I haven\u2019t seen the new documentary film Gerrymandering<\/span><\/em><\/a> but I\u2019ve been intrigued by various reviews. Filmmaker Jeff Reichert tells the story of gerrymandering, beginning with how our country inherited gerrymandering from the Brits, and how they, like our neighbors in Canada, wisely eradicated it from their political process. According to Gar Smith of the Berkeley Daily Planet,<\/em> the film is based\u00a0on interviews with more than 50 commentators from across the political spectrum, and\u00a0Reichert presents a compelling argument that allowing politicians to draw district maps is a tool that works to defeat true democracy.<\/p>\n

According to Smith, “The film argues that allowing legislators to draw voting districts means ‘politicians choose voters instead of the other way around.’ Once an urban population has been sliced-and-diced to consolidate wealthy neighborhoods, ensnare partisan cores, or divide and disempower Asian, Hispanic or African American enclaves, ‘it really doesn\u2019t matter who you vote for,’ a seasoned political player observes. ‘The election outcome has already been determined.’<\/p>\n

Since I may not have a chance to see the movie, I thought I would pass on a review from both Capitol Weekly <\/em>and\u00a0Berkeley Daily Planet, <\/em>as each arrives at a very different conclusion about the film. <\/em> But first, I’m going to use this opportunity to educate myself on the practice of gerrymandering\u2014something Reichert recommends we all should do.<\/p>\n

What is gerrymandering?<\/strong><\/p>\n

(The following is courtesy of Wikipedia and also from the film’s website.)<\/p>\n

Gerrymandering is the manipulation of the redistricting process for political gain.<\/p>\n

The Constitution requires that a census<\/a> be held every ten years to determine the population of each state and that the 435 Congressional seats be reapportioned according to this new data. The Constitution leaves the methods for electing Representatives \u2013 including redistricting \u2013 up to the individual states.\u00a0However, both Congress and the courts have placed certain requirements on the redistricting process:<\/p>\n

1. Each district must be equal in population\u2028. There must be an equal opportunity for minorities to elect the candidate of their choice<\/p>\n

So, every ten years, each state is forced to redraw district lines to account for both adjustments in the size of their overall congressional delegation, and variance in the populations of their already-drawn districts. In a few states \u2014Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, New Jersey, and Washington \u2014a specially appointed bi-partisan commission handles redistricting. In the rest, politicians control redistricting, and often those whose political careers might be threatened by the change of a line.<\/p>\n

Gerrymandering Techniques:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Packing:<\/strong> Placing as many voters of one type in a single district to minimize the number of elections they can influence.<\/p>\n

Cracking:<\/strong> Spreading voters of one type over many districts where they will comprise minorities that are unable to influence elections.<\/p>\n

Hijacking:<\/strong> Separating an incumbent candidate from his constituents and placing him or her in a district where he or she has no name recognition.<\/p>\n

Kidnapping:<\/strong> Drawing two incumbent candidates into the same district so they must run against each other.<\/p>\n

Gerrymandering scenarios:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Original:<\/strong> Gerrymandering is as old as the country itself. In 1812, Jeffersonian Republicans forced through the Massachusetts legislature a bill rearranging district lines to assure them an advantage in the upcoming elections. Although Governor Elbridge Gerry had only reluctantly signed the law, a Federalist editor is said to have exclaimed upon seeing the new district lines, “Salamander! Call it a Gerrymander.” This cartoon-map first appeared in the Boston Gazette for March 26, 1812. Even though the term “gerrymander” originates here, it dates back even further – some say to Patrick Henry drawing Virginia’s first Congressional district map so as to make it harder for James Madison to be elected to Congress.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Partisan Gerrymander:<\/strong> When the party in control of the redistricting process draws the district lines to maximize the power of their own party.<\/p>\n

Sweetheart Gerrymander:<\/strong> When the people in charge of redistricting tacitly agree to draw district lines to ensure that incumbents of both parties win reelection.<\/p>\n

Racial Gerrymander:<\/strong> The drawing of districts to create opportunity for minority voters to elect a candidate of their choice.<\/p>\n

