Search results for: gerrymandering

Authors: Arvind Salem

Abstract:

Voters across the country are transferring the power of redistricting from the state legislatures to commissions to secure “fairer” districts by curbing the influence of gerrymandering on redistricting. Gerrymandering, intentionally drawing distorted districts to achieve political advantage, has become extremely prevalent, generating widespread voter dissatisfaction and resulting in states adopting commissions for redistricting. However, the efficacy of these commissions is dubious, with some arguing that they constitute a panacea for gerrymandering, while others contend that commissions have relatively little effect on gerrymandering. A result showing that commissions are effective would allay these fears, supplying ammunition for activists across the country to advocate for commissions in their state and reducing the influence of gerrymandering across the nation. However, a result against commissions may reaffirm doubts about commissions and pressure lawmakers to make improvements to commissions or even abandon the commission system entirely. Additionally, these commissions are publicly funded: so voters have a financial interest and responsibility to know if these commissions are effective. Currently, nine states place commissions in charge of redistricting, Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan, Idaho, Montana, Washington, and New Jersey (Hawaii also has a commission but will be excluded for reasons mentioned later). This study compares the degree of gerrymandering in the 2022 election (“after”) to the election in which voters decided to adopt commissions (“before”). The before-election provides a valuable benchmark for assessing the efficacy of commissions since voters in those elections clearly found the districts to be unfair; therefore, comparing the current election to that one is a good way to determine if commissions have improved the situation. At the time Hawaii adopted commissions, it was merely a single at-large district, so it is before metrics could not be calculated, and it was excluded. This study will use three methods to quantify the degree of gerrymandering: the efficiency gap, the percentage of seats and the percentage of votes difference, and the mean-median difference. Each of these metrics has unique advantages and disadvantages, but together, they form a balanced approach to quantifying gerrymandering. The study uses a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test with a null hypothesis that the value of the metrics is greater than or equal to after the election than before and an alternative hypothesis that the value of these metrics is greater in the before the election than after using a 0.05 significance level and an expected difference of 0. Accepting the alternative hypothesis would constitute evidence that commissions reduce gerrymandering to a statistically significant degree. However, this study could not conclude that commissions are effective. The p values obtained for all three metrics (p=0.42 for the efficiency gap, p=0.94 for the percentage of seats and percentage of votes difference, and p=0.47 for the mean-median difference) were extremely high and far from the necessary value needed to conclude that commissions are effective. These results halt optimism about commissions and should spur serious discussion about the effectiveness of these commissions and ways to change them moving forward so that they can accomplish their goal of generating fairer districts.

Keywords: commissions, elections, gerrymandering, redistricting

Procedia PDF Downloads 38

Authors: Kamal Donko

Abstract:

In the frontier zone of Benin Republic, land seems to be a fundamental political resource as it is used as a tool for socio-political mobilization, blackmail, inclusion and exclusion, conquest and political control. This paper seeks to examine the complex and intriguing interlinks between land, identity and politics in central Benin. It aims to investigate what roles territorialisation and land ownership are playing in the electioneering process in central Benin. It employs ethnographic multi-sited approach to data collections including observations, interviews and focused group discussions. Research findings reveal a complex and intriguing relationship between land ownership and politics in central Benin. Land is found to be playing a key role in the electioneering process in the region. The study has also discovered many emerging socio-spatial patterns of controlling and maintaining political power in the zone which are tied to land politics. These include identity reconstruction and integration mechanism through intermarriages, socio-political initiatives and construction of infrastructure of sovereignty. It was also found that ‘Diaspora organizations’ and identity issues; strategic creation of administrative units; alliance building strategy; gerrymandering local political field, etc. These emerging socio-spatial patterns of territorialisation for maintaining political power affect migrant and native communities’ relationships. It was also found that ‘Diaspora organizations’ and identity issues; strategic creation of administrative units; alliance building strategy; gerrymandering local political field, etc. are currently affecting migrant’s and natives’ relationships. The study argues that territorialisation is not only about national boundaries and the demarcation between different nation states, but more importantly, it serves as a powerful tool of domination and political control at the grass root level. Furthermore, this study seems to provide another perspective from which the political situation in Africa can be studied. Investigating how the dynamics of land ownership is influencing politics at the grass root or micro level, this study is fundamental to understanding spatial issues in the frontier zone.

Keywords: land, migration, politics, territorialisation

Procedia PDF Downloads 329