Wednesday, February 29, 2012

1st post of 2nd semester--Gerrymandering!

Welcome to our very first Silvy's AP Government Blog post of 2nd semester! As we've been talking about in class for the past couple of days, the topic of this discussion will be Congressional Redistricting and, in particular, Gerrymandering. (Sorry again that the online Redistricting Game didn't work out for us, but what I'm giving you to read and watch should still give you a great sense of how IMPORTANT, how CONTROVERSIAL, and yet how UNDERAPPRECIATED this issue is!

First of all, click here to go that New Yorker article by Jeffrey Toobin about "The Great Election Grab" that followed the 2000 census. Many of you were able to read this article in class this week, but if you need to, look over it again and then consider these questions:
  • Why does Toobin describe the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr as well as the Voting Rights Act as "classic demonstration[s] of the law of unintended consequences?" Do you agree with this analysis? Why/why not?
  • According to Toobin, why has gerrymandering led to House members of both parties becoming more extreme and less moderate, less willing to work with members of the other party? Do you agree with this analysis? Why/why not?
  • I realize you may not have all the context and background when it comes to the legal rationale and opinions on this issue, but based at least on this article and what we've talked about in class, do you think that this type of gerrymandering is indeed unconstitutional and should the Supreme Court do something about it? Why/why not?
Next, I have a documentary film for you to watch, called simply "Gerrymandering," which does a great job of explaining the history of gerrymandering, how it's been used to the advantage and disadvantage of both parties, some of the reasons why it's done and some of the unintended consequences. The film is a little over an hour long, so if you're not able to watch the entire thing in one sitting that's fine; you can watch one segment, then come back at another time to watch the next segments, etc.  Click here to watch the film, then consider these questions:
  • What are some things mentioned in the film that connect with concepts or issues we've discussed in class?
  • What were 1-2 things mentioned in the film that struck you as the most surprising, most troubling, or simply stood out to you the most?
  • After watching the film, do you think the situation of gerrymandering in Congressional redistricting can and/or should be changed? If so, do you have any ideas about HOW it could be changed?
  • Please share any other thoughts, comments, or reactions to the film!
Remember, by the end of the day next Friday, March 9th, each of you must post TWO (2) comments to this blog. Your first comment should address the questions I've posed above as well as any other thoughts you may wish to express about the New Yorker article, the documentary film, or gerrymandering in general; the second comment should be your agreement or disagreement with a comment made by one of your classmates.  I encourage you to be as articulate and passionate as you can in expressing your opinions, but I also ask you to be respectful, especially when responding to your classmates--as I said at the start of the semester, I hope we can "disagree without being disagreeable." Have fun, good luck, and I look forward to reading your comments!

-Silvy :)

91 comments:

  1. This article was quite informative about the problems with gerrymandering that is going on in Congress, as well as in state legislatures. One of the parts of the article that really stood out to me was when the reporter talked about going back to Mascara's house and learning that his house was in one district while his car was in another one. To me, that really seemed crazy.

    As to why Tobin described the supreme court decision of Baker v. Carr as having "unintended consequences", I think he was trying to refer to this case as an example of how the system, has in some cases, become outdated. This case was meant to create a more equal playing field for candidates that were African American, by doing things like enforcing an equality in population between districts. This helped to solve some racial problems in the past, but without check, has left the way open for sophisticated computer programs to manipulate the rules set forth in legislation from the past like that, and allow for extreme redistricting. Also, I believe that gerrymandering has lead to more extreme partisanship rather than moderates running, because (for example) if a member of the opposite party is in Congress presently, and is doing a dissatisfactory job, than the common public will logically want to try something new and may vote for a member that has nothing to do with the current political leader.

    When watching the movie, I was once again amazed at the tactics used by politicians running for Congress. For example, the man that was running in Brooklyn having his apartment drawn out of the district just ever so slightly just seemed completely wrong. Also, I agreed completely with former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's statement about how the current redistricting just is too much of a conflict of interest.

    All in all, I think that the current form of redistricting needs to be revised. It makes sense that the people redistricting should be diverse in party and race, and represent the population in that district.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Brad that Gerrymandering is a huge problem in our society today. I also agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. However one thing that i am curious about is how this process can be abolished, though i believe a great majority of the American people believe the practice is wrong it seems constitutional and therefore i dont know how it could be stopped.

      Delete
  2. Jeffrey Toobin wirtes a lot, but I couldn't find him to say anything more than Gerrymandering is wrong and is prevelant. I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  3. After reading the article, I came to the conclusion that the government is more corrupt than I expected. With gerrymandering, it seems like we, as voters, have NO say in what we want. And the people who are suppose to represent us as an organized group, are in all actuality, a chaotic and selfish cult whom only care about their paychecks and keeping their jobs instead of taking care of the people who voted them into congress in the first place. Not to mention, their job specifies that they represent us, not themselves!

    Now, onto the questions…

    In my opinion, Toobin described the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr as well as the Voting Rights Act as "classic demonstration[s] of the law of unintended consequences" because of the past racial differences that had occurred in the earlier years of the government, when people of the African decent were viewed as less of a person compared to a white man. Quoting Bobby Scott, “When the civil-rights movement started, you had a lot of white Democrats in power in the South… And, when these white Democrats started redistricting, they wanted to keep African-American percentages at around thirty-five or forty per cent. That was enough for the white Democrats to keep winning in these districts, but not enough to elect any black Democrats.” This means that back then, white candidates were in power and attempted to keep their power via redistricting, keeping the black community at bay while still giving the illusion that they were attempting to help. However, with the Voting Rights Act, the inequality of people changed so the chances of a black candidate rose and in fact lead to the election of many African American congress members. Overall, the changes to have equality gave the power to the minority and demonstrated the “unintended consequences” (a.k.a. what racist white candidates viewed as unwanted changes). Overall, I agree with the analysis because it fits to the time and criteria, however I’m not a big fan of it because of its racist, and close-minded point of view.

    As to why gerrymandering has led to House members of both parties to become more extreme, less moderate, and less willing to work with members of the other party, are a number of reasons. One reason, as we have discussed in class, are selfish and greedy incumbents that know their way to loopholes and how to rig and election so the competition is virtually void. Quoting Richard Pildes, “The level of competitiveness has plummeted to the point where it is hard to describe the House as involving competitive elections at all these days.” Another contributor to the isolated congress members is that fact that “the House isn’t just ossified [but]… polarized, too. Members of the House now effectively answer only to primary voters, who represent the extreme partisan edge of both parties. As a result, collaboration and compromise between the parties have almost disappeared.” Summarizing this quote, people of the opposing party don’t even come in contact with them due to its obsession with persuading primary voters whom determined overall the outcome of things. Overall, many factors contribute to the corruption of House members through gerrymandering but it all ties back into the corruption of the people in power and how they know to continue to stay in power.

    The fact that these people have not been arrested for their clear FAURAD is disgusting. These people draw the redistricting lines to rule OUT their competition! That is considered cheating on any and all standards and should probably be illegal! However, “The rule now is, you can’t draw ugly districts if it’s purely for race…the rule should be, You can’t draw ugly districts if it’s purely for politics, either” (Sam Hirsch).

    (movie portion continued onto next post)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Some things that were brought up in the movie that we’ve discussed in class is the concept of gerrymandering, the power it has on an election, how it works, how it actually came to be, and many others. However, some things that were discussed in class and that were also present in the movie shocked me. For instance, the redrawing of lines could be redirected to actually draw OUT the competition. Though I was ware of this, I was stunned at how extensive it was and how greedy our elected representatives convey themselves to be. It seems as if once someone as been approved into congress, they are allowed to do whatever they want! This includes backstabbing their OWN people to make sure that their job was in tact and they continued to get a paycheck, the definition of greed apparently defining these “honest” candidates. Another thing that shocked me was that SO MANY possible GOOD representatives were scribbled out, again for the sake of the incumbents to keep their jobs. How these greedy candidates were voted into office is beyond me.

    Again, I can’t fathom how angry this entire system makes me. What’s so depressing is that most Americans (including me unfortunately) have no idea about this cheating system. And also, if redistricting was abolished, it could potentially improve the lives of many people because of the fresh and young candidate whom have an abundance of ideas. Perhaps it would also bring down the overall constant scrabble for money! But unfortunately, I’m unavailable to come up with any solution to this problem other than abolishing it all together or perhaps setting up a system where incumbents were not apart of the redrawing of lines, perhaps a committee of some sort could be established.

    All in all, it seems so ridiculous that people who are in power continue to be in power when they obviously are not fit to say in office. We voted these people into congress because we trusted them to have the best judgment for us all. But it seems that we were wrong because now the people whom we trusted have backstabbed us and only care about themselves and keeping their jobs and paychecks, nullifying the number one rule they are apt to do as a House Representative: REPRESENT us and make the best judgment for THE PEOPLE.

    (end of post)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the imcumbents are basically cheating to stay in office. If they are so fearful that they will be voted out of office that they need to redraw the districting lines, they probably shouldn't be in office anyway. It is so incredible that this is still going on when it is so clearly wrong. At this point they aren't representing the people and doing the job that they were originally elected into office to do but instead are just worried about staying there. I also wasn't able to think of a better and more equal way of doing this but what is happening now is clearly not working.

      Delete
  5. Patrick Erskine

    I agree that the Voting Rights Act allowed blacks to gain power but it also allowed Republicans to gain more power as an unintended consequence. In the sixties when they were trying to gain representation for more blacks in government, the white Democrats had set things up so that the blacks could not win. The black voter was used to support a white Democratic candidate. When the districts were drawn so that black voters could elect a black candidate, this siphoned off some of the black voters who would previously have elected a white Democrat. I agree with Toobin when he states that the parties represented are the extreme wings of each party. With “gerrymandering”, the extreme wings are the ones in charge trying to reshape the districts to their advantage, making the middle of the road candidate unre-electable because he does not fully support all of the extreme ideology. While I think that the drawing of district lines is not unconstitutional, when it takes away the voting power of a large faction of people it cannot be what the framers of the constitution intended. In my opinion, I don’t know if drawing district lines is the best way to represent the people at all. There might be a better way to do it. No matter how you draw district lines, there will always be people left out and it will not be fair. Maybe if the whole state participated in the election of all the representatives, more of the people would be represented. Perhaps there is a way where everyone is properly represented but it eludes me.

    In the film, it covered a lot of topics that we have discussed in class. It hit the topic of reforming the way we draw district lines and gave a history of the absurdity of some instances where redistricting was clearly corrupt. I like the guy in Florida with the cowboy hat because he seemed to really represent his constituents because he had the scraps of all of the gerrymandered districts. It was an ironic twist that through a ton of gerrymandering, the parties had actually created what the framers had originally hoped for. All of the oddly shaped districts were interesting and demonstrated how extensive the procedure is. The film discussed how one sliver is only one street wide. It is amazing that this practice has gone on as long as it has. I feel that it should have been weeded out long ago. I definitely think that it is a topic worth paying attention to.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The first thing that stood out to me when watching "Gerrymandering" was to hear that we are the only Democracy in the world that allows politicians to take an active part in the process of redistricting. While our politicians represent us because we vote for them, it seems dishonest in my opinion that they are allowed to do this. With the power of redistricting in the hands of someone who is looking for reelection, they can swiftly and quietly silence the votes of some by putting them in a district that heavily votes one side. For example, if you put a scoop of chocolate ice cream in a bowl of vanilla ice cream, you will mostly taste vanilla, and title it as such. I think this could be fixed: we should just take this power away, simply, and give it to cartographers. We take an average on all citizens in the state, and (starting from the southern border of the state) just make square blocks of population. However, I am not expert of map making and surveying people for the census, so I would admit the system I have introduced isn't perfect. I understand that House members get more moderate and care less for the over party. The power of Gerrymandering allows them to be incredibly lazy, yet powerful. They don't need to have any kind of negotiating, because they can shape the state how they want to win. They don't need to care about their political beliefs because they just need to find their voters and design the state around them, or lay back and watch encumbancy do its work. These laws had "Unintended side effects" because of interpretation. People see laws differently, and thus use it differently. I think that Gerrymandering should be unconstitutional, because, to me, it seems to make the census more of a game to win. The house members can stop caring as much and just carve up the state for their own needs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick Erskine

      In response to Ben Hopson, I agree with Ben in the concern that gerrymandering should not be constitutional. It is interesting that we are the only country in the world that still uses this kind of redistricting. I am very curious to see if this has benefited us at all or in the other spectrum, how much it has damaged us as a nation. I am sure that there are people in power who could show me the benefits of this system but because it is such one-sided politics and lacking in competition, it cannot be the proper way to do things.

