The Mathematics of Gerrymandering

Removing accountability from our democracy.

Gerrymandering is where politicians choose their voters very precisely according to party affiliation. It arises naturally from our Constitutional requirement that the US House of Representatives members represent the same number of citizens – an impossibility whose approximation has generated political hijinks throughout the history of our country. This IS the entire purpose of the national census held every ten years, the last one in 2020. From early times the political advantage this enables has been known, however at first neither the mathematics nor the needed data existed to make much of the possibilities.

Computers have made the collection, storage and manipulation of information a new science. This is reflected in the growing number of schools which have moved statistics from its traditional niche in the Mathematics Department to any of several others, including its own. The power of this new science is widely recognized, especially by those who recognize the abilities it provides to gerrymanderers.

How gerrymandering works: In the US the two major parties have roughly equal numbers of voters. A party’s supporters are not spread anywhere near as consistently and this is the basis of gerrymandering. For simplicity let’s represent the percent as individual voters: One hundred voters will elect ten representatives from ten districts. The electorate has 42 voters in each party and 16 independents. Ideally every district would have approximately the same number from each group. In gerrymandering the districts would be drawn so that seven districts would hold six from the dominant party (whoever controls the state government after the census, when districts MUST be re-drawn), two independents, and two from the opposition party. The other three districts would have the other 28 voters from the opposition party and the remaining independents. Thus the election of seven representatives from the dominant party and three from the opposition in the gerrymandered districts becomes a foregone conclusion. The mathematics for this is neither complicated nor difficult, it just requires the necessary information, and both parties practice gerrymandering with enthusiastic zeal and increasing accuracy and effect.

Party politics in our country is extremely narrow in its focus and remarkably short sighted. The primary result of gerrymandering is to remove accountability from the political process. When election itself is a foregone conclusion the desires and thoughts of the voters becomes completely secondary to other concerns – the primary other concern being money provided by sources whose overriding concern is personal profit as opposed to anything that helps the average voter. An interesting study might be the average number of terms served by Representatives from before the 60’s, when lack of computers made gerrymandering a very inexact ploy, to the average number today – my Representative is now serving his tenth in a very gerrymandered district. His rise in personal wealth in those two decades explains the attraction of gerrymandering to candidates, while his lack of attention to the needs of his district which I am now personally experiencing explains why the ones who get screwed are the voters.

Gerrymandering has truly been elevated to a science and the mathematics is undeniable. Even worse, neither party wants to get rid of it, just bring the edge it provides more under their control rather than the opponent’s. Candidates can make all the right noises while recognizing that their services belong not to their constituents, but to the dark money sources which ensure their right noises are heard rather than those of some equally greedy wannabe. The more gerrymandered the district the less say the voters have in the government they experience.

The heart of gerrymandering – and that which most resists its elimination – is the two party election system; erroneously believed by many to be required by our Constitution. Our election system has evolved into a two-stage process where the two major parties choose a candidate in a primary process that varies greatly and which has been hijacked in many instances. For instance in my current district the Republican Party in Virginia has decided to forego primary elections altogether - this is becoming more common in many areas, particularly in ‘safe’ gerrymandered districts – meaning there is no possible way for me to vote against the incumbent, even if I chose to vote in a Republican primary which is my right in this state. So I have no say in the Republican on the ballot, and my vote in the election is equally meaningless. Elections make for a nice show, but the outcome was determined long ago in proverbial ‘smoke-filled back rooms behind closed doors’. Neither party wants to get rid of gerrymandering, they just want the ball in their court!

What can we do?

Eliminate the two-stage process! This is as simple as combining the primaries with the general election. There is a system which is currently being used statewide in Alaska and Maine as well as many local and city elections all over the country – Ranked Choice Voting – which does exactly this.

For the beauty and effectiveness of RCV, look at what it provides:

· More Choices: Vote for multiple candidates without worrying about ‘wasting’ your vote.

· Better Campaigns: Candidates aim to appeal to a broader range of voters.

· Stronger Representation: Winners have the support of the majority, ensuring they truly represent you.

Perhaps better it eliminates a continuing enigma of American politics; the run-off election. The two-stage election process itself was an attempt to reduce run-offs, which are expensive, messy and greatly reduce the number of voters who actually determine the outcome – the opposite of democracy. In RCV the need for run-offs is eliminated by having the voter RANK the candidates in order of preference which has the effect of accurately predicting how each voter would vote in every possible run-off that might occur – hence the often-used synonym of ‘instant run-off voting’. If a voter could fulfill their obligation to choose a representative by voting exactly once, voter participation would of necessity increase: That my friend is democracy!

In an election where multiple candidates from BOTH parties are allowed, gerrymandering would become far less useful or deterministic as the winning candidate would be forced to consider the desires and needs of the constituents ahead of the demands of the party. Negative advertising also has been shown to be quite advantageous in a two-person election, but the advantage becomes a negative when you have to say: “Everybody else – they’re ALL terrible people!”

The ability to gerrymander cannot be eliminated; it’s in the Constitution. The advantage gained by gerrymandering can be eliminated by RCV: In my opinion a necessary step to becoming the democracy our founders envisioned. When an overwhelming majority of the voters are opposed to actions by the party of their elected representative, yet the elected persists; it is because the elected ‘representative’ does not feel any obligation to constituents – nor should they when re-election is a ‘fait-accompli’. This lack of accountability is not limited to the members of the party doing the gerrymandering. To work, gerrymandering creates districts powerfully controlled by BOTH parties, and thus neither party’s representative feels any particular obligation to their voters.

Gerrymandering weakens accountability of ALL elected officials to their electorate – which accountability IS the basis of any democratic government!