What's up with Gerrymandering? -Alexa Alphin

Say NO to Gerrymandering!

        Gerrymandering is one of the many issues with the current government system. While the people are told that every single vote matters, Gerrymandering is proof that certain states will swing a certain way every time. State legislatures group districts based on demographics to clump groups of the same party in one place to overrule the less favored party of the state. Each district gets an elector based on these biased lines drawn as well as a seat in the House of Representatives. While drawing the lines is constitutional because they must be equal in size and proportion to the state, the only restriction is that the lines cannot be based on solely on the demographic of race. Below is a picture of the district lines in South Carolina.

 

        Many people believe that the elector’s personal affiliation with a party does not matter because they must vote with the way of the people, but the issue here is that the electors are not required to vote this way. While there may be repercussions for voting against the people, it is not unconstitutional. This issue with Gerrymandering shows that the representation in the House is based on these lines drawn by the state legislatures. Here is a list of the South Carolina representatives in the House:

District	Winner	Margin of Victory	Total Vote	Top Opponent
South Carolina, District 1	Timothy Scott	26.3%	290,013	Bobbie Rose
South Carolina, District 2	Joe Wilson	92.5%	203,718	Write-In
South Carolina, District 3	Jeff Duncan	33.3%	254,763	Brian Doyle
South Carolina, District 4	Trey Gowdy	31.2%	266,884	Deb Morrow
South Carolina, District 5	Mick Mulvaney	11.1%	278,003	Joyce Knott
South Carolina, District 6	James Clyburn	88.1%	233,615	Nammu Y Muhammad
South Carolina, District 7	Tom Rice	11.1%	275,738	Gloria Bromell Tinubu

This shows that no matter how the people might vote, 6 out of 7 districts in South Carolina will most likely end up with a Republican vote.

        In addition, state legislatures have grouped the people so that most of the Democrats are in District 6, therefore giving the Republicans an advantage in the House of Representatives for South Carolina.  Since all state legislatures are able to manipulate the district lines to their advantage, then all of the seats in the House could potentially be based solely on what each state legislature's party is. Even though the state legislatures are directly elected by the people, they are not elected by all of the people, so some opinions are lost later when the districts are finalized.

        One last issue with Gerrymandering is that the only limit that is put on the state legislatures is that the lines cannot be drawn based solely on the demographic of race. Our country is supposed to equal for all and nondiscriminatory, but when race, religion, age, and education can be determining factors for what district a community falls in, this is discrimination at its worst. For these reasons, I do not believe that Gerrymandering should be constitutional in any way.

My proposition for reform:

Gerrymandering regulations:

1. Lines cannot be drawn based on past voting patterns, race, education, religion, or age.

2. Lines must be drawn by officials not affiliated with the state.

3. Lines must be contiguous.

4.  Lines must be proportional in the amount of people.

        I do agree with rules two and three which are already rules for Gerrymandering, but the first rule is my first recommendation for reform in the system. In order to live up the reputation that our country has of being fair and equal, we should not base anything political on the color of someone’s skin or their personal choices. Also, these demographics are so stereotypical and sometimes the assumptions are not even accurate.

        In creating new rule number one, I was hoping to decrease the split in the two parties. Instead of separating communities based on their party affiliation, my goal was to bring people together instead of pushing them apart with the districting lines. If more of both parties are in each district, then this will cause voter turnout to be more unpredictable in certain states, and the representation in the House may be more moderate instead of polarized like it is today. Also, I was trying to be less discriminatory toward personal decisions by the people. These should not be deciding factors in drawing districts.

        With rule number two, my goal was to bring in a third party that is not well acquainted the past voting patterns of each district in the state. When redistricting, someone that  has no personal affiliation with party should draw the lines because they will not be tempted to clump parties together. This is because they will not necessarily know the demographics of the people in each community. The only thing these people should be given prior to drawing the lines is the population number so that each district is equal in population. All of these rules were created or recycled by me in order to ensure equality for all people and to attempt to bring parties closer together since obviously we are not going to do that by ourselves. 

This political cartoon is just great...