In his article “The power that gerrymandering has brought to Republicans” Julian E. Zelizer discusses the power gerrymandering has given Republicans in 2016. With the way districts are setup now, in most states being determined by state legislatures that are part of a political party, it is impossible for democrats to regain the House until at least 2020 (which is when the next US census is taken and the districts are redrawn). No matter by how much of a landslide Hillary Clinton beats The Donald by, it’ll be impossible for democrats to retake the house even with down-ticket voting having a large effect on the Senate and House races. Unsurprisingly, the author claims that the Republican success has been largely due to gerrymandering and that it is one of the primary causes for gridlock on capitol hill as Republican incumbents have little to worry about as their re-election is almost guaranteed. The fact that in a democratic system it is possible to keep seats in congress just because of the setup of districts which are determined by state legislatures which are affiliated with a political party is very disheartening.
- Young Americans already have a very low political efficacy, with Gerrymandering becoming more well known is it a possibility for them to stop because young Americans will wonder if they are even making a change?
- How much of an effect does Gerrymandering have on gridlock and why?
- Should all states adopt a system similar to that of Californias to decide districts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGerrymandering is an institutionalized way to disfranchise voter demographics and the fact that it is still practiced in America--"the pinnacle of democracy"--is a absurd. I hope that in the next few year the federal government cracks down on gerrymandering through supreme court rulings and congressional legislation.
ReplyDeleteGerrymandering has a significant impact on the congressional gridlock we see now. Because the party in power redraws the districts, the Republicans are able to maintain a large amount of power, even though they will likely lose the presidential election. With Hillary Clinton most likely going to be the next president, and the GOP holding congress with a tight grasp (partially due to gerrymandering) it is likely that we will see the gridlock we are in now continuing until at least 2020 all through Clinton's time in office.
ReplyDeleteThough many thought (and hoped) Clinton would become our next president, Trump and the republicans won. This not only affects the next four years, it also will allow republicans to hold majority in every part of the government. This means that republicans are to hold power and gridlock will continue until at least 2020, but likely for many years after that as well.
DeleteI agree with Henry. Gerrymandering leads to party polarization in Congress and thus gridlock in policy making. Therefore, I think that all states should adopt a system similar to California in deciding districts. Districts should be decided by people who do not have bias towards or against a party for more accurate representation of the people.
DeleteYes, gerrymandering has been proven to seen has dishonest and corrupted, thus creating an unnecessary addition to the gridlock in government. Due to gerrymandering, districts and congressional seats remain under an individual party and will remain so due to the power of incumbency. So, in solving this problem, adopting the system of redistricting that California does would be the best option. This is because in California's system of drawing districts, the people who do this job are of various backgrounds and outlooks. In addition, they are not solely biased toward a certain party, which then creates fairly drawn districts. As of now, the gridlock we have now will for sure continue on until 2020, when we should hope gerrymandering would be solved.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stance about the efficacy of California's redistricting policy. In a democratic country, it makes little sense to allow biased party affiliates to be the ones to draw districts. The current gerrymandering policy also plays a role in the continuing trend of youth voter apathy where they feel their votes do not count because they are unable to see any shift within a decades worth of time. The most effective and proven method to provide better representation of the constituents of a district would be to adopt the Californian system of redistricting.
DeleteI agree with Fiona and Dominic when they bring up the point that California's redistricting policy consists of unbiased party affiliates who draw our districts. By allowing biased affiliates to redistrict out states, I feel that we overshadow the voice of minorities or opposite parties. Moreover, the effect this has on the youth is not a beneficial one. As it becomes more apparent that our voices aren't being hear, voter turnout and efficacy will see a decline among the younger generations.
DeleteGerrymandering has had a huge effect on gridlock. The reason for this is that gerrymandering allows a party to redraw districts in a way that benefits their party even if said party does not win the presidential election they are able to influence legislation in a big way. This results in gridlock because neither party is allowed to have absolute control of policy making resulting in nothing happening.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is a possibility for young Americans to vote at an even lesser percentage than they do now. Personally, as someone who will start to vote soon, I do not feel as impacted by gerrymandering because we live in California. However, I do feel that those who live in states and districts where gerrymandering has a significant impact on their political voice would feel discouraged, thinking that their vote does not matter. Especially as a young American, it would be bad for our country in the long run because if they stop voting now, then they may never bring themselves to vote in important elections in the future.
ReplyDeleteYoung Americans already vote at the lowest rate of all citizens, and to know that gerrymandering significantly impacts one's ability to influence change and to see it happen alot in 2016 turns them away from the democratic process. It will have great consequences because if these are the attitudes of the generations to come, then the voices of Americans will not be heard, and the government will not be representative of the population.
DeleteThe practice of Gerrymandering makes it almost guaranteed for incumbents to be reelected, which makes it seem as if voting doesn’t even matter. Despite some standards put in place to try to prevent this, there are many ways to get around it when redistricting. I believe Gerrymandering discourages young voters from wanting to practice their right to vote, as it will not make a significant difference.
ReplyDeleteI find it very unfortunate that the Gerrymandering occurring all over the country has gotten to the point where Democrats have no chance until the next census occurs in 2020 to regain the house. Young men and women all over the country are already hesitant to vote because they truly believe that their vote won't effect the outcome, and the Gerrymandering is only making this situation worse. If this tendency continues to take place, it is very realistic to see a smaller percentage of the population voting in the near future.
ReplyDelete