Gerrymandering doesn't affect votes, it just affects how they're counted. The people of the state are still electing those representatives, the gerrymandering is just a mechanism whatever party is currently in power uses to give themselves an edge in staying in power a little longer. It's still up to the people to provide the votes for that party, and they do. Voting districts still have to be roughly equal in population (which is why they're redrawn periodically), so if that party stays in power, it's because a majority of the people in that state have voted for that party.
As always, the people are getting the government they elected and that they deserve.
In 2018, 53% of votes for Wisconsin State Assembly went to Democrats, and Republicans won 64% of the seats (see https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/20...). So in this case it's not true that "if that party stays in power, it's because a majority of the people in that state have voted for that party".
>No, gerrymandering doesn't affect the raw number of votes for each candidate, but it undeniably affects the outcome of elections.
Oh, absolutely. But still, if Party X has a majority in the legislature, that still means that a very, very large number of your fellow citizens (possibly not an outright majority, depending on just how the gerrymandering worked out, but probably still very close to a majority) voted for Party X.
Another thing to note is that gerrymandering does not affect all elections. For a state, gerrymandering has zero effect on the governor's election, since all votes are counted equally in that race. So Wisconsinites are entirely to blame for their choice of their governor.
> so if that party stays in power, it's because a majority of the people in that state have voted for that party.
False. Depending on how well you can gerry-mander, you can easily get a situation where in a two-party system, the party that gets the minority of the vote gets the majority of the seats, and a super-majority of the power.
What do you consider a large majority? Consider a three mathematically ideal gerrymandered districts. Two are engineered to have 50% + epsilon supporting party voters. "Burn" the third by stocking it with 100% dissenting party voters. 1/2+1/2=1. 1/2+1/2+2/2=2. A 2:1 majority of voters receives a 1:2 ratio of representation.
That is a complex question. Your simple math doesn't work out in the real world. There is no way to know for sure that someone who you think supports you actually does and will vote. Voters (and courts) look down on districts that are too irregular and a few will change based on that (including not vote for someone they otherwise like). The party out of power can run someone moderate and thus flip a few voters. When your party is in power you are more likely to stay home and not vote. All of these mean that practically your epsilon needs to be fairly large.
Note, the above is for a large set of districts. Gerrymandering does work well to keep one politicians in power.
gerrymandering is obviously a huge problem. What i wonder is why wouldn't voters put an initiative on a ballot to fight the gerrymandering. I mean for example some simple party-agnostic algorithm along the lines of maximizing clustering and convexity of districts (a mix of something like Voronoy and K-means).
>What i wonder is why wouldn't voters put an initiative on a ballot to fight the gerrymandering.
This is exactly why my favorite saying, "every nation gets the government it deserves" is so true. If the people don't like the way their democratic government is working, it's their job to demand a change. In states where ballot initiatives exist, this is even more true, as the people have a mechanism in place to go around the elected officials if necessary. If they aren't taking advantage of it, it's their own fault.
It's just like the Electoral College at the federal level. People whine and complain about it all the time, but does anyone ever push to have it changed? There's action right now to push the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment, guaranteeing women equal rights) through the ratification process as it's been short a few states for decades now, but where's the action to demand a Constitutional Amendment to rework the electoral system? There isn't any. The people are getting the government they deserve.
I don't know if Wisconsin has voter-initiated ballot referenda at the state level. We can have county wide "advisory" referenda that are non binding on the state government.
>>> As always, the people are getting the government they elected and that they deserve.
No, there's no mechanism for "the people" to vote for a party in the legislature, as the people are divided up into districts.
The candidates whom I voted for, all won: Governor, assembly, senate. I didn't elect the government, and I don't deserve it. Who does?
Of course that's true for anybody who votes for any losing candidate. I think the problem for voting systems is to ensure that, if a vote falls short of a 100% consensus or massive landslide, can the government claim to be legitimately elected with no asterisk? I don't think this is a black and white question, and there is no perfect voting system, but my own opinion is that gerrymandering weighs against that claim of legitimacy.
As always, the people are getting the government they elected and that they deserve.