      Delete
    2. I also share Ben's concern that representatives get to choose their voters. It says in the film that other democratic nations have found a way to eliminate gerrymandering so I would think it should be no problem for us as long we make the effort to pass legislation. I'm also a little stumped on how exactly to choose who would draw the districts, but I'm sure that we could borrow a system from European countries.

      Delete
  7. I agree with Patrick on his position of whether or redistricting is constitutional. It isn't unconstitutional, but I do not think the Framers intended the process to divide citizens and allow those drawing the lines to choose whose voting for whom. It does indeed take voting power away from large factions of people from all demographics. The system further separates the two parties and we are not the Two Parties of America, we're supposed to be united. If a district looks as though it was manufactured in some perverse way, than that's not right. The process would then be corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The article “The Great Election Grab”, showed a very unique take on redistricting. At first glance, I believed that Toobin described the Voting Rights Act as a “classic demonstration of the law of unintended consequences” because it led the influx of African American Congress members. I didn’t think that “consequences” is the correct terminology, however, since it portrayed the election of blacks as a mistake and a horrible penalty to the structure of Congress. This statement alone would lead to a negative association towards respectable African Americans. However, reading further, I realized that Toobin was foreshadowing the outcome of redistricting. Blacks were districted together in order to get a fair majority for their party in order for them to get a voice in Congress. I disagree with Toobin because you could either look at redistricting as a good thing or as a consequence, and I believe that redistricting brings up some victory as well as flaws.

    Another point that Toobin brought up is how gerrymandering led to House members becoming more extreme and less moderate as well as less willing to work with members of the opposing party because “members of the House now effectively answer only to the primary voters, who represent the extreme partisan edge of both parties”. I don’t necessarily agree with this statement because if a representative were to only listen to a small majority of voices in their district and to ignore the moderates, they probably wouldn’t be re-elected for another term. We know that most representatives get re-elected because of their incumbency factor, but if the incumbent wasn’t doing a good job, most citizens would vote for a change.

    I believe that this type of gerrymandering is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should step in because it is giving one party an unfair advantage over the other party, and therefore creating an off-balanced democracy.

    In the Gerrymandering film, as well as brought up in class, it mentioned how redistricting could cut representatives’ houses out of their own districts. The thing that surprised me the most is the variety in the shapes and sizes of the districts. One district was referenced as being only one street wide which seems miniscule in comparison to the others that are miles long. I think gerrymandering in Congressional redistricting should be changed because it is a very corrupt system where a party can maneuver districts into giving their political party an advantage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lauren Bower

      I have to disagree with you on your take of redistricting and incumbents. “If a representative were to only listen to a small majority of voices in their district and to ignore the moderates, they probably wouldn’t be re-elected for another term” though this is true, it still seems void with all the corruption that goes on in congress. Incumbents are literally drawing OUT their competition, and with no competition or even a worthy opponent to fight against the representatives, it seems almost impossible for one to be kicked out. Yes, I know it has happened many times where people were not reelected, but the main point is: only 3-5 representatives were actually kicked out! Out of all the 435 representatives, only 4 or 5 are actually kicked out while the rest sit in their chairs, laughing because they managed to work the system to their benefit and did NOT get caught.

      We as the people believe in justice and fairness to all, yet we have a government that ALLOWS our elected officials to work the system for THEIR benefit. Do these election officials manipulate the system to help the people the represent? No! They do it to keep their jobs and their position in power. The concept of redistricting is being used as a tool of power- if we ever want a fair election, we either have to get rid of redistricting all together or set up some sort of committee to guarantee a fair election.

      Delete
    2. @Lauren Bower

      I have to disagree with you on your take of redistricting and incumbents. “If a representative were to only listen to a small majority of voices in their district and to ignore the moderates, they probably wouldn’t be re-elected for another term” though this is true, it still seems void with all the corruption that goes on in congress. Incumbents are literally drawing OUT their competition, and with no competition or even a worthy opponent to fight against the representatives, it seems almost impossible for one to be kicked out. Yes, I know it has happened many times where people were not reelected, but the main point is: only 3-5 representatives were actually kicked out! Out of all the 435 representatives, only 4 or 5 are actually kicked out while the rest sit in their chairs, laughing because they managed to work the system to their benefit and did NOT get caught.

      We as the people believe in justice and fairness to all, yet we have a government that ALLOWS our elected officials to work the system for THEIR benefit. Do these election officials manipulate the system to help the people the represent? No! They do it to keep their jobs and their position in power. The concept of redistricting is being used as a tool of power- if we ever want a fair election, we either have to get rid of redistricting all together or set up some sort of committee to guarantee a fair election.

      Delete
  9. I agree with Brad when he said that it was crazy that representatives, or people running for a position in Congress, would have their house drawn out of their own district in order for a party to gain an advantage within that district. Or, the person running for Congress might have been moved out of the district in which they were running for in order for an incumbent to win in the election. This system is very unconstitutional and I agree that it needs to be revised.

    ReplyDelete
  10. According to the article, in the Supreme Court decisions of Baker v. Carr and The Voting Rights Act being “unintended consequences”, Toobin was referring to the fact that beforehand African Americans opinions were not accounted for in Congress and these decisions corrected the before motion by allowing them to not only have a say in voting but also to be placed in Districts where black candidates had a shot at winning. To me, what he meant by “unintended consequences”, was by correcting the previous injustices, new problems were being created because now the stance between blacks and whites was becoming worse. According to Bobby Scott, a congressman from Virginia, “…wanted to keep African-American percentages at around thirty-five or forty per cent. That was enough for the white Democrats to keep winning in these districts, but not enough to elect any black Democrats.” That right there is already cause for enough trouble because the white Democrats are still having an unfair advantage because they’re trying to expose themselves as equal, but they’re plotting to win still.

    Scott also mentioned how these districts were called “influence districts” because the white Democrats still had a say in who won in the end. These “unintended consequences” just built up more tension and caused the issues between the two races to escalate even further, so even with former President Lyndon B. Johnson trying to make things equal, the problems just went to a whole different level. The whole system is messed up because it’s either you’re put in a district where your candidate has the best possible chance of winning or you’re purposely putting people in a district where they look like they might have the potential of winning but really have the disadvantage in the end because you’re placing them there knowing you have a better shot. It’s unfair in both aspects and if the system of gerrymandering was just removed all together everyone would have an equal and fair shot at winning.

    In the film, there’s a woman named Kathay Feng in the beginning who is the Executive Director of the California Common Cause and she reminisces of a rather unpleasant phone call she received while working. It was from a woman in San Francisco who during the redistricting process told Kathay not to put “another f---ing Asian” in her district. Right there alone, the woman’s comment is racist, ignorant and uncalled for because you cannot just kick a group of people out of a district and remove them, it’s a free country, plus the fact that in San Francisco there’s a 1 in 3 population of Asians or Pacific Islanders and no matter what district they’re placed in they’ll still be a decent portion of the population. The woman was unreasonable and disrespectful and her comment was out of line and made me feel angry after hearing it.

    Overall, if the system of gerrymandering was removed it would make people’s lives a lot less complicated and things might just turn out equal for all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with what Lauren Bower when she mentioned in her response that the people who vote to elect or re-elect officials are intelligent enough to know when they do or don't like a candidate and wish to call for a change instead of going through another term with the same candidate they disagree with. "We know that most representatives get re-elected because of their incumbency factor, but if the incumbent wasn’t doing a good job, most citizens would vote for a change." Her statement was to the point and made perfect sense. Sure people are undetermined sometimes to call for a change in the votes, and if they don't speak up when they are unhappy then they have no room to complain about that elected candidate when they win.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ben Hopson wrote a great response to the article and film, and I agree with him. He wrote some things that really resonated with me such as how were are the only democracy to have our politicians play an active role in redistricting. It makes sense that Gerrymandering produces politicians that don't have to do as much to win over voters, and to me that is wrong. It makes the Congressional races less of a competition for the better candidate and more who can draw lines according to an algorithm.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree that the case of Baker Vs. Carr and the Voting Rights Act are cases in which laws had unintended consequences. These laws were meant to more fairly regulate the way in which people voted and to make the voting process more accurate. Unfortunately, this legal action also lead to the Gerrymandering problem we have today.

    I that agree that gerrymandering has led to more extreme candidates being elected to office. Because in this strong partisan districts only a small part of the population, normally the extreme partisan population, actually votes they tend to favor more extreme candidates. This has led to the near extinguishing of moderate candidates, and thus has led to more conflict between parties and less compromise.

    Though I believe gerrymandering is bad, unfortunately i don’t think there is anything that the Supreme Court can do about it. From my knowledge of the constitution there is no section which prevents or even seems to imply in anyway that this behavior is unconstitutional, so it seems that unless there is some form of legislation which is produced to prevent gerrymandering there isn’t much that can be done about it.


    I believe that the whole video really connected with what we are learning in class. The video just delved into more detail about what we have been learning about in class and how truly unfair elections for legislators have become. This video really makes me realize hoe truly necessary a change is in our redistricting process.

    One thing that I found really troubling that was mentioned in this video is that America is the only advanced democracy in which politicians are the people who vote on creating new districts. I think America should be the guiding light to democracy and it troubles me that we are so far behind in this aspect. Also another thing which i found extremely shocking was how few people actually know about Gerrymandering. Such a major issue should be known by all American citizens and such tricks should not be pulled over there heads.

    I think that the Gerrymandering prospect should most definitely be changed, however the issue is not if but how. I don’t believe that Gerrymandering is truly unconstitutional so unfortunately i do not know how to change this horrible system. The only way in which i believe the problem can be fixed is if there was an amendment to the constitution which would change the whole redistricting system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you had some good insight, and I think that you're right that gerrymandering isn't outlawed in the constitution, but i think it can be outlawed by petition from the people. Just like prop 11 was passed in the film, national propostions should be passed to end this wacked system. With a little action from the people we can make congress more efficient and less political.

