Gerrymandering Future Presidential Elections

Every decade in years ending in zero, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. House of Representatives is reapportioned to account for population shifts within the country. As part of that process, many states choose, and some are forced, to redraw or redistrict the legislative lines of both the state and U.S. congressional districts. If this process proceeds in a state dominated by one party and not subject to a non-partisan commission, it usually results in obvious and exaggerated partisan gerrymandering—lines drawn to benefit one political party at the expense of the other. This process is considered constitutional as long as it does not harm the interests of minority or ethnic groupings.

Such was the case in Ohio, a state carried by Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, and a state where 38% of voters in 2012 identified as Democrats (compared to 31% identifying as Republican) according to 2012 exit polls. Because of the gerrymandered congressional redistricting process carried out by the Ohio Republican Party in the Buckeye State in 2011, 12 of Ohio’s 16 (or 75%) U.S. congressional districts are held by Republicans representing relatively safe districts. Ohio voters have little chance to affect the outcome of congressional elections during the general election season. Most observers know, before the election even occurs, which party will win which congressional district. Regardless of which party benefits from gerrymandering, such a situation in a swing state like Ohio is an abomination. Ohio is not alone and a number of states were gerrymandered in an extreme fashion in 2011 (including Illinois which had Democrats drawing the lines).

As harmful to representative democracy as gerrymandering of legislative districts is, a new movement to essentially gerrymander future presidential elections is beginning. In a number of swing states in which the state legislature and gubernatorial office is controlled by the GOP, efforts are beginning to change the way electoral votes would be won and accounted for. In all states except Maine and Nebraska, electoral votes are currently awarded in a winner-take-all format—i.e., whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in a particular state wins all the electoral votes. However, in a number of battleground states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin there have been rumblings from GOP elected and election officials that perhaps it is time to alter that accounting method. In Virginia, a full-fledged effort is underway. Why? Because these swing states, despite their swing state status, have been trending towards the Democratic Party for a number of years and all were won by Obama in the last two elections. By shifting the awarding of electoral votes from a winner-take-all format to one based on the winner of gerrymandered congressional districts, a state party could alter the outcome of a presidential election in that state and potentially change the outcome of the presidential election in the country.

Using Ohio as an example, had such a congressional district system been in place for 2012, President Obama would have received just six of Ohio’s eighteen total electoral votes—he carried the four Democratic districts and would have received two more electoral votes (representing Ohio’s two senate seats) for carrying the whole state. Add up potential electoral vote losses in other swing states for Obama and it is a matter of basic arithmetic that the 2012 electoral vote total would have been much closer than the 332-206 result. In fact, Huffington Post crunched the numbers for the entire country. In 2012, had all states utilized the congressional district method currently used by Maine and Nebraska, the electoral vote result would have been: Obama 265 - Romney 273. This despite the fact that Obama would have won a clear popular vote victory. 

Will this effort to gerrymander the presidential election succeed? With media attention and increased public awareness, such schemes to game future presidential elections will likely fail. But it is unclear whether this issue will receive the attention it deserves over the next three years to stave off a successful effort.

A version of this blog post appeared on Politix.

The "War on Women," the Gender Gap, and the 2012 Election

Politico Arena Topic: Will Mitt be damaged by Mourdock's rape comment?

Governor Mitt Romney was already in a bind over his “binders full of women” comment after the second presidential debate at Hofstra University. The gap that he had seemingly been closing among women in this country started to widen after that slip-up. But the latest volley in the “war on women” could blow that gap wide open.

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s comment on October 23 in a debate that rape is “something that God intended to happen” is as abhorrent and ridiculous a statement as one could utter and just the latest controversial comment on women that Republicans have offered up (hey Indiana Republicans—you sure you don’t want to bring back Senator Richard Lugar, a person as intelligent and respected as any person currently serving in Congress?).

If Mourdock’s comments were an isolated incident, it may not have had an impact. But starting with Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s comments this spring that Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who testified in front of Congress on the topic of contraception, was a “slut” and “prostitute,” it’s been a pretty tough year for the GOP on women’s issues.

Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s comment in August that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” has put the modern Republican Party’s views on abortion and women firmly under the media microscope and at the center of the 2012 presidential campaign. Akin has since compared his female opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill, to a dog at a recent fundraiser, and subsequently news has broken that he had been arrested several times in the past at the scene of abortion protests.

And Akin and Mourdock are not isolated cases. U.S. Representative Joe Walsh, a freshman from Illinois running for reelection in a very tight race, said in a recent debate that he was against all abortions without exception, even when the mother’s life was at stake because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance….There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”

So how does Governor Romney repair the damage? After all, Governor Romney enthusiastically endorsed Mourdock in his senate bid. I don’t think he can at this point. His only hope is that his advantage among men is bigger than his gap among women, a prospect that is highly unlikely.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment