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. To give a brief history lesson, the name gerrymander is derived from a politician by the name Elbridge Gerry, who was the Governor of Massachusetts. The word “Gerry-mander” was originally published in a colonial newspaper, the Boston Gazette, in 1812. This is believed to have been created by Federalist Party supporters to showcase this unfit action to the unaware public. The word was used to describe Governor Gerry redrawing the voting districts in the state of Massachusetts during the election for senate. The word …show more content…
This includes two districts to be redrawn to cause two incumbents to run against one another in one district. This will cause the other district to be open for possibly being one by the opposing party, due to the conflict of interest. Finally, kidnapping is yet another way that the election can be rigged and can be rigged solely against a single candidate. The purpose of kidnapping is to move a voter bloc of supporters for one candidate into another district to give the advantage to the opposition. In many instances when redrawing districts, these four tactics are used I combination with one another, which is a smart approach as opposed to simply using one of these gerrymandering tools for the entirety of a state. This often results in the winner of the election who used these tools winning by a very miniscule amount in most of the state’s voting districts; in turn, this also means that the candidate is likely to win by a large sum in only a small number of voting
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.
Even though there was a difference of a quarter million popular votes, the same number of votes were provided. Thus, this system discriminates against people who live in states with high turnout. Rather than having statewide electoral vote distribution, vote distribution in congressional districts could be a little more effective in representing people’s will. Upon this defectiveness of electoral system, current system is failure the way it mislead results and misrepresent population.
In conclusion, partisan elections are hindering the election process for judges. The cost of partisan elections is more money than nonpartisan elections. partisan elections are more likely to lead to straight ticket voting, which can cause mindless voting or flawed voting. Partisan elections lead to more campaign contributions and can cause constituencies to interfere. Finally, partisan elections do not equally represent the population. Therefore, partisan elections are inferring and hinder the Texas judge positions more than nonpartisan
Today, the citizens of the United States must push Congress to formulate an oversight measure to fix voter disenfranchisement. By itself, Supreme Court Ruling Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder does minimal damage to the voting process of the United States. The court ruled discriminatory practices of district actions half a century old unconstitutional, but left a responsibility for Congress to modernize the Voting Rights Act, to ensure that no district nor individual is discriminated against. Given the history of the United States’s voter suppression and the original need for the Voting Rights Act, a new, modern voter equality policy is of dire importance.
The practice of Gerrymandering started in 1812, with the governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry. In this year, he signed a bill to redistrict Massachusetts so that most of the districts would favor his own party. Gerrymandering is called what it is because it is a mix of the governor’s name and the word salamander, because one of the districts in Massachusetts
The Impact: This case caused a shift in the Supreme Court's logic and involvement with political redistricting cases. In future cases, the Supreme Court ruled that redistricting be done according to population. Though gerrymandering, which is the act or...
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.
The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the majority of popular votes. Additionally, the unequal representation created by the number of electors each state has leads to a differential worth depending upon a voter’s state of residency. Moreover, the winner-take-all rule of the results in votes which are essentially rendered worthless if they are contrary the state majority. Finally, the system places much of the focus and power to effect elections in the hands of so called swing states that are not historically aligned with only one party. (Dahl, 80-83) These aspects of the U.S. political system are utterly counterintuitive and stand in stark contrast to many of the cardinal ideals of
When gerrymandering occurs, a political party draws the boundaries of an electoral district in a way that helps their party win elections over the other parties. For example, if a Republican controls a state, and it appears like the party will lose a seat in the future, the Republicans will draw the district in a way to exclude as many Democratic voters as possible. Perhaps they will do this by removing a democratic stronghold from one district and adding it to another district that will either easily go Republican or will have a Democratic representative no matter what happens. Before 1964, the majority party could draw districts in any way they wanted to, and chaos ensued. Consequently, in 1964, the U.S Supreme Court legislated that the districts “had to contain equal population, and be as compact as possible” (“Gerrymandering”). Every ten years the U.S. issues a census to determine the population of each state. After this, each state receives their share of the 435 seats, and then the state gets to break the population into the corresponding number of districts. This whole process, known as reapportionment, takes weeks to determine, and in many cases, courts must determine the shape and area of each district. Even though the districts must contain equal population, gerry...
I noticed that when one political party covers almost the entirely of the map, their party will continue winning the election for several years. Like how the election of 1932, the democratic party had about 88% of the electors votes and about 60% of the popular votes. The democratic party continued to win the next four elections.
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
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.
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.
FairVote says redistricting is done in most states by the state legislature to draw both state legislative and congressional district lines. FairVote (2017)