      Delete
  14. Before the Supreme Court decision of Baker vs. Carr and the Voting Rights Act, Southern states had plotted districts that purposefully denied black voters any relevant say in Congress. This crucial issue of race within redistricting was addressed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, who “transformed American Politics by enforcing the principle of one man, one vote, and requiring that all legislative districts contain the same number of people”. The Voting Rights Act placed blacks in districts where candidates of their race had a better chance of winning. Toobin describes the decision of Baker vs. Carr and the passing of the Voting Rights Act as “classic demonstrations of the law of intended consequences” because during this civil-rights movement,white Democrats were still in power in the South. Democrats would redistrict in their favor in order to win and in order for black Democrats to lose. Republicans then came in and created this “unholy alliance” with the black Democrats that resulted in the disappearance of white Democrats and the absorption of blacks into majority-minority districts. I agree with Toobin’s analysis because those two revolutionary decisions/acts were meant to establish peace and equal rights. But, the disastrous result of the Baker vs Carr decision and the Voting Rights Act was not intended.
    Gerrymandering allows a party to basically overthrow the other. In the 2000 census, even in states where voters were evenly divided, “Republicans used their advantage to transform their congressional delegations”. There are certain techniques that a party can use when gerrymandering: “packing” (concentrates one group’s voters in the fewest possible districts), “cracking” (divides a group’s voters into other districts), and “kidnapping” (places two incumbents from the same party in the same district). With the option to gerrymander and redistrict in their party’s own favor, House members are less willing to compromise with their opposing party because they want to protect their own supporters first. Although I feel as if this system of gerrymandering seems sleazy and inconsiderate, it is an extremely clever approach to making your party more prominent.
    I do not think that gerrymandering is necessarily unconstitutional. One can argue that it is conniving and unfair, but unconstitutional is not the right word to describe this redistricting structure. In 2000, Democrats argued that the “Republican gerrymander denied them equal protection of the laws”. But the court said that gerrymandering was not violating the Constitution “unless one party was essentially shut out of the political process”. For this reason, it is not unconstitutional.
    The definition of a gerrymander has been discussed in class and was reinforced in the film: using the redistricting process for one’s own gain. It entails the drawing of odd-shaped districts that only include the types of people most likely to vote for a specific political candidate. Incumbents are insured a reelection because their supporters are the ones in their districts.
    I found it very surprising that race is still a major issue when it comes to redistricting. In Los Angeles, incumbents don’t want Asians in their district because they fear that Asians will threaten their reelection. I feel that this whole system manipulative and devious. People redraw district lines for the sole purpose of kicking a certain Representative out of that district to ensure that he/she doesn’t win in the next election.
    I do not think that the situation of gerrymandering in Congressional redistricting can be changed (unless maybe some law were passed to regulate it). People will keep doing what they need to do to succeed and climb to the top of the “power ladder”, and if that means stepping on the people below you, then that’s what it is going to take. I guess this is what our country has become.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree with Billy Ryan's opinion of gerrymandering. It certainly gives of negative vibes and seems to portray House members are crafty and deceitful. Unfortunately, there is no exact section or line of the Constitution that can support that gerrymandering is unlawful. Therefore, we can't stop this devious behavior that Republicans and Democrats have taken on.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gerrymandering. Clearly it is an issue of great importance, and is something that every American should be aware of. One thing that has jumped out at me in both the video and the article we have been assigned to read/watch is the quite enormous roadblock in trying to solve this issue: this is created by a loophole in the system, and the people in power to plug up that hole are the ones that the loophole is benefiting. Although I find it right for the supreme court to step in, I do not believe that they have the grounds to fix the situation, because the politicians are not breaking any laws, constitutional or otherwise.

    I wholeheartedly agree with Toobin's idea that this is making the system more extreme and less moderate. He argues that the system brings voters who lie too far on either end of the spectrum. The extremely partisan districts that are drawn create a more divided government, with individuals much less likely to compromise or vote against their own party on the important issues. The system seems to be leading itself further and further down a steep slope where the American people become more and more fed up with the extreme party members spending all their time arguing and none of their time getting things done.

    Though they probably shouldn't be, many people seem to be looking with their partisan, divided viewpoints. The people that raise the biggest fuss are the people of the party getting gerrymandered out of Congress, and the party in power doesn't seem to feel so strongly about it. Idealistically, and perhaps unrealistically, the American people and their representatives need to begin setting their parties aside and trying to fix this issue for the future good of the country as a whole. Something truly must be done about this, but it does not seem like an issue that will be even close to easy to resolve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Jake that it is ironic and a nasty circle how those drawing the lines are the same ones benefitting from the lines. The first step in stopping this unceasing circle is to separate powers. Nothing will change unless inject an objective third party to break up with monopoly.

      Delete
  17. As I read the article and watched the video, I was so surprised as to how much I kept learning about the re-occurring problems congress creates for themselves. It seems to me that Toobin describes the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr as well as the Voting Rights Act as "classic demonstration[s] of the law of unintended consequences" as the fact that it has long held that legislators may not discriminate on the basis of race in redistricting. The question, to him, for the court would be whether, or to what extent, they may consider politics in defining congressional boundaries. Early on in the movie, we learned about a redistricting problem that occurred in Brooklyn to rep Hakeem who was literally cut out of his own district due to race issues. We then went on to learn about a few more cases in which the same issue arose, such as that in Los Angeles, where legislators would re-draw their districts to gain majority vote. Gerrymandering led to House members of both parties becoming more extreme and less moderate, less willing to work with members of the other party because democrats and republicans are agreeing on one thing: their own self-interest. The whole incumbency issue in Congress is an issue that the average American is unaware of. The fact that decades of the same party have had majority rule, and the fact that the certainty of an opposing party candidate is highly guaranteed to loose due to the power a Rep has to re-draw their own district is something that needs to be equalized. The documentary really helped me deeply understand an issue that is so hushed in our society. There really is no perfect democracy. Towards the end, after being so focused on the documentary, I heard something that really made me think. We founded our government after the British rule, but they have reformed their system along with Canada, and Australia alike, but we are still doing the same, ridiculously unfair, unconstitutional routine. This needs to be changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the point that stuck with Karina where she said that the countries who have similar governments to ours have reformed their rules, and ours hasn't was very very interesting. Upon reading her post, that concept really made me think twice. It seems completely unconstitutional that though we have a similiar government, our country allows Gerrymandering to happen. I wonder if this has something to do with our governments ideas about individual freedom, or hands off government, or if it is simply because those in power are so wrapped up in the game that they forget the purpose. I agree with Karina that this issue is incredibly unfair. We should follow in the footsteps of those countries and regulate this corrupt issue.

      Delete
  18. In theory the Voting Rights Act is a great idea. It established the principle that not only did blacks have the right to vote but also they had to be placed in districts where black candidates stood a good chance of winning. This alone is wonderful, it brings more equality by giving African Americans a greater say in Congress. However what was not taken into consideration “the unintended consequences” was how redistricting would be done. The alliance between black democrats and white republicans shaped redistricting so much that by election time who won really wasn’t a surprise at all. The Voting Rights Acts did give African Americans the right to vote and more equality; however, it also gave more power to the white Republican Party. I agree with Toobins analysis because it points out the good intentions that the act had and how it was then corrupted.

    The video made it very clear the because of Gerrymandering our vote doesn’t matter. The lines and districts are drawn just so that the outcome can be pretty well predicted before we “vote.” Mapmakers end up having the largest impact on who wins and who doesn’t. Through this process the minorities’ loss their voice and suffer with someone representing their district that they wouldn’t have voted for. What stood out most to me during this video was how one of the candidates was literally drawn out of his district by the block that he lived on. It was also pretty shocking when they mentioned that essentially every other country had reformed their system and we are still using the one we always have. It confused how Iowa has such just and morally correct mapmakers, why isn’t every state doing what Iowa is? I think that it is clear after watching this video that our system needs to be changed and I’m shocked that there have been multiple attempts to end Gerrymandering but they have all failed. It seems ridiculous that we haven’t been able to change yet.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I really liked the comment Mady made at the end of her shpiel that read "People will keep doing what they need to do to succeed and climb to the top of the “power ladder”, and if that means stepping on the people below you, then that’s what it is going to take." Like we have talked about in class, incumbents have majority over any new candidate due to advantage in the press, connections, and the advantage that they know what they are doing. Our country has come to power, power, power. As significant as our votes may be, there is nothing we can do.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I found that Jeffery Toobin’s article “The Great Election Grab” was both very unique and informative. Toobin focuses on both the Voting Rights Act and gerrymandering. I think that Toobin referred to the Voting Rights Act as a “classic demonstration of the law of unintended consequences” because it ultimately led to the start of African American members of Congress. I personally don’t like how Toobin referred to this as a consequence, because this change would lead to more representation in Congress. Thus, creating a positive, not a negative. Later on, the blacks started living in close proximity in the same districts, in order to dominate a certain area with the same ideological outlook. This created great extremes within the districts. All they wanted was a fair voice in congress, which they rightfully deserved. As retaliation to this redistricting, district officials came up with the term gerrymanding, another one of Toobin’s key topics. He felt that gerrymandering, or the creation of unique and bizarrely shaped districts, let to House members becoming more extreme and less moderate as well as less willing to work with the members of the opposite political party. I’m still not sure how I feel about this statement. It is probably because of my lack of proper understanding/ knowledge. I feel that maybe over time and with further research, I might be able to develop a stronger stand on the issue. As of now, with my prior and learned knowledge on gerrymandering I would probably have to say that I feel this extent of gerrymandering is unconstitutional. I think that the government, specifically the Supreme Court should mandate this gerrymandering and redistricting within the districts.

    The movie definitely helped open my views on gerrymandering. Though the movie discussed several similar topics that we went over during class, I liked how the movie helped visualize them and elaborate on them. I part that I found very interesting was at the beginning of the documentary when Kathy Fenghe was talking about how far the district representative are willing to go in order to keep away their competition. For example, in Los Angeles, there was a district where a senator was scared about competition in a neighboring Asian- American district, so in order to solve her “problem” she made sure that the Asian-American community was divided into four separate groups. Another part of the documentary that I found interesting was when John Trasvina expressed his concern about a new redistricting committee that doesn’t properly understand the Latino community in California.

    This film definitely helped tie in many of the ideas that we discussed in class, such as the redrawing of districting lines and the unique shapes and sizes of districts that gerrymandering provides. With all of this background on redistricting, I feel that it is evident that changes need to be made to the current ways of redistricting. I think the key thing to look for in the future of redistricting is proper representation on all aspects of district lines and leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In response to Taylors post.
    I really like some of the key points you brought up in your response as a whole. However, personally i feel like i really connected with your post when you said "What stood out most to me during this video was how one of the candidates was literally drawn out of his district by the block that he lived on." I too found this to be quite shocking. This statement shows how shady gerrymanding has become and exemplifies why there needs to be changes made in the system of gerrymanding.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Toobin described the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr and the Voting Right Act as "classic demonstration of unintended consequences" because even though they were trying to make voting equal for blacks, they created more problems that were not intended. The Voting Right Act said that blacks would have the right to vote only if they were placed in a district where that black candidate had a good chance of winning. Well this is where the unintended problems occured. The chances of a black candidate being choosen in this time area was minimal defeating the purpose of blacks being able to vote. I agree with Toobin here because it is true, even though they are trying to fix the problem they have created more problems without knowing intially knowing it.
    Gerrymandering has created competition in against both parties. Democrats and Republicans are less motivated to work with each other because they are trying to make their party win most of the districts. I partially agree with Toobin here. I understand them not wanting to work with the opposing party because they are working against each other on redistricting but that doesn't mean stop working togehter. Because not everything is the House has to do with redistricting.
    Some may say that Gerrymandering is unconstituional but I would have to disagree. It is all pure luck with whether your district lines get approved or not. Whether you are using Gerrymandering to win over your district or to rule out races I wouldn't call it unconstitutional just injustice.

    We have recently been discussing what Gerrymandering is and why it is used. It is reinforced in the film as being used to have your party win over most of the districts and to also get incumbents re-elected.
    In the film I was suprised to hear the race is still a problem in redistricting. I know that race is still an issue in today's society but I would think that politicians would be professional and not exclude races in their district. It just seems wrong and unAmerican to me. Gerrymandering has been around for many years and you don't hear too much about issues it creates. However, learning more about Gerrymandering I believe that excluding races from your districts should be banned and just simply kept to excluding/including your political party. Overall this film really helped me understand Gerrymandering, it really nailed it in my brain.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just like we discussed in class, the film addresses incumbency caused by gerrymandering. It gives several shocking statistics that show the surprisingly high rate of election of incumbents. I thought the silhouettes of the ridiculously contorted districts were really interesting; it was surprising that the foul play was that obvious yet there still has been no change to the system. Also, the part on the state senator from Florida really stood out to me. At first I was skeptical that no matter how the lines are drawn there would always be a large gap between political parties, but the one Florida district convinced me otherwise. There is hope for American democracy if reforms are made. I like the idea of independent committees to replace politicians for the job of redistricting, but any change is a good change because it opens the door for more reforms to be made, if the ice is broken and a reform is made then the system can continue to be reformed until we find a working method for redrawing district lines. Change fosters progress, not just in representation, but also in policies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like how Luke (or committed2pitted619) remains hopeful. After the article and video I was left feeling disgruntled, disheartened, and discouraged about the state of our democracy. However, after reading Luke's response, I agree that there is a solution and it's first step lies in the independent committees. We are far from perfect representation, but we are taking actions in the right direction.

