Gerrymandering - As American as apple pie

 Deckey's account of gerrymandering was extremely compelling. The angle of engagement via privacy concerns was not only unique but also insightful in exploring the disconnect between the progression of technology and the evolution of policy. However, as I read and researched a bit further into the issue, I couldn't help but question one thing: why is gerrymandering even commonplace in the first place? More specifically, why is it that among most liberal Western societies, gerrymandering is a uniquely American issue? 

In most Western liberal societies, the issue of gerrymandering is largely negated through the use of independent redistricting commissions. This seemingly intuitive institution is made up of non-partisan experts who periodically meet to discuss issues of redistricting. In fact, it seems that gerrymandering seems to be most prominent in illiberal democracies. Singapore, Malaysia, and apartheid South Africa are all examples that come to mind. This then brings up an interesting issue - why is this democratic check unable to be implemented in the United States? 

In the past US courts have ruled that gerrymandering is a decisively political exercise, and in the case of Rucho v. Common Cause, gerrymandering is ruled to be "incompatible with democratic principles", but still a political issue. This, to me, is a completely bizarre perspective to adopt. By virtue of representing the judiciary in a democratic state, the entire purpose of the courts seems to be to uphold the democratic system. Yet when it comes to protecting said democratic principles, the court finds itself powerless and unwilling to do so. This phenomenon of politicizing all aspects of government function also seems to permeate all other aspects of the US government. From judge appointments to education funding, to even something as simple as ensuring people are voting in fair elections, the scars of the partisan system are omnipresent. This then, brings up an interesting question - has American politics come full circle, and in trying to ensure that every aspect of governance is democratic, ironically made itself more undemocratic? Would certain logistical aspects of the function of the US government not benefit from a more technocratic process? 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even...
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to...
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the...
Read more