Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

toocoolforthebaroque t1_iuiicat wrote

This is a great explanation!

Just to add to it: gerrymandering can be done for a certain political advantage, as well as boosting any group. Racial gerrymandering, minority-language group gerrymandering, and rural/urban gerrymandering are still too-common examples.

18

cookerg t1_iuillon wrote

Gerrymandering can be a good or bad thing. Let's say an area can elect three representatives, and lets say a third of the population is a minority group which lives spread across two or three neighbourhoods and usually votes for party A, while the rest of the population usually votes for Party B.

If you encircle those minority neighbourhoods into one district, then the minority can essentially elect one of the three representatives. If you divide up the minority group so they are spread across all three districts, then their votes may not count.

2

HeKnee t1_iuiwnrk wrote

Is that a good thing though? In your example, making 2 districts of strong group A, and 1 district of strong group B you are encouraging extreme views that dont work well together (basically what we have now). The minority group is always the loser no matter what because 2 beats 1.

If we just went by proportion it could isolate minority groups, but would more than likely foster electing 3 moderate candidates that appeal to the majority of people in the middle and actually accomplish things instead of fighting for opposite goals. In this case minority groups become the swing voters that decide elections so their concerns get amplified and are more likely to be addressed by whatever party is in power.

2