      Delete
  25. I really liked the direction Luke took with about Baker v. Carr and Voting Rights Act being unintended consequences. He brought up a point that I did not think of but personally agree with. Saying how it later on helped Congress become more diverse in the future. Also my favorite line of his was " I personally don’t like how Toobin referred to this as a consequence, because this change would lead to more representation in Congress. Thus, creating a positive, not a negative, " because it grabs my attention at how true it is.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gerrymandering doesn't particularly strike me as a rather fair or just idea. In the instances that it has been presented to me, I have heard nothing but terrible thing. It seems to be nothing but a political loophole that allows politicians to leap around the population in whatever way gives them the greater chance of election.

    I think it's a tad bit ironic how within the film, it is mentioned that people believe that Gerrymandering should be taught in school, and surprisingly, we're being taught about this in class. A few things mentioned within the film that had already been discussed in class were the actual story behind the name, where Elbridge Gerry created a salamander-shaped district.

    The things that stood out to me the most in the films were the racially-specific districting, and Governor Schwarzenegger's constant support of prop 11. I did not know how to react to the racially-specific districting. It seems so wrong to categorize a district just based on race, it's as if it negates minority population from getting any more say in national laws and matters, along with preventing them from becoming a larger percentage of the congress. Also, I was astonished by Governor Schwarzenegger's support, how much he was against the Gerrymandering, how much he helped the bill gain popularity.

    Personally, I do believe that the current issue with Gerrymandering should be changed. I feel as though we should update it to a new program that allows for the citizens to vote with a certain level of power, on whether or not they agree with the re-districting, after informing them of why each district has been reformed and in what regard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Geordy that the American people need to be informed of the implications of gerrymandering and the unjust abilities that politicians possess. Without proper education, the masses will only further contribute to their own usurpation of power to the government. There cannot be a sweeping change unless this issue is brought to the people's attention first.

      Delete
  27. Initially, the Voting Rights Act was put into place in good faith, and the Supreme Court case Baker vs. Carr upheld the new regulations placed on the voting process. Its object was to protect minority voters, mainly the newly emancipated black population, and end unfair practices in state governments that jeopardized the voting rights of citizens legally allowed to exercise those rights. The unintended consequences of the Voting Rights Act arose in regards to the policy of redistricting. Congressmen began to realize that they could manipulate the system to use the populations within districts to their advantage. Therefore, during redistricting, congressmen grouped populations of like-minded citizens into districts with carefully constructed percentages of party supporters, shifting the votes of that district toward representatives that they wanted to keep in office or even funneling votes towards their own reelection.

    As a result of this discovery, the back-breaking ordeal of gerrymandering became the norm. Representatives and cartographers crunched the precise numbers that would win them votes. The opposition between parties became even more heated as the majority would draw up elaborate district shapes with statistical advantage over the minority. Gerrymandering has become easier and easier to accomplish thanks to our advancing technology. This means that the political parties have become even more aggressive in their manipulation of the districts and voter populations. I believe that this is a terrible representation of how people will take advantage of a system just to beat out the other guy because they can't come to an agreement of any sort. This sort of hysteria- the numbers, the ridiculous district shapes, the extremity and extent of the corruption of the system- is what leads to a standstill in Congress, during which nothing is accomplished to help our economy or society as a whole. Gerrymandering is a disease for which the entire political population needs to be vaccinated immediately.

    The documentary mentioned that race still had an effect on redistricting decisions. In some ways it is embarrassing that even though we have come such a long way in establishing equality and granting rights to all citizens of the United Sates, we are still unsure of whether or not a black community will support a white representative. Throughout the film, the idea that gerrymandering is used as a means to gain personal victories was reinforced several times, and was an idea that was brought up during our class discussions. What I found interesting was learning how much influence the politicians have on where district lines are drawn, and how aggressive they are in manipulating the redistricting process to benefit themselves and cut off the competition. These highlights from the documentary showed me that gerrymandering is a system that reinforces selfish behavior, which is in conflict with the American spirit of generosity and justice. Therefore, I believe that gerrymandering should be deemed unconstitutional, and that districts should be drawn with more attention given to aiding the community, and not the representative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with the concerns that Emily has addressed. It is simply embarrassing that our representatives and leaders still bring the color of our skin into consideration before they divide us up to make them win even more votes. I also agree with how vehemently she is apposed to Gerrymandering and it's ideals. I feel that the most simple way to stop Gerrymandering is to elect new, non-incumbent, representatives who, as part of their platform, will stop Gerrymandering or bring the Supreme Court's attention to it.

      Delete
  28. I am agreeing with Rosie's comment on how the people of the United States really have no say in what we want. When I was watching the video on gerrymandering, all I could think about is the fact that the people of the US really don't get much say in what the government is doing especially with the act of gerrymandering. So, when I saw Rosie's comment that "the government is more corrupt than I expected. With gerrymandering, it seems like we, as voters, have NO say in what we want," I was like wow she stole exactly what I wanted to say! I think that we the people should act as a neutral party and help with redistricting so that there would be more fair districts, and that there wouldn't be the thought of abolishing gerrymandering. But, instead it would be something that the people are excited to help with. I think that if the people could help, they would get to know who their representatives really are, and they would have better reasons behind who they are voting for to represent them.
    I think Rosie's post was really good though, a little long, but very interesting!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Article Questions:
    1. Toobin describes the decision of Baker v. Carr as well as the Voting Rights Act as "classic demonstration[s] of the law of unintended consequences" because Baker v. Carr designed districts so that black voters had no meaningful say in Congress. When running the case, people didn't think that not allowing black voters to have a say in Congress would have a consequence, but in reality it did. It caused the Voting Rights Act to be passed in 1965. This act then established the principle that not only did blacks have the right to vote but also they had to be placed in districts where black candidates stood a good chance of winning. This was more of the "classic demonstration of the law of unintended consequences" that Toobin was talking about because it led to the start of African Americans in Congress, which wasn't intended. They just wanted more equality in voting. I disagree with Toobin because the Voting Rights Act was more of a necessary act instead of a classic demonstration of the law of unintended consequences. Also I believe that it really isn't a consequence it is more of a reaction. I wouldn't call it a consequence either because I usually think of a consequence as something bad, and having blacks be able to vote isn't bad in my mind.

    2. Gerrymandering has led to House members of both parties becoming more extreme and less moderate, less willing to work with members of the other party because in many cases they are campaigning to their own party and trying to make their ideals and beliefs stand out among the other party. They don't want to share their ideas with the other party because they are trying to win as many districts over as they can. I agree with this a little because I can see that they are trying to be competitive against the other party to win the district. But, they do need to work together in their jobs in the House because there are a ton more jobs than gerrymandering/redistricting.

    3. I believe that gerrymandering is constitutional. I don't have much background to say much about why I think that it is constitutional. But there is nothing in the constitution that I can recall that goes against gerrymandering. In all reality it is unfair, but people can definitely move around if that person is a republican in a dominating democratic district. There is no one stopping them from doing that. I also think that gerrymandering has a luck aspect of it and that it isn't necessarily unconstitutional, just different, and a little unfair as well.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Film Questions:
    4. This whole film really resonated with what we are learning in class. The concept of gerrymandering has been a big topic in our AP Government class. We played the redistricting game in order to further help our understanding of what the congressional members do to organize our country into a lot of districts. And in the film they brought up the redistricting game, which I thought was really ironic. It was really funny that that game was on this video, I was totally surprised. Good job Mr. Silverman for making us play that game! This movie also talked about where gerrymandering came from which we went over in class as well.

    5. One of the most surprising things that stood out to me in the video was the fact that all the people being interviewed had no idea what gerrymandering was, except for the little kids that were pronouncing gerrymandering differently. I was very puzzled about how few Americans have been informed about this action that goes on in the U.S. I actually believe that everyone should have some idea of what gerrymandering is because it can determine who will represent everyone in the district. Another thing that stood out to me was the fact that boundaries are placed so precisely to make sure that every single voter is accounted for, and that there are approximately the same amount of voters in each district. I think it is crazy the amount of different shapes it takes to get to such precise numbers.

    6. I believe that the situation of gerrymandering should be changed, but it is definitely not something that would probably happen anytime soon because it is constitutional. If I were to change the act of gerrymandering, I would just abolish it altogether. It is not fair for the ruling party to be able to change the districting in a given area so their party remains in control. It also negates the effectiveness of individual's votes, therefore making some votes more important than other ones. Redistricting would still take place because that is a fair way of separating districts, but because gerrymandering is very unfair I would try and abolish it maybe with a law or an amendment. This would also help eliminate a lot of the governments spending and abolishing it would help out the people of the U.S. a lot!

    7. I was very pleased with the video. Watching this video made me more informed about gerrymandering. Before this video I thought that redistricting and gerrymandering were the same thing. I guess I wasn't so informed about the difference of words. But this video was a bit long to watch and a little repetitive, but definitely worth my time because I learned a lot from it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I somewhat disagree, with Niki on her opinion of how to change, actually abolish the system of gerrymandering. Although gerrymandering is able to control the political situation all together the idea of having no form of competition or rigging of the system might not be the best thing. Instead in order to change gerrymandering, we should just have an outside third party, from both sides establish the districts.

      Delete
  31. The Supreme Court Decision of Baker v. Carr was a “classic demonstration of the law of unintended consequences” because it did lead to the Voting Rights Act. Their initial idea of limiting blacks political power had completely backfired on them and caused for a passing of a law that required them equal opportunity. This is what was described however I think it was a necessary reaction rather than a consequence. However, the result of the Voting Rights Act did have unintended consequences. Their original intention was to settle racial tension in voting abilities. They did not expect it to lead to blacks in the House. It ended up working out for the best.

    Gerrymandering has led to a rise in more extreme candidates and house members because in many cases they are strictly campaigning to mainly their own political party. This allows them to skip out on serving to the opposite party and allows them to hone in on their parties ideals. It results in more extreme representatives backed by a majority of their district due to lack of representation from the opposite party. I think gerrymandering is unconstitutional because it can potential suppress the people in a certain area. For example, if you’re a Democrat and the majority of your district is Republican and the lines had been drawn out to favor the Republican representation, then you’re voice is basically suppressed. Besides moving, you may have no hope to have a democrat represent you.

    The topic of gerrymandering as a whole is what we have been talking about in class, but more specifically the redrawing the district lines, the representation of the people, and the census taken to acquire such stats to create the lines. The history behind the name of it was also explained which included it’s strange shapes. What surprised me was that so many people do not know what it is. They’re living in districts where they may or may not have any control over who is representing them. If they’re the minority they may just think that it wasn’t their time. I think redistricting should be changed. They could potentially stick to strictly basic geometric shapes to avoid boundaries that snake through all parts of a given area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Drew's remarks on the effects of gerrymandering on the relationship between political parties. The minority group in a district risks suppression, and overall under-representation in Congress. This is why I also believe Gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Let's imagine, for example, that party A is able to, somehow, achieve majority in a grand number of districts. There will be thus a great majority of party A in Congress, but this in no way reflects the true division of population, because all those voters of party B are engulfed in those A districts, and thus not accounted for. I can't understand how that is constitutional, or even legal.

