Gerrymander and the Need for Redistricting Reform

by Michael D. Robbins

December 5, 2000

Revised January 2, 2007

This self-contained comprehensive article on reapportionment, redistricting, and gerrymander is suitable for both individual and classroom use.

Gerrymandering is the drawing of election district boundary lines for partisan advantage, to favor the majority party and incumbent politicians of all political parties.

Abstract    ( concise abstract )
Table of Contents
Article
Side Bar Index

Keywords: redistricting, reapportionment, gerrymander, gerrymandering, gerrymandered, gerymander, gerymandering, gerymandered, germander, germandering, germandered, jerrymander, jerrymandering, jerrymandered, jerymander, jerymandering, jerymandered, redistricting map, election, fraud, election fraud, packing, vote dilution, cracking, gerymander, gerymandering, Redistricting, Reapportionment, Gerrymander, Gerrymandering, Gerrymandered, Redistricting Map, Gerymander, Gerymandering, Gerymandered, Germander, Germandering, Germandered, Jerrymander, Jerrymandering, Jerrymandered, Jerymander, Jerymandering, Jerymandered, REDISTRICTING, REAPPORTIONMENT, GERRYMANDER, GERRYMANDERING, GERRYMANDERED, JERRYMANDER, JERRYMANDERING, JERRYMANDERED, JERYMANDER, JERYMANDERING, JERYMANDERED, REDISTRICTING MAP, compactness metric, fairness metric, algorithm, fair, unfair, Grid Gerrymander, Checkerboard Gerrymander, Chessboard Gerrymander, Checker Board Gerrymander, Chess Board Gerrymander, ballot, vote, voter, voter fraud, corruption, politics, politician, political, political corruption, reform, redistricting reform, political reform, initiative, voter initiative, redistricting reform initiative, teach, explain, describe, understand, understanding, classroom, school, class, class project, teacher, demonstration, instruction, instruct, educate, education, instructor, educator, redistrict, reapportion, census, demographic data, race, racial, race-based, preferences, affirmative action, segregated, segregation, majority-minority, minority-majority, Gerry, Elbridge Gerry, party, fair, unfair, entrenched, incumbent, safe, noncompetitive, district, legislature, Congress, representative, Constitution, electronic, voting, system, electronic voting, electronic voting system, liberal, judicial activist, judicial activism, conservative, strict constructionist, Republican, Democrat, Democratic, ACLU, Assembly Speaker, Willie Brown, Reform Party, Pat Buchanan, Pete Wilson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fraud, Factor, Fraud Factor, FraudFactor, Michael D. Robbins, Michael Robbins, Mike Robbins

Abstract:

The U.S. Constitution requires that every ten years a national census be taken and the results of that census be used to reapportion representatives in Congress among the states according to population. After reapportionment, each state must perform redistricting, the process of re-drawing the election district boundary lines for each type of state or federal office (e.g., state senator, state assemblyman, congress representative, etc.) so that all districts for the same type of office have nearly identical voter population. Local governments such as cities and counties also perform redistricting for their elected offices. The purpose of reapportionment and redistricting is to preserve the one voter-one vote fairness principle.

The gerrymander is a form of election fraud that misuses redistricting to violate the one voter-one vote fairness principle that redistricting is intended to preserve. Gerrymandering is the process where the majority party draws an election district map with district boundary lines that give itself an unfair and undeserved numerical vote advantage during each election. This numerical advantage is obtained by maximizing the number of districts with a majority of voters from the majority party. Here, "majority party" refers to the party with a majority of seats in the state legislature, which usually but not always corresponds to the party that received the majority of total votes in the previous election. Exceptions are possible due to gerrymanders.

A gerrymandered redistricting map concentrates minority party voters into the fewest possible number of election districts (packing), distributes minority party voters among many districts so their vote will not influence the election outcome in any one district (vote dilution), and/or divides incumbent minority party legislator districts and constituents up among multiple new districts with a majority of majority party voters (cracking). In some gerrymander cases, multiple minority party incumbents are forced to run against each other in the same district.

Bizarre election district boundaries are drawn to connect distant disjoint areas with thin strips of land running through unpopulated areas such as industrial parks and cemeteries, down highways and railroad tracks, and through bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Modern computers are used to produce optimized gerrymanders. Gerrymandering is the equivalent of legally stealing an election by stuffing the ballot box with fraudulent ballots voted for the incumbent or removing legitimate ballots voted for the challengers before they are counted. However, the gerrymander is a mathematical concept and is not easily explained or understood without the use of effective visual aids.

Gerrymandered election district map boundaries give a disproportionately large amount of legislative seats and political power to the majority party, which perpetuates the gerrymander cycle decade after decade. Gerrymander also produces safe noncompetitive election districts for all incumbents of all parties, resulting in massive political corruption and nonresponsive government. Gerrymanders hurt all voters of all parties. The voters can stop this form of election fraud and the resulting political corruption by enacting redistricting reform laws through voter initiative in states where the right of voter initiative is available. Redistricting maps can also be challenged in the courts.

