The Pros And Cons Of Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is a practice established to give an advantage to one political party over another by manipulating district boundaries. Gerrymandering all started in 1812 when Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. It was also used for racial reasons throughout history. The main goal of gerrymandering is to maximize the effect of supporters' votes and to minimize the effect of opponents' votes, and parties accomplish this by using tactics such as “cracking”, “packing”, “hijacking”, and “kidnapping”. Gerrymandering is a controversial topic in the Supreme Court, and there are many positive and negative outcomes that are a result of gerrymandering including polarization.

Incumbents

Increased polarization correlates with inequality. Research from Princeton and Georgetown prove or point to the correlative connection. One problem with this is that political polarization prevents Congress from acting on economic issues, especially ones directly concerning inequality (McCarty). Gerrymandering by design creates incumbents. The predictive power and capture of campaign finance colludes with gerrymandering, whether it’s “cracking” or “packing.” In newly captured districts created by cracking, serious officials that want to challenge this require extra fundraising just to meet balance with their gerrymandered incumbents, money that is less likely to come from citizen constituents since they constitute such a marked minority in the district (Schumate). Even in party strongholds that are created by packing, the effect of campaign finance is felt through candidate to candidate giving. Candidates with excess cash are permitted to donate it to any candidate they choose, creating a strong incentive for incumbents, even in “packed” districts, to fundraise like there’s no tomorrow, in order to build up political chits(Schumate). If gerrymandering produces a diminution of citizen faith in the democratic process, it would plausibly discourage constituents from donating to their congressional campaign or any other, further diminishing the incentive for Congresspersons to act in accordance with voter preferences (Schumate). Finally, the fact that our redistricting system affords redistricting power to state legislatures in the first place adds a new dimension to the campaign finance wars. The biggest difference between the House and Senate is that only the former faces redistricting. But the gerrymander-inequality connection stands on the same logic: the New York Fed study found that polarization in the House correlates more closely with inequality than in the