats, Arizona 2 States and 6 other one each, taking away 2 from Ohio and one from 10 others, most from the Northern and NE US.

[Sisyphus]

The object of the State Legislature's is to keep the total population of each District as close to that 650k as possible. The results through years is what you seeing in districts as districts have been gain (most all the top 20 "gerrymandered") or as they were lost making it easy to shrink into blocks...

 

Why would it ever not be easy to make them into blocks, if that's what you wanted to do?

[john5746]

Why would it ever not be easy to make them into blocks, if that's what you wanted to do?

 

trying to make sure certain demographics are represented can become a challenge.

[swansont]

 

Size of Districts by area vary more than you might imagine. Alaska the largest with one district, same in 6 other States (one district), while California with 53 Districts has around 23 in the LA area alone.

 

That's geographical size, though, and doesn't matter. Land can't vote. It's population that's important.

[jackson33]

Why would it ever not be easy to make them into blocks, if that's what you wanted to do?

 

People don't live in blocks. The majority of States mentioned have added districts and its just easier to add populated areas, over large territories of sparsely populated farmland. Look up LA Districts and you'll find near blocks.

When possible it would always be best for districts formations include Rural/Urban requirements. In doing so and often the reason districts take on strange shapes, is to allow that end result. Keep in mind all State activity is done with State Counties and most States have truly block appearance, even in California. Population not a factor.

 

I don't disagree, that many times through history and today that a Democratic or Republican States Legislature is going to attempt to create the most favorable districts to their ideology. The process only becomes illegal if some form of prejudice is involved, for instance KEEPING Black or Hispanics from becoming the majority in any one district.

 

swansont; Obviously (I Hope) I understand that and the reason for even mentioning the range in territory a DISTRICT can cover. Then noting that districts per State can increase or decrease after each census, as populations shift, not every one knows.

[Sisyphus]

I realize people don't "live in blocks," I just mean there's no reason they shouldn't be compact shapes. It's not as if there's any physical boundaries or even administrative jurisdictions being moved around - drawing it completely differently is as easy as making minor changes. It just means sometimes there's a less clear "incumbent" at the next election. So what's the rationale for ensuring mixed rural/urban districts.

 

(BTW, per LA district blocks, I should also point out that there would be no political advantage in gerrymandering an area that is more or less politically homogeneous, like LA presumably is.)