electoral geography: gerrymandering, voter turnout, historical results

Electoral Geography:Electoral Geography:Gerrymandering,Gerrymandering,Voter Turnout, Voter Turnout,

Historical ResultsHistorical Results

APHGAPHG

Printed in 1812, this political cartoon illustrates the electoral districts drawn by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the incumbent Democratic-Republican party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists. The cartoon depicts the bizarre shape of one district as a salamander, from which the term gerrymander is derived.

There are two principal strategies behind gerrymandering: maximizing the effective votes of supporters, and minimizing the effective votes of opponents. One form of gerrymandering, packing, is to place as many voters of one type into a single district to reduce their influence in other districts. A second form, cracking, involves spreading out voters of a particular type among many districts in order to reduce their representation by denying them a sufficiently large voting block in any particular district. The methods are typically combined, creating a few "forfeit" seats for packed voters of one type in order to secure even greater representation for voters of another type.

Redrawing the balanced electoral districts in this example creates a guaranteed 3-to-1 advantage in representation for the blue voters as 14 red voters are packed into the yellow district and the remaining 18 are cracked across the 3 blue districts.

Gerrymandering is effective because of the wasted vote effect - by packing opposition voters into districts they will already win (increasing excess votes for winners) and by cracking the remainder among districts where they are moved into the minority (increasing votes for eventual losers), the number of wasted votes among the opposition can be maximized. Similarly, with supporters now holding narrow margins in the unpacked districts, the number of wasted votes among supporters is minimized.

Reduction in electoral competition and voter turnout

The most immediate and obvious effect of gerrymandering is for elections to become less competitive in all districts, particularly packed ones. As electoral margins of victory become significantly greater and politicians have safe seats, the incentive for meaningful campaigning is reduced. Similarly, voter turnout is likely to be adversely affected as the chance of influencing electoral results by voting becomes greatly reduced and, correspondingly, political campaigns are less likely to expend resources encouraging turnout.

Less Descriptive RepresentationLess Descriptive Representation

Gerrymandering also has significant effects on the representation received by voters in gerrymandered districts. Because gerrymandering is designed to increase the number of wasted votes among the electorate, the relative representation of particular groups can be drastically altered from their actual share of the voting population. This effect can significantly prevent a gerrymandered system from achieving proportional and descriptive representation, as the winners of elections are increasingly determined by who is drawing the districts rather than the preferences of the voters.

Incumbent gerrymandering

Carved out with the aid of a computer, this congressional district was the product of California's incumbent gerrymandering. This is the district of Democrat Grace Flores Napolitano, who ran unopposed in 2004, obtaining 100 percent of the vote.

Proposed reforms targeting gerrymandering

Due to the myriad of issues associated with gerrymandering and the subsequent impact it has on competitive elections and democratic accountability, various electoral reforms aimed at making gerrymandering either more difficult or less effective have been proposed. These reforms can be controversial, however, and frequently meet particularly strong opposition from groups that are benefiting from gerrymandering who stand to lose considerable influence in a more representative government.

Using a neutral or cross-party body to create districts

The most commonly advocated electoral reform proposal targeted at gerrymandering is to change the redistricting process. Under these proposals, an independent, and presumably objective, commission is created and charged with redistricting rather than the legislature doing the redistricting. To help ensure neutrality, members of the board can come from relatively apolitical sources such as retired state judges or longstanding members of the bureaucracy, possibly requiring adequate representation from competing political parties. Additionally, members of the board can be denied access to information that might aid in gerrymandering, such as the demographic makeup or voting patterns of the population. As a further constraint, consensus requirements can be imposed to ensure that the resulting district map reflects a wider perception of fairness, such as a requirement for a supermajority approval of the commission for any district proposal.

Changing the voting system

Because gerrymandering relies on the wasted vote effect to be effective, the use of a different voting system with fewer wasted votes can help reduce gerrymandering. The simplest system to change to is straight proportional representation, in which Gerrymandering is impossible as every vote counts no matter where it originated from.

What exactly is proportional representation?

It is a voting system that assures that the overall results are proportional to the distribution of votes. If a party receives 30% of the vote it will get approximately 30% representation. In that type of system your vote is always important. The difference between 20% and 30% doesn’t mean anything in a majority winner-take-all election, but it means the difference between 20% and 30% representation in a system that uses proportional representation.