      Delete
  32. I agree with Tori's comment about the role race plays in politics. Sure, there may always lie some tension between races across the world but within our own government any type of race issue should not be a problem. Especially nowadays, even though it is most likely not nearly as big of a problem as it used to be, I'm sure race still plays a small part in Gerrymandering. We are the land of the free and race should play no part in any election or campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Gerrymandering has come to be a prevalent tool in deciding the fate of many of today’s political powers, in the United States Government. Jeffery Toobin outlines many of the great debates for and against the action of gerrymandering, in the New Yorker. One of the defining issues of districting for the voting boundaries within states, was first on the issue of race, where the 1962 court decision of Baker vs. Carr forced districts to leave blacks with no meaningful say with the district. But then in 1965 the Voting Rights Act, overturned the Baker vs. Carr decision and established the blacks right to vote and helped blacks gain equality among voting districts. Both of these policies have established their own consequences, the case led to a great opposition while, the Voting Rights Act led to a greater influence of blacks in government, which inadvertently caused more party separation among the members of both parties among Congress. I feel like the idea that these laws have consequences, is quite interesting because I find this philosophy common to most laws and ideas that get formally passed through the government, no matter the issue there isn’t just one valid solution.
    Secondly, gerrymandering has led the House to become filled with more extreme party members, within the segregated party districts. In these cases the majority party candidates then begin to push for their opinions and arguments that are more extreme and individual then that of the minority party in the district, causing a shift from what naturally would be a moderate view to extreme partisan stance. This fact and the statistic that only a very small percent of the population actually votes in elections, let alone primaries, causes those that tend to vote, ones who are extremely passionate or take one side, to influence the decision greatly. Leaving no real room for a middle ground to stand upon.
    In the film Gerrymandering, the diverse views in which the history and issue of this form of legal controls on voting, brings up several striking facts and ideas. One of the most lurking ideas was the fact that through various interviews, of what appeared to be the general public, very few actually knew what gerrymandering was. Either it be the complex name or lack of understanding, this concerns me to know that few know what they are doing in the way of politics and who is representing them. On the other hand, this seems to not directly affect the citizens, because they don’t realize that the decision has practically already been decided for them. So then what makes gerrymandering unconstitutional then, personally I find it not, unconstitutional by any means, because it’s just playing the system smartly. Opposition may think differently but ultimately its up to the citizens to change it if necessary, by simply voting otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Toobin addresses the "issue" of the Voting Rights Act with a portrayal of the 'unholy alliance' between black Democrats and white Republicans. An unintended consequence of this act was that the propagation of civil rights created an opportunity for white Republicans to concentrate the black voters in specific districts, where they reliably voted democratically, and yet by abiding by the increased racial concentration requirement of the Voting Right Act, they were in fact packing districts. I was shocked while reading this, completely unaware of this subtle yet influential effect of the Voting Rights Act and the sheer abuse of one of the biggest civil rights legislation in our nation's history. Although depicting the abuse as an 'unholy alliance' seems a little melodramatic, the advantage taken by the white Republicans of the system is outrageously partisan and corrupt.
    In my opinion, gerrymandering is a natural evolution of the abuses of a highly partisan system of government. Despite George Washington's early warnings of a two party political system, we have allowed it to evolve into the corrupt state that we find it in today, with less of the people's interests in mind and more of the interests of individuals seeking reelection and fame. Even the possibility to gerrymander given to the parties by our system of redistricting perpetuates this partisan spirit. As Toobin said, gerrymandering forces House members to become more extremely partisan by running in districts that are already know to vote in one direction, so why not give them a candidate who is COMPLETELY in that direction? This extremism further establishes the tense feelings in Congress, losing sight of the camaraderie and spirit of government that I believe that our nation began with and becoming a hotbed of self-interest and political turmoil.
    The issue with gerrymandering now is what is the alternative? Do we make every district equal population and attempt to provide close political races that allow a fair chance of election for each party? Or do we attempt to limit gerrymandering, reflecting the majority that a party has yet preventing them from taking advantage of the system and ruining a specific person and party's chances of reelection? In my opinion, gerrymandering is not unconstitutional, yet the stage to which it is now at is completely unacceptable and the American people should be ashamed that our government has allowed this sort of partisan self-interest to fester to the extremes that it is at today. But we cannot just change the system to my 1st alternative, because close elections are not always the best alternative; they can take nasty turns that further harm our partisan perspective of government, but they can also create more moderate candidates whose ideas are more well-rounded from the sense of opposition and compromise (as Toobin described, candidates are more extreme in primaries than during general elections). I believe that the 2nd alternative is the best option, a limited sense of gerrymandering representing the majority control in a state and portraying the political views of the different districts, yet we must make regulations to prevent the out of control packing, cracking, and kidnapping that occurs in our current redistricting system. Why can't we just trust our state legislatures to support the people and not their party's candidates? I don't know, and I am truly unsure as to how we can regulate this currently corrupted system.
    As the video put it, "There is an image, held the world over, of an American democracy that is robust, vibrant, open to change, and subject to the will of the voter. This image is an unfortunate illusion." And at the core of this illusion is our current,unsettling system of redistricting and putting the decision of who is in Congress back in the voter's hand and out of the hands of those who draw the lines.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I just had to add that I completely agree with Hakeem Jeffries view of gerrymandering challengers to incumbents out of that particular district. As he so eloquently put, "Brooklyn politics can be rough, but that move was gangsta." Indeed, this ridiculous attempt to avoid competition in 2002 after a close race in 2000 is corrupt enough to the point where one could even call it gangsta.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I agree with Emily Weiss' emphasis on the fact that today's technological advances allow gerrymandering to be easier, and thus allows allows the political parties and politicians to be even more aggressive in their manipulations. I also, however, believe that this technology has allowed them to become more precise and talented at gerrymandering, taking redistricting abuse to whole new heights when they can easily see different lines and maps with a quick dragging of the district lines and immediate computer feedback.
    I also liked her description of gerrymandering as a "disease for which the entire political population needs to be vaccinated immediately." I believe that the state of our political parties' manipulation through gerrymandering is in fact infecting our national politics, and the American people need to learn to demand a cure.

    ReplyDelete
  37. To me, Gerrymandering is causing more trouble than it is worth. Republicans and Democrats in the House are now so focused on getting re-elected through gerrymandering and eliminating as much of the other parties representatives, that they have lost sight of why we elected them in the first place. It has come to a point where Congress is divided on so many issues, that some of the most basic of legislation cannot be passed. Both parties are guilty of it not being about the legislation that is being suggested, it's about who's suggesting it. And if that who is on the opposing party, then they vote against it out of spite.

    When Toobin was talking about the Voting Rights Act and how it caused "unintended consequences" I believe that he was talking about how the African Americans got their equality, but now there are new, bigger challenges that came up from it. Like how they are being given a say, but not a large enough say in any one district to really make a difference and get a black voted to Congress. These unintended consequences have not helped the political relation between blacks and whites, only strained it.

    I do believe that this type of Gerrymandering is unconstitutional. By changing they districts, Representatives are taking away equality. Equality with the next person to run against them in a district where current public view decides who serves, which is how the framers intended it to be in the first place. The only problem is how it would get to the Supreme Court. There is nothing specifically saying you can't change district lines to support an incumbent, and any legislation attempting to prohibit Gerrymandering is going to be immediately shot down in the House of Representatives.

    One connection I saw between the film and our discussions in class was the popular tactic of putting a representatives house in a new district. This tactic has become too prevalent, especially with how the lines are drawn specifically so that the house is only a street within the new district (sort of a metaphorical finger to the representative who's house was just placed in another district). One of the things that really stood out to me was how the American people known about Gerrymandering and how often it occurs. This isn't something that's been swept under the rug and hidden. It's out there and everyone knows about it. And yet, nothing is being done about it. Or rather, nothing can be done about it. Even if people were to petition to their representative to stop Gerrymandering, the representative would just toss the letter in the shredder if they don't want to stop Gerrymandering, and then if they supported it, then what can one voice do against 434 other members who support the act.

    I think that Gerrymandering should be stopped, completely and utterly, but the only problem is, I don't see how it would be done. The Supreme Court doesn't seem like it will be getting anything on it. The House of Reps will eliminate legislation trying to prohibit it. And then even if by some miracle, Gerrymandering was made illegal, then whoever was drawing these new lines can just say did their job, the political shift, or population change was just an unintended side-effect of the process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Austin and I have very similar views on gerrymandering. I like the points that he makes about redistricting turned into something that the framers had not intended to happen. After watching the video, I hadn't made the connection that most of the population know that this is happening, and yet, we do nothing about it. I don't understand why we keep standing on the sidelines pretending like it's okay, and yes, we will get shot down in Congress, but we have to at least try. Unlike Austin, I think we may still have hope to stop gerrymandering, it will just take a lot of advertising and patience, but I think that one day enough people will get sick of it and truly realize what is happening.

      Delete
  38. I think Will Funk put it very eloquently he said that Gerrymandering itself was not unconstitutional, but rather the prevalence of it has become unacceptable. And upon reading his comment I agree with him more. It's not against the rules to change districts, but it should be against the rules to use the tactics of cracking, kidnapping, etc. If we let our state legislatures do their job without the influence of personal gain through Gerrymandering, I'm sure they could do a good job. The only problem is that, against President Washington's wishes, the American people have created political parties and have allowed them to become to prevalent.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The article and documentary were both very informative about the issue of Gerrymandering. I think that this issue should be publicized more because I think that this huge flaw in our system could be addressed more readily if the people who's districts were changing around them actually had an idea about how corrupt the concept really is. In the article, Tobin descrbies the Baker vs Carr Case and the Voting Rights act as " classic demonstrations of the law of unintended consequences" because both os these separate cases vastly affected the outcome of their districts. In the Baker vs. Carr case, the black voters were not even counted, but when this changed, then those votes were not only added to the mix of their respective districts to make a difference, but redistricted so that the racial vote was really given a voice. Neither one of these decisions were created soley to affect redistricting or gerrymandering but they both vastly changed the outcome of each districts vote. I think that this analysis of the situation is very valid, because these separate laws, either restricting or granting rights change the vote, which is an "unintended consequence".

    The realization that manipulating districts was possible to change votes created much of the shift to House members becoming so extreme. The majority party would go to great lengths, and draw incredibly complex and confusing district lines simply to get their votes. The house members of both parties try to muscle each other out of the way, and claim the votes of their obscurely drawn district. I think that this level of manipulation speaks very poorly for how our communities views are being presented. Instead of working for a well represented population, instead now only the extremists from each party are being represented which really defeats the entire purpose of the House. Gerrymandering seems like a very shady and altogether corrupt concept. I think it is concepts like this that really leave our country at a stand still, fighting for district lines instead of what the equally represented community really needs.

    The film really helped solidify the definition of gerrymandering to me, redistricting for ones personal gain. Incumbents secure their seats and this creates almost no competion in the House, which says something about why our government is notoriously slow to get anything done. A connection that I made between the film and our class discussions was how race still plays a role in redistricting decisions. I think that this seems to go against all the progress our country has worked to make happen in recent years. The film discussed how in Los Angeles, candidates don't want to Asians in the district because they feel as though they will threaten their chances due to a different background or perspective. This example made the complete corruption that gerrymandering is very very clear to me.

    This film, and learning about the issue as a whole made it quite obvious to me that this issue needs to be stopped. I think that the entire concept of gerrymandering should be banned, but I think this would be almost impossible unless new legislation was put into place to regulate the the parties in the districts, or to keep the shape of the districts uniform. These two sources really gave me a clear view of how tied up our government has become. It is disheartening entering a system like this, where the focus has been pulled so far from what the issue really is. These politicians, though perhaps once had the desire to make a positive impact have gotten so lost, and I don't think this stops at gerrymandering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maya, we agree like always. I loved when you said, "Instead of working for a well represented population, instead now only the extremists from each party are being represented which really defeats the entire purpose of the House." That is so true. The gerrymandering process has driven each party into the arms of radicals and away from moderates. I also hated how that candidate was racist against Asians and I also thought that "example made the complete corruption that gerrymandering is very very clear to me." I think your idea about banning gerrymandering would be quite possible if it just kept politicians out of redistricting. And your final sentence is right on target: "These politicians, though perhaps once had the desire to make a positive impact have gotten so lost, and I don't think this stops at gerrymandering," fantastic!

      Delete
  40. When Toobin described the Supreme Court decision Baker vs. Carr and the Voting Rights Act as “classic demonstration[s] of the law of unintended consequences” he was referring to the influx of African American Congress members. This took power away from white Democrats and although it led to greater power representation for African Americans in our government. A consequence is essentially something that follows something else. I personally think this consequence was good for society. Toobin also stated that gerrymandering led to House members of both parties becoming more extreme and less moderate. I do agree that this is true. Redistricters draw district lines to specifically target districts as certain party districts or to ensure that a certain incumbent will not remain in office. Of course this could create a very heated rivalry and lead to bipartisan extremism. I think redistricting, like all powers of Congress could be beneficial if engineered correctly. However, when redistricting “crosses the line” and can be called gerrymandering, the process is corrupt. I believe the school in Texas did the right thing and agree with Jennifer Brandt’s position in that handing out candy canes with the message “Jesus is the reason for the season” is exhorting religion at a school. The film discussed gerrymandering and what institutions have the power to do under the constitution. I do not understand how it can be right for a representative to be in one district and his car in another. Obviously, there should be some rules in place about where you can draw district lines. Neighborhoods tend to have similar views and I don’t think they should be purposefully split to dilute their opinion. This ultimately puts power in the hands of bipartisan politicians who draw lines, not those of the people. This system does not accurately represent the needs of citizens, but the need of representatives to keep their party in power.

