 |
| Searches for "Gerrymandering" have spiked |
First, definitions, and then WHY is "gerrymandering" in the news.
Gerrymandering:
Redistricting:
So, we see the difference. One is kosher, the other dodgy. Redistricting good. Gerrymandering bad.
And why has Gerrymandering suddenly been in the news?
Because the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, has said he plans to do some Redistricting. He thinks the result will be around 5 Congressional Seats going Republican.
Reaction: the Dems are howling blue murder. And of course they say what Abbott is doing is Gerrymandering.
I thought that "gerrymandering" was just the rude way of saying "redistricting" (which is adjusting electoral boundaries). But, no. One is OK -- "redistricting" -- and the other is kind of underhand -- "gerrymandering".
Gerrymandering is the deliberate manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor one political party or group, often by "packing" (concentrating opponents’ voters into few districts) or "cracking" (spreading them across many districts) to skew representation disproportionately to the popular vote.
I asked "where's the word from?":
The word "gerrymander" comes from a combination of the name Elbridge Gerry, a former governor of Massachusetts, and the word "salamander". In 1812, Gerry signed a redistricting bill that created oddly shaped electoral districts to favor his Democratic-Republican Party. One district in Massachusetts resembled a salamander, prompting critics to coin the term "gerrymander" as a pejorative, blending Gerry’s name with the creature’s shape. The term, first used in a Boston newspaper, has since described partisan manipulation of district boundaries.
Redistricting:
Redistricting is the process of redrawing electoral district boundaries, typically after a census, to reflect population changes and ensure equal representation, often based on population size. It aims to adjust districts to comply with legal requirements like the Voting Rights Act, but can be manipulated (gerrymandering) to favor a political party or group.
So, we see the difference. One is kosher, the other dodgy. Redistricting good. Gerrymandering bad.
And why has Gerrymandering suddenly been in the news?
Because the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, has said he plans to do some Redistricting. He thinks the result will be around 5 Congressional Seats going Republican.
Reaction: the Dems are howling blue murder. And of course they say what Abbott is doing is Gerrymandering.
California Governor Gavin Newsom threatens to do his own Redistricting, admitting that it'll also be Gerrymandering. And that he'll get back whatever seats are gained by Abbott in Texas. He is saying "fight fire with fire". (which is a kind of inept metphor, given the recent LA fires that were so disastrously mishandled by his own government. But what the heck).
All this is terribly consequential. The balance in the House of Representatives is at stake. The Reps could continue to maintain control right through the mid-terms in 2026. Or not.
All this is terribly consequential. The balance in the House of Representatives is at stake. The Reps could continue to maintain control right through the mid-terms in 2026. Or not.
The Reps are saying that the mid-term Redistricting is perfectly legal. It is.... But also challengeable.
The Dems are saying that they'll respond in kind if Texas goes ahead with the Redistricting, which of course they frame as Gerrymandering.
The Reps then respond: "well go ahead, do your worst". Because they believe, they say, that the Dems have already done so much Redistricting (aka "Gerrymandering" per the Reps) that they can't do much more.
I've done a bit of a deep dive on this, including coming up with a measure of the extent of Gerrymandering, which Grok called "a novel measure". This shows that both sides have done about the same amount of Redistricting, which could be classed as Gerrymandering. It's a tie across the 50 States.
My guess is that Texas will go ahead with its Redistricting. And that Gavin Newsome will try to do his own, but that local CA laws will stop him from going ahead at the speed he seems to think he can. Reason being that there's provisions in the CA Constitution that require any Redistricting proposals to go via an independent body. And then to be approved by the electorate. This can't be done in a hurry. Whereas it does appear that Texas can.
I got into a long discussion cum argument this morning with Grok on the issue. I learned a lot, including about Congressional Districts, aka Congressional Seats, the difference between them and Electoral College votes (which are Congressional Seats + Senate seats (ie, 2 per state). The Congressional Seats are based on population of the State, with about 700,000 population being one seat. I realise as I write this that it's all TMI. Boring, yawn country. But if you're interested in the hard graft of it all, my discussion cum argument with Grok, is here.
As I say to the ever patient Grok, when I've had enough of a tussle, and am exhausted, TTFN.
