Gerrymandering Failure

The gerrymandering process allows the majority party within a given state to maximize the number of seats it can win in the future elections. This leads it into creating as many districts as possible where it constitutes the majority. By doing this, those who support the minority parties are packed into the remaining few districts. This results in more electoral security for the minority party and less electoral security for the members of the minority parties. It also produces greater homogeneity within the districts while reducing competition for the house seats. Apart from the positive effects of gerrymandering, there are a number of negative effects associated with partisan gerrymandering. This process results in more competitive districts when compared to the non competitive districts and this in turn ambiguously affects polarization. Partisan gerrymandering also affects the state legislative electoral competitiveness as it has severe partisan biases. Excessive partisan gerrymandering is the violation of the equal protection clause since it consigns the

     Secondly, I will now talk about the disadvantages of having a partisan election. First, partisan elections cost a lot more money than nonpartisan elections, because in nonpartisan elections you do not have to campaign. The voters must do their own research on the candidates and makes the voter actually think and know why they are going to vote. A bad thing about this though would be time. Not everybody has time to go out and do research on candidates, because most people work eight or more hour shifts at work and then they do not want to go out and do research. Another disadvantage would be I think there is “ too much” information out there for the candidates, which ends up confusing the voter instead of benefiting. This makes it harder when coming to vote, so many people will just mark anything because they do not care. These would be one the biggest disadvantages of partisan elections to me in state politics.

Politics in the United States is a complex structure that is comprised of many systems. While most of these systems appear to work well, there are a few that are broken. A perfect example of a broken system is the district boundaries and the likelihood of gerrymandering. Multiple states across the country are subjected to gerrymandering, which is the act of dividing a county into election districts that provide one political party with an unfair advantage over the other. Gerrymandering is used to help or prevent a particular demographic from gaining adequate representation. In Florida, for example, there is controversy over Congressional District 5, which extends from Jacksonville down to Orlando in a way that creates a “minority-majority” district.

More convincing than the fact that the majority of incumbents retained their seats by overwhelming margins is the shocking statistic that a quarter of the incumbents were uncontested.13 These politicians were so successful at arranging favorable districts that it was futile to even attempt a challenge. The author continued to examine particularly egregious cases of gerrymandering in New York, including that of Senator Guy Vellela, who once selected voters for his district by individual city blocks.14 Senator Guy Vellela, as well as the other state senators of New York, are prime examples of politicians exploiting gerrymandering to manipulate the outcome of elections and improve their outcomes.

There are two types of gerrymandering, the first is called packing. Packing is when you put the same type of people in one electoral district. Why is packing helpful?, well packing can decrease the chance of one party influencing the other party. Cracking is the other way of gerrymandering, this is when you spread one party out to decrease their impact on the district, causing the other party to win the district. Gerrymandering in general sounds a little wrong in a political view. It sounds very wrong after hearing about the great gerrymander in 2012. In the house of representatives we have 435 seats. To be able to determine how many seats go to a state every ten years the department of commerce holds something called a census. The

In Ohio, "nonpartisan" elections vote justices into office. However, Preceeding these elections are partisan primaries, and each justice must campaign. If the justice wins the election, the justice will want to be re-elected as well. If they want their party to vote for them, they have no choice but to side with the party on issues, instead of interpreting the constitution as it is written. For these reasons, the Missouri Plan should be implemented in Ohio to prevent justices from acting as activists, and to keep justices from excessive partisan influence.

In the past, the Supreme Court took up the matter of gerrymandering to determine its legality (Stankiewicz). Stankiewicz described two instances when he stated the following:

In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year's election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.

The article, “In Praise of Gerrymandering” written by Kevin D. Williamson, talks about gerrymandering, which is when politicians are cheating to be elected and shares his opinion that Republicans have become “too good” at this. He then illustrates that Democrats need to demonstrate better ways of obtaining votes.

Gerrymandering has existed long before there was a word directly referring to the action it entails. Gerrymandering is essentially the changing and controlling of district boundaries in order to manipulate the outcome. The term, which was printed for the first time in 1812, is a combination of the word “salamander”- the reason for this being that the first district (in Massachusetts) to be gerrymandered resembled the animal- and the last name of the governor of Massachusetts at the time, Elbridge Gerry. The manipulation of the outcome of congressional elections is rooted from corruption and the lack of a “perfect” way to please both the majority and the minorities in drawing the district boundaries.

The first part of this essay will provide a brief insight into the history of the Supreme Court, the original intentions of the founding fathers and a discussion on how they idealized the relationship between politics and the law. The second section will explore how the contemporary process to which judges are appointed has become significantly influenced by politics. The third section will discuss how the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries on constitutional interpretation in the Roe v. Wade case. The final section will unpack the importance of partisanship and ideological politics and discuss how it impacts the function of the Justices in their

For example, in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to expand the court and create a majority of Democrats, who, if appointed, would fervently support his New Deal program. Professor Gregory G. Caldeira (Ph.D.), in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University, argues in his article, Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan, that in this incident, there was indeed an “intimate connection between the actions of the justices and support for the Supreme Court…during which Franklin D. Roosevelt sought legislation to permit him to pack the high bench with friendly personnel” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1139). Referring to the Gallup Polls of 1937, which showed that public support for the court substantially decreased in four months, he believes that justices tend to build up their relationship with parties in brief periods before appointment. He sardonically states that this phenomenon has become a “series of well-timed decisions” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1141). Even though Congress eventually rejected Roosevelt’s “Court Packing” plan, Caldeira’s view demonstrates the drastic influence of the executive branch, and more broadly, party politics, on the high court. This particular case portrays that party politics are continuing to undermine the Constitution

Proportional representation is an electoral system where parties will earn congressional seats in proportion to how many votes people cast for them. This would be an extreme opposite to the result of gerrymandering. People would then feel the need to vote because they know that their vote will actually go towards something. If 25% of the voters supported a certain party, that party would then get about 25% of congressional seats. Proportional representation is a way that could help fix the unfairness of the plurality system. The plurality system allows for larger parties to get an unfair amount of congressional seats whereas smaller parties do not have this advantage and also have a huge difficulty in winning any representation at all, also known as Duverger’s law. This would be a great way to prevent gerrymandering which helps with the redistricting issue majorly. Proportional representation could be brought in without a constitutional amendment in some cases, but the system born from this would not work well unless the powers of the Governor General were made clear. What would require a constitutional amendment would be a change to the powers of the Governor General. If it were simple enough to not require a constitutional amendment, I feel as if this would be an excellent idea and help solve many problems and unhappy people with our current

Despite the clear dislike for nonpartisan elections by parties Nebraska managed to pass a term limit in 2000 to offset unicameral elections. This only increased partisanship drastically due to parties playing a direct role in candidate recruitment and increasing party coalitions (p. 76). Parties were now more involved in recruiting candidates that had the same ideologies and interest as them. In essence, the concept of having unicameral

America is vastly known as a country boundlessly pursuing equality in all facets of life. In this seemingly endless quest for equal opportunity, there has been one lurking negation; our election system. The addition to equal representation in public funding and on the ballot will create variability and allow Americans to entrust their vote in a political format that more closely aligns with democratic philosophy. Therefore, a shift away from a bipartisan, a two party, dominated election system would not only be a healthy change for American electoral satisfaction, but for the future of third party politics. Unfortunately affluence and inherent wealth have played a large role in this divide between a true democratic election and our present biased, broken, and benyne system.