( return )

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Gerrymander Violates the Fairness Principle
• Gerrymander as a National Issue
• Gerrymander is a Mathematical Concept
• Brief History
• Tools to Teach About Gerrymandering
  • Gerrymander Analogy
  • Simple Graph System
  • Actual Redistricting Maps
  • Compactness Metric
  • Simple Graph System Example
  • Class Project and Demonstration
  • A Simple to Use Analytical Tool
• Impact on Specific Demographic Groups
• Statistical Sampling and Counting Illegal Aliens
• Electronic Voting Schemes
• The Vicious Cycle of Gerrymandering
• The Need for Redistricting Reform
• Redistricting Reform Efforts in California
  • California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed Redistricting Reform initiative for 2005 - Proposition 77 - will be on the ballot for the special election on Tuesday, November 8, 2005.

Side Bars

• Concise Abstract 
• Definition of Gerrymander
• Definition of Elbridge Gerry
• Biography #1 of Elbridge Gerry
• Biography #2 of Elbridge Gerry
• Excerpts from the U.S. Constitution on Reapportionment
• California Constitution Article 21 on Reapportionment
• Closed Primary Elections
• Presidential Elections and the Electoral College
• Bicameral State Legislature
• The Danger of Judicial Activism
• Louisiana Demographic Map Examples
• Deriving the Formula for a Compactness Metric for an Election District
• Formulas for the Area and Centroid (Center of Mass) of a Polygon
• Mathematical Proofs
• Theoretical Grid and Checkerboard Gerrymanders
• An Example Demonstrating Unsafe, Competitive Districts
• An Example Demonstrating The Minority Party Controlling a Majority of Districts

( return )

Have you ever wondered why many politicians engage in political corruption without concern about voter anger and rejection at the next election? Or why they engage in punitive legislation targeting their opponents and even their own constituents? Or why they cater to special interests while ignoring the needs of their voter constituency? Or why incumbent politicians abuse illegal narcotic drugs and alcohol while in office, and still get re-elected?

Gerrymander Violates the Fairness Principle

The Census and redrawing of election district boundary lines is done every ten years as mandated by the U.S. Constitution to ensure fair and proper representation among the states in Congress, and to preserve the one voter-one vote fairness principle in the lower house of Congress and the state legislatures. State Constitutions and/or Statutes specify additional, more detailed requirements for reapportionment and redistricting process, which are also supposed to preserve the fairness principle. Furthermore, electing representatives by district rather than at large (state-wide election for all candidates) provides local representation and avoids the problem of one party controlling all the legislative seats. However, gerrymander subverts this process designed for fairness into a process for unfair political corruption. Under gerrymandering, we have a one voter-no vote system in the general election, where there is at most one candidate from each party for each office.

For a Democrat in California and most other places, a 55 percent Democratic voter registration district is typically a safe district. For a Republican in California and most other places, a 50 percent Republican voter registration district is typically safe, due to greater Republican voter turnout. A 60 percent district is very safe for either party. Gerrymander often produces 65 to 80 percent safe election districts for all incumbents. Almost always, gerrymander alone is sufficient to guarantee automatic victory for the incumbent, or for a candidate of the party that "owns" the district when there is an empty seat. When combined with other incumbent advantages including name recognition, ability to use the office as a campaign platform, and the use of the influence of public official status to raise greater amounts of campaign funds, any challenger doesn't stand a chance at unseating the incumbent.

This is why there are elections where incumbent state legislators and congressman run unopposed. It does not make sense to spend much time and money to run in an election where the election has already been stolen and the outcome is predetermined before the election is held due to gerrymandered election districts.

It is important to note that not all safe election districts are gerrymandered, and not all gerrymandered districts are safe. Some election districts are naturally safe noncompetitive districts due to the local demographics. For example rural, sparsely populated areas tend to be more conservative and Republican, and urban, more densely populated areas tend to be more liberal and Democratic. Gerrymandering simply takes an imperfect situation and makes it much worse. Even if the gerrymander results in a few marginally safe districts, nearly all of the districts are extremely safe noncompetitive districts.

Some people falsely claim that gerrymander is not an important issue nor cause for concern. They claim that voter demographics, especially where voters of each party choose to live in greater numbers, is the dominant factor. These people are either misinformed or intentionally trying to deceive the public. If gerrymander had no significant impact on election outcomes and the dominant or only factor were voter demographics, then the United States would not have a long and continuing history of gerrymander. There would not be political battles including court challenges between the parties and various other political organizations over redistricting maps.

Even though voter demographics makes some election districts naturally safe and noncompetitive, gerrymander makes all or all but a few election districts artificially extremely safe and noncompetitive. Also, gerrymander differs from voter demographics by giving the majority party an artificially large number and proportion of election districts and legislative and congressional seats that it controls. Thus, a party that receives a small majority of all votes in an election is guaranteed an artificially large majority of seats. This leads to single party control in what is supposed to be a multi-party representative system of self-government.

Some people argue that gerrymandering does not constitute election fraud and corruption, and is not the equivalent of stealing elections, because it is legal and is made possible by a long-established political process. However, gerrymandering should be considered a form of election fraud and corruption, even though it is legal until outlawed by legislation, a voter initiative, or a court decision. The artificially wide vote count spreads resulting from gerrymandering show that gerrymandering is significantly more effective at changing election outcomes than other methods of election theft, which are usually effective only in close elections.