    ReplyDelete
  41. In the article, The Great Election Grab, Toobin states that the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. Carr and the Voting Rights Act are good demonstrations of the “law of unintended consequences.” I think that Toobin classifies these events as such because these laws and decisions were not made to get more blacks elected into Congress, but that’s exactly what happened because of them. Toobin also says that gerrymandering has lead to an absence of compromise and collaboration between members of the opposite party, and that’s because these members, when running in their uncontested reelection, are only answering to the primary voters, which tend to be the extreme minded of the two parties. The extreme differences in views is what keeps the members of the House from being able to collaborate, and since the members of the house never have to compete for their spot because of all the gerrymandering, they never have to appeal to anyone but the extremist of their parties. It makes a little bit of sense to me, and I can see why Toobin has come to this conclusion. My overall opinion on gerrymandering is a negative one. I do not think that it should be allowed to gain any bias one way or another. The fundamentals and the concept of redistricting are solid and stated in the constitution, but when you ad gerrymandering in the mix, which is a somewhat sinister thing to do, I think it turns it into being unconstitutional.

    In regards to the video on Gerrymandering, I first want to say that although I’m not sure that I would pick to watch this video on my own, I was interested in it all the way through. With that being said, the few things in the film that I could connect to things discussed in class were the emphasis on legislative members being able to redraw their own lines in a way that made the districts biased towards one thing or another and also how many incumbents run virtually unchallenged during time of reelection. When discussing gerrymandering in class, I didn’t really think about it truly taking people out of the running until in the video it showed a now-senator who had at first run against an incumbent and after the next redistricting they had meticulously drawn this now-senator’s block out of the district. I was also surprised to learn that proposition 11 was for the establishment of a redistricting committee in California to keep incumbent influence out of the redistricting process. I thought that this was a very good idea and it would bring back, at least in California, the fairness to politics. This establishment of a redistricting committee of qualified citizens would be how I would solve the issue or gerrymandering, and I do feel that it is an issue that should be addressed; it’s like an unfair game that needs to get some better referees.

    ReplyDelete
  42. In response to Will, I agree that depicting the abuse of the Voting Rights Act as an "unholy alliance" is a bit sensational. However, that term conveys the gravity of the situation, and Will concluded that himself after a very thorough reflection on the article and documentary. He brought up some very good points about the debate on the constitutionality of gerrymandering, and I also agree with him that the level it has been brought to is ridiculous and needs to be prevented from expanding even more. Will's description of America's illusion of a healthy democracy working for the benefit of everyone, when in fact the system is being exploited by representatives, hit home for me.

    ReplyDelete
  43. First of all what caught my eye most about this article was the Voting Rights Act, the unholy alliance and the law of unintended consequences. I was talking to Amalia and Ryan at the time I was reading this section and I said to them “Black democrats working with white republicans, who would’ve thought?” I know this could be taking in a difficult way, however it seemed so interesting to me. At the time this alliance gave blacks voting power, which was necessary, and what they wanted, however the republicans were just ensured their safety during redistricting. To me this seemed very two faced of the republicans, it wasn’t surprising to me, just odd.

    Anyway, I also thought that Toobin’s statement about gerrymandering being conducted by the extreme wings of each party. When this happens, which it does, it results in one party giving themselves a major advantage over another. This made me a little uneasy… At first I thought, why isn’t someone unbiased redrawing the district lines? Then I realized how unrealistic that is because everyone is biased someway. I agree with Toobin’s analysis of the extremity of the party’s and the unwillingness to work and compromise with the opposing party. I know its competition of winning a seat in Congress, but to make things fair and equal, it shouldn’t have to lead to the extremes it’s in now. If I was running for a seat and my make or break depended on the gerrymandering of the districts, I would want to win obviously, but win fairly or lose fairly, not because the districts were redrawn into a complete party advantage, I think that’s wrong.

    I don’t know if this form of redistricting is unconstitutional but I definitely think we can do better. I think that if new ideas of gerrymandering are being represented to Congress and the Supreme Court and they are better than what we have as a system now, then it should be changed.

    I thought the film was very parallel to what we talked about in class on redistricting. One thing about redistricting that I found frustrating is that race is a huge issue. It’s 2012 people, get over it already. It makes me so frustrated to think that people still are hung up on silly race issues that don’t affect anything. Our country is a melting pot and is full of different races and cultures. I think that one of the best things about America is our variety in our people. I become so passionate about this because I think that the power our politicians are craving is more essential to them than improving our country. Watching this film has made me frustrated with our system of gerrymandering. However what we’ve discussed in class and what this film has taught me is much more than I knew before; I had no idea of the system our Congressmen and woman work through in order to be elected.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I agree completely with what Amalia stated about the unintended consequences issues between races during the redistricting process. I really liked how you explained what that meant to you, as by them trying to correct past mistakes, it just created new problems between races. I love how you said the whole system is “messed up”, I 100% agree. “It’s unfair in both aspects and if the system of gerrymandering was just removed all together everyone would have an equal and fair shot at winning.” Yep! I think that we need to figure out ways of redistricting that are fair and unbiased. Also what you said about Kathay Feng in the video, I thought her reaction was completely rude and ridiculous and as Americans that disgusting how a politician thinks like that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Toobin describe the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr as well as the Voting Rights Act as "classic demonstration[s] of the law of unintended consequences" because they tried to create a more equal and democratic process for the U.S. but instead ended up creating a system of political manipulation of the people through gerrymandering. I agree with Toobin because they paved the way for gerrymandering. They made districts be drawn in such a way that African American voters would have adequate representation in districts where black candidates were likely to be successful. This let republicans pack all the democratic black voters into a few districts and crack the white democrats across multiple districts with republican majorities.

    Gerrymandering has led to House members of both parties becoming more extreme and less moderate, less willing to work with members of the other party because the districts being represented are drawn to be politically polarized. Congressmen don’t have to worry about being moderate or compromising with the other side if they can play to their party’s base and get re-elected as a radical. I agree with Toobin because the people who vote in primaries are the more opinionated people who aren’t moderate, like me. The 25% voter turnout means that the radicals decide who represents the entire district. This results in radical representatives who will not cooperate with the opposite party and do not reflect the views of the vastly moderate American public.

    I do believe that this gerrymandering is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court should put a stop to it. The Supreme Court should ensure that state courts enforce the compactness of the districts. As we saw in the redistricting game, districts need to be drawn in compact shapes but the courts in most states do not usually enforce the compactness principle in practice. If the Supreme Court made sure that state courts do enforce the compactness principle it would help solve some of the problems of gerrymandering.

    The film mentioned a number of things that were related to what we discussed in class. The film talked about the redistricting game, the overwhelming public opinion against gerrymandering and congress, the manipulation of districts for political gain, the issue of minority representation, and the incumbent representatives have a huge advantage in re-elections.

    One thing that struck me as very troubling was the fact stated in the beginning that said, “The United States is the only advanced democracy in the world where the politicians directly participate in the redistricting process.”

    I think the redistricting process should be changed. Politicians should not be part of the process at all and like I mentioned before, the state courts should start to enforce the principle of compact congressional districts.

    ReplyDelete
  46. After reading the article and watching the documentary I’m struck with how uninformed I was before on this issue. For how prominent and serious a subject, I had never heard the word until a week or so ago. And it’s not just me. As I saw in the video, when the interviewer initially questioned the public, most of the interviewees did not know what it was either. This naivety in the American public is frightening.

    I agree with Toobin in that the outcomes of Baker v. Carr and the Voting Rights Act were way more far-reaching than the Supreme Courts could have foreseen. The two were designed with good intentions (like most things are) to aid the representation of black voters. The Voting Rights Act made it so that not only did blacks have he right to vote, but they had to be placed in a district where they had a good chance of winning. It is easy to see how this act could create a slippery slope and act as a justification for what gerrymandering was to become.

    Gerrymandering helped lead to House members of both parties becoming more extreme. One of the methods of gerrymandering is to put likeminded voters in one district to make it easier to represent. However, this leads to the representative tending to appeal to the most extreme part of the district's party. If they wish to be reelected they must say what the voters wish to hear. Unfortunately, this leads to the current standing of very view middle men in congress and many extreme partisans creating increased tension.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This was Lila if you're wondering...technical difficulties in the username arena

      Delete
  47. The Baker vs. Carr and Voting Rights Act contributed to districts being organized so that blacks could get representation in the government. I think that the author’s analysis of this as the law of unintended consequences led the way for future gerrymandering for all groups of people. I agree with his analysis because this point in time probably started a chain reaction for others to start doing the same. House members are usually more extreme because the districts are designed to pick your own voters. For example, if there is a district of primarily very Republican voters, the representative will vote on the party line. Toobin is very right about this too. Gerrymandering is definitely not a good thing, but I don’t think it should be unconstitutional. There is no way to really define boundaries for districts, but I think that the people who approve districts shouldn’t allow so many ridiculous districts to be drawn.

    This film served as reinforcement about what we have discussed in class and read on our own. The film obviously portrayed gerrymandering as a bad practice. The film talked about how people purposely draw out districts and don’t include specific people and groups in certain districts so that no competition is met. Though we spoke of this all in class, I think the film did a good job showing a lot of evidence and the workings of it all. At one point in the film, someone said, “Picasso would have been proud.” This couldn’t be truer. There is no way to hide the fact that gerrymandering is taking place because of all of the abstract shapes and designs all of the districts create. It really is all jumbled together. I also thought it was interesting that before Prop 11 was passed, California had tried five times before to start up a similar plan of legislation. I don’t really understand why people would continue to let gerrymandering take place if they were able to stop it, even if it was just a little bit. I thought it would have passed much sooner. Lastly, there were many personal interviews in the film, but I thought the one with Hakeem Jeffreys getting his house drawn out of a Brooklyn district was particularly interesting. How do politicians get away with that? It is such a corrupt practice and it is a shame that a redistricting plan like that was passed.

