Crazy idea - what if politicians actually offered good policies that people want to vote for? They wouldn't have to redistrict if they actually followed the will of the people.
Lauren, thanks for laying this out in a way that’s easy to understand. I’m livid, but I learned!
Lately I’ve been thinking about a theory I find oddly hopeful. What happened to Memphis is devastating for the people there and for the basic idea that voters pick representatives instead of the other way around. But gerrymanderers are also playing with fire, and I’m not sure they realize it.
When you gerrymander, opposition votes get diluted. They don’t disappear. And when you press the advantage as far as it will go, every district you create sits closer to the edge of an upset than the safer map you had before. Picture a state that votes 60 percent Republican and 40 percent Democrat in a normal year, with a delegation of six Republicans and four Democrats. The legislature redraws so that all ten seats lean Republican. The key word in that sentence is “lean.” It assumes voters keep behaving the way they did last cycle.
But as you point out, allegiance is shifting. Independents are the largest bloc in the country now. And we are heading into a midterm where all three branches of the federal government answer to a historically unpopular president who protects pedophiles and stokes inflation to fuel endless wars of choice. The ingredients are there for traditional Republicans to be demoralized, Democrats of all stripes to be energized, and independents doing their pendulum thing. The anger does the rest.
Now run that energy through the hypothetical. Those six districts that used to be safely Republican, maybe 75/25 or 80/20, are gone. In their place sit ten districts at roughly 60/40, which means each one is only about ten points away from a flip. A blue wave that would have rolled harmlessly past a red-and-blue fortress map can swallow everything. The party that drew the map traded six seats they couldn’t lose for ten seats they might.
So my small piece of hope in a hopeless news cycle is this. What if the November story is gerrymandering’s backfire? What if the dilution went so far that an angry electorate flipped seats nobody thought were in play? That would be a stronger argument against this whole evil project than our current “who gerrymandered more” moral outrage stalemate. The case then becomes that gerrymandering is morally wrong AND electorally fragile, because once the margins are that thin, a bad enough night for the party in power produces the opposite of what its architects intended.
Which is why we should focus on supporting folks in races that might have seemed hopeless before gerrymandering brought new voters into their district. Groups like Run for Something have spent years recruiting candidates for state legislatures and local offices, which matters here because those are the bodies drawing or blocking gerrymandered maps in the first place. Flipping a state house is how you change who holds the power to gerrymander. Meanwhile, Swing Left works on the federal side, with grassroots organizing and fundraising aimed at the swing House districts where margins are tightest. What does it look like to fund and field candidates good enough to break these more fragile maps? We might find out soon… if we are motivated enough to make gerrymandering history.
I'm interested to see what plays out in SC. The area I lived will now be in a coastal district extending down into parts of Charleston. I do wonder if breaking up Clyburn's district will backfire. I think they are discounting the number of non-Republican voters in certain parts of the coast (south of Horry County). And near Columbia.
In Virginia despite the redistricting being stopped (tbd on what SCOTUS says) the district I am in and the one southeast of me are likely to flip to Democrat in this election, even with the old maps. Both went to Spanberger in high numbers compared to the last election. Wittman and Kiggans should be concerned.
Thank you for this! I’m also left wondering how many others, like myself, would be registered as Independent if we didn’t have closed primaries. That may even further your point about the growing number of Americans who are Independent voters.
Thank you for the excellent analysis. I agree with a standard process in every state to use in determining representation. My concern is at a more basic Constitutional level in that until we increase the size of OUR House of Representatives OUR gridlock will continue to pull US into the abyss. Sizing Up OUR House should be the single issue that all Independent candidates need to coalesce around. Neither the Democratic or Republican parties want it or will support it and it's the single wedge issue for Independents to attract voters. NoCapFund.org and PROJECT1305.org both propose to 'Size Up OUR House', with PROJECT1305.org proposing to triple the size. Many organizations support the need. PROJECT 1305 has detailed educational information, and NoCapFund with Mr. Beat is pushing the movement. Any thoughts?
For a long time now, I have believed that some law makers are only interested in their agendas/parties and not for the best interest of the American people. Redistricting demonstrates this more profoundly. Go Independents!! Let your voices be heard.
Crazy idea - what if politicians actually offered good policies that people want to vote for? They wouldn't have to redistrict if they actually followed the will of the people.