Gerrymandering<\/em>: A movie review from <\/strong>Capitol Weekly<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Malcolm Maclachian and Tony Sheppard\u00a0writing for Capitol Weekly<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> feel Gerrymandering<\/em> does a good job telling its story in human terms. The film makes its case with a series of recent examples, such as the 50 Democratic Texas legislators who fled to Oklahoma in 2003 to stall a legal but unethical effort to redraw that state, just two years after it had been done as part of the standard once-a-decade process. (The Tom Delay-led effort resulted in the GOP gaining six seats.) And, the film provides a play-by-play of California\u2019s Proposition 11 campaign in 2008. In this case, it was Democrats in the California Legislature fighting to prevent change. According to the reviewers, as long as we \u201chave single-member districts, millions of people will be effectively disenfranchised because they\u2019ll have no chance of electing someone who thinks like them.\u201d<\/p>\n

So what to do? Gerrymandering <\/em>floats the idea that the best way to get rid of “the lines” is to go to a European style parliamentary Democracy with proportional representation. And the reviewers ponder the possibility:<\/p>\n

The question is: would Americans accept this? More than people in many countries, it seems, we vote for individuals. But haven\u2019t we all learned by now the public niceness, or jerkiness for that matter, has a very indirect relationship to moral behavior when the cameras aren\u2019t on?<\/p>\n

A parliamentary democracy, which would guarantee any party with a certain number of votes would get a seat, would likely confuse and anger many people. But if you believe that the top goal of an electoral system is to translate the will of the people into legislators and then into legislation, it is the best system known. It\u2019s often been remarked that our Legislature is ideologically extreme compared to voters, but it\u2019s rather homogenous in terms of party representation. If some of those extreme members were Greens or Libertarians, and moderate Democrats and Republicans needed to work with them in order to form coalitions, the mere act of forming a working government for that session would get us more of the way to a budget.<\/p>\n

In short, it\u2019s a worthwhile film on a topic that we really ought to be thinking more about.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Gerrymandering<\/em>: The movie, the proposition, the conflict of interest<\/strong><\/p>\n

The second review titled “Gerrymandering:\u00a0The Movie, the Proposition, the Conflict of Interest” <\/span>is written by Gar Smith of the Berkeley Daily Planet<\/a><\/em>.<\/a> It is lengthy and goes into detail about the film. But Smith feels the film Gerrymandering<\/em>, while interesting and informative, also strikes some odd notes, at times making Democratic senators and congressmen look bad. While filmaker Reichert insists it is a non-partisan look at gerrymandering and is a coincidence that its release coincides with the upcoming election, Smith discovers it is being used as a fundraising tool for Proposition 20, a GOP backed proposition scheduled for the November 2 election.<\/p>\n

The Voters First Act for Congress (proponents of California\u2019s \u201canti-gerrymandering\u201d Proposition 20) has taken full advantage of the coincidence. In early October, VFAC distributed 660,000 free DVDs of Reichert\u2019s film as part of a glossy mass-mailed packet urging people to vote \u201cYes on 20; No on 27.\u201d Mailing this multimedia \u201cnonprofit\u201d message cost somewhere between $102,000 and $113,000.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Proposition 20, he further discovers, is being touted as a grassroots movement to further the democratic process, but has been extensively bankrolled \u00a0by two very wealthy California businessmen who want to keep the current commission who oversees redistricting. The current commission is not supported by Democrats, Unions, Firefighters, etc. who are supporting the more progressive Proposition 27 which would abolish the commission.<\/p>\n

Smith comes to the following conclusion:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

There must be transparency whenever any individual or group decides to attempt to \u201clead the voters,\u201d be it by gerrymandering, \u201cAstroturf\u201d campaigns, corporate-backed initiatives or documentary films. Viewers \u2014 and voters \u2014 need to be advised that \u201cGerrymandering\u201d requires an \u201cR\u201d rating \u2014 for A Risky Proposition. Voter discretion is advised.<\/p>\n

\n<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I haven\u2019t seen the new documentary film Gerrymandering but I\u2019ve been intrigued by various reviews. Filmmaker Jeff Reichert tells the story of gerrymandering, beginning<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":5403,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[162,784],"tags":[229,713,714],"yoast_head":"\n