Gerrymandering is not what's wrong with American politics

[muon2]

Gerrymandering is used to create two situations in a legislative body: skew and polarization.

Skew refers to the effect of tilting the body consistently towards one party beyond any advantage that should exist when looking at the total vote. The OH map is a clear example given the balance in statewide vote, yet a 12-4 advantage in PVI.

Polarization refers to an excess of districts that have a high likelihood of electing members from only one party. Data from congressional districts in the last decade suggests that about a third of the seats should be in play with PVIs of +5 or less, able to respond to swings in the electorate. About 10% should be highly competitive and regularly flip back and forth, but recent elections show too few of these swing seats exist. OH shows this feature, too, with no districts with a PVI less than +3, and only two districts less than +5.

Any legislative body is going to have a share of safe seats, and that doesn't necessarily create a partisan atmosphere. However, a map that has both skew and polarization can result in a legislature that has less need to be responsive to the electorate as a whole. That can manifest itself in a majority party more concerned with its base than with the middle, and the remaining safe districts push the minority party towards its base, too.

I would certainly not blame gerrymandering for the wider polarization in US politics. The fragmented media that has returned to a 19th century model of niche viewpoints is the major contributor, IMO. However, fragmented media and gerrymandered legislative bodies can positively reinforce each other to form a partisan atmosphere.

[muon2]

I've read the series and I tend to agree with Torie. One obvious example of the author's bias is IA. The actual map is a well-regarded four-corners plan. It keeps the Des Moines UCC together, not that they were trying. Yet, the author pushes for a plan that gives Dems a better shot by lumping Des Moines with Ames.

Nonetheless, Lief correctly notes the quote about the Midwest Pub bias. The Dems are way overconcentrated in the urban centers throughout the region, and the largest cities force more concentration through the VRA. I'm not sure anyone but a Dem partisan could propose the Cleveland VRA district in the author's map.

[muon2]

Republicans called California's map biased, but that suit went nowhere, because the map pretty much was what you get when you follow existing geographic lines, save for what VRA requires. As far as Ohio goes, it's pretty difficult to create a safe Republican map without taking partisanship into consideration. Let's not ignore the fact that the current map was drawn to favor Republicans, with great detail to assuring the safety of every single incumbent Republican (except for one who had a seat eliminated).

Speaking as someone who spent a lot of time trying to draw a balanced map in OH, I can say that it is doable, but it isn't easy. The overall state numbers may be even, but subtracting a black VRA CD in Cuyahoga leaves a big surplus of Pubs for the other 15 CDs. Those Pubs have to be carefully packed in relatively few districts (I used four). Here's an example that is balanced, highly competitive and designed for exact population equality.