gerrymandering is a term that refers to someone use an unfair manipulation to change the election distinction in order to keep the interests of the party. It occurs when legislature let more political party supporters region included in the same district as the party candidate which allows the legislature's party to overwhelming victory. Yes, I think we need to end this practice because I believe it is unfair to the other candidate. If the gerrymandering happens, then what is the significance of the vote. There should have someone stand out to oversee the districting of the states. The United States as a country with freedom, equality, and justice, we should not allow this practice happen in any state it is not going to be helpful. The purpose
Gerrymandering has existed long before there was a word directly referring to the action it entails. Gerrymandering is essentially the changing and controlling of district boundaries in order to manipulate the outcome. The term, which was printed for the first time in 1812, is a combination of the word “salamander”- the reason for this being that the first district (in Massachusetts) to be gerrymandered resembled the animal- and the last name of the governor of Massachusetts at the time, Elbridge Gerry. The manipulation of the outcome of congressional elections is rooted from corruption and the lack of a “perfect” way to please both the majority and the minorities in drawing the district boundaries.
Gerrymandering may prevent the purpose of members being elected on a single-member district basis because districts can be drawn favoring one political party. Gerrymandering is when districts have been drawn so the boundaries of legislative districts in bizarre or unusual shapes to favor one party. Gerrymandering protects incumbents and discourages challengers and it strengthens the majority party while weakening the opposition party
The article, “In Praise of Gerrymandering” written by Kevin D. Williamson, talks about gerrymandering, which is when politicians are cheating to be elected and shares his opinion that Republicans have become “too good” at this. He then illustrates that Democrats need to demonstrate better ways of obtaining votes.
I certainly agree that gerrymandering deprives voters and is unjust in itself. Gerrymandering produces an extremely biased government, one that is solely based upon the
In 1842, Congress passed the Apportionment Act, which required congressional districts to be compact and equal in population (“Apportionment Legislation 1840 - 1880”). Although the law made an initial effort to curb gerrymandering, it failed to adequately define “compact.” Over a century later, in the 1962 court case Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court ruled that congressional districts must have reasonable boundaries. The court further deemed redistricting issues to be justiciable, enabling federal courts to decide gerrymandering cases (“Baker v. Carr”). It wasn’t until the 1985 Davis v. Bandemer case that the Supreme Court ruled that manipulating district boundaries for political gains is unconstitutional (“Davis v. Bandemer”). However, the Supreme Court left unanswered one pivotal question: What are the standards for identifying and litigating a gerrymander? (Hess, 209). Although it is illegal, without a clear national standard for addressing gerrymandering, state legislatures get away with it in federal courts by exploiting the legal ambiguity surrounding the practice. Therefore, taking the power to redistrict away from state legislatures in the first place is the most viable
Gerrymandering is a tactic in which the drawing of district boundaries is manipulated so it favors one party over another. The shapes of these certain boundaries are altered substantially to benefit a certain party. According to American Government and Politics Today, the strategy of gerrymandering arose in 1812, when under the power of the governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, gerrymandering was used to aid his specific party (Bardes, Shelley, and Schmidt). To state the obvious, gerrymandering does hinder our American democracy. What is the point of a democracy and elections if the legislative body is redrawing district boundaries, while purposefully trying to influence voting? Gerrymandering skews voting. A post on 21st Century Jeffersonianism
Firstly the members of congress, executive branch, or members of outside community draw up a bill. After that the members of the house only will have to introduce the bill on the floor of house of representative. Then the bill is sent to the committee. Only bills that are necessary and reasonably appropriate make it to the next step, which is the rules of a committee for debate. Then it goes back to the floor of the house for a debate and members of the house then will vote for the bill. If the bill is in favor by most of the members of the house, hence the bill is sent to the senate. The senator introduces the bill on the floor. If the majority of the committees agree then the bill goes to the entire senate to consider the bill. As it follows the same process of the house, there is a debate and if majority votes for the bill then the bill is returned back to the house of representative.
