Gerrymander

Gerrymander (pronounced jer-ee-man-duhr or gary-ee-man-duhr)

(1) 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.

(2) To subject (a state, county etc) to a gerrymander.

(3) A generalized descriptor (though sometimes technically not gerrymanders in the technical sense) of distorted electoral systems (often non-US use).

1812: A portmanteau word and an Americanism, named after politician and diplomat Elbridge Thomas Gerry (1744–1814) who (as a Democratic-Republican), served as fifth vice-president of the United States.  Gerry was governor of Massachusetts at the time the electoral re-districting resulted in the map of Essex County gaining a salamander-like outline.  Gerrymander was coined by the editors of the Boston Gazette and published in the edition of 26 March 1812, the text likely written by Nathan Hale and Benjamin & John Russell, the accompanying a cartoon by Elkanah Tisdale (1768-1835).  Elbridge Gerry's surname was pronounced with a hard “G” (Gary) but gerrymander is almost always (and universally outside the US) pronounced with a soft “g” (jerry).  If, upon analysis by psephologists, a gerrymander is thought so ineptly drawn that it's likely to backfire and electorally disadvantage the gerrymandering party, it is dubbed a dummymander.  Gerrymander & gerrymandering are nouns & verbs and gerrymandered is a verb; the noun plural is gerrymanders.

Salamander scene in The Parent Trap (1998).

The construct was gerry + (sala)mander.  The surname Gerry is a patronymic of Geary, of medieval English origin, from a Germanic personal name.  The personal name is derived from "geri, gari", meaning spear, and is a short form of the various compound names with this first element.  The first recorded spelling of the family name is that of Richard Geri, listed in 1195, during the reign of King Richard I (The Lionheart, 1189-1199) although the name was doubtless in use prior to this entry, surnames becoming necessary only after governments introduced personal taxation (known in England as the Poll Tax).  Over the centuries, surnames in many countries have seen many variations of the original spelling evolve.  Salamander is from the Middle English salamandre, from the Anglo-Norman salamandre, from the Classical Latin salamandra, from the Ancient Greek σαλαμάνδρα (salamándra), of uncertain origin but thought probably pre-Greek and from the Persian سمندر‎ (samandar).

Salamanderish: The explanatory diagrams published by the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812.  To the left is what was described by journalists Nathan Hale and Benjamin & John Russell as "The Gerry-mander".  A new species of Monster which appeared in Essex South District in January", the cartoon by Elkanah Tisdale.  The centre map is the original gerrymander, a Massachusetts State Senate district submission drawn in 1812.  To the right is the second Massachusetts congressional district for the thirteenth congress.

The essence of the gerrymander is to draw the divisions on electoral maps such that votes surplus to requirements (often called "wasted votes") in "safe districts" are moved to marginal or opposition-held districts to maximize the possibility of winning.  In some cases, such malapportionments are constitutionally entrenched such as the arrangements often seen for the election of upper houses (including the US and Australian Senates (US political scientists insist the US Senate isn't an upper house but the basis of its electoral principle is a malapportionment).  Gerrymander is used almost always as a derogatory term, suggesting some form of political corruption, even if usually, technically, lawful.  Strictly speaking, it refers only to bizarrely shaped boundaries drawn on maps of electoral districts to favor one political candidate over another but has come to be used also as a general descriptor of malapportionment (the creation of electoral districts with divergent ratios of voters to representatives).  This was how most electoral trickery was done in Australia, the practice not eradicated federally until the 1970s although constitutionally entrenched malapportionments (especially of the Senate and the "historically special case" of Tasmania) remain afoot.  It was most famously (though not uniquely) practiced until the 1990s in Queensland where it was known as the Bjelkemander or Johmander (named after Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen (1911–2005; premier of Queensland 1968-1987) because of the way in which some rural electorates in the state parliament contained sometimes as few as half the number of voters as urban seats.  The malapportionment in Queensland, although usually associated with Bjelke-Petersen’s Country Party administration was actually a tweak of a zonal system introduced by the Labor party in 1949 and wasn’t even the worst in the country, the most extreme being in South Australia where, at one point, the largest city electorate contained as many voters as seven rural electorates.

Goofy Kicking Donald Duck: The Seventh Congressional District in Pennsylvania, 2013-2018.

It was the novelty of the amphibianesque shape in Massachusetts which gave the name to dodgy re-drawing of electoral boundaries but early in the twenty-first century, a new height (or depth) in the state of the art was reached in the Seventh Congressional District in Pennsylvania which spanned some 50 miles (80 km) from the outer suburbs of Philadelphia to the distant farmland of Lancaster County.  Existing between 2013-2018, the new shape, looking something like ink spilled on a map and drafted under the auspices of the state’s Republican party, was dubbed “Goofy Kicking Donald Duck” and one glance at the contorted shape meant no further explanation was required.  Carved from the predominantly black, low-income city of Chester, black, south of Philadelphia, the lines meant next-door neighbours found themselves suddenly with different representatives in the House, a violation of the long-established principle of “communities of interest” in which boundaries follow “natural borders”.  What “Goofy Kicking Donald Duck” did was “slice & dice” pieces of five counties and 26 municipalities, tosses them together in what political scientists called “a tossed electoral salad”.  The Republican Party’s objective was of course to link up identified pockets of conservative voters to ensure that the Republican would keep the seat, however obviously absurd or illogical might have been the tactic.  Neither of the parties has clean hands in this dirty business and the Democratic Party has also created its own gerrymanders although none has ever resulted in the artistic achievement of “Goofy Kicking Donald Duck”.

The SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) long ago ruled that gerrymandering to divide voters by race was unconstitutional but it has remained silent on whether doing it on the basis of voting patterns by party was also a violation.  In Pennsylvania, it was not a federal court but the State Supreme Court which in February 2018 declared the map unlawful and ordered it redrawn, something welcomed not only by Democrats but by also what are now called the “threatened species” of “moderate Republicans” (the ones derided by the MAGA (Make America Great Again) base as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).  The MAGA crowd knows this is a war in which the shooting has not yet started and whatever dirty tricks need to be done are justifiable.  Because the practice of gerrymandering has of late become more prevalent, the SCOTUS is expected soon to have to make some sort of ruling.  Ever since Warren Burger (1907–1995; Chief Justice of the US 1969-1986) in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) made his classic statement: “Legislators represent voters, not trees and acres”, the principle has existed that single-seat electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population but gerrymandering is a way to achieve a distorted electoral outcome while respecting exactly that.  What the court, inter alia, will be asked to consider is the matter of the degree of correlation between one’s ethnic identity and their tendency to vote for one party or the other and whether the recent spate of gerrymandering is “racialism in disguise”.  In the political climate of today, few are predicting how the court will deal with that.