From the Editors: It’s time to end the gerrymandering wars
We have had a lot to say about gerrymandering in the past. A whole lot. It’s a topic that takes up a lot of the political conversation, especially right after a census is taken and the lines must be redrawn.
Done right, redistricting can be an ordinary process where communities are kept together in compact districts that show no particular partisan bias. Done wrong, it can lead to the unjust result of politicians choosing their voters, instead of the other way around.
Politically influenced line-drawing has been with us since the nation was founded — the name itself is derived from that of Elbridge Gerry, a Founding Father who indulged in the practice while governor of Massachusetts. The degree to which state legislators monkeyed with the lines waned and waxed over the years. William McKinley lost and then regained his congressional seat after two rounds of mid-decade redistricting in the 1880s that seems very similar to the shenanigans of our own time. But it seemed like some of the worst excesses were being curbed lately.
Alas, it is not so.
The tight margins in the federal House of Representatives and the increasingly intense partisanship in Washington have led some states to throw out their existing maps after only two election cycles and issue new ones designed for more intense partisan advantage. It started in Texas, where Republicans saw President Trump’s gains in South Texas and thought to eke out a few more seats. Then it spread to California, where they went so far as to amend their state constitution to do the same for Democrats in reaction to Texas’s ploy. Florida and Indiana may follow suit, though this is not yet certain — some Republicans in those states are yet resisting the drive to make everything maximally partisan.
We suppose we can see one silver lining in Pennsylvania’s broken redistricting process: at least we won’t be changing the lines for 2026. We had our own mid-decade redistricting in 2017, a partisan power-grab dressed up as a court decision, but the lines of 2021 — drawn by that same court instead of the legislature — will likely not change. And while those lines favor Democrats in many small ways, they are not so egregious as the proposals being put forth in other states as we speak.
Gerrymandering, aided by computers, has become a race to the bottom. That’s not new, either, but it is getting worse all the time. And it is aided by a growing cynicism about the political process — the idea that the “other side” is playing hardball, so “our side” must, too. Both sides think this, and both sides let the rage of partisan madness drive them to ever deeper descent from our once lofty ideals.
Is it any wonder that an increasing number of Americans are disgusted with both parties?
We’ve just about hit bottom, and it’s time to stop before we do. Anyone with a computer can log on to Dave’s Redistricting App or other sites and draw the most grotesque gerrymanders imaginable. Want to make all 52 California districts Democratic? It can be done, if you slice the state up like spaghetti. Making all 38 Texas districts Republican is harder, but you can get to 35 if you try. Pennsylvania’s process looks civilized by comparison.
It’s time for this redistricting arms race to end. Getting to a better method is difficult, though, because placing the power in the hands of any group of neutral arbiters means trusting them to actually be neutral — a difficult prospect in better times, and nearly impossible in our low-trust 2020s. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court burned up its reserve of public trust in the 2017 and 2021 fights. The legislature and governor couldn’t even get a budget done without being four months overdue. Who is left? ChatGPT?
We need to work to develop solutions to this worsening problem. The first step: stop making it worse.
1. “Gerrymander” is a a word formed by merging the sounds and meanings of two different words (for example chortle, from chuckle and snort.) They merged the last name “Gerry” with “salamander” (Governor Gerry, 1812, Massachusetts, signed a redistricting bill that created oddly shaped districts, one of which resembled a salamander in a political cartoon published in the Boston Gazette.)
2. Here is the prompt:
Provide an argument using 6th grade level but high IQ, to explain the advantages of gerrymandering and why it must be done if one’s opponent in a two party system (who happens to be Jewish and pushes the diamond club and other Jewish clubs) is willing to gerrymander.
Here is the answer:
“Imagine you’re playing a game of capture the flag with just two teams: yours and the other guy’s. The field is divided into zones, and whoever wins more zones gets to make the rules. But before the game starts, both teams can redraw the zone lines to make it easier for their side to win.
Gerrymandering is like that redrawing trick in elections. It’s when politicians change the shapes of voting areas (called districts) to help their party win more seats in government, even if they don’t have the most votes overall. They do this by grouping voters in smart ways: either packing the other team’s supporters into just a few districts so they waste their votes there, or spreading them out thinly across many districts so they can’t win anywhere.
Now, why does this give advantages? First, it lets your team control more power with fewer total supporters. Like, if you redraw lines cleverly, you could turn 40% of the votes into 60% of the wins. That means your ideas get passed into laws more easily, and you can block the other side’s plans. Second, it protects your team’s leaders from losing their jobs in tough elections. If you make safe districts for them, they stay in charge longer and build more influence. Third, in a close race, it can tip the whole balance—like deciding who runs the country—without needing to convince extra people.
But here’s the high-level thinking part, like a chess master planning moves ahead: In a two-party setup, it’s like a prisoner’s dilemma from game theory. If neither side gerrymanders, things stay fair. But if your opponent starts doing it (no matter who they are or what groups they support, like clubs for hobbies or communities), they’ll grab an edge and crush you. So, to survive and keep the game even, you have to do it back. It’s mutual assured defense—if they twist the map to favor their side, you must twist it too, or you’ll lose big time. Otherwise, they control everything, and your voice gets silenced. It’s not about liking the trick; it’s about not letting the other player cheat without a counter. In the end, the smartest fix is rules that stop everyone from doing it, but until then, matching their moves keeps the fight balanced.”
3. You guys need to wake up and realize we are in a war.