This is the Randy Rhodes Show. To speak with Randy, dial, 561, 270, 3844, that's 561, 270 3844.

Suppose we have a very tiny state of 50 people. 30 of them belong to the blue party, and 20 belong to the red party.

And just our luck, they all live in a nice, even grid with blues on one side of the state

and reds on the other.

Now let's say we need to divide the state into five districts.

Each district will send one representative to the house to represent the people.

Fortunately, because our citizens live in a neatly ordered grid, it's easy to draw five lengthy

districts, two for the reds, and three for the blues.

Voila!

Perfectly proportional representation, just as the founders intended.

Now let's say instead that the Blue Party controls the state government, and they get to decide

how the lines are drawn. Rather

than draw districts horizontally, they draw them vertically so that in each

district there are six blues and four reds. With a comfortable blue majority in the

state, each district elects a blue candidate to the house. The blues win five seats and the

reds don't get a single one. Well, finally,

what if the Red Party controls the state government? The Reds know they're at a numerical

disadvantage. But with some creative boundary drawing, they can slice the blue population

up such that they only get a majority in two districts. So despite making up 40% of the population,

the Reds win 60% of the seats. Not bad. This process of redrawing district lines to give

an advantage to one party over another is called gerrymandering and it's nothing new. The term

gerrymanders is named after early 19th century Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Jerry, who redrew the map of the

...