By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Republicans narrowly secured a House majority, with their 220-215 advantage (soon to be 217-215) hinging on three North Carolina seats gained through extreme gerrymandering. This partisan map manipulation, enabled by the Supreme Court’s refusal to address gerrymandering claims, significantly skewed the playing field in favor of the GOP, despite Democrats receiving a higher share of the national popular vote. The resulting House map, heavily gerrymandered in multiple states, does not accurately reflect the national popular will, rendering the national vote totals largely meaningless. Ultimately, control over state legislative map-drawing processes proved decisive in determining the outcome of the House elections.
Read the original article here
Gerrymandering played a significant role in Republicans maintaining control of the House of Representatives, despite Democrats winning a slightly higher percentage of the popular vote in recent elections. The impact of gerrymandering extends far beyond simple vote-to-seat comparisons; it fundamentally distorts representation.
The inherent unfairness of gerrymandering is undeniable. It allows one party to secure a disproportionate number of seats, even when they don’t receive a majority of the votes. This is strikingly evident in examples like the North Carolina state house, where Republicans secured a supermajority with less than 50% of the popular vote. Such lopsided results undermine the democratic principle of one person, one vote.
This manipulation of district boundaries isn’t just a matter of minor discrepancies. In several elections, Democrats have won the popular vote yet failed to win a House majority, a direct consequence of the pervasive gerrymandering favoring Republicans. This consistently underperformance highlights the systemic nature of the problem and its impact on overall democratic representation.
The Supreme Court’s inaction on extreme partisan gerrymandering further compounds the issue. With five conservative justices voting to uphold gerrymandering practices, the court has effectively sanctioned this anti-democratic behavior. This lack of judicial oversight emboldens gerrymandering and continues to disproportionately benefit Republicans.
The current House structure itself contributes to the problem. The fixed number of representatives, unchanged since 1929, despite population growth, exacerbates the impact of gerrymandering. A larger, more proportionally representative House would lessen the power of gerrymandered districts. The discrepancy between population and representation magnifies the power of gerrymandering, creating a system where votes in some areas carry more weight than others.
The argument that Republicans simply gained a proportional number of seats based on the popular vote overlooks the critical impact of voter suppression inherent in gerrymandering. Techniques like “packing,” where like-minded voters are concentrated into fewer districts, effectively dilute the voting power of those voters and depress turnout. This results in a distorted picture of voter sentiment, making popular vote-to-seat comparisons misleading.
The strategic use of gerrymandering by Republicans is evident in states like Tennessee, where Nashville’s representation is effectively nullified. Similar tactics are deployed in other states, demonstrating a deliberate effort to manipulate district lines for partisan advantage, regardless of how this contradicts the underlying ideals of fair representation.
While some argue that Democrats should focus on crafting more popular policies or adopting a more centrist platform, addressing gerrymandering is crucial. Improved messaging and policy alone cannot overcome the systematic distortion of representation created by gerrymandering. The problem is fundamentally structural, requiring a direct and comprehensive solution.
While some blue states have enacted independent redistricting commissions to limit gerrymandering, many others have not acted as aggressively as they could, allowing Republicans to maintain a significant advantage. This inaction leaves the door open for continued Republican dominance in the House. The need for Democratic states to employ aggressive gerrymandering to counteract the effects of Republican-led gerrymandering cannot be overstated. The principle of fighting fire with fire becomes the unfortunate reality of an uneven playing field.
Ultimately, the argument for Democratic states to engage in maximal gerrymandering is a pragmatic response to the current political climate. It’s a defensive measure aimed at creating a more level playing field until broader electoral reforms, like campaign finance reform and independent journalism, can be implemented. Until then, the only response to the blatant disregard for fair representation by one party is to use the same tools, albeit reluctantly, to ensure equitable representation.