    Gerrymandering is something that should be changed. It is a very corrupt process and it amazes me that people just let it keep happening. Even if it was decided to stop gerrymandering though, there would be a lot of question behind what exactly was and was not gerrymandering. It would be extremely controversial and there probably isn’t a way to set an actual rule for it, but those who confirm redistricting plans are never blind to the fact when redistricting is happening. All in all, I think gerrymandering is a very manipulative process that exists in our government. Though it may not be this simple, just putting a piece of graph paper over the United States and then designing districts is the way to be most fair. In the end, people should vote in their district and whoever wins is the winner. There shouldn’t be laws or anything that gives other groups chances to win, because in the end, whoever a district finds most able will represent that district. Districts shouldn’t be designed, obviously, so that a specific party can win, but they also shouldn’t be designed so that a specific minority group or gender can win. That is a form of gerrymandering on its own, and when it comes to drawing out districts, it should just be the way that it is. Draw the straightest and most compact figures possible and let the people have a say in what is going on, not just the government.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I agree with Lila’s comment about not being educated about this subject before. I’ve never heard about it too much but the class discussions, article, and documentary gave a very nice overview of it. I think it is very interesting that a lot of Americans don’t know what gerrymandering is and how much of it is happening. I think that it would be very worthwhile for everyone to know how gerrymandering works because it is really unfair to American people. We aren’t truly getting representation because the government is controlling the people that are elected. I am glad that I know about this issue while I am still young. This is just one example of how corrupt the government can be.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Toobin describes the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr as a “classic demonstration of the law of unintended consequences” because though it was meant to create equality for African American voters and candidates, it ended up allowing politicians to manipulate the redistricting process through the technique of gerrymandering. I found it shocking that an act that was put in place to support civil rights and that was considered such a big step forward for America ended up being abused and used for politicians’ own selfish gains and ultimately corrupted American politics.
    I think that gerrymandering leads to House members becoming more extreme because politicians do not have to worry about appealing to both parties due to the fact that their seat in the House is basically guaranteed to them. Since they don’t have to worry about losing their seat and they know that their district was drawn so that their party is dominant, they can be extreme in their decisions without worrying about the public opinion. This causes the House to be extremely divided which in turn causes it to be very hard for House members to cooperate and come to decisions or make compromises.
    Even if the Supreme Court sees gerrymandering as constitutional, I don’t believe it should be allowed. It’s ridiculous that members of the House obtain their spots by manipulating the system and not from gaining the true votes of the people. I found it completely absurd that the lines were drawn so meticulously that a politician’s apartment could be drawn right outside of a district. I also think it’s ridiculous that the United States is the only country that allows this to happen. A line that stuck with me from the article was when Samuel Issacharoff said, “There is a sense of embarrassment about what has happened in American politics, the rules of decorum have fallen apart.”I agree that it is completely embarrassing that America, a country that boasts of freedom and democracy, has allowed the voting system to become so corrupt.
    Something that was brought up in the film that we talked about in class was the idea of incumbents and how hard it is for someone new to run against a member of the House. What really stood out to me while watching the film was how big of a role race plays in redistricting. It’s sad that we say we have come such a long way from the days of discrimination, but yet it is still happening everyday in politics. I definitely think the situation of gerrymandering needs to be addressed but I also understand that it will be extremely difficult to change. This is especially due to that fact that both parties can use the technique to their advantage so neither one will be too keen to change the system, especially when the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional. Also, it would be difficult to think of an alternative technique for redistricting. Overall, something needs to be done and American citizens need to wake up and come together to do something about it.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I also agree with Lila about being uneducated about this topic and I think that is the biggest problem that we need to overcome in order to solve this issue. It just goes to show how much the government can get away with right under the noses of the American people. If people were more informed about what is going on with redistricting I think we'd be one step closer to solving the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  51. This article really opened my eyes as to the scope and sheer severity of the gerrymandering situation in America today. Toobin describes the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr and the Voting Rights Act as “classic demonstrations of the law of unintended consequences” because of the side-effects that politicians could use as a loophole to further their political power. His analysis was spot-on in the sense that both of these instances have paved the way, and even encouraged, abuse of the redistricting system. What started out as an attempt to grant equal representation to African-American candidates has spiraled out of control into a game of district manipulation that anyone can and will play to ensure their election.

    Gerrymandering has allowed House members of both parties to be more extreme and significantly less moderate because they know their ideals, however radical, will be shared by those in the districts they’ve personally chosen. This has given them the ability to be as extreme in their views as they desire with very little opposition.

    With such an incredible distaste for the institution of gerrymandering, I can’t help but wonder why it’s still intact today. The practice’s constitutionality is undeniable, but I feel as though an amendment must be made or the system abolished in its entirety. Neither of these can happen so long as there is a thirst for power in politics, though, because the ones pushing to abolish gerrymandering would be the ones who would lose the very voting power they’re so desperately after.

    The documentary on gerrymandering provided some necessary background and so helpfully explained how it came to be the monster that it is today. I’m amazed how corrupt and underhanded today’s world of politics works, and how nothing can be done to stop it. The thing that stands out to me most is the ability to twist and contort one’s district in the most ridiculous manner so long as it’s fully connected. It’s insulting to the American people and the political system of checks and balances that the Founding Fathers devised so long ago. The gerrymandering loophole needs to be changed or abolished as soon as possible. Congressional districts should be as diverse as possible to put voting power back in the hands of the people instead of the corrupt politicians pulling the strings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the comment Dakota made about how one can't help but wonder why Gerrymandering is still intact today. I whole heartedly agree with this statement, and I think it's a disgrace to America, which is supposed to be the model of democracy for the rest of the world. As Abe Lincoln put it our government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people...", but sadly, none of those three are present in today's House of Representatives. If we had the power to create our own country, we should have the power to put it back on the right path a couple hundred years later.

      Delete
  52. By: Peri Curtis

    Toobin describes the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr as well as the Voting Rights Act as “classic demonstration[s] of the law of unintended consequences” because it was meant to help make sure that voting was fair and accurate and in turn did the opposite. I do agree with this analysis because I think it is ironic that something that tried to help Americans have equality turned into something that created the problem of gerrymandering. The Voting Rights Act had all of the right intentions to create equality amongst African Americans voting but also gave more power to the white Republican party. Toobin’s analysis on this was spot on; everything was projected to be helpful but backfired in the long run. Gerrymandering has led to House members of both parties becoming more extreme and less moderate and less willing to work with members of the other party because the process entails cramming one ideological view in one district to dominate so it will not affect any of the others. By doing this, this has made both parties extreme and more distant from the other party. They just want the others to stay in their district so the aura will not be interrupted. I do feel like gerrymandering is indeed unconstitutional but the Supreme Court cannot really do anything about it. This is because the Constitution does not explicitly say that gerrymandering is illegal. If gerrymandering gets way out of control, I am sure that someone will come along and try to find some loophole in the words stated in the Constitution to create something that will tone gerrymandering down a bit. But until then, hopefully gerrymandering will not cause too much more corruption in voting.

    The film reinforced and frankly cleared up a lot of what we learned in class. It showed the profound effect it has on an election and shows the problems with incumbents wanting no competition. One thing that surprised me the most was the different types of gerrymandering, racial, partisan, and incumbency. I basically thought it was just the parties wanting overwhelming support and trying to diffuse the other party’s vote. Another thing that surprised me was the power that incumbents had on drawing the district lines. After watching the film, I think the situation of gerrymandering should be changed but will take a long time to figure out the proper way to go about fixing it. As stated above, I think someone should read over word by word and interpret the Constitution in many different ways to find something that says that this shouldn’t happen.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I agree with Lila because a lot of people have no idea what is going on with gerrymandering and what it is. Even in the documentary when people were asked if they knew what gerrymandering was, some were clueless. I feel like it is pretty shady and Americans should be way mroe informed about this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Overall, my mind is blown and has been quite blown since watching the video, in regards to the way power is given to institutions but then is so intensely manipulated through the lens of greed and eyes watching only for personal benefit. I found the concept of a man and his possessions, and in this case a representative and his car being split between districts
    incredibly silly. I think that it sets a very low bar for American politicians to work with and American citizens to follow. A simple motivation for turning gerrymandering around is that we deal daily with varying amounts of corruption in our government, and that this public’s awareness of this creates a noticeable division between politics and morals, which in societal reaction, separates average citizens and those immersed in politics from one another. In order to unify this country, I feel that putting a stop to Gerrymandering and making it public as to why would be a terrific beginning. Toobin makes it apparent to us that gerrymandering has caused a slow and powerful separation between the Republican and Democratic parties by citing examples, such as when redistricters manipulate the zoning of districts while targeting specific incumbents, in attempts to controlling whether they stay in office or not. I agree with this in that it causes people to choose sides against each other, rather than working together towards a common goal. Despite my lack of knowledge in historical political background, I feel strongly that gerrymandering is unconstitutional. I think that the Supreme Court should take a more subjective and moral approach to interpreting the constitution in a way that will aid the moral code of our present society, rather than maintaining the corrupt and self centered code that exists in politics today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr, Gibbs, as always I find your response very eloquent and thoughtful. I very much agree with your statement on Unifying the country. As Toobin said, this is causing more extreme politicians to dominate of the moderate ones, thus causing a larger divide between the two main parties. I found your comment on the greed of those who do this particularly interesting as well. That is something that stood out to me as well, however not as blatantly, for I have grown cynical of some of the politicians running this country, and would not put something like this past some of them.

      Delete
  55. I agree with Lila in that the first step we need to take in order to begin making changes in politics in regards specifically, to gerrymandering, is to raise awareness of this concept in the general public. This could be done slowly through media, but would hold much greater legitimacy if some politicians themselves would own up to their awareness of or participation in gerrymandering themselves. Though this could conceivably cause some conflict between the respective politicians and their followers, I feel that if multiple politicians came forward it would become apparent to the American citizens that politicians are given little choice in our present society to succeed in politics unless that put up with the corruption that comes with it. This compassion is the compassion that will reconstruct a unified government, a new earth, and moral politics.

    ReplyDelete
  56. The article extracted from the New Yorker does a brilliant job of presenting a problem with Gerrymandering - evident but buried at the same time - that has been source of dispute for several decades, as the film as well indicates.
    The process of redistricting was first created following the civil-rights movement as an attempt to help the African American population reach an equal representation in Congress. It was thus part of the plan to manipulate district border lines in order to induce enough majority in certain areas to reach that goal. However, redistricting has now become a powerful tool in the hands of legislators, enabling them to force any politician of the opposite party out of congress. Mascara's case is a striking example of how this process is used in the wrong way. The purpose of redistricting should be the accurate representation of a certain part of the population in government, but it has become a way to ensure votes for a party and specifically, as is evident in Mascara's case, remove targeted individuals from the game. This is why, as Toobin put it, gerrymandering has led to House members of both parties becoming more extreme and less moderate. Political parties have become less willing to work together because they have come to fear their opponents. Each politician has come to fear being "evicted" from his/her own district, even if he or she had been safe in the position. Again, Mascara's case. Thus, whenever they have a chance, parties will do their best to abuse redistricting in order to assure majority in as many districts as possible for as long as possible, or at least for 10 years. And no need to state the enormous margin for bias in gerrymandering. Most politicians are able to trade votes, voters, and favoring in the redistricting process with the "map makers", therefore jeopardizing the American people's interests by making decisions solely based on protecting incumbents and defeating the opposite party. I believe Congressional redistricting must be changed. There should be more rules to the game, for example prohibiting the removal of a representative's home from his/her district without plausible reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I am so glad that the topic of gerrymandering is being looked at in this course! The concept seems a bit concerning and manipulative.

    With the court case and Voting Rights Act, came more voting rights to black; promoting racially equality. It seemed great because all of a sudden, blacks were going to Congress which was so amazing and revolutionary. Unfortunately, the "Unholy Alliance" was used in a way that I find to be a bit unfair. I agree with Toobin. I think that the encouragement of gerrymandering is bad news.

    I also agree with Toobin about politicians polarizing their views. Because of Gerrymandering, politicians don't have to work as hard to please everyone. If the majority of people clearly have an opinion on any given topic, the politician only has to worry about appealing to that particular majority.

    I guess I don't really know what exactly deems gerrymandering unconstitutional, but I do find that it isn't right. In the article, where it talked about the case concerning the Democrats of Pennsylvania who believed their vote was not being seen, I found the Republican's response to be a bit disturbing; as quoted in the article "Welcome to the big leagues". Not only is that insensitive (though sensitivity is not really something to be considered- politics aren't really for the faint-hearted apparently), it just seems like a poor argument. The Republicans would have felt equally victimized if they were in the Democrats position. Unfortunately, I don’t really see how it can be stopped.

    Some things in the film that were touched on in class were including targeting specific people when drawing district lines and how it helps out incumbents when elections roll around. What stuck with me from this video is the use of all the footage. It makes me think how Gerrymandering has been affecting people for generations and yet so many of us remain oblivious to it. On a lighter note, I personally find it hilarious that I have been pronouncing Elbridge Gerry’s name incorrectly. I certainly have hope that things change when it comes to change, but I still have many doubts. Perhaps if the public is more informed about the effects of Gerrymandering, things will change.

