This makes sense when you zoom out to the state level. Take North Carolina, roughly level with Maryland as the most gerrymandered state in America, for example. In Maryland, redistricting by a Democratic legislature has helped grow a slim 5-4 majority in the congressional delegation into a clear 7-1 advantage. North Carolina has observed a similar if more rapid process, yet there the three most Democratic districts are also the most gerrymandered districts. But in 2010, before the redistricting, North Carolina’s congressional delegation was 7-6 Democratic. After redistricting, Republicans transformed that proportion into a 7-4 advantage (the state itself lost seats due to population changes). The Republican state legislature achieved this reversal by making those four Democratic seats extremely safe — so safe, in fact, that the average percentage of victory in 2012 for gerrymandered districts was 76 percent. The average Republican percentage of victory in North Carolina, however, actually diminished after redistricting, from 80 percent to 62 percent.
But today, people treat gerrymandering as the apparent product of politicians’ desires for sizable, gorge-like majorities. In fact, the opposite is true. It may seem like a small distinction, but it actually has an enormous impact on the public psychology of electoral reform.
QUESTION 4
10 points
Why do you think politicians don't want to redraw so they have the HIGHEST majority possible?
Answer must be 3 sentences long and written in prek
3 answers
Politicians may not want to redraw districts to have the highest majority possible because it could be seen as unfair and undemocratic. It would undermine the principle of proportional representation and could lead to accusations of gerrymandering or manipulating election outcomes. Additionally, having a supermajority could also lead to complacency and lack of accountability, as politicians may not feel the need to listen to or address the concerns of their constituents.
Does Gerrymandering cause polarization? What evidence from the reading did you use to make your decision.
Yes, gerrymandering can contribute to polarization. The evidence from the reading states that in North Carolina, the Republican state legislature utilized gerrymandering to transform a 7-6 Democratic congressional delegation into a 7-4 advantage for Republicans. By making the Democratic seats extremely safe, it reduced the competitiveness of those districts, creating a more polarized political landscape. The average percentage of victory for gerrymandered districts was also mentioned, showing how the manipulation of district boundaries can influence electoral outcomes and solidify the dominance of a particular party.