Implications Of Gerrymandering And The Importance Of Minority Voting

1019 Words 5 Pages
Introduction “More delicate than the historians’ are the map-makers’ colors (Bishop 1).” Gerrymandering is when a district’s boundaries are redrawn to benefit particular political parties’ agendas (Ingraham 1). Gerrymandering promotes the statistical concept of Simpson’s paradox. Simpson’s paradox describes the phenomenon of having a higher percentage of votes; however not having more votes numerically (Simpson’s 1). Gerrymandering is similar because it also gives the possibility of winning the state, but not having the majority of the votes. Although Gerrymandering is illegal in many places, political parties do not hesitate in doing so. When Gerrymandering occurs it also limits the importance of minority voting. Gerrymandering is a challenge …show more content…
There are arguments arising considering gerrymandering and the impact it has on minority voting. Gerrymandering promotes an counter-argument to they saying, “minority voting is considered.” Since gerrymandering occurs, which it does, the importance of minority voting for a particular state decreases significantly. When a party redraws the district for their gain, the opposing parties’ voters or minority voters have little to no voice. Furthermore, that is the reason why it is so hard to go from a Republican state to a Democratic or vice versa unless there is a huge change in the majority vote. For example, in the state of Pennsylvania, the congressional districts were redrawn in 2011 (Bloomberg 2). Although the Republicans won the majority of seats, there were also Democratic voters. When looking at the shape of the districts, and the majority of voters, one can conclude that the redrawing of the districts was clearly biased. In Pennsylvania the places that had a Democrat majority had one similarity, they both won by large margins (Bloomberg 2). This demonstrates that the districts were redrawn to where Democratic voters out of those few places had little to no impact on the overall selected party from that district. In conclusion, by maximizing the percentage of minority voters in one area the Republicans had prevented Democratic influence in other areas where the ratio is near 1 to …show more content…
Due to the nature of voting and Simpson’s paradox, it is possible to have majority votes total, but still do not have a higher percentage of seats. This scenario has become more prevalent due to gerrymandering and it’s growing use in modern day elections. According to Lee Fang, “Democratic House candidates won 1.37 million more votes than Republican candidates,” but Republicans still obtained more seats; the cause of this result is gerrymandering (Fang 1). The results were made possible because Democratic voters were squeezed into small districts, so the seats obtained are fewer than expected. Steny Hoyer, a U.S. representative, had said, “The majority of the American people voted for a Democratic House” (Sanders 1). Hoyer goes on to argue about how the American people should take action (Sanders 1). Hoyer’s point of view is that it’s unethical to lose, yet have majority of the total votes. The controversy has been growing throughout the years due to the opposing beliefs of ethics, and the larger margins appearing in elections. When looking at individual states, the margins can be seen more easily. Republicans redrew congressional districts in seven states, and in those states 16.7 million votes were given to the Republicans compared to 16.4 for Democrats; however, when looking at the seats elected, there were 74 Republicans and 34 Democrats (Wang 1). Sam Wang had said that basically one could

Related Documents