Lauren, thanks for laying this out in a way that’s easy to understand. I’m livid, but I learned!
Lately I’ve been thinking about a theory I find oddly hopeful. What happened to Memphis is devastating for the people there and for the basic idea that voters pick representatives instead of the other way around. But gerrymanderers are also playing with fire, and I’m not sure they realize it.
When you gerrymander, opposition votes get diluted. They don’t disappear. And when you press the advantage as far as it will go, every district you create sits closer to the edge of an upset than the safer map you had before. Picture a state that votes 60 percent Republican and 40 percent Democrat in a normal year, with a delegation of six Republicans and four Democrats. The legislature redraws so that all ten seats lean Republican. The key word in that sentence is “lean.” It assumes voters keep behaving the way they did last cycle.
But as you point out, allegiance is shifting. Independents are the largest bloc in the country now. And we are heading into a midterm where all three branches of the federal government answer to a historically unpopular president who protects pedophiles and stokes inflation to fuel endless wars of choice. The ingredients are there for traditional Republicans to be demoralized, Democrats of all stripes to be energized, and independents doing their pendulum thing. The anger does the rest.
Now run that energy through the hypothetical. Those six districts that used to be safely Republican, maybe 75/25 or 80/20, are gone. In their place sit ten districts at roughly 60/40, which means each one is only about ten points away from a flip. A blue wave that would have rolled harmlessly past a red-and-blue fortress map can swallow everything. The party that drew the map traded six seats they couldn’t lose for ten seats they might.
So my small piece of hope in a hopeless news cycle is this. What if the November story is gerrymandering’s backfire? What if the dilution went so far that an angry electorate flipped seats nobody thought were in play? That would be a stronger argument against this whole evil project than our current “who gerrymandered more” moral outrage stalemate. The case then becomes that gerrymandering is morally wrong AND electorally fragile, because once the margins are that thin, a bad enough night for the party in power produces the opposite of what its architects intended.
Which is why we should focus on supporting folks in races that might have seemed hopeless before gerrymandering brought new voters into their district. Groups like Run for Something have spent years recruiting candidates for state legislatures and local offices, which matters here because those are the bodies drawing or blocking gerrymandered maps in the first place. Flipping a state house is how you change who holds the power to gerrymander. Meanwhile, Swing Left works on the federal side, with grassroots organizing and fundraising aimed at the swing House districts where margins are tightest. What does it look like to fund and field candidates good enough to break these more fragile maps? We might find out soon… if we are motivated enough to make gerrymandering history.
I'm interested to see what plays out in SC. The area I lived will now be in a coastal district extending down into parts of Charleston. I do wonder if breaking up Clyburn's district will backfire. I think they are discounting the number of non-Republican voters in certain parts of the coast (south of Horry County). And near Columbia.
In Virginia despite the redistricting being stopped (tbd on what SCOTUS says) the district I am in and the one southeast of me are likely to flip to Democrat in this election, even with the old maps. Both went to Spanberger in high numbers compared to the last election. Wittman and Kiggans should be concerned.
This is my hope, too. And keeping a close eye on new voting restrictions (SAVE Act and state-led attempts) as we get closer to voting.
Excellent summation of what happened in Tennessee and beyond. Gerrymandering is not the will of the people.
Thank you for this! I’m also left wondering how many others, like myself, would be registered as Independent if we didn’t have closed primaries. That may even further your point about the growing number of Americans who are Independent voters.
Thank you for the excellent analysis. I agree with a standard process in every state to use in determining representation. My concern is at a more basic Constitutional level in that until we increase the size of OUR House of Representatives OUR gridlock will continue to pull US into the abyss. Sizing Up OUR House should be the single issue that all Independent candidates need to coalesce around. Neither the Democratic or Republican parties want it or will support it and it's the single wedge issue for Independents to attract voters. NoCapFund.org and PROJECT1305.org both propose to 'Size Up OUR House', with PROJECT1305.org proposing to triple the size. Many organizations support the need. PROJECT 1305 has detailed educational information, and NoCapFund with Mr. Beat is pushing the movement. Any thoughts?
For a long time now, I have believed that some law makers are only interested in their agendas/parties and not for the best interest of the American people. Redistricting demonstrates this more profoundly. Go Independents!! Let your voices be heard.