1 / 23

Understanding Reapportionment, Redistricting, and the Impact of Gerrymandering on Local Politics

This overview explores the vital processes of reapportionment and redistricting in the context of US political geography. It delves into contentious practices like gerrymandering, which manipulates district boundaries to consolidate power or dilute opposition. The discussion includes key compromises (e.g., Virginia vs. New Jersey Plan, 3/5 Compromise) and highlights the significance of representation based on population changes. With references to local governance and the challenges of equitable representation, this examination reveals how these political processes shape democracy and influence voter choice.

prem
Télécharger la présentation

Understanding Reapportionment, Redistricting, and the Impact of Gerrymandering on Local Politics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Class 9a: Political Geography II • Reapportionment and redistricting • Gerrymandering • Local politics

  2. Proportional representation • VA Plan vs. NJ Plan  Great Compromise • Large states wanted proportional repr. • Small states wanted equal repr. • 3/5 Compromise on slaves

  3. Proportional representation • 100 Senators, 435 Representatives • Basis for Electoral College • All votes are not equal • Minimum representation • Winner-take-all

  4. Reapportionment • Population changes with migration • Need to reapportion seats • Based on Census • Every state keeps at least one Representative • Method of equal proportions

  5. 2000 Reapportionment

  6. Redistricting • Redrawing district boundaries based on reapportionment • In most states, done by legislature • Meant to maintain equality of votes • Can be manipulated

  7. Gerrymandering • Discriminatory redistricting • Consolidating power • Diluting opponents’ power

  8. Gerrymandering • Racist gerrymandering after Civil War • Put all minorities in one district • Dilute them among all districts • 1982 Voting Rights Act • Majority-minority districts • Constitutional issues

  9. IL: 4th District TX: 12th District FL: 22nd and 23rd Districts GA: 13th District NY: 18th District

  10. Gerrymandering and democracy • Preserves incumbents • In 1992, 61% of races won by >20% • In 2002, 80% of races won by > 20%; average margin of victory 39% • 1 of 53 seats in CA competitive

  11. Gerrymandering and democracy • Removes decision-making from voters • “Candidates choose the voters” • More polarized Congress

  12. Local politics • Hierarchy of jurisdictions • Special-purpose districts • Local governments and urban sprawl

  13. Hierarchy of jurisdictions • First order divisions • Largest units within a state • Provinces, states, oblasts, prefectures • Unitary vs. federal

  14. Hierarchy of jurisdictions • Second order divisions • Counties, townships, parishes, boroughs • 3000 in US; from 24 to 20,000 miles2 and from 100 to 8 million residents • Functions depend on the state • Law enforcement, highways, taxes, statistics, welfare, elections

  15. Hierarchy of jurisdictions • Minor civil divisions • Townships, cities, villages • Land use and zoning • Growth by annexation

  16. Special purpose districts • Consequence of federal system • Territory and organization for one purpose • Fire, water, flood control, mosquito control, irrigation, etc. • Over 35,000 in 2002

  17. School districts • Land granted to new territories (1 section per township) • Land grant colleges • Historically, little federal input • Over 15,000 in 2002 • Funding depends on local tax income

  18. Urban sprawl • Too much local decision-making • Each MCD acts in its own interests • Maximize tax revenue • Minimize need for services • Reluctance for regional government

More Related