The term goes way back. Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, vice president of the US under Madison, fairly heavy duty guy for his time, signed off on a Massachusetts redistricting. One district came out long and thin and looked kinda like a salamander. Gerry's political enemies, of which he had a decent number, called the district a Gerrymander, designed to make Gerry's party win the next election. The term stuck.
Today, skillful politicians attempt to draw district boundaries to win elections. The idea goes like this. Pack the opponent's voters into a few districts where they form 100% of the vote. Spread our voters out so they form 51% of the vote in as many districts as possible. This way we win more districts than the opponents do, which gives us control.
Wisconsin Democrats have gotten a case to the Supremes claiming the last redistricting by Republicans is unfair to Democrats because the "Efficiency Gap" exceeds 7%. What is the "Efficiency Gap" you ask? Good question. I never heard of it before. According to the Wall St Journal it is the sum of "wasted" votes from Party X less the sum of "wasted" votes for party Y over the sum of all votes. Chief Justice John Roberts wasn't fond of "Efficiency Gap". He called it sociological gobble-de-gook.
I could get with rules against weird shaped districts, such as "The longest distance across a district shall not exceed 1.5 times the shortest distance across the district." I can get with rules requiring all districts to have the same population, give or take 10%. I could get with rules against districts formed of several blobs connected by ultra thin connecting strips. But I don't like the "Efficiency Gap" idea, it sounds like "You have to redistrict until my party wins."
No comments:
Post a Comment