Podcast Summary: "Crises in Democracy: constituency re-districting and gerrymandering in the UK and US"

LSE: Public Lectures and Events
Date: November 27, 2007
Host: LSE Film and Audio Team
Speakers: Prof. Ian McLean (Oxford), Sam Hirsch (Jenner & Block, civil rights lawyer)

Episode Overview

This episode explores the challenges and controversies surrounding constituency redistricting (the drawing of electoral boundaries) and gerrymandering in the UK and US. The discussion brings together academic perspectives and practical legal insight to examine how the allocation of electoral districts impacts voter power, representation, and the health of democracy. Particular attention is given to the difference between theoretical equality and real-world practices, the use and abuse of boundary changes for partisan advantage, and the complex interplay between law, politics, and electoral fairness.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Theoretical Foundations and Historical Context

(Prof. Ian McLean, 06:16 - 36:48)

• Principle of Equal Districts:
  • “A fair allocation of districts would be one which gives each citizen as near as possible an equal share of voting power.” (06:20, McLean)
  • The UK’s struggle with this principle goes back to the 19th-century Chartist movement and subsequent Reform Acts.
  • Importance of distinguishing “voting weight” (number of votes) from “voting power” (actual influence).
• Historic Redistricting and Its Limitations:
  • Key historic moments: Third Reform Act 1884, Speaker’s Conferences of 1917 and 1944.
  • Constituency sizes not regularly updated, leading to inequalities (“letting sleeping dogs lie is nice for incumbents but horrible for citizens.” 13:40)
  • Political reluctance to adjust representation in sensitive regions (e.g., Ireland, Scotland, Wales).
• Systematic Biases:
  • Over-representation of certain territories (e.g., Scotland and Wales) for political reasons, hindering true “one person, one vote.”
  • Labour and Conservative parties historically manipulated the pace and nature of redistricting for partisan gain.

Notable Quote:

• “A cynic may believe that it’s a fundamental pillar of the devolution settlement that the Labour Party should retain the power to govern the UK, which depends heavily on its seats in Scotland and in Wales.” (17:40, McLean)

2. Mechanisms of Manipulation: Incumbent and Party Protection

(McLean, 24:00 - 29:00)

• Incumbent Protection: Legislators resist changes because new boundaries could jeopardize their seats.
• Party Protection (“Packing & Cracking”): Boundary changes used to make seats safer for one party by concentrating (packing) or dispersing (cracking) opposition voters.
  • Example: West Yorkshire’s drawn-out battle over Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper’s constituencies.
  • “Packing” and “cracking” described vividly using historic analogies (Elbridge Gerry’s salamander, 28:00).

Notable Moments:

• McLean wryly compares the rules around districting to Lake Wobegon, where “all the children are above average,” and notes, “all constituencies in England must be above average.” (21:45)

3. Systemic Consequences and Mathematical Quirks

(McLean, 29:00 - 36:48)

• Delayed Redistricting:
  • UK’s boundary updates lag by up to 15 years, entrenching inequalities as populations shift.
  • Examples of legal tricks and counter-tricks by major parties to delay or hasten boundary reviews.
• Population vs. Electorate:
  • Tension between drawing districts based on total population vs. actual registered voters persists; in modern UK and US, not much practical difference, but still an issue for certain groups.
• Technical Note:
  • Discussed mathematical calculation methods (arithmetic mean vs. harmonic mean splitting) in allocating seats.
  • Isle of Wight highlighted as an example of rules not matching practice.

4. The US Experience: Gill, Bias, and “Not Playing Nicey Nicey”

(Sam Hirsch, 36:58 - 67:43)

• Redistricting as a Partisan Weapon:

  • “Inviting an American election law litigator to lecture on how to draw fair districts is a bit ironic. Sort of like asking Donald Rumsfeld to lecture on how to manage a foreign occupation.” (36:58, Hirsch)

• Five Major Problems in US Redistricting:

  1. Litigiousness: Proliferation of lawsuits due to unclear legal standards.
  2. Misshapen Districts: Declining thanks to Supreme Court, but still not a reliable sign of gerrymandering. “It’s possible to generate a rip-roaring gerrymander that looks pretty on a map.” (41:40)
  3. Underrepresentation of Minorities: The Voting Rights Act combats “packing and cracking” of minority voters, but challenges persist.
  4. Lack of Competitiveness: New maps increasingly protect incumbents; e.g., in 2002, only four of 435 seats changed parties.
     • “This new plan basically does away with the need for elections.” (43:40, recounted from a CA consultant)
  5. Partisan Bias: State-level control enables parties to engineer winning maps; wave elections do not always change seat outcomes.

• Case Examples:

  • Michigan: Secretive, purely partisan mapmaking, signed into law on Sept 11, 2001, evading scrutiny.
  • Pennsylvania: Extreme district shapes (“supine Seahorse,” “upside down Chinese Dragon”), gerrymanders tested (and largely upheld) in the courts.
  • Colorado & Texas: “Mid-decade redistricting” – moving lines outside the normal schedule for clear partisan gain. Stories of legislative walkouts, police involvement, and “not playing nicey nicey.”
  • Georgia: Gerrymandering targeting specific opponents, e.g., slicing Athens to block a likely Democratic challenger.