In gerrymandered election districts, the general election outcome is already determined by the district boundary lines before the election takes place. The citizens' votes only make a difference in the primary election where the voters of each party select their candiate to run in the general election. Furthermore, in closed primary elections, only voters of the majority party for a given district have any influence in the primary election outcome and therefore in the general election outcome.

The results and intentions of laws, policies, and practices should be considered when assessing whether they constitute fraud or corruption. The words "fraud" and "corruption" have specific legal meanings and there is legislation addressing these subjects. However, there are forms of fraud and corruption that a reasonable person would agree are "fraud" and "corruption", even though they are permissible under the law. In fact, anti-fraud and anti-corruption laws have been enacted to prohibit forms of fraud and corruption that were previously legal but widely recognized as fraud and corruption.

Conversely, laws have been enacted as a result of corrupt influences, up to and including bribery, and with corrupt intentions. Such laws, and the results of such laws, can be reasonably described as corruption even though they were enacted by elected officials.

Therefore, gerrymanders should be considered a significant form of election fraud and corruption, and the equivalent of stealing elections. Gerrymandering should be prohibited in order to restore the citizens' voting rights.

During the post-election contest of the 2000 presidential election, Democrats and Republicans exchanged accusations of election fraud and election theft. The news media widely reported and amplified these accusations of the theft of a single election. In contrast, the news media has ignored and continues to ignore the real and successful election thefts that take place throughout California and the U.S. every two years through gerrymandering by one party or the other, or by both parties in a bipartisan gerrymander as was done in California.

If the news media had any competence and integrity at all, and if they cared at all about the citizens and tax payers, they would continuously report on these election thefts through gerrymandering and on the need for redistricting reform.

The president, on the other hand, is elected by electors in the Electoral College, who are in turn elected by all the voters in each state. Thus, presidential elections do not involve election districts and are not subject to gerrymandering. Presidential elections more closely reflect the true will of the people. However, presidents have been elected with less than a majority of the popular vote, and in very few cases, with less popular votes than the leading challenger. This is a result of third party candidates splitting the popular vote and the "winner takes all" system used by most states to select their electors in the Electoral College.

After the 2000 election, I predicted that the Republican Party would probably lose their majority in the House of Representatives because they neglected to provide sufficient and effective support for Redistricting Reform in California on a high priority and ongoing basis. It should have been obvious to the Republican political analysts and strategists that the future of the Republican Party and all voters depends on solving the gerrymander problem in California, as well as the problem of massive illegal immigration and election fraud. Gerrymandering is a problem wherever it exists no matter which political party benefits the most. This is because all voters lose and all incumbents of all parties win with safe districts. However, California is critically important because of its exceptionally large congressional delegation.

This prediction did not come true, because President George W. Bush convinced California's Republican leadership in the state legislature to make a deal with the Democrats. They agreed that the Republicans would not challenge or attempt to block the Democrat redistricting plan even though the state legislature was heavily gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats, as long as the gerrymander of California's Congressional districts preserved the number of safe Republican controlled districts. President Bush wanted sufficient numbers of Republicans in Congress to provide the necessary votes for his programs and political agenda. As it turned out, the Republican legislators in California did not achieve the best possible deal when negotiating with the Democrats. As a result of this deal, the California election districts became hopelessly gerrymandered against all the voters, with even greater imbalance and safer districts.

At the national level, each of the major political parties keep score, calculating which states will gain or lose congressional seats due to reapportionment, and how many seats will be gained and lost in states where redistricting will be controlled by a Democratic or Republican majority state legislature and governor. This score is used to determine whether there will be a net gain or loss of representatives in Congress for each of the major parties, based on which party will get to gerrymander which states, and based on the new numbers of representatives for each state. Notice that this calculation does not take into account the will of the voters. The will of the voters becomes irrelevant in states with gerrymandered election districts.

Each of the major parties can rationalize, and to some extent actually justify, gerrymandering the states where they have a majority control of the legislature. After all, the other major party will gerrymander every state where they have control, and there must be some attempt to offset their gerrymandering to maintain some balance in the Congress. And if it is possible to have a net gain over the other party in Congress due to gerrymandering, then this can be rationalized as a "punishment" for the other party for gerrymandering the states that they control. But the real winners are all incumbents of all parties, and the real losers are all voters of all parties.

Gerrymandering has been around for a long time, long before electronic computers were invented. However, it is difficult to explain gerrymandering to the public without using special tools and techniques, because gerrymandering is a mathematical concept. Modern day "redistricting" computer programs are used to determine the optimal gerrymander district map boundary lines. These programs use linear programming techniques to solve minimization/maximization problems involving many variables. Such programs can use voter registration data, voter turn-out data, and vote count numbers for each party and candidate with resolution down to the voter precinct level.

The redistricting programs can also make use of other demographic data, including income level, race, religion, age, and gender, in addition to political party affiliation to fine-tune which voters are included or excluded for each new election district and its various precincts. Projected future demographic trend data can be used to produce a robust gerrymander that will endure for ten years until the next census and redistricting cycle. A set of Louisiana demographic maps is provided in the section, Louisiana Demographic Map Examples, to demonstrate some of the different types of demographic data available and how it looks when displayed as map overlays. Gerrymandering can have an even greater adverse impact on specific targeted demographic groups.

