As has been well-publicized, the next session of the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether Wisconsin’s legislative districts comprise an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The Court has never before found any state’s boundaries to constitute an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
This Vox article by Nicholas Stephanopoulos explains objectively why the Wisconsin plan is exceptional and even unique. The article, to my eye, is clearer than other articles about the Wisconsin plan.
The title of the article is faulty. It is the state of Wisconsin that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, not the voters on the other side. The lower court had invalidated the Wisconsin district boundaries, and if the Supreme Court had not heard the case, its only alternative would have been to summarily affirm the lower court decision. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court necessarily thinks to the Wisconsin plan is objectionable. The article should have been titled, “Why the Wisconsin partisan gerrymander case has a solid objective basis”, or something similar. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
The Efficiency Gap is a bogus measure. It is simply a measure of partisan distribution of seats. Consider the example in the Stephanopoulos article, where one party won two seats 76:24 and lost the other three 41:59. Though they had 55% of the total vote, they only won 40% of the seats. Assuming each district had 100 voters, Party A “wasted” 26, 26, 41, 41, and 41 votes in the five districts, respectively for a total of 175 votes. Party B “wasted” 24, 24, 9, 9, and 9 votes for a total of 75 votes. The efficiency gap is (175-75)/(175+75)=40%.
But let’s move some people between districts, so that two are 64:36 and three are 49:51. Party A now wasts 14, 14, 49, 49, and 49 votes, for a total of 175 (no change), and Party B now wastes 36, 36, 1, 1, and 1 votes for a total of 75 votes (no change). The Efficiency Gap does not change one iota.
The Efficiency Gap only changes if seats are flipped. So let’s make the change to 64:36, 64:36, 51:49, 48:52, 48:52. Now Party A wastes 14, 14, 1, 48, and 48 votes for a total of 125. Party B wastes 36, 36, 49, 2, and 2 votes for a total of 125. Since both parties waste the same number of votes the Efficiency Gap is zero.
Let’s imagine that Party A did win a 3:2 majority, and rejiggered the boundaries, so that the districts were 60:40, 60:40, 59:41, 48:52, 48:52. Party A wastes 10, 10, 9, 48, and 48 votes for a total of 125; and Party B wastes 40, 40, 41, 2, and 2 votes for a total of 125.
The Efficiency Gap is a measure of proportionality. The plaintiffs would have been laughed out of court if they had argued that a party should win district seats in proportion(*) to their share of the statewide popular vote – but that is what they are effectively arguing, whether they are aware of that fact or not.
(*) Actually the Efficiency Gap says that the majority party should receive 50% + (X-50%)*2 of the seats with X% of the total vote. A party with 55% of the vote should get 60% of the seats, a party with 60% of the vote should get 70% of the seats, etc.
The only time that this is not mathematically true, is if we vary the number of votes cast in each district.
Let’s go back to the original example of two districts that are 76:24 and three that are 41:59.
Let’s move more voters into the two A-dominated districts, so that they are 84:34 and 83:35, for a total of 118 votes each. Meanwhile we reduce the three B-dominated districts to 36:52 for 88 voters each.
The wasted votes for Party A are 25, 24, 36, 36, and 36 for a total of 157 wasted votes, while Party B wastes 34, 35, 8, 8, and 8 votes for a total of 93 wasted votes. The Efficiency Gap is (157-93)/(157+93) = 64/250 = 25.6%. We can according to the plaintiffs proposed measure make an election fairer by creating rotten boroughs.
It’s not; Maryland is. But that’s OK because it was done by Democrats.
ALL single-seat districts produce wasted votes. Taken as a whole, it adds up to many millions of voters who are “represented” by people they voted against. The so-called Efficiency Gap helps to point this out. but at the same time is being used by pro-Gerrymandering advocates to try to justify stealing votes from millions of American voters.
The ONLY way to abolish Gerrymandering is to replace single-seat districts with multi-seat districts using proportional representation. This is done on a small scale by legislation introduced recently in the federal House of Representatives. While a step in the correct direction, the Fair Representation Act does not go nearly far enough. So long as legislative representation is based on single-seat districts, America is not, and can never be, a democratic republic.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged pack/crack gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL (since 1964 SCOTUS gerrymander cases).
MUCH worse before 1964. MUCH worse primary math – esp. if no incumbent.
TOTAL brain dead ignorance of RFG in Art. 4, Sec. 4
—- NO monarchy/oligarchy regimes allowed in any State.
P.R. around since 1840s — repeat 1840s.
The real minority rule is 1 vote more than the 2nd place votes —
i.e. sum such lowest votes in the bare majority of the gerrymander districts.
Likely will be 20-25 percent of all votes.
Current about 30 percent Donkey/Elephant minority rule in each regime if not doing above — since average hack winner gets about 60 percent in his/her rigged district.