3 ms·

I think I understand your point but actually the two statements are consistent. Your phrase "competitive as possible" is wrong or at best very misleading. If

I think I understand your point but actually the two statements are consistent. Your phrase "competitive as possible" is wrong or at best very misleading. If a district intended to be a "bare win" actually turns out to be competitive then the restricting process has gone wrong from the point of view of the controlling party. The goal of gerrymandering, often achieved in practice, is to disenfranchise as many voters of the other parties as possible -- to ensure that their vote has no effect on the outcome of the election. So the first statement you quote is accurate. The second statement you quote just explains how this can be done.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
> The goal of gerrymandering, often achieved in practice, is to disenfranchise as many voters of the other parties as possible -- to ensure that their vote has no effect on the outcome of the election. So the first statement you quote is accurate. Packing all the democrats into a single district could be described this way; most of the votes in such a district will be wasted democratic votes. But that opening statement was > [Gerrymandering] creates districts that are skewed and uncompetitive, denying voters the ability to elect representatives who fairly reflect their views. (my emphasis) This can't describe the phenomenon the article is actually about. It's about segregating people such that they can easily elect a representative who caters to them. And in fact this kind of redistricting is often legally mandated, specifically so as to give minority voters an uncontested district from which they can elect a minority congressman. Enemy party concentration can give the boundary-drawing party extra representatives counted at the state level compared to expectation. But it obviously reduces the number of enemy-party voters who suffer from being unable to elect their own representative. The skewed districts created by gerrymandering make it easy for voters to elect a representative who reflects their views; the close districts make it more difficult.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

> The goal of gerrymandering, often achieved in practice, is to disenfranchise as many voters of the other parties as possible -- to ensure that their vote has no effect on the outcome of the election. So the first statement you quote is accurate. Packing all the democrats into a single district could be described this way; most of the votes in such a district will be wasted democratic votes. But that opening statement was > [Gerrymandering] creates districts that are skewed and uncompetitive, denying voters the ability to elect representatives who fairly reflect their views. (my emphasis) This can't describe the phenomenon the article is actually about. It's about segregating people such that they can easily elect a representative who caters to them. And in fact this kind of redistricting is often legally mandated, specifically so as to give minority voters an uncontested district from which they can elect a minority congressman. Enemy party concentration can give the boundary-drawing party extra representatives counted at the state level compared to expectation. But it obviously reduces the number of enemy-party voters who suffer from being unable to elect their own representative. The skewed districts created by gerrymandering make it easy for voters to elect a representative who reflects their views; the close districts make it more difficult.