The Most Exciting Attack On Partisan Gerrymandering In Over A Decade

[applegrove]

The Most Exciting Attack On Partisan Gerrymandering In Over A Decade

by Ian Millhiser at Think Progress

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/04/18/3768905/the-most-exciting-attack-on-partisan-gerrymandering-in-over-a-decade/

"SNIP...........


Stephanopoulos and McGhee’s central insight is that gerrymanders operate by forcing the disadvantaged party to “waste” votes. Some voters are shunted into districts where their party’s candidate has no chance of winning, a process known as “cracking.” Others are crammed into districts that so overwhelmingly favor their party’s candidate that casting an additional ballot for that candidate merely adds padding to a foregone conclusion, a process known as “packing.” “A gerrymander,” Stephanopoulos and McGhee write, “is simply a district plan that results in one party wasting many more votes than its adversary.”

To sniff out possibly gerrymanders, Stephanopoulos and McGhee begin by counting each party’s “wasted” votes. As the three-judge panel hearing the Whitford case explained in a recent opinion, a wasted vote occurs when a voter either casts a ballot “for a candidate who lost the election” (suggesting that the voter was targeted by cracking), or if they cast a ballot “for the winning candidate, but in excess of what the candidate needed to win” (suggesting that the voter was packed).

As Stephanopoulos and McGhee note, some number of wasted votes are inevitable in elections involving single-member districts. But a fair map should produce roughly equal numbers of wasted votes for both parties. To determine which maps diverge too far from the ideal, the two scholars offer a metric they call the “efficiency gap,” which is calculated by taking the difference of the two parties’ wasted votes and then dividing it by the total number of votes cast. The plaintiffs in Whitford (speaking through a team of lawyers that includes Stephanopoulos) offer an example of how to calculate this figure in their complaint:

Suppose, for example, that there are five districts in a plan with 100 voters each. Suppose also that Party A wins three of the districts by a margin of 60 votes to 40, and that Party B wins two of them by a margin of 80 votes to 20. Then Party A wastes 10 votes in each of the three districts it wins and 20 votes in each of the two districts it loses, adding up to 70 wasted votes. Likewise, Party B wastes 30 votes in each of the two districts it wins and 40 votes in each of the three districts it loses, adding up to 180 wasted votes. The difference between the parties’ respective wasted votes is 110, which, when divided by 500 total votes, yields an efficiency gap of 22% in favor of Party A.

An efficiency gap of more than 7 percent, these plaintiffs claim, is indicative of a partisan gerrymander. When combined with evidence that the state acted intentionally to give one party an advantage, they argue that courts should presume that a map that produces such a high efficiency gap is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.





..........SNIP"

[yortsed snacilbuper]

1. We have three million registered Democrats in Pennsylvania and the teabaggers beat us like a,

rented mule!

[former9thward]

2. The article in the OP completely ignores the main problem.

The Voting Rights Act requires majority minority districts where possible. This means putting large amount of minorities (who are Democrats) together in districts. This is not gerrymandering, it is the law. The article's authors are apparently unaware of this legal fact.

[applegrove]

3. Did not know that. I'm from Canada. I only barely understand your gerrymandering. Still, the OP is

good news.

[1939]

4. Yes, and black Democrats

are the leading proponents of packing the maximum black votes into a single district to give them a safe district forever even though it gives many, many more safe districts to the GOP. The biggest opponent to Florida anti-gerrymandering was a black rep from Jacksonville.