• Legal Responses and Limits:

  • Courts uphold the principle of one person, one vote, are more effective on population equality and minority rights than on party bias.
  • Supreme Court struggles to define how much partisanship is “too much”—Justice Kennedy’s indecisiveness cited.
  • State reforms are slow; some success with bipartisan commissions (e.g., New Jersey).

Memorable Quotes:

• “Redistricting is everything.” —Newt Gingrich, cited at 56:00
• “We didn’t have to play nicey nicey, so they didn’t play nicey.” —Colorado State Senate President, quoted at 59:45
• “If redistricting ceases to be decennial...a way to ruin your competition, not through better policy statements… but rather just by changing the district lines. That is very dangerous.” (63:20, Hirsch)

5. Judicial and Institutional Reform Proposals

(Hirsch, 65:00 - 67:43)

• Judicial Review:
  • Works for population equality and racial protections, struggles with measuring “too much” party advantage or competitiveness.
  • “Partisan claims are reconfigured to be one person, one vote claims, or worse yet, race based claims.”
• Independent Commissions:
  • Support for nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting bodies, but “how they do it” (criteria, transparency) matters more than “who does it.”
  • Critique of so-called “blind” map-drawing without political data; preference for clear minimization of partisan bias using explicit rules and metrics.
  • New Jersey model of tripartite commission as promising.

Quote:

• “Just as the gerrymanders have figured out how to harness the power of actual electoral data for their benefit, now we reformers must figure out how to harness the power of actual electoral data for the benefit of some common good.” (67:25, Hirsch)

Notable Audience Q&A and Further Insights

1. Electoral Apportionment in the European Parliament

• Questions about the fairness and mathematics of seat allocation—McLean highlights the “happy accident” (80:00) that EU seat allocations roughly follow square root population ratios, referencing Penrose’s formula, and details efforts to push for mathematically fairer apportionment methods, notably the Saint-Laguë system.

2. Packing & Cracking in the UK?

• McLean: Less pronounced than in US; “in equilibrium” both parties are equally skillful and their efforts largely cancel. Examples exist, and public inquiries often serve as battlegrounds for “bogus local ties.” (81:50)

3. Structural Reform Beyond Boundaries

• Audience points to the deeper problem: single-member districts inherently limit proportionality. Hirsch and McLean agree proportional and semi-proportional systems (like cumulative voting) do diminish some biases but single-member territorial systems prevail for practical and political reasons.

4. Felon Disenfranchisement in US Redistricting

• Hirsch explains (84:16) that exclusion of prisoners or ex-prisoners from the electorate distorts district representation. “You can see upstate New York ends up with overrepresented non-voting prisoners, while downstate (NYC) — their original communities — are underrepresented.” Calls it “really unjust,” with growing momentum for reform.

Memorable Quotes

| Time | Speaker | Quote | |--------|---------|------| | 06:20 | McLean | “A fair allocation of districts would be one which gives each citizen as near as possible an equal share of voting power.” | | 17:40 | McLean | “A cynic may believe that it’s a fundamental pillar of the devolution settlement that the Labour Party should retain the power to govern the UK, which depends heavily on its seats in Scotland and in Wales.” | | 28:00 | McLean | “That is Elbridge Gerry’s packing and cracking of part of the state of Massachusetts in 1812… and that’s how we have the word [gerrymander].” | | 36:58 | Hirsch | “Inviting an American election law litigator to lecture on how to draw fair districts is a bit ironic.” | | 43:40 | Hirsch | “This new plan basically does away with the need for elections.” (California consultant) | | 56:00 | Hirsch | “Redistricting is everything.” (Newt Gingrich) | | 59:45 | Hirsch | “We didn’t have to play nicey nicey, so they didn’t play nicey.” (CO State Senate President) | | 67:25 | Hirsch | “Just as the gerrymanders have figured out how to harness the power of actual electoral data for their benefit, now we reformers must figure out how to harness the power… for the benefit of some common good.” |

Important Timestamps

• 06:16 – McLean opens with UK’s historic and contemporary redistricting dilemmas
• 24:00 – Explanation of incumbent/party protection and practical consequences
• 36:00 – Hirsch begins, comparing US and UK challenges
• 41:40 – Modern gerrymandered districts and the irrelevance of “ugliness”
• 43:40 – California consultant’s remark on ending elections
• 56:00 – “Redistricting is everything”
• 59:45 – “Not playing nicey nicey” and the normalization of mid-cycle redistricting
• 65:00 – Institutional reform analysis (commissions and rules)
• 68:12 onward – Audience Q&A, covering European Parliament, structural reform, and felon disenfranchisement

Tone & Style

The event balances rigorous, academic insight with sharp wit, practical anecdotes, and pointed criticism of political maneuvering in both nations. Both speakers combine deep technical knowledge with engaging, often humorous delivery, aiming to demystify the sometimes arcane world of redistricting for a public audience.

Conclusion

This wide-ranging discussion offers a cautionary tale of how redistricting, often invisible to the electorate, can quietly shape the fundamental fairness of democratic systems. Both the UK and US face deep challenges in ensuring that principles of equality and true representation persist in the face of political interests, legal constraints, and shifting populations. While judicial and institutional reforms hold some promise, persistent vigilance and a commitment to transparency and fairness remain essential.