English Ms. Griffin Gerrymandering
The Washington Post
Economic Policy
This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will
ever see
How to steal an election: a visual guide
By Christopher Ingraham
March 1, 2015
Gerrymandering -- drawing political boundaries to give your
party a numeric advantage over an opposing party -- is a
difficult process to explain. If you find the notion confusing,
check out the chart above -- adapted from one posted to
Reddit this weekend -- and wonder no more.
Suppose we have a very tiny state of fifty people. Thirty of them
belong to the Blue Party, and 20 belong to the Red Party. And
just our luck, they all live in a nice even grid with the Blues on
one side of the state and the Reds on the other.
Now, let's say we need to divide this state into five districts.
Each district will send one representative to the House to
represent the people. Ideally, we want the representation to be
proportional: if 60 percent of our residents are Blue and 40
percent are Red, those five seats should be divvied up the same
way.
Fortunately, because our citizens live in a neatly ordered grid,
it's easy to draw five lengthy districts -- two for the Reds , and
three for the Blues. Voila! Perfectly proportional
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/thi…of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.c5f436b338bb 4/12/19, 7K23 AM
Page 1 of 4representation, just as the Founders intended. That's grid 1
above, "perfect representation."
Now, let's say instead that the Blue Party controls the state
government, and they get to decide how the lines are drawn.
Rather than draw districts vertically they draw them
horizontally, so that in each district there are six Blues and four
Reds. You can see that in grid 2 above, "compact but
unfair."
With a comfortable Blue majority in this state, each district
elects a blue candidate to the House. The Blues win 5 seats and
the Reds don't get a single one. Oh well! All's fair in love and
politics.
In the real world, the results of this latter scenario are similar
to what we see in New York, though there are no good
examples of where a majority party gives itself a clean-sweep.
In 2012, Democrats received 66 percent of the popular House
vote. But they won 21 out of 27 House seats, or three more than
you'd expect from the popular vote alone. And from a purely
geometric standpoint, New York's congressional districts aren't
terribly irregular -- at least not compared to other states.
Finally, what if the Red Party controls the state government?
The Reds know they're at a numeric disadvantage. But with
some creative boundary drawing -- the type you see in grid
3, "neither compact nor fair" -- they can slice the Blue
population up such that they only get a majority in two
districts. So despite making up 40 percent of the population,
the Reds win 60 percent of the seats. Not bad!
In the real world, this is similar to what we see in
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/thi…of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.c5f436b338bb 4/12/19, 7K23 AM
Page 2 of 4Pennsylvania. In 2012, Democrats won 51 percent of the
popular House vote. But the only won 5 out of 18 House seats -
- fewer than one third. This was because when Pennsylvania
Republicans redrew the state's Congressional districts, they
made highly irregular districts that look like the one below, PA-
7, one of the most geographically irregular districts in the
nation.
Now, this exercise is of course a huge simplification. In the real
world people don't live in neatly-ordered grids sorted by
political party. But for real-world politicians looking to give
themselves an advantage at redistricting time, the process is
exactly the same, as are the results for the parties that
gerrymander successfully.
The easiest way to solve this issue, of course, would be to take
the redistricting process out of human hands entirely. There is
already software capable of doing just that -- good luck getting
any politicians to agree to it, though.
More on gerrymandering:
This computer programmer solved gerrymandering in his
spare time »
America’s most gerrymandered congressional districts »
What 60 years of political gerrymandering looks like »
One easy way to end gerrymandering: Stop letting politicians
draw their own districts »
Note: The chart above was adapted from one posted to Reddit
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/thi…of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.c5f436b338bb 4/12/19, 7K23 AM
Page 3 of 4this weekend. Credit to redditor N8theGr8 for finding the
original image. He couldn't track down the original creator
using a reverse image search, and neither could I. If you
made the original chart, drop me a line so I can give you
credit! UPDATE: The original creator reached out -- his
name is Stephen Nass, and he posted the original chart on
Facebook on Feb. 21.
Update: An earlier version of this post used California as an
example of a majority party giving itself a bigger majority
through redistricting. California's districts are drawn by an
independent commission, not by the parties.
! 0 Comments
Christopher Ingraham
Christopher Ingraham writes about all things data. He previously
worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.
