Gerrymandering

Rather than discuss the 2016 presidential election or the 2014 midterms, I have decided to devote this blog post to what I consider the biggest threat to American Democracy. No, it isn’t a foreign threat such as China or terrorism, nor is it a domestic threat such as national debt or the military-industrial complex. The biggest threat to American Democracy is a concept called gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering originated in 1812, when Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill that redistricted the state in a way that benefited his Democratic-Republican Party. One of the districts was redrawn in an extremely unorthodox way; the new district looked so strange that it was said to resemble a salamander. The district’s shape was combined with the name of then-Governor Gerry, and the term “Gerrymandering” was born!

Gerrymander is defined as “The dividing of a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible.” Here is an example of gerrymandering in the modern day.

The green area represents an utterly preposterous single district in the state of Illinois. The district is made continuous through an extremely thin strip at the district’s western border, thus making this abomination a legal district. The district was drawn this way to limit both of the largely Hispanic regions of Illinois (which tend to vote for the Democratic Party) in one single district.

Why is Gerrymandering a threat to American democracy? There are two principle reasons. The first is that it allows one single party to unfairly dominate the House of Representatives. State districts are redrawn every 10 years in the United States, so whichever party happens to fare better in said election gets a huge advantage in state legislatures that redraw the districts, and therefore the House seats that represent those districts as well.

In 2010, the Republican Party dominated state legislature elections in addition to congressional elections, and so districts were redrawn to heavily favor the Republican Party, which quickly paid off in the 2012 elections. Even though more Americans voted for the Democratic Party in congressional elections, the Republican Party still held a 33 seat advantage in the House of Representatives. This was a result of the intense gerrymandering that occurred in 2010 by the Republican controlled state legislatures.

The second reason that Gerrymandering threatens American Democracy is because it allows for more fringe candidates to win elections to congress, which leads to partisanship and breakdown of negotiation. Because districts are purpose composed of voters that vote for a single party, more extreme candidates are elected as a result in these districts. For example, a Tea Party candidate is more likely to win an extremely conservative district in New York and a progressive candidate is more likely to win an extremely liberal district in Kentucky, whereas neither would normally win an election in a district composed of liberals and conservatives. When these candidates go to Congress, their political ideologies are so different that they can find very little shared ground and compromise becomes an exception more than a rule. As a result, we get do-nothing Congresses, such as the Congress we are stuck with right now.

Gerrymandering is very damaging to the American political system and to democracy itself. The country would be much better off if independent commissions designed the districts rather than political parties with blatant self-interests. Until a gerrymandered system is replaced with a new one, the United States will continue to exist as a land of political turmoil, and democracy will live in constant threat until the day it dies… Perhaps that’s a bit extreme. At any rate, gerrymandering does much more harm than good to representation, and we should do as much as we can to get rid of it.

The 2016 Democratic Party Primary

Incumbents are more likely to win elections; therefore, the Democratic Party will have a tougher fight in 2016 than they did in 2012 in order to win the White House for at least four more years because there will be no incumbent candidate in the running. With Barack Obama’s second term coming to a close, the Democratic Party will have to nominate a candidate to run against the Republican challenger in the 2016 presidential election. Even though the election is three years away in a volatile political world, I believe that there are really only two potential candidates that have a chance at getting the Democratic nomination.

Hillary Clinton has an extended history in American politics and is the clear cut choice for the Democratic nomination. Clinton was the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001, a United States Senator from 2001 to 2009, and the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Even when she was the First Lady she played an active role in US public policy. Her most obvious strength is her political experience; there will be no other candidate in the election, Democrat or Republican, with a résumé like Hillary Clinton’s. Her weakness may be general distrust by Republicans as well as her connection to the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya in 2012.

Though Hillary is a strong ticket for the Democratic nomination, she should be wary of Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren is currently a United States Senator from the state of Massachusetts who specializes in economic regulation. Warren was instrumental in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new federal agency designed to protect consumers in the United States. Warren’s greatest strength is her newfound popularity within the Democratic Party; she is the current face of the Democratic Party with Hillary temporarily out of politics. Her progressive status will be a great asset in the primary, but could be detrimental in the general election, where she risks being seen as a fringe candidate.

Ultimately, the Democratic primary is Hillary’s election to lose. Clinton is extremely popular with the current democratic base and has an extremely strong résumé to boost. Warren is also popular among similar demographics as Hillary but is not as established in the political world; she may make for a better candidate in a future election. Regardless, I believe that either of these two candidates have the potential to give the Republican candidate a run for his/her money in 2016.

The 2016 GOP Candidates

The 2016 Republican Party Primary

Even though we are only one year removed from our most recent election, we can’t help but look forward to the next presidential election in 2016. Barack Obama’s second term will have come to a close and Obama will be unable to run for a third term. Thus, the race will be between a new candidate from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Each party will have to choose a candidate before there can be a race, however. Today, I’m going to examine who I believe are three most likely candidates for the Republican presidential nomination.

Chris Christie is the governor of New Jersey who just recently won his reelection, as I pointed out in my last blog entry. Christie has plenty of traits that will help him in the 2016 election. He is seen as a moderate by many in the United States. The fact that he is a Republican governor in a traditionally Democratic state demonstrates this. People also like Christie’s straight-shooting no-nonsense personality. In a world filled with politicians who speak in the most politically correct ways possible, it can definitely feel refreshing to listen to Christie speak straight. Christie might have trouble in the Republican primary election, however. He has recently drawn flak among his own party members for complimenting Obama’s handling of Hurricane Sandy and his status as a moderate might alienate him among other conservatives in the primary.