Where is proportional representation currently in use?

ALGERIA, ANGOLA, ARGENTINA, AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, BENIN, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, BRAZIL, BULGARIA, BURKINA FASO, BURUNDI, CAMBODIA, CAPE VERDE, CHILE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ESTONIA, FINLAND, GREECE, GUINEA-BISSAU, GUYANA, ICELAND, INDONESIA, ISRAEL, LATVIA, LIBERIA, LIECHTENSTEIN, LUXEMBOURG, MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA, NETHERLANDS, NETHERLANDS ANTILLES, NEW CALEDONIA, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PARAGUAY, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SRI LANKA, SURINAME, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, SERBIA, TURKEY, URUGUAY, WALLIS AND FUTUNA

After increasing for many decades, there has been a trend of decreasing voter turnout in most established democracies since the 1960s. This issue has been much studied, but scholars are divided on what has caused it, with a wide array of economic, demographic, cultural, technological, and institutional factors proposed as the cause of this decline.

Voter TurnoutVoter Turnout

Voters lining up outside a Baghdad polling station during the 2005 Iraqi election. Voter turnout was surprisingly high despite widespread concerns of violent attacks on polling places.

Voter TurnoutVoter Turnout There can also be regional differences in voter

turnout. One issue that arises in continent-spanning nations, such as Canada, the United States and Russia, is that of time zones. For example, for voters in the western part of the United States, national elections have often been essentially decided well before polls close in their region. This potentially depresses turnout on the Pacific coast. Canada has partially resolved this problem by banning the broadcasting of election results in any region where the polls have not yet closed.

Voter Turnout – Cultural FactorsVoter Turnout – Cultural FactorsWealth and literacy have some effect on turnout, but are not reliable measures. Countries such as Angola and Ethiopia have long had high turnouts, but so have the wealthy states of Europe. The United Nations Human Development Index shows some correlation between higher standards of living and higher turnout. The age of a democracy is also an important factor. Elections require considerable involvement by the population, and it takes some time to develop the cultural habit of voting, and the associated understanding of and confidence in the electoral process. This factor may explain the lower turnouts in the newer democracies of Eastern Europe and Latin America. Much of the impetus to vote comes from a sense of civic duty, which takes time and certain social conditions to develop. G. Bingham Powell lists four major attitudes that have a strongly positive effect on voter turnout, attitudes that can take decades to develop:

•trust in government•degree of partisanship among the population •interest in politics•belief in the efficacy of voting

Voter TurnoutVoter Turnout

Demographics also have an effect. Older people tend to vote more than youths, so societies where the average age is somewhat higher, such as Europe, have higher turnouts than somewhat younger countries such as Canada and the United States. Populations that are more mobile and those that have lower marriage rates tend to have lower turnouts. In countries that are highly multicultural and multilingual, it can be difficult for national election campaigns to engage all sectors of the population.

Compulsory Voting - AustraliaCompulsory Voting - Australia

Australians have been required to vote in federal elections since 1924. Concerned that voter turnout had dipped below 60 percent, parliament enacted mandatory voting after only 90 minutes of debate, and it's gone largely unchallenged ever since. Polls regularly show 70 percent to 80 percent of Australians support mandatory voting. Lisa Hill, a research fellow at the University of Adelaide, explains it this way: "We're quite happy with some forms of coercion that others may not be happy with."

Compulsory VotingCompulsory Voting

Compulsory VotingCompulsory Voting Actually, the voting part of "mandatory voting" is a

misnomer. All Australian citizens over the age of 18 must register and show up at a polling station, but they need not actually vote. They can deface their ballot or write in Skippy the Bush Kangaroo (Australia's version of Lassie)—or do nothing at all.

What happens if you don't show up on Election Day? You'll receive a fairly polite form letter. At this point, you can settle the matter by paying a $15 fine or offering any number of excuses, including illness (no note from your doctor required), travel, religious objections, or just plain forgetfulness. For most people, the matter ends here. In most elections, about a half-million registered voters don't come to the polls. Ninety-five percent of them offer a valid excuse, and the matter ends there. Five percent pay a fine.