Current election district boundary lines are drawn with only a few constraints. These constraints, which are described in detail below, are as follows:

1. One representative per district;
2. Approximately equal population for each district of the same type;
3. Contiguous districts; and
4. Additional constraints, such as respecting geographical integrity.

First, there must be one representative per district.

Second, each district for the same type of office must contain approximately the same number of people. Early gerrymanders created election districts for the lower house of Congress and the State Legislature with substantially different populations. The U.S. Supreme Court held in a series of cases in the 1960's that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed "equality" of voting power and that the electoral systems in states which failed to allocate voting power on the basis of population were unconstitutional. One of these cases coined the phrase "one person, one vote". The Court held in 1964 that all members of a state legislature must be elected from districts containing substantially equal populations. Note that counting illegal aliens violates the one voter-one vote fairness principle, and may also violate Article XIV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Prior to this ruling, California and other states had a bicameral legislature modeled after the Congress and the balance of powers created in the federal Constitution. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that a legislature modeled after the federal Constitution was unconstitutional, and violated that very same Constitution. This ruling destroyed the balance of power, favoring the Democratic Party and densely populated urban areas, and subjected the state Senate to gerrymandering. This ruling also subjected the state Assembly to a greater degree of gerrymandering because redistricting legislation must be approved by both the state Senate and Assembly, and signed by the governor. Because the state Senate was not subject to gerrymandering, there was a greater chance that it would block legislation to gerrymander the state Assembly and congressional districts. Could this ruling have been the work of a liberal judicial activist majority on the Court?

Third, each district must be contiguous. That is, all voters in a given district must reside within a single contiguous geographical area that can be enclosed in a single continuous boundary line that has no breaks and does not cross itself. This requirement is supposed to ensure that election districts contain land areas and populations that are close to each other, that are connected to each other, and that have issues and concerns in common.

However, as the examples below illustrate, this requirement is easily circumvented. For example, a square within a larger square, or a circle within a larger circle, is not permitted, but can be effectively achieved with a narrow strip or path of land that joins the outer area to the inner area, as in the letter "C". This example contains three contiguous election districts, where each district contains portions of the other two districts. You can verify that each of the three (red, blue, and green) districts is in fact contiguous by tracing its boundary, starting from any point on its boundary, without reversing direction along your path, and you will eventually arrive at your starting point. Notice how the red district in the example joins two distant, disconnected areas with a thin strip of land. Much more complex examples of carving specific areas in or out of an election district can be created, where there are hooks on hooks that are on hooks. Also, real election district maps use all types of curves in addition to straight lines, which provides even greater flexibility.

As another example, it is even possible, at least in theory, to have a Checkerboard Gerrymander (or Chessboard Gerrymander, if you prefer) as shown below, as a special case of the theoretical Grid Gerrymander. In a Checkerboard Gerrymander, two "adjacent" contiguous districts are created in a checkerboard pattern where any two adjacent squares adjoining along an edge belong to different districts. The theoretical Grid Gerrymander and Checkerboard Gerrymander were devised by the author, Michael D. Robbins, to demonstrate in a simple manner how extreme a gerrymander can become in spite of the contiguous district requirement. This example shows how a region can be divided up into a grid pattern, and each of the squares or rectangles in each row of the grid can be arbitrarily assigned to either one of two contiguous districts by opening up its boundary line adjoining a thin strip above or below it, to form a Grid Gerrymander. This example is explained in greater detail below in the section, Theoretical Grid and Checkerboard Gerrymanders. You can verify that each of the two (red and blue) districts is in fact contiguous using the boundary tracing method from the previous example.

Fourth, an additional constraint may be imposed, as in California, to respect the geographical integrity "to the extent possible" of any city, county, or city and county, or of any geographical region. This constraint is vague, allowing legislators more than enough flexibility to create even the most extreme gerrymanders. This constraint should be either relaxed or eliminated to allow or even require more compact election districts. One approach would require that districts are approximate rectangles with some deviations allowed to follow roads, waterways, and state boundary lines.

A description of possible virtual election districts that violate these rules is given below.

Gerrymander Analogy

Actual Redistricting Maps

The original gerrymander cartoon below is a useful and humorous instructional aid. It is provided here in two sizes.

Although the Democratic-Republican party was in power in Massachusetts in 1812, it had little hope of retaining its control in the approaching elections. To save something for the party Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a reapportionment bill to construct new senatorial election districts that consolidated the Federalist vote. An exasperated editor hung a map showing one of these districts. Gilbert Stuart, the painter, added head, wings, and claws to the outline, noting, "That will do for a salamander." "Better say Gerrymander," the editor responded. The Boston Weekly Messenger brought the term gerrymander into common usage when it printed an editorial cartoon illustrating the district in question with a monster's head, arms, and tail and named the creature a gerrymander. The Democratic-Republican party broke apart in 1824 and most of its supporters moved to the Democratic Party under the leadership of Andrew Jackson in 1828. Text Source: First paragraph: Compton's Encyclopedia Online v3.0, 1998  - http://www.Comptons.com/encyclopedia/ARTICLES/0050/00734720_A.html Second paragraph: About.com - search on Gerrymandering http://geography.MiningCo.com/library/weekly/aa030199.htm Third paragraph: Online Highways,  definition for Democratic-Republican Party  - http://www.OHwy.com/us/d/drp.htm

( return )

The Illinois 4th Congressional District is a Hispanic majority district in parts of the North Side and the southwest side of Chicago. It surrounds a black majority district, the 7th district. It is ten miles wide, and runs along railroad tracks, forest preserves, and cemeteries. It contains significant immigrant populations and is majority Democratic but has low voter turnout. The Supreme Court declined to hear a suit about the 4th district. Note that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 11th districts also appear to be gerrymandered.