Rand Paul is a senator from Kentucky who draws considerable support from the Tea Party. Paul is very popular among the right-wing of the Republican Party and is regarded as the face of the Tea Party; having Tea Party support will help him tremendously in the primary election. He is also the son of famous libertarian Ron Paul; this connection will surely help him draw votes from libertarian voters across party lines. However, I think that Paul’s tea party label will be detrimental to his success in a general election. In order to win, Paul would need to attract independent and even some Democratic voters; being labeled the face of a far-right political group does not make this an easy process.

Finally, there is Marco Rubio, a tea party senator from the state of Florida. Like Rand Paul, Rubio is known for his affiliation with the tea party, which is helpful in consolidating the conservative voting base. Rubio’s biggest advantage, in my opinion, is his minority status. Rubio is a Cuban-American and will be able to sway a large number of minority voters. In my opinion, the minority voting gap is the GOP’s biggest problem right now; Rubio will be able to use the GOP’s greatest weakness as his greatest advantage. Rubio has done a lot of work regarding immigration policy in the United States; though this will help draw minority voters, this will also turn off several conservative voters in the primary election.

I think Chris Christie is the GOP’s best bet to win the 2016 presidential election. If the Republican Party nominates anybody but Christie then the party is shooting itself in the foot. Rubio and Paul are solid candidates for the primary elections where it is advantageous to be farther to the right on the political spectrum. However, I think that they will be seen as too extreme by the general voting populace and will fail to defeat their Democratic opponent if they receive the nomination. Chris Christie is seen as a moderate and as the Republican Party’s best shot at taking the White House. However, the political world is a fluid one, and anything can happen between now and 2016; how could have thought that a junior senator from Illinois could upset the heavily favored Hillary Clinton in 2008? The 2016 Republican Primaries are anybody’s game.

Election Day 2013

Political elections play out like any popular sport in the United States. There are winners and there are losers. There are favorites and there are upsets. And almost everybody has a team. The United States has two major “teams” in its world of politics: the democratic and the republican parties. Our nation’s annual election day was last week where three major political battles occurred. In this blog, I look to dissect the elections and explain how the victor secured his/her electoral victory.

I.                   New York Mayoral Election

Bill de Blasio (D) vs. Joe Lhota (R)

For the most part, this election had already been decided before Election Day even began. New York City has a largely liberal voting demographic (as most urban cities do) and so the Democratic candidate was expected to grab an easy victory. The real election took place in the Democratic Party primary where Bill de Blasio, New York City Public Advocate, secured the nomination with about 40.81% of the vote. After de Blasio secured his nomination, the battle was pretty much over; de Blasio beat Republican nominee Joe Lhota with 73.7% of the popular vote. This election had little surprises and just about everything went as expected.

 Fun fact: this year marks the first year since 1989, 24 years ago, that New York City has elected a Democratic candidate for mayor. This is very surprising for a state that is widely regarded as a Democratic stronghold.

II.                New Jersey Gubernatorial Election

Barbara Buono (D) vs. Chris Christie (R)

Like the New York City mayoral election, this election had also been decided before a single ballot was cast. Chris Christie, the incumbent governor of New Jersey, was challenged by Barbara Buono, a member of the New Jersey State Senate. Buono was doomed from the very beginning. Incumbent governors have won about 80% of their elections since 1980. Furthermore, Chris Christie is an extremely popular governor within his own state and also nationwide. Christie is respected for his straight talk; he often doesn’t dabble in political correctness. He is also widely regarded as a moderate candidate, a necessary quality for a Republican in a liberal leaning state such as New Jersey. Barbara Buono had such low odds of victory that the Democratic Party gave her little funding to use for the election; her own party saw her loss as inevitable and did not want to waste money on it. Christie easily took his reelection with 60.4% of the votes. I’m sure Christie had very little concern for this election; he’s too busy looking forward to his run for president in 2016!

III.             Virginia Gubernatorial Election

Ken Cuccinelli (R) vs. Terry McAuliffe (D)

This election was unique in that there was no clear cut victor; this election was any man’s game. The incumbent governor, Bob McDonnell, was not able to run for reelection because Virginia’s state constitution bans one governor from serving successive terms. The race was wide open in this swing state between Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe and Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli. The race was very tight; it was the last of the three elections to be decided this year’s election night. Terry McAuliffe emerged as the victor with 47.7% of the vote to Ken Cuccinelli’s 45.2%. The race was decided by a 2.5% difference in the popular vote. So how did Terry McAuliffe win?

His first advantage was fundraising. McAuliffe raised $26,345,763 throughout the election while Cuccinelli raised just $16,807,323. McAuliffe therefore had more resources and could spend more advertising himself for the election. McAuliffe’s second advantage is an emerging trend in politics; minority voters. McAuliffe was able to attract much more minority voter (particularly minority women) votes. Minorities were turned away by conservative policies that they generally saw as unfavorable to minorities within the state and by and large voted for McAuliffe instead. This trend is occurring nationwide; one of the main reasons Barack Obama sped by Mitt Romney in the 2012 Presidential Election was his appeal to minority voters. If the Republican Party wants to find success in future elections, it must find a way to appeal to this minority voter group.

Fun fact: This election year marks the first year since 1977 that Virginia has elected a governor that shares his/her party with the sitting president. Virginia’s reputation as a swing state is well deserved.

Odd numbered years are relatively slow and unexciting as far as political elections go, and for the most part this year was no exception. The elections in New York City and New Jersey went exactly as expected. While McAuliffe was never expected to win the election, he had been favored by polls throughout much of the campaign season. 2014, however, will surely be a more exciting and meaningful election day. Every seat in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs as well as 1/3 of the seats in the Senate. We will surely be hearing much more political rhetoric, debate, and advertisement next year. For now, however, we can only sit still and enjoy the calm before the storm.