Compulsory VotingCompulsory Voting A few hundred cases each election actually end up in court.

Those who refuse to pay the fine or offer a plausible excuse face escalating threats, similar to the ones you receive from American Express when your balance is past due. The fine jumps to $37 and, in extreme cases, a brief prison sentence is imposed. But the Australian government clearly doesn't want to imprison a lot of its citizens for not voting. I've been able to find only a few cases of Aussies going to jail over this in the past few decades—all conscientious objectors courting arrest. A significant percentage of Australians—about 15 percent of them—don't bother to register at all. The government doesn't go after these people, reserving fines and prosecutions only for those who register and don't show up on Election Day. (Australia's 80-plus percent registration rate is very high compared to other democracies.)

Australia: Arguments used in favor of compulsory voting:

• Voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform (e.g. taxation, compulsory education, or jury duty).

• Parliament reflects more accurately the "will of the electorate."

• Governments must consider the total electorate in policy formulation and management.

• Candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on issues rather than encouraging voters to attend the poll.

• The voter isn’t actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.

Australia: Arguments used against compulsory voting:

• It is undemocratic to force people to vote - an infringement of liberty.

• The "ignorant" and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls.

• It may increase the number of "donkey votes" (bad votes that don't get counted).

• It may increase the number of informal votes (ballot papers which are not marked according to the rules for voting).

• It increases the number of safe, single-member electorates - political parties then concentrate on the more marginal electorates.

• Resources must be allocated to determine whether those who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reasons.

Examples of Bushmanders!Examples of Bushmanders!

Bullwinkle • (New York's 12th; Hispanic majority)

Pair of Ear Muffs • (Illinois's 4th; Hispanic majority)

Mark of Zorro • (Louisiana's 4th; black majority)

SatireSatire

Man peers under locked ballot box

Date: 2005-03-31 Artist: Dale Cummings

Post-election America is red, white, black and blue

Date: 2004-11-03 Artist: JD Crowe

Bush vs. Gore 2000Bush vs. Gore 2000

In this map and the following series of maps, the color Blue represents the Republicans and the color Red the Democrats.

Bush vs. Gore 2000Bush vs. Gore 2000

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

Florida 2000Florida 2000


Florida 2000Florida 2000 Presidential Candidate; Vice Presidential Candidate; Party Presidential Candidate; Vice Presidential Candidate; Party

Popular Vote; Electoral Vote Popular Vote; Electoral Vote

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 2,912,790 George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 2,912,790 48.85% 25 48.85% 25

Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 2,912,253 Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 2,912,253 48.84% 0 48.84% 0

Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 97,488 1.63% 0 Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 97,488 1.63% 0 Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 17,484 0.29% 0 Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 17,484 0.29% 0 Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 16,415 0.28% 0 Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 16,415 0.28% 0 Other (+) - - 6,680 0.11% 0 Other (+) - - 6,680 0.11% 0

Fairfield County

Gore 52.3% 193,769

Bush 43.1% 159,659

Nader 3.4% 12,664

Other 1.1% 4,197

Hartford County

Gore 60.2% 221,167

Bush 34.7% 127,468

Nader 3.9% 14,214

Other 1.3% 4,707

Litchfield County

Gore 47.9% 41,806

Bush 44.9% 39,172

Nader 6.2% 5,413

Other 1.1% 947

Connecticut Counties Sample2000


Bush vs. Kerry 2004Bush vs. Kerry 2004

U.S. Senate 2006U.S. Senate 2006

Dem Net: +5 Rep Net: -6 Ind Net: +1

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2006&off=3&f=0

Nixon vs. Kennedy 1960Nixon vs. Kennedy 1960


Presidential Candidate Vice Presidential Candidate Political Party

Popular Vote Electoral Vote

John Kennedy Lyndon Johnson Democratic 34,220,984 49.72% 303 56.42%

Richard Nixon Henry Lodge Republican 34,108,157 49.55% 219 40.78%

Unpledged Electors - Democratic 286,359 0.42% 15 2.79%

Other (+) - - 216,982 0.32% 0 0.00%

1960 Electoral Summary1960 Electoral Summary