Illinois 1990 Hispanic majority 4th Congressional District wraps around the black majority 7th Cong. District

North Carolina's black-majority 12th Congressional district is another example of a racial gerrymander, as demonstrated by the following maps. Note the distant disjoint areas connect by thin strips of land. There was litigation over this district. (Maps provided courtesy of Adversity.net, http://www.Adversity.net/special/gerrymander_1.htm).

North Carolina black majority 12th Congressional District Gerrymander

North Carolina black majority 12th Congressional District Gerrymander

North Carolina black majority 12th Congressional District Gerrymander

North Carolina black majority 12th Congressional District Gerrymander

The Louisiana Congressional election district maps shown below, with the disputed fourth congressional district shown in solid black in the small map and in yellow in the large map, help illustrate the general appearance of the boundaries of gerrymandered election districts. Note the lack of compactness, i.e., the very long boundary line relative to the area enclosed by the boundary. For comparison, imagine the much shorter boundary of a square enclosing the same area. Also note the hooks along the boundary, and the areas outside the fourth district that are almost completely surrounded by the fourth district. Also note how the fourth district boundary connects otherwise distant and disjoint areas of the state using narrow strips of land. These are all characteristics of gerrymandered election districts. The larger map is of poor quality and difficult to read. However, it does show all of the election districts in the state.

A formula can be derived for a Compactness Metric to determine whether an election district lacks compactness and is likely to be gerrymandered. One such compactness metric is the value CM = B/Sqrt(A) = the total length of the boundary of an election district divided by the square root of the area of the district. An equivalent but more useful compactness metric is the value CM² = B²/A = the square of the total length of the boundary of an election district divided by the area of the district. This compactness metric is more useful because it provides a greater range of values and greater differences between the values to be compared.

This compactness metric has several desirable qualities. It is a pure dimensionless number. It is unambiguous, intuitive, and straightforward to compute, and its value is invariant for the same shape with different sizes and areas.

Thus, two districts with the same shape and (approximately) the same number of voters will have the same (or nearly identical) Compactness Metric values even though the less densely populated district has a larger area. The boundary length of an election district is easily computed using the distance formula for each pair of adjacent boundary points and adding all of the boundary segment lengths.

The distance formula is d = SQRT(x² + y²) where SQRT is the square root function. It is derived from the Pythagorean theorem to compute the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle (contains a right or 90 degree angle) from the lengths of the sides forming the right angle. The area of an election district is easily computed using a simple formula for the area of an arbitrary polygon that does not intersect itself.

Another possible compactness metric uses the distance between the two furthest points in the district divided by the square root of the area of the district. Variations of this compactness metric divide the diameter of the minimum bounding circle or the length of the diagonal of the minimum bounding rectangle by the square root of the area of the district. The minimum bounding rectangle is easily computed using the minimum and maximum latitude and longitude (x and y) of all map coordinates for points on the district boundary line. However, furthest distance and bounding circles and rectangles do not completely account for the amount of twists and turns, or cumulative curvature, of the district boundary line.

A third possible compactness metric computes the average distance from all boundary points, all boundary and interior points, or the centers of small patch areas in the district to the computed "center of mass" of the district and divides this average length by the square root of the area of the district. Calculations involving standard deviation may also be useful.

Yet another possible compactness metric could measure the number of times the boundary changes direction or the count or sum of the angles in the boundary that are greater than some threshold number.

Multiple compactness metrics can be used simultaneously to judge the compactness of the election district boundary lines and to define mathematical criteria for either accepting or rejecting a proposed redistricting map. These compactness measures were conceived by the author, Michael D. Robbins, but may have also been independently conceived by others. Undoubtedly, other Compactness Measures exist or can be conceived.

Note, however, that some election districts that are not gerrymandered, but which follow the boundary lines of political subdivisions such as counties and cities, may not be compact due to the irregularities of the pre-existing county or city boundaries.

Compactness is not always a sufficient criteria, but it is a reasonable constraint to prevent the more extreme cases of election manipulation through gerrymandering. It is possible to have different redistricting maps with equally compact districts that yield different results in balance of power between the parties and in whether the districts are safe or competitive. This can be illustrated by the district maps shown using the Simple Graph System. Redistricting Map 5A can be redrawn to retain District 5, the green vertical column of four squares on the far right, and to replace Districts 1-4, the remaining four districts on the left with straight horizontal rather than straight vertical districts. This results in Redistricting Map 5B. The four new districts on the left are considerably safer for the incumbents even though they have the same shape and area, and therefore the same compactness metric, as the four districts they replaced. Thus, the compactness metric should be only one of several metrics or criteria used to objectively determine whether or not a given election district or a complete set of election districts is gerrymandered.

A measure for the entire redistricting map would compare the percentage of total votes cast across all districts in the state for members of each political party for each office type with the percentage of elected officials for each party that hold each type of office. For California, the legislative office types would be Congress (U.S. Representative), State Assembly, and State Senate. Local offices such as City Councilmember, School Board Member, and County Supervisor are considered "nonpartisan" offices by law. However, these districts are often gerrymandered along partisan or racial lines as well. One percentage can be divided into the other to form a Fairness Metric, and if this fairness metric is outside some threshold, the redistricting map is rejected. Thus, the balance between political parties in Congress and the state legislature would more closely resemble the balance of votes cast for members of each political party.

Simple Graph System Example

This and the other similar simple graph system examples can be used as the basis for a class project and demonstration. The details are given at the end of this first example.

Recall that for a Democrat, a 55 percent Democratic voter registration district is typically a safe district. For a Republican, a 50 percent Republican voter registration district is typically safe, due to greater Republican voter turnout. A 60 percent district is very safe for either party.

This example illustrates four different redistricting maps for the same geographical area and voter population. Each map distributes one fourth of the voter population in the map region into each of four election districts. Although the total voter population consists of half Republicans and half Democrats, Map 1 and Map 2 yield a 50-50 percent split of legislative seats between Republicans and Democrats, while Map 3 yields a 75-25 percent split favoring Democrats, and Map 4 yields a 75-25 percent split favoring Republicans.

In this example, each square represents a region of similar population. All squares in the same election district must touch at least one other square in the district either along a side or at a corner, and two election districts may not cross over each other at a square corner. The R squares have a majority of Republican voters and the D squares have a majority of Democratic voters.

For simplicity, assume that there are only Republican and Democratic voters, and further assume that 70 percent of the voters in each R square are Republicans, and 70 percent of the voters in each D square are Democrats.

Under these assumptions for the percentage of voters from each party in a square, we have the following: An election district with 2 R squares and 1 D square contains 57 percent Republican voters and 43 percent Democratic voters. This is a very safe 57 percent Republican district. Similarly, an election district with 2 D squares and 1 R square contains 57 percent Democratic voters and 43 percent Republican voters. This is a safe 57 percent Democratic district.

The calculations for a 2 R - 1 D election district with 70 percent squares are as follows:

The calculations for a 2 D - 1 R election district with 70 percent squares are as follows:

The calculations for a 3 R - 0 D election district with 70 percent squares are as follows:

The calculations for a 3 D - 0 R election district with 70 percent squares are as follows:

The following material provides details about a live classroom demonstration, and may be skipped.

A class project and demonstration involving student participation can be developed from these examples. A suggested class project involves grouping students into election districts and political parties (or candidate supporters) using the groupings shown in the redistricting maps in the examples. By repeating this process for different redistricting maps with the same numbers of student voters supporting each party (or set of candidates), the different election outcomes for the different district maps are demonstrated.

The numbers of students used must be equal or proportional to the numbers of map squares used in the examples. Extra students can play the role of election officials, ballot collectors and counters, observers ("poll watchers"), candidates, or news reporters to report on the reason for the different election outcomes using different election district maps. Actual paper ballots should be cast according to the party registration or the support for a candidate running in the voter's district.

However, it should be made clear that it is not necessary for individual voters to vote strict party line in a real election, but in this exercise each student is representing a block of voters in an election district with a much larger voter population than the number of students participating in the exercise. The exception to this rule is primary elections in states that have closed primaries, where voters choose among one or more candidates for each office from their own party to determine which candidates receive the party nomination to run in the general election. As an option, you may also point out that given the current voting patterns, about two-thirds of all voters and 80 to 90 percent of some demographic groups (e.g., Jewish and black voters) tend to vote straight party line. You may also discuss whether or not this is in the best interest of voters in those demographic groups and provide explanations. For more information, see the section titled "Impact on Specific Demographic Groups" below.

These instructions may be modified as appropriate given the situation. For example, if paper ballots are too time consuming, you may substitute a vote by show of hands or by roll call vote.

( return )

The following material provides detailed information on the calculations, and may be skipped.

These calculations only require the appropriate election vote count and voter registration data, and a simple calculator or preferable, a computer with a spreadsheet program. This data should be available from the Secretary of State's office in your state capitol. It may be available for immediate download over the internet. Search for your Secretary of State's web site. You may need to search for the "Election Division" within the Secretary of State's web site.

The vote count data should include, for each election district for the given legislative house, the number of votes that each candidate received. Optionally, obtain the data indicating which candidates were incumbents, and also obtain the number of registered voters for each party for each election district. For simplicity, you may prefer to perform the calculations using only the vote count and party voter registration data for the main parties and for the entire state and the individual election districts as a whole.

The procedure is as follows:

1. For a given general election and legislative house, for each political party, add up all of the votes that were cast in all election districts for candidates of the given party. Also compute the total number of votes cast statewide for all of the parties combined for all seats in the given legislative house.
   
   
2. Next, compute the percentage of the total vote that each party received, and multiply this percentage by the number of seats in the legislative house. For example, California has 80 State Assembly members and 40 State Senators. Round these numbers up or down as appropriate to the nearest integer. You now have the number of legislative seats each party would have when we completely ignore the effects of election district boundary lines.
   
