e
How Politicians Use Geometry to Influence Election Results
A simple graphic makes the practice of gerrymandering easy to grasp
For designers unhappy with current political events, it can be frustrating to not be able to use one's skills to improve the situation. But while we may not be able to CAD our way into policy changes, one area where design can help is in the presentation of information.
Here's a fine example. Seeking to explain the practice of gerrymandering (whereby politicians rearrange the boundaries of districts in order to benefit their chances of winning an election) to layfolk, Redditor N8theGr8 created this simple graphic:
Enter a caption (optional)The Washington Post had one of their graphic designers expand on it:
Enter a caption (optional)They also provided a graphic showing how this happens on a real map, indicating PA-7, a Pennsylvania Congressional district modified to be "one of the most geographically irregular districts in the nation" in order to benefit the party in power:
Enter a caption (optional)An organization called FairVote seeks to combat system-gaming like this, fighting "to make democracy fair, functional, and more representative." It is the domain of activists to set up organizations like these. Perhaps design can help by creating informative graphics that help send citizens their way.
-
oFavorite This
-
Q6Comment
Directory Company Profiles
Core77
Industrial Design
Resources
Industrial Design
Resources
-
Core77 Directory
Find the Best Industrial Design CompaniesGo -
Bruce Mau DesignBMD is a multidisciplinary brand and design studio. At BMD, we are here to move organizations forwar...
-
Brainchild Engineering
Brainchild Engineering, based in Northville MI, is a product development and engineering company ded...
-
Springtime design
Springtime is a creative force that develops exciting, sustainable and paradigm-shifting products, b...
-
The Metcalfe Group, Inc.
Located in the greater Cleveland, Ohio area, we are an experienced full-service product design firm ...
-
Michael DiTullo
Design. Every. Thing. Creating innovative products and brand experiences. For more than 20 years Mi...
-
Design 1st Inc.
Hardware product design is a high risk business - unless you have a design partner who has done it s...
-
Zenpack
Your Full-Service Packaging Solutions Company We noticed a gap in luxury packaging companies: Clien...
K
{Welcome
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
K
Reset Password
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
while this is great, republicans can't even begin to match the voter suppression tactics of progressives. Living in Boston (as I am sure you have the same issue in New York City), I never encountered a republican on the ballot. For mayor this is by design, there is an open primary and a runoff with the top 2 candidates - how many times do you think a republican mayoral candidate in Boston makes it to the general election? CA has adopted this method statewide (there was no Republican running for senate in CA this year), it is also used in Chicago. Add in off-off-year election (this year will be a mayoral election year in Boston - wonder if turnout will be as good as November 2016 - not really) and off-off-year February elections in Chicago, and the design to limit voter participation and increase the influence of public sector unions (who do you think is motivated to get out in the middle of February in Chicago?) becomes pretty clear. If you think I am wrong, Does NYC, like Boston and Chicago require residency (at least a voter registration address) of all employees?
Marc,
There are valid reasons to criticize the open primary system you describe, many of which boil down to vote splitting. Any party that fields too many candidates risks not having any make it to the runoff, potentially leaving only candidates that poorly reflect the electorate from which to choose.
Your case is not that case, though. Looking through recent Massachusetts voter registration and presidential voting records shows that you happen to live somewhere where active Democratic voters outnumber active Republican voters by at least a factor of 4 (a factor of 6 if you look at the 2016 presidential election results). As much as it might pain you to see, a mayoral primary that leaves you with two Democrats to vote for probably just reflects the political makeup of your fair city, not any designed attempt to steal the seat. In fact, that result could even be considered more democratic (small 'd') precisely because it matches Boston's population better.
If you think Boston's borders were drawn to affect the mix of its constituents for maximum political gain, well, that would be gerrymandering. I seem to remember seeing an infographic that clearly exemplifies how gerrymandering works; I'll link it if I can find it again.
If I read your comment correctly, you feel it is fine to deny 20% of the electorate a choice on the ballot. I do not agree.
Top 2 primary systems definitely have weaknesses, as Benjamin noted, but the issues you're describing are not voter suppression. If that '20% of the electorate' isn't able to get a candidate on the ballot in the primary, it's more likely that it's just due to inferior numbers (e.g. the following vote split: D1 - 50%, D2 - 30%, R1 20%), and in that case, it's actually more democratic. It could completely cut the other way, however, as it has in CA and WA in recent elections where two Rs are on the final ballot in majority-D area due to vote-splitting in the primary. The votes of your '20% of the electorate' are just as valid in the general election as the other 80% of the electorate, and could easily swing the vote towards one candidate or the other (e.g. the more conservative candidate) if they were to vote as a bloc. Voter suppression is things like closing or reducing hours of polling places in certain areas, mandating stricter rules for voting (perhaps shaped in such a way to affect classes of people that typically vote for one party or the other), etc. You know, tactics usually employed by the Republican party.
From a design standpoint I think the message would be better communicated using colors other than red and blue. The point is to educate how gerrymandering works, not point fingers. Unless the party is critical to an infographic, I think best to keep the inferences as neutral as possible to reach the largest base, and get people thinking beyond party lines.
another thing to take into account is voter turnout. if the point is fair representation, turnout should be taken into account. It wouldnt be fair representation if one group had 99% turnout, and another only had 10%, that could swing an election where the group that was 99% turnout only made up 15% of the area.
off cycle elections is another tactic. school districts do this a lot to pass bonds. they hold an election off cycle, so that overall turnout is very low, thus giving them the edge since turnout by school workers will be very high since the bonds usually benefit them greatly.
besides, the united states is really just a dictatorship, laced with the illusion of democracy