    ReplyDelete
  58. In my last paragraph, I meant to say the use of HISTORIC footage stuck out to me...sorry I left out a pretty important word

    ReplyDelete
  59. I like how Sire Gibbs said that this concept is just having people work against each other instead working for a common goal. It's such a shame that morality is lost in the deep complexities of our government. And bringing the public's awareness to this problem should be the first step of the solution.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Toobin describes the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr as well as the Voting Rights Act as "classic demonstration[s] of the law of unintended consequences" because it was an attempt to create an equal voting experience for Black U.S. citizens but instead developed the tactic of gerrymandering, a useful tool for politicians to manipulate the boundary lines to favor one party or class. I can’t believe that these politicians would try and find loopholes to better themselves with a situation as important and historically changing as this. It makes me upset to think that that’s all they care about. Gerrymandering has led to House members of both parties to become more extreme and less moderate and less willing to work with members of the other parties because why would they try and work hard for something they already know is guaranteed to them? By manipulating the system, there is no reason for them to push hard and convince others because they have already won what they would be competing for, which is a seat in the House. They can be extreme in the way they make promises and decisions because they know the district they represent will follow behind them. I believe that gerrymandering should be closely supervised by officials other than the politicians from those districts. I think it’s outrageous that this has been going on for so long and has been somewhat accepted. It’s ridiculous to think that these people get away with this kind of political abuse. Although the Supreme Court sees this as a constitutional issue, I feel as though it’s crossing the line of fairness and what is right.
    An issue mentioned in the video by Sam Issacharoff from University School of Law stated how it is hard for other officials to build up media and run against an incumbent with a 70% district when they’re the ones drawing the lines. There are many different types of gerrymandering which includes racial, partisan, and incumbency(sweetheart deals) gerrymandering. Another issue mentioned by Justin Levitt from Brennan Center for Justice is how individual legislatures draw their competition directly out of their district and box them out so they have no way of winning. What shocked me was how little the adults being interviewed on the streets knew. It makes me frustrated to think that this kind of unfair practice is going on right in front of us but most people don’t know about it. It also made me surprised to hear that some will go as far as changing the lines to exclude obnoxious supporters. I think Congressional redistricting should be changed, but I don’t think it will change. I feel that citizens of the U.S should be more involved and more educated with the decisions the delegates make. I think they should be closely watched and districts should be approved by a higher power.

    ReplyDelete
  61. In his article, Toobin describes the problem of Gerrymandering, and how it is affecting American politics today. He comments that the case Baker v. Carr, as well as the Voting Rights Act, are “classic demonstrations of the law of unintended circumstances. I agree whole heartedly with his statement. Both pieces of legislation were made simply to protect minority’s rights, not to help one party or another. Republicans in recent times have been able to skew these pieces of legislation into lumping all African Americans into a certain district, effectively locking out any white democrats, as well as taking away the fourty percent of African Americans many democrats relied on. On the other hand, the Democratic policy prior to these decisions, of putting up to forty percent of African Americans in one district, locking in a democrat, but locking out an African American, was equally as bad. Some middle ground must be found on these issues, that will provide for the proportional, and fair representation based on both race and party.
    Another major problem Toobin brings up is the increased partisanship in Congress. This is occurring, he states, due to the huge amount of safe seats in the House, which lends itself to either far right, or far left members, who will always be able to please their constituents. In addition, those who vote in the primaries required to win a House seat are almost always on one extreme side of a party. Although I think that what this type of Gerrymandering has led to is terrible, I doubt that it is unconstitutional. There is no way the framers could have foreseen this type of behavior, and they likely put little in the Constitution that could be interpreted to prevent it. The court’s ruing will be very interesting to see whether they take a loose or strict interpretation of the Constitution.
    I thought the film was very interesting and informative throughout. It covered basically everything we covered in class about Gerrymandering, and went deep into the nasty side of the business. One thing that surprised me in the video was the presentation of the idea that some districts may be drawn for purely racist reasons, and not even to help a party. Another thing I found surprising was the attention to detail the drawers have. One person interviewed said they will go to the point of cutting out annoying protesters from a district.
    After watching the film I’m convinced that something has to be done about this issue. The House should be the common man’s greatest link to national affairs, and that link is almost one hundred percent gone now. I honestly don’t know how this can be done though, because no matte what kind of third party you have redraw lines, it seems like there will always be some sort of outside influence. I think that this entire topic is very disturbing, and it has caused me to lose much faith in American politics.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I agree with Mady because she made me see the situation full circle. I feel as though gerrymandering is not fair but she proves a point saying, "One can argue that it is conniving and unfair, but unconstitutional is not the right word to describe this redistricting structure." She goes on by backing up her opinion with an issue that happened in 2000 and how Democrats were told “unless one party was essentially shut out of the political process, it is not breaking any laws” when they complained saying that the Republican gerrymander denied them equal protection of the laws.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Toobin describes the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr as well as the Voting Rights Act as "classic demonstration[s] of the law of unintended consequences” for the following reason. I think he was referencing that before this major piece of legislation, black voters had no voice in Congress. They changed this by restoring not only their right to vote, but be placed in districts where black candidates had a good chance of winning. However, the white Democrats wanted to keep the black Democratic voter population at 35 to 40 percent so that they could still get reelected easily. Whenever the civil rights movement began the white republicans started gerrymandering districts in the South to have high concentrations of black Democratic voters in a few districts to capitalize and control more districts, thus more votes in Congress. So, despite the fact that black Democrats could now get into office more easily, they only held a few seats, which kept the political atmosphere uneven in the Republicans favor. I believe that the creation of new problems arising from the fixing of the old ones is what Toobin meant by “unintended consequences.” The above are fine examples of this thought. According to Toobin, gerrymandering has led to the polarization of both parties in the House because of the power that redistricting gives to the members of Congress. Once elected, the officials can change district lines in the favor of their party, and thus themselves, for the upcoming elections. By doing this they practically guarantee themselves a seat in the elections without contest. Without having to keep both parties in mind during their terms, House members can be completely one sided and still get reelected due to the district lines they draw. This has eliminated the moderates in Congress and slowed the legislative process because the members no longer have a desire to work together. Sadly, as far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits gerrymandering. However, just because the Supreme Court can’t do anything doesn’t make it okay to allow this process to continue.

    Watching the film really opened my eyes to how distorted our congressional districts really are. I believe that this process of gerrymandering should be changed. One improvement could be to draw district lines more like blocks, and by that I mean in more regular shapes with an equal number of voters in each instead of oddly carved out sections of selected voters based on political affiliation. The main thing that stood out to me from the film is that our vote, the thing we always look back on as a defining characteristic of how good it is to live in America, is now actually useless. As we have discussed in class, mapmakers are have had a big role in elections. The district lines are drawn by mapmakers who now take the place of our vote when they create districts with overwhelming populations of similar political affiliations which nearly guarantee the election of one party’s nominee.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Toobin describes the Baker v. Carr case and the Votings Rights Act of 1964 as having unintended consequences largely because they so drastically changed the ability to do redistricting. First, you now are giving power to the judges to decide redistricting cases, so instead of the cases reflecting the will of the people through the elected officials in the state government, they are narrowed down to the small pool of judges. The Voting Rights Act on the other hand, resulted in a huge new population being incorporated into redistricting games. This ends up allowing the white Republicans to form an "unholy alliance" with black Democrats to pigeon hole white Democrats out of House spots and turn the Democratic reps largely into the black Party and the Republicans into the white Party. This is a huge unintended consequence. I agree Toobin's analysis in this respect as well as how partisan politics is now a much bigger issue as reps draw the line tighter and more extreme in response to needing the party's approval more than the people's approval to win office. I believe this type of gerrymandering should be unconstitutional as it allows for tyrannical rule to slowly develop as one party takes more and more control and it should not be so easily able to influence the outcome of elections.
    This documentary really hit on all the key points that we did in class and definitely delved into a few of the finer points of the business, such as the detail of the drawers and their jobs and the multitude of reasons for drawing up districts in such a manner. What really stood out to me was how ridiculous some of the districts are drawn. I find the whole issue really terrible and a sham of what a democracy should be about. This practice needs to be stopped and we need to find a better way to go about shaping our districts as the population grows. I personally think we need to stick with more solid districts along county lines and such and then look into the issue of large cities within one county.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Toobin describes the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr as being and The Voting Rights Act as examples of the law of unintended consequences because the policies enforced by both inspired redistricting to be used as a tool to represent (or under represent) certain voting groups such as Democratic, Republican, or black voters. I believe Toobin's analysis of these two actions are spot on. Although intended to help those who were under represented the case and law inadvertently started a questionable and arguably illegal practice of curbing the voting for representatives.
    I also agree with Toobin that Gerrymandering leads to extreme candidates or at least extreme platforms for candidates to run on. It makes sense that if you are running as representative in an area of a specific political preference that if you want to beat the opposition from the same party you need to cater more to your parties ideals and thus become more extreme. I feel that having so many representatives on the extreme side of any political party is a bad thing partially because I consider myself moderate and also because neither side will start cooperating with each other when important legislature needs to be accomplished.

    Watching the documentary solidified my already forming opinions on Gerrymandering and the political influence used during redistricting. The film showed us how much Gerrymandering is simply for a personal or political party gain. It completely ignores the opinions and rights of the civilians and anyone not in charge of drawing the lines. Another very disturbing aspect of Gerrymandering for me was the sheer aggressiveness that the people involved in redistricting showed in their conquest for more votes. Such displays make me believe that the representatives and the people working with them have a blatant disregard for the people's opinion and only want more power for themselves.

    After reading the article from the New Yorker, watching the documentary, and learning about Gerrymandering in class I strongly believe that it is a dangerous and unconstitutional act which is somehow still going on today. When the people in power get to decide or affect if they will remain in power that is what I would call oligarchy tendencies. On the constitutionality front it could easily be proven unconstitutional simply because having this ability indirectly takes away a voters ability to make a difference in an election and therefor infringes on the people's right to vote.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I agree with many of David's opinions and points in the above post. His dislike and disgust at this terrible practice of Gerrymandering is in complete agreement of my own views of the subject. This practice needs to be stopped before our democracy is completely wiped out and replaced by a shell of its former self.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I agree with Ben Hopson that allowing the redistricting power to rest in the hands of the politicians is wrong. If we vote for them once and don't like the job they are doing, we should be able to vote them out of office. However, with the amount of redistricting taking place, they are almost always going to get reelected due to the overwhelming majority they hold in their district. When you're a Republican or a Democrat and you hold a 70-30 advantage, you could be hated by many of your constituents and still keep your seat. I also agreed with the new system he proposed to replace the gerrymandering debacle. I think this system would be able to bring moderates back into the House and allow open debate and progress to return with them.

    ReplyDelete
  68. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The intention of the Voting Rights Act is great. It gave the Blacks the right to vote, however because of gerrymandering, the Blacks’ votes will only count if they live at an area where the majorities share the same value with them. I agree with Toobin here because it is totally true. Even though the intention behind the Voting Rights Act is wonderful, it just created more problems intentionally.I agree with the analysis that both parties are becoming more extreme and less willing to work with members of the other party. It seems to me that the politicians are just trying to get more people who are from the same party as them to be in their district, so these politicians could keep their seats in congress. This phenomenal just creates isolation between different districts. In my opinion, negotiation is the best way to play fair with both parties. If the congress members want to redraw the district lines just for their own benefit, I think it ruins the point of redistricting. However, I don’t think gerrymandering is constitutional. If it is unconstitutional then people should have banned it long time ago, but because gerrymandering has been around for many years, according to the redistricting game, it proves that it is constitutional. And I think the Supreme Court could do something about it because if they could, they would have done it long time ago.

    We have recently been talking about Gerrymandering and incumbents in class, and this film made it even more obvious for the audience to understand the meaning of Gerrymandering and why the politicians do that. One of the things that were mentioned in the film that stood out to me the most is that the politicians would still consider the race factor in redistricting. I thought the politicians could do better than that… We have come such a long way in creating equality for everyone in this country, and yet we are still iffy on whether or not Black people will vote for a White representative. I’ve learned a lot from this film and it definitely helped me to understand how gerrymandering could make voting pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I agree with Maya that gerrymandering should just be banned. However, it'll take the government a whole lot of time to pass such a law. People should choose the representative, but with gerrymandering, it became the representatives choosing their people. Gerrymandering causes the two parties to be so divided on many important issues, and I sincerely hope that could be stopped one day..

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.