“In 1812, the governor of Massachusetts enacted a measure redrawing district lines to give his party, the Democratic-Republicans (then, one of America's two major political parties) an electoral advantage” (J.F., 2013, p. 1). Gerrymandering is the dividing of a state or county, into election districts so as to give one political party an advantage in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible. every ten years. Some people have different opinions when it comes to gerrymandering. Sam Wang (2013) states, “Although gerrymandering is usually thought of as a bipartisan offense, the rather asymmetrical results may surprise you” (p.1). Most of the campaign winners use gerrymandering to secure more votes than their opponents. The state legislators use their powers to move around districting lines. There are many people who believe that gerrymandering is unfair. Different reforms have been discussed upon to end gerrymandering.
Nolan McCarty (2012) states that there is a positive side to gerrymandering, or rather that it is ineffective toward the outcome of elections. He states, “Although the Senate may be a bit less partisan than the House, it has become a very polarized body without the aid of any gerrymandering” (pg. 1) His opinion, McCarty, (2012) also describes how the smaller states in the United States are not altered by gerrymandering or redistricting. He specifically says, “Gerrymandering can have no effect” (2012, p.1).
Gerrymandering can be thought of as beneficial in one case. Some of the political leaders gerrymander in order to make the seats safer, in their opinion. They want to be positive that their political party will stay in power. In this case, however, t...
... middle of paper ...
...ory.html
Nelson, J. (2010, October 25). Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Gerrymandering. .
Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://uxblog.idvsolutions.com/2010/10/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know.html Redistricting Reform. (2014, January 1). . Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://redrawingthelines.sitewrench.com/redistrictingreform Reichert, J. (2010, March 10). How gerrymandering undermines democracy. . Retrieved May 28,
2014, from http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0322/How-gerrymanderin-undermines-democracy Sidlow, E., & Henschen, B. (2009). Congress. America At Odds, Alternate Version (Sixth Edition ed., ). Belmont: Clark Baxter.
Wang, S. (2013, February 2). The Great Gerrymander of 2012. . Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html? ] pagewanted=all&_r=0
In this essay I will argue that British General Elections should be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation. First, I will argue that the system would be more democratic as every vote that is cast would be represented and this ...
The Pennsylvania General Assembly redrew the district map of the state in order to create electoral constituencies for the congressional elections after the 2000 census. The census decreased the size of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation by two. The map was then challenged by Richard Vieth, the appellee. The appellant, Robert C. Jubelirer was the President of the Pennsylvania Senate. The Democratic candidates claimed this map change benefited the Republicans.
The legislative branch of America helps create the laws or legislation. Ideally, it works to create a society that is safe for all members. The State of California like the federal government has a bicameral legislature, in other words, composed of two chambers. The upper chamber is called the senate, while the lower is called the assembly. A unique process for the state level is that it allows for the initiative. This process circumvents the state congress and can create laws without their aide. In the state of California, every ten years, following a US census, which collects demographic information, state legislators draw redistricting plans for itself, California seats in the US House of Representatives, and the State Board of Equalization. There have been attempts to create a “non-partisan” redistricting commission, but this has been turned down by voters numerous times. Proposition 14, 39, 118, and 119 were all turned down by voters to create a non-partisan districting commission. Every decade a large portion of the state congress’s energy is spent on redistricting. In fact, two of the last four censuses, Supreme Court has had to step in to break a deadlock. In 1970, Ronald Reagan, a Republican, vetoed all together the Democratic redistricting plan. The Supreme Court had to step in and created its own plans for California to follow. Then in 1981, Democrats proposed redistricting as well as congressional delegation redistricting. The Republicans stopped this by adding referendums to the state ballot. Because it was too close to elections though, Supreme Court overturned these referendums in 1982. In 1984, they officially passed the new redistricting plan which was very similar to the original plans.
The history of gerrymandering is one that has caused some major shakeups in how politics are done. A man named Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts back in 1812, started it all. The governor had the idea of redistricting his states lines in order to benefit his political party. One specific district was so badly morphed that it almost resembled a salamander, and thus you get the name, gerrymandering (Barasch). But it didn’t just stop in 1812 Massachusetts; it became one of the most common strategies in American politics. We even see it happening in modern day. For example, Texas in 2003 had realigned its districts in such a way that it put ten Democratic Congressman in heavy red, conservative districts (Barasch). This move was done to lessen their power within the house. As a result, half of them were not voted back in for the next election. The act of gerrymandering is not just as simple as redrawing districts, the un...
