Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Gerrymandering dates back to the Founding Fathers

Gerry's Salamander map of Massachusetts districts

Gerry's Salamander, which led to the term "gerrymandering."

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

Most voters would assume that redistricting abuses are new to American politics.

Nope.

In fact, our Founding Fathers were stacking the deck when George Washington was still kicking. James Madison ran in a district designed for him so that he could be elected to Congress in order to be able to introduce the Bill of Rights.


“His friends were saying, ‘James, you have got to come back and campaign in your district because the district that has been drawn for you, as described by one person as having 1,000 eccentric angles,’” explained Sean O'Brien, executive director of the Center for the Constitution at Madison's home, Montpelier.

In fact, the term gerrymander came from another Founding Father, Elbridge Gerry (pronounced with a hard G), who served as governor of Massachusetts (and vice president under Madison).

“One of the offending districts kind of looked like a salamander, and so a newspaper called it Gerry's Salamander, and that became Gary Mander, then Jerry Mander,” says Harvard political scientist Nick Stephanopolus.

The push for modern redistricting reform began with the League of Women Voter in Iowa in the mid-1950s. Iowa is admired for taking the politics out of the process — today technocrats who work for the Legislature draw the maps. But in many ways Iowa is not really a model. The state is a square; the population is 97 percent white and with only four representatives it doesn’t take much careful crafting to draw fair districts.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Today 21 states have adopted variations of the commission model.

“If you look in aggregate, I'm a little bit less concerned with gerrymandering now than I was a decade ago, " says Stephanopolous. “Because in the current cycle it's balanced out more on a nationwide sort of aggregate basis. So, if you look at the House as a whole right now, I don't think it's significantly skewed in either party's favor by gerrymandering.”

As we discovered in our series on election reforms, however, even the reforms can be scammed. Listen to our podcast’s Episode 11, “Tinkering under the Hood of American politics,” to hear a doozy of a scandal in Washington state.

Tinkering around under the hood of American politics by Scott Klug

Reformers kick around ideas to improve American elections

Read on Substack

Read More

People voting
Paul J. Richards/Getty Images

Make safe states matter

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

It’s time for “safe state” voters to be more than nervous spectators and symbolic participants in presidential elections.

The latest poll averages confirm that the 2024 presidential election will again hinge on seven swing states. Just as in 2020, expect more than 95 percent of major party candidate campaign spending and events to focus on these states. Volunteers will travel there, rather than engage with their neighbors in states that will easily go to Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. The decisions of a few thousand swing state voters will dwarf the importance of those of tens of millions of safe-state Americans.

But our swing-state myopia creates an opportunity. Deprived of the responsibility to influence which candidate will win, safe state voters can embrace the freedom to vote exactly the way they want, including for third-party and independent candidates.

Keep ReadingShow less
Map of the United States

The National EduDemocracy Landscape Map provides a comprehensive overview of where states are approaching democracy reforms within education.

The democracy movement ignores education races at its peril

Dr. Mascareñaz is a leader in the Cornerstone Project, a co-founder of The Open System Institute and chair of the Colorado Community College System State Board.

One of my clearest, earliest memories of talking about politics with my grandfather, who helped the IRS build its earliest computer systems in the 1960s, was asking him how he was voting. He said, “Everyone wants to make it about up here,” he said as gestured high above his head before pointing to the ground. “But the truth is that it’s all down here.” This was Thomas Mascareñaz’s version of “all politics is local” and, to me, essential guidance for a life of community building.

As a leader in The Cornerstone Project and a co-founder of The Open System Institute I've spent lots of time thinking and working at the intersections of education and civic engagement. I've seen firsthand how the democratic process unfolds at all levels — national, statewide, municipal and, crucially, in our schools. It is from this vantage point that I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the democracy reform movement will not succeed unless it acts decisively in the field of education.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention

Vice President Kamala Harris closes out the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night.

Liao Pan/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images

The Democrats didn't have a meaningful primary, and no one cared

Lovit is a senior program officer and historian at the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, where he also hosts the podcast"The Context.”

In many respects, last week’s Democratic National Convention was indeed conventional. The party faithful gathered in a basketball arena in Chicago for speeches carefully calibrated to unite factions and define the central messages of the Harris-Walz campaign. It was a ceremony, a celebration and a storyline — just like the Republicans’ convention last month, and many conventions in years past.

For most of American history, party conventions served a different purpose. They were practical meetings where elites hammered out details of the party platform and wrangled over potential nominees. In a political world where party tickets at every level of government were determined in smoke-filled rooms, the convention was the biggest smoke-filled room of them all.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands making a heart and painted to look like an American flag
Chinnapong/Getty Images

A framework for democracy philanthropy

Stid is the executive director of Lyceum Labs, a fiscally sponsored project of the Defending Democracy Together Institute. The following is reposted with permission from his blog, The Art of Association.

It is challenging for philanthropic funders to get started and stay focused when it comes to strengthening democracy. The vagaries of our political system — really a complex system of systems cast on a continental scale — make it hard to know where to even begin. There are dozens of solutions that could be worthy of support. Alas, none are backed by dispositive evidence indicating that they are the single-best way forward. Then, every second and fourth year, elections reset the stage of democracy and reshuffle the cast of characters, often in unsettling ways.

Democracy's proximity to politics further complicates the philanthropic picture. The tax code bars foundations from backing or opposing candidates, parties and ballot measures. Many foundations take a belt-and-suspenders approach to this proscription on electioneering by avoiding anything that smacks of politics (as democracy-related causes frequently do). Other foundations, in contrast, push right up to the edge, seeking to exploit all the legal ways they can underwrite voter registration, education and participation, ostensibly on a nonpartisan basis, to further their political goals.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less