- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 40,836
- Reaction score
- 21,729
I just happened to come across an article that very clearly explained why gerrymandering is so effective and offers a plausible solution to fix the issue in an objective way.
The Math Behind Gerrymandering and Wasted Votes
Just as important was its discussion of wasted votes,
"So what counts as a wasted vote? Consider California’s role in presidential elections. Since 1992, California has always backed the Democratic nominee for president. Therefore, California Republicans know they are almost certainly backing a losing candidate. In some sense their vote is wasted: If they were allowed to vote in a toss-up state like Florida, their vote might make more of a difference. From a Republican perspective, that would be a more efficient use of their vote.
As it turns out, Democratic voters in California can make a similar argument about their vote being wasted. Since the Democratic candidate will likely win California in a landslide, many of their votes, in a sense, are wasted, too: Whether the candidate wins California with 51 percent of the vote or 67 percent of the vote, the outcome is the same. Those extra winning votes are meaningless."
What they call the efficiency gap, the difference between the 2 sides' wasted votes expressed as a percentage of the total votes, seems to tackle this problem.
Of course, in a perfectly fair setup, there could still be a lopsidedness to the outcome for a whole host of reasons, but at least addressing the most obvious cases should be a top priority for people who go around attaching the words liberty and freedom to everything yet they seem to be the most serious offenders:
"Nationwide, Republicans were able to draw 55 percent of congressional districts in their favor following the last census while Democrats did the same with just 10 percent. Consequently, Romney prevailed in 224 of the districts in use for the 2016 elections, while Obama carried just 211, even though the president won the national popular vote by nearly 4 percent in 2012."
-- https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ly-gerrymandering-can-swing-election-outcomes
The above is also a great explanation of the practical effects on gerrymandering. I recommend giving it a thorough read.
I don't think the average American is aware of how bad it really is so it's not going away anytime soon, sadly.
The Math Behind Gerrymandering and Wasted Votes
Just as important was its discussion of wasted votes,
"So what counts as a wasted vote? Consider California’s role in presidential elections. Since 1992, California has always backed the Democratic nominee for president. Therefore, California Republicans know they are almost certainly backing a losing candidate. In some sense their vote is wasted: If they were allowed to vote in a toss-up state like Florida, their vote might make more of a difference. From a Republican perspective, that would be a more efficient use of their vote.
As it turns out, Democratic voters in California can make a similar argument about their vote being wasted. Since the Democratic candidate will likely win California in a landslide, many of their votes, in a sense, are wasted, too: Whether the candidate wins California with 51 percent of the vote or 67 percent of the vote, the outcome is the same. Those extra winning votes are meaningless."
What they call the efficiency gap, the difference between the 2 sides' wasted votes expressed as a percentage of the total votes, seems to tackle this problem.
Of course, in a perfectly fair setup, there could still be a lopsidedness to the outcome for a whole host of reasons, but at least addressing the most obvious cases should be a top priority for people who go around attaching the words liberty and freedom to everything yet they seem to be the most serious offenders:
"Nationwide, Republicans were able to draw 55 percent of congressional districts in their favor following the last census while Democrats did the same with just 10 percent. Consequently, Romney prevailed in 224 of the districts in use for the 2016 elections, while Obama carried just 211, even though the president won the national popular vote by nearly 4 percent in 2012."
-- https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ly-gerrymandering-can-swing-election-outcomes
The above is also a great explanation of the practical effects on gerrymandering. I recommend giving it a thorough read.
I don't think the average American is aware of how bad it really is so it's not going away anytime soon, sadly.