It’s hard to imagine a period in American political history that hasn’t been dominated by a duopoly of political parties. Even though resistance from the founding fathers on the issue of political parties is well documented, the two-party system we are well accustomed to developed shortly after the emergence of the United States as an independent nation. Whether it was the Federalist/Democratic-Republican system in the late 18th and early 19th centuries or the Democratic/Republican system we know today, two ideologically opposite parties have always maintained dominant control of the American political system. The existence of third parties and independent candidates, therefore, complicates the political system that we have used for centuries. Steven Rosenstone contends that the existence of our current two-party system is due, in part, to the ability of the two major parties to provide benefits in exchange for voter support. What then occurs when either of the major parties fails in its responsibility to be accountable to the public? While several options exist, including the demand for change within major parties, third parties and independent candidates become a viable option to restore a sense of accountability among American politicians. Even though third parties and independent candidates might seem attractive to voters, they often are unable to find success in any major elections. This lack of success can be attributed to many different factors, including constitutional and electoral barriers, as well as deficiencies born from the general lack of knowledge about third parties. Why then do third parties and independent candidates continue to exist in American politics? The ability of a third party to influence the policy p...
Looking at past cases dealing with similar issues, Baker v. Carr is a an example that shows how redistricting was looked at as a justiciable issue by the Supreme court, prior to Gomillion v. Lightfoot. The Supreme Court had usually left redistricting as a matter that should dealt with by the states and congress. This can also be seen in Colegrove v. Green, in which Justice Frankfurter declined to involve the Court in the districting process arguing that the political nature of apportionment disallowed judicial intervention.
Redistricting is the legislative political process of redrawing the geographic boundaries of congressional district based on population following the decennial census. Each state is obligated to adhere to certain Supreme Court requirements regarding redistricting. Respective districts within a state should ensure population equality, contiguity, compactness and no discrimination against minority. Districts can be drawn to protect incumbents. The process of deliberately modifying districts in order to increase the partisan advantage of a particular political party is called gerrymandering.
In American politics today, many practices exist that greatly harm the American public. One of these dangerous practices, known as gerrymandering, occurs in nearly every state. While some claim that the practice helps America, in reality gerrymandering harms American democracy and safety. Gerrymandering greatly affects society, and must become illegal to insure fair representation, the democratic processes in America continues, and America continues to thrive.
The topic I have chosen is gerrymandering. Before getting too deep into this paper, I’d like to take this time to explain what gerrymandering is. To gerrymander is to redraw and resize electoral voting districts across a state. This is done to ensure that the political party that has control of the state can keep control by distributing voters in a manner that alters the people’s representation.
In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year’s election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.
The single-member district election system is the most common and best-known electoral system currently in use in America. It is used to elect the U.S. House Representatives, as well as many state and local legislatures. Under single member district systems, an area is divided into a number of geographically defined voting districts, each represented by a single elected official. Voters can only vote for their district’s representative, with the individual receiving the most votes winning election. This method of electing representatives is better than any alternative solution in various ways. Four compelling reasons to support the single-member district election system include the fact that single-member districts give each voter a single, easily identifiable district member; the way single-member district voting helps protect against overreaching party influence; that single-member districts ensure geographic representation; and finally, that single-member districts are the best way to maximize representatives’ accountability.
Beck, Paul Allen and Hershey, Marjorie Randon. Party Politics in America. 9th Ed. Longman, New York, NY. 2001.
In this essay, I will explain why Texas should retain the partisan election of judges. Texas is one of the few states that elect their judges using a Partisan voting method. Partisan elections can be unfair and can misinform the voter. A high legal position such as a judge should never be chosen in such a manner. Partisan elections often cost more than nonpartisan elections in campaigning. Partisan elections are also more likely to lead to straight ticket voting or mindless voting. Partisan elections also lead to more campaign contributions and can increase the power of constituencies. Lastly partisan elections can cause an imbalance in equal represent the population. Therefore, Partisanship voting does not belong in the courts of Texas and
The negative effects of political redistricting is there is no compromise left when one party draws the lines so that they will win and the other will lose. Competition is critical when voters want or need something passed, but when one group has more control, then there is no need for compromise. It dilutes minority voting because the maps can be redrawn for a certain incumbent if the incumbent is losing that minorities votes. Redistricting
The United States of America has engaged in the battle known as political polarization since before its foundation in 1776. From the uprising against the powerful British nation to the political issues of today, Americans continue to debate about proper ideology and attempt to choose a side that closely aligns with their personal beliefs. From decade to decade, Americans struggle to determine a proper course of action regarding the country as a whole and will often become divided on important issues. Conflicts between supporters of slavery and abolitionists, between agriculturalists and industrialists, and between industrial workers and capitalists have fueled the divide. At the Congressional level there tends to be a more prevalent display of polarization and is often the blame of Congress’ inefficiency. James Madison intentionally designed Congress to be inefficient by instating a bicameral legislation. Ambition would counter ambition and prevent majority tyranny. George Washington advised against political parties that would contribute to polarization and misrepresentation in his Farewell Address of 1796. Washington warns, “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.” Today, the struggle to increase power between political parties results in techniques to gain even the smallest marginal gains. To truly understand political polarization, we must examine data collected through a variety of means, the effects of rapidly changing technology, and observe what techniques are used to create such a polarized political system.