Gerrymandering is an incredibly controversial topic in American politics today and is a relevant issue to many U.S. Citizens. The first thing to understand is the difference between reapportionment and redistricting. Reapportionment occurs every ten years and describes the process by which the number of states’ representatives are re-evaluated. Additionally, redistricting, occurring the year after reapportionment, is the process by which the voting districts in each of the states are realigned. The second thing to understand is the intricate workings of how politicians of the majority party dilute the opposing party’s votes.
Gerrymandering, is a way for certain parties- Democrats, and Republicans- to legally rig an election. The way it works is every ten years the electoral maps have to be re-drawn, meaning the districts that our votes are counted towards are redrawn every ten years. Now this might sound very innocent but the way it is set up is so a commision can draw the districts on the map, meaning they can take a very highly saturated Democratic or Republican county, and break it up so that they can group parts with other places that don't have many other people of that same party. Now this may sound like it will hurt them because they're splitting up their strong front but the commissions are much more strategic, they only break up their strong holds to place them into other districts that they can easily win. Or they break them up to shift them into districts where they need more help. Now this may make you angry that the system is built this way, but their is some good news and that is this only works in six states, and also president Obama is trying to change it so that it is not possible anywhere.
Anyone running for President and any political office should address the three major problems that threaten our country.
The topic that I chose as one of the major problems in the United States, is gerrymandering. With gerrymandering being a factor that contributes to obtaining votes from both extremes of the political spectrum, allows the political candidates to not engage in competition against their opponent. This is due to the political candidate already having guaranteed those votes from because the political party through gerrymandering, has manipulated the boundaries that could concentrate certain groups (political, ethnic, religion, race, beliefs), creating a guaranteed state that will mainly vote for their political party candidate or a safe-zone. These safe-zones were divided between coasts and urban areas (Democratic states) and between the coasts, rural areas and suburbs (Republican states). Within these different boundaries, the political candidates had specific targets that they needed to make their points across. For the democrats, they targeted younger people, women, minorities, and non-religious because most likely they would support the democratic
Generally speaking, anyone who lives in the United States of America knows that there are two main political parties—the Republicans and the Democrats. Having two main parties has its advantages and, of course, its disadvantages. For example, in By the People James E. Monroe and Rogan Kersh (301) point out having this type of system creates “predictability and stability.” However, they also declare (301) it can “lead to a gridlock.” This is not a new concept either as there has been a divide since the beginning of both parties. The two parties more often than not disagree on various issues, while rarely agreeing on what is best for the country.
In political campaigns, the viewpoints of the individual candidates are often reflective of the positions of their political parties. In the upcoming presidential election, there are issues which have the power to divide the nation. One of the most divisive issues at present is the question of gay marriage and whether or not the federal government should weigh in on what has thus far been a states' rights issue. Both on the state and national levels, the perspective of the people in the various political jurisdictions will determine the way in which they vote. If a party agrees with the population's view on an issue, the people will be more likely to vote with that party. The two major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, have officially been against gay marriage although a few have differed from the party's position. Less is known where some of the "third" parties, such as the Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Constitution Party, stand on the issue.
The gerrymandering process allows the majority party within a given state to maximize the number of seats it can win in the future elections. This leads it into creating as many districts as possible where it constitutes the majority. By doing this, those who support the minority parties are packed into the remaining few districts. This results in more electoral security for the minority party and less electoral security for the members of the minority parties. It also produces greater homogeneity within the districts while reducing competition for the house seats. Apart from the positive effects of gerrymandering, there are a number of negative effects associated with partisan gerrymandering. This process results in more competitive districts when compared to the non competitive districts and this in turn ambiguously affects polarization. Partisan gerrymandering also affects the state legislative electoral competitiveness as it has severe partisan biases. Excessive partisan gerrymandering is the violation of the equal protection clause since it consigns the
Redrawing the districts to give a political advantage is not sophisticated. It ruins the point of the Fifteenth Amendment which allows the right to vote no matter the race, sex, or personality. The right to vote doesn’t matter because of the unfairness and the corruption of the districts. These voters will be confused about these uncanny district shapes. Because of these lines, the citizens will not know which office to vote for. For Example, the first ever