   
3. Now compare the computed percentage and number of seats for each party with the actual numbers resulting from the election being analyzed. But remember that some of these differences may be due to demographic differences and not only gerrymandering.

As an added exercise, you can perform the following computations:

1. Compute the percentage of the vote that each candidate received in each of the election districts, and compute the percentage point spread between the winner and the candidate with the second largest number of votes.
   
   
2. Compute, among all incumbents that ran for reelection, the percentage of incumbents that won.
   
   
3. Obtain the number of registered voters for each of the parties and the total number of registered voters for each election district for the legislative house. Compute the percentage of registered voters for each party in each election district. For each of the candidates, compute the candidate's performance relative to voter registration demographics by subtracting the percentage of registered voters of the candidate's party from the percentage of votes the candidate actually received. A candidate that outperforms demographics attracted more cross-over voters than he lost voters of his own party. Conversely, a candidate that underperforms demographics lost more voters of his own party than he attracted cross-over voters.

( mathematical concept return )    ( class project return )

Statistical Sampling and Counting Illegal Aliens

Statistical sampling and counting illegal aliens violate the one voter-one vote fairness principle. Statistical sampling has been proposed by Democratic Party officials including President Clinton and liberal Democratic organizations such as the ACLU as a replacement for performing a real census, or "enumeration", as required by the U.S. Constitution. Statistical sampling would substitute "estimates" for actual counts of difficult to count people such as homeless people and people who distrust the government and do not wish to be identified and counted. The use of statistical sampling would create new opportunities for election fraud and would unfairly benefit the Democratic Party and its candidates.

The Democratic Clinton Administration sought a law from Congress to require the Census Bureau to use statistical sampling rather than the "enumeration" required by the Constitution. The Republican majority Congress refused to pass such a law. President Clinton then issued an Executive Order directing the Census Bureau to use statistical sampling. This order was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that "enumeration" means exactly what its definition in the dictionary indicates: an actual count of the population. The Court directed that the reapportionment of Congress must be based on the actual count released by the Census Bureau and not on statistical sampling. However, the Court left open the question of whether the Census Bureau could provide, in addition to the actual count, a second count based on statistical sampling to be used by the states when drawing new election districts for all state and local officials.

Statistical sampling would allow partisan Democratic government officials in cities with corrupt Democratic political machines to violate the fairness principle by using subjective and undefined or poorly defined methods of estimation, including the counting and estimation of illegal aliens. Introducing census errors by over-estimation and counting illegal aliens creates election districts that have fewer legal voters, citizens, and legal residents compared to other election districts. Thus, voters in election districts where sampling is used and large numbers of illegal aliens are counted in the census have more voting power than voters in districts without sampling and with few illegal aliens. This violates the one voter-one vote fairness principle.

Counting illegal aliens for reapportionment purposes would also violate the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article XIV (14), Section 1, which states, "... nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision, in Bush v. Gore, that manual hand vote recounts that use different counting methods and different standards, or no standards at all, for different voters in the same election violates Equal Protection. After two statewide machine counts in Florida determined that George Bush narrowly won the Florida Presidential Election, and therefore the U.S. Presidential Election, several Florida counties with Democratic election officials initiated manual hand recounts of the "under counted" ballots. These ballots did not register a vote for any candidate for President, either due to a vote for "none of the above", or due to voter neglect or voter error. The recount process involved interpreting the intent of the voter without clear or rational standards, and with standards that changed whenever more votes were needed for Democratic candidate Al Gore. Based on the 2000 Florida Presidential Election and other similar experiences, it is certain that sampling would result in significant election fraud and violations of the fairness principle.

( return )

Electronic Voting Schemes

There are many other potential problems with electronic voting schemes that are worth discussing, even though they are not directly related to gerrymandering. ( skip )  These include new opportunities for election and voter fraud, denial of service attacks that prevent individuals or groups of people from voting, and breach of confidentiality. If instead electronic voting turns out to be more efficient and more anonymous for the voter, then election and voter fraud involving people voting multiple times may also be more efficient and less detectable.

Other problems include a possible restructuring of our voting system to give different voters different amounts of votes, including fractional votes, based on dubious criteria; allowing voters to give fractions of their vote to different candidates or even to other voters; allowing voters to sign over electronic proxies to various special interest groups; and giving blocks of votes to special interests such as labor unions, large corporations, or other organizations, with or without the knowledge of the public. 

Although encryption and electronic signature and authentication systems may be devised to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of the voting system, it would be difficult for the public to have sufficient confidence in the integrity of the computer software involved and the inability for determined individuals or organizations to compromise that software. There is already some concern with the software in the existing vote counting machines.

Those who support electronic voting schemes would argue that some existing sources of errors and fraud would be eliminated, and recounts would either be eliminated or more accurate and efficient. However, electronic voting systems provide inadequate public insight into the workings of the system, and there is no tangible proof of how the votes were cast. And new opportunities for errors and fraud would more than offset the elimination of some of the existing sources of errors and fraud. Because the existing government is in control of the election process, it is crucial that the public and all candidates and their representatives be allowed to observe the voting and vote counting process in a way that is meaningful.