Follow "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/thi…of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.c5f436b338bb 4/12/19, 7K23 AM
Page 4 of 4
Economic Policy
This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will
ever see
How to steal an election: a visual guide
By Christopher Ingraham
March 1, 2015
Gerrymandering -- drawing political boundaries to give your
party a numeric advantage over an opposing party -- is a
difficult process to explain. If you find the notion confusing,
check out the chart above -- adapted from one posted to
Reddit this weekend -- and wonder no more.
Suppose we have a very tiny state of fifty people. Thirty of them
belong to the Blue Party, and 20 belong to the Red Party. And
just our luck, they all live in a nice even grid with the Blues on
one side of the state and the Reds on the other.
Now, let's say we need to divide this state into five districts.
Each district will send one representative to the House to
represent the people. Ideally, we want the representation to be
proportional: if 60 percent of our residents are Blue and 40
percent are Red, those five seats should be divvied up the same
way.
Fortunately, because our citizens live in a neatly ordered grid,
it's easy to draw five lengthy districts -- two for the Reds , and
three for the Blues. Voila! Perfectly proportional
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/thi…of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.c5f436b338bb 4/12/19, 7K23 AM
Page 1 of 4representation, just as the Founders intended. That's grid 1
above, "perfect representation."
Now, let's say instead that the Blue Party controls the state
government, and they get to decide how the lines are drawn.
Rather than draw districts vertically they draw them
horizontally, so that in each district there are six Blues and four
Reds. You can see that in grid 2 above, "compact but
unfair."
With a comfortable Blue majority in this state, each district
elects a blue candidate to the House. The Blues win 5 seats and
the Reds don't get a single one. Oh well! All's fair in love and
politics.
In the real world, the results of this latter scenario are similar
to what we see in New York, though there are no good
examples of where a majority party gives itself a clean-sweep.
In 2012, Democrats received 66 percent of the popular House
vote. But they won 21 out of 27 House seats, or three more than
you'd expect from the popular vote alone. And from a purely
geometric standpoint, New York's congressional districts aren't
terribly irregular -- at least not compared to other states.
Finally, what if the Red Party controls the state government?
The Reds know they're at a numeric disadvantage. But with
some creative boundary drawing -- the type you see in grid
3, "neither compact nor fair" -- they can slice the Blue
population up such that they only get a majority in two
districts. So despite making up 40 percent of the population,
the Reds win 60 percent of the seats. Not bad!
In the real world, this is similar to what we see in
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/thi…of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.c5f436b338bb 4/12/19, 7K23 AM
Page 2 of 4Pennsylvania. In 2012, Democrats won 51 percent of the
popular House vote. But the only won 5 out of 18 House seats -
- fewer than one third. This was because when Pennsylvania
Republicans redrew the state's Congressional districts, they
made highly irregular districts that look like the one below, PA-
7, one of the most geographically irregular districts in the
nation.
Now, this exercise is of course a huge simplification. In the real
world people don't live in neatly-ordered grids sorted by
political party. But for real-world politicians looking to give
themselves an advantage at redistricting time, the process is
exactly the same, as are the results for the parties that
gerrymander successfully.
The easiest way to solve this issue, of course, would be to take
the redistricting process out of human hands entirely. There is
already software capable of doing just that -- good luck getting
any politicians to agree to it, though.
More on gerrymandering:
This computer programmer solved gerrymandering in his
spare time »
America’s most gerrymandered congressional districts »
What 60 years of political gerrymandering looks like »
One easy way to end gerrymandering: Stop letting politicians
draw their own districts »
Note: The chart above was adapted from one posted to Reddit
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/thi…of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.c5f436b338bb 4/12/19, 7K23 AM
Page 3 of 4this weekend. Credit to redditor N8theGr8 for finding the
original image. He couldn't track down the original creator
using a reverse image search, and neither could I. If you
made the original chart, drop me a line so I can give you
credit! UPDATE: The original creator reached out -- his
name is Stephen Nass, and he posted the original chart on
Facebook on Feb. 21.
Update: An earlier version of this post used California as an
example of a majority party giving itself a bigger majority
through redistricting. California's districts are drawn by an
independent commission, not by the parties.
! 0 Comments
Christopher Ingraham
Christopher Ingraham writes about all things data. He previously
worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.
Follow "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/thi…of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.c5f436b338bb 4/12/19, 7K23 AM
Page 4 of 4
Comments
Post a Comment