Even if the source code listings were made available to independent computer programmers for analysis, which probably would not be the case, complex software can be difficult to analyze, and it would be difficult or impossible to confirm that the source code listings match the actual compiled and linked object code being run on the computers. Furthermore, computer failure for any reason, including a hacker's denial of service attack or any other form of attack, would create serious questions about the legitimacy of the election. Even if we assume that an electronic election can be held a second time with minimal additional cost and time impact, a re-vote for the same election may not give the same results as the original election, especially for a close election. Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan said, regarding claims of a confusing ballot by Democratic voters in Palm Beach Florida in the 2000 Presidential Election, "An election is a snapshot of a twelve hour period in time, and there is no way to reproduce that snapshot once everyone knows the election results."

( return )

One of the most difficult problems with gerrymandering is that the party that has an unfair and artificially large majority of seats and power due to gerrymandering controls the next redistricting cycle. This creates a difficult to break vicious cycle of gerrymandering with its associated corruption that continues from each decade to the next. Another difficult problem is that a small window of opportunity to break the gerrymandering cycle opens up only once every ten years, with one possible exception.

Under the current system, most or all politicians of the majority party, and many from the minority party, will support a gerrymander because they benefit from the safe districts it creates. Those honest politicians who refuse to cooperate by providing needed votes to implement the gerrymander may become the victim of a hatchet job done on their own district. In this case, the voters of their own district and party are divided up into several new districts where entrenched incumbents will have most of their original voter base. Each of these incumbents will be impossible to defeat in the next election. The honest politicians are effectively either retired or exiled by the leadership of the majority party. Their only hope of winning an election is to move into some other district where there is an open seat, i.e., the incumbent is not re-running for that same seat. But this involves starting over again, with little name recognition and less ability to raise needed campaign funds in the new district.

Many politicians cave in to the pressure when confronted with only two options: either vote in support of the gerrymandered redistricting plan or be axed out of their district when the plan eventually passes without there vote. The plan will pass, because the majority party leaders will offer various bribes and inducements to get the remaining votes that they need. The bribes and inducements may include powerful and lucrative committee appointments, office upgrades and increased staff budgets, promises of large sums of campaign funds for future elections, passage or defeat of specific legislation, or outright cash. In the end, this system of reward and punishment works and the necessary votes are secured. Those who did not make a deal become the losers.

The Need for Redistricting Reform

As a minimum, any proposed redistricting map should be validated, ranked, and either accepted or rejected by a computer program using various compactness and fairness metrics computed for each election district and for the entire collection of districts. The best of multiple proposed district maps should be selected based on which has the best values for these metrics.

The contiguous single-member district requirement should be retained. However, the requirement to respect the geographical integrity of any city, county, or geographical region should be relaxed or eliminated entirely. It gives politicians too much flexibility to manipulate district boundaries by selectively following odd-shaped city, county, and region boundary lines. This requirement has not provided fair, unbiased, competitive election districts or better representative government in California, where some of the more extreme gerrymanders have been accomplished.

If the goal of using computers and a mathematical algorithm cannot be met, then the redistricting maps should be drawn by an independent nonpartisan or bipartisan commission. The maps should then be validated by computer using the compactness and fairness metrics, and subjected to public review and criticism, and ultimately to judicial review under strict guidelines. The best approach would also use a redistricting computer program to provide a neutral or more competitive than neutral redistricting map. A neutral, unbiased, redistricting map provides more accurate voter representation than one that creates unnaturally competitive districts. Election districts should accurately reflect voter demographics without bias or manipulation in any direction.

Thus, the same redistricting software that is used to create gerrymanders would instead be used to create neutral or more competitive than neutral district maps. Like firearms, redistricting software can be used for good or bad purposes, depending on the exercise of free will by the users. However, the last twenty-five years of scientific criminological research shows that firearms are used at least five times more often for self defense than they are misused in all crimes, suicides, and accidents combined. In contrast, I am inclined to believe that redistricting software is used more often for gerrymandering than for fair redistricting.

The new redistricting system will have to be enacted into law by the voters, or adjudicated by the courts, to prevent the legislature from subverting the system at a future time. However, one risk of relying on the courts is the danger of judicial activism, where judges act as political partisans and ignore the Constitution, the law, the previous court precedents, and even common sense, and instead decide as they please to further their political agenda.

Some redistricting reform initiatives would use a panel of retired judges to draw the district maps. This approach has been criticized by those who oppose reform. However, even if this approach is imperfect, it is no worse than, and likely much better than the existing system. For example, the current situation in California is the worst possible under the 2001 Democratic Party gerrymander. A panel of retired judges could produce a redistricting map that is neutral, slightly gerrymandered, or extremely gerrymandered, which is already the case. California's 1991 redistricting was performed by judges, and was much closer to neutral than the current gerrymander.

There are only four ways to break the ten-year gerrymandering cycle:

1. Voters must elect sufficient members of the minority party (the Republican party in California) to the state legislature, which is nearly impossible under an existing gerrymander;



2. Voters must elect a Governor from the minority party and sufficient minority party legislators to sustain a Governor's veto of redistricting legislation;



3. Individual voters, a government watchdog group, and/or minority party legislators must sue in court to overturn a specific gerrymandered redistricting plan; or



4. Voters must qualify and pass a Redistricting Reform initiative.

A useful guide to redistricting litigation is the Outline of Redistricting Litigation - the 1990's, a project of the Redistricting Task Force of the National Conf