Editing Gerrymandering (section)

===Effect on electoral competition===

[[File:Gerrymandering 9-6.png|thumb|upright=1.2|How gerrymandering can influence electoral results on a [[Voting system#Majoritarian systems|non-proportional system]]. For a state with 3 equally sized districts, 15 voters and 2 parties:
{{Legend|#cacdff|text='''■'''|textcolor=#642eff|Plum – 9 voters}}
{{Legend|#cacdff|text='''⬤'''|textcolor=#ff6600|Orange – 6 voters}}
{{ordered list
| list-style-type = lower-alpha
| item_style = margin-left: -25px;|3–0 win to ''Plum''—a disproportional result considering the statewide 9:6 ''Plum'' majority.|''Orange'' wins the central ('''+''' shaped) district while ''Plum'' wins the upper and lower districts.  The 1–2 result reflects the statewide vote ratio.|Gerrymandering techniques ensure a 2–1 win to the statewide minority ''Orange'' party.
}}]]
<!-- We should mention the claim that contention over districts creates a major distraction for the legislature -->

Some political science research suggests that contrary to common belief, gerrymandering does not decrease electoral competition and can even increase it. Some say that, rather than packing the voters of their party into uncompetitive districts, party leaders tend to prefer to spread their party's voters into multiple districts so that their party can win more races.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Masket |first1=Seth E. |last2=Winburn |first2=Jonathan |last3=Wright |first3=Gerald C. |title=The Gerrymanderers Are Coming! Legislative Redistricting Won't Affect Competition or Polarization Much, No Matter Who Does It |journal=PS: Political Science & Politics |date=January 2012 |volume=45 |issue=1 |pages=39–43 |doi=10.1017/S1049096511001703 |s2cid=45832354 }}</ref> (See scenario '''(c)''' in the box.) This may lead to increased competition. Instead of gerrymandering, some researchers find that other factors, such as partisan polarization and the incumbency advantage, have driven the recent{{when?|date=January 2025}} decreases in electoral competition.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Forgette |first1=Richard |last2=Winkle |first2=John W. |title=Partisan Gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act |journal=Social Science Quarterly |date=March 2006 |volume=87 |issue=1 |pages=155–173 |doi=10.1111/j.0038-4941.2006.00374.x }}</ref> Similarly, a 2009 study found that "congressional polarization is primarily a function of the differences in how Democrats and Republicans represent the same districts rather than a function of which districts each party represents or the distribution of constituency preferences."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=McCarty|first1=Nolan|last2=Poole|first2=Keith T.|last3=Rosenthal|first3=Howard|date=July 2009|title=Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?|url=http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~miaryc/PEW/Nolan_McCarty_PEWCaltech.pdf|journal=American Journal of Political Science|volume=53|issue=3|pages=666–680|citeseerx=10.1.1.491.3072|doi=10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00393.x|access-date=24 October 2017|archive-date=30 June 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100630200505/http://www.hss.caltech.edu/%7Emiaryc/PEW/Nolan_McCarty_PEWCaltech.pdf}}</ref>

One state in which gerrymandering has arguably had an adverse effect on electoral competition is California. In 2000, a bipartisan redistricting effort redrew congressional district lines in ways that all but guaranteed incumbent victories; as a result, California had only one congressional seat change hands between 2000 and 2010. In response to this obvious gerrymandering, a 2010 referendum in California gave the power to redraw congressional district lines to the [[California Citizens Redistricting Commission]], which had been created to draw California State Senate and Assembly districts by a 2008 referendum. In stark contrast to the redistricting efforts that followed the 2000 census, the redistricting commission has created a number of the most competitive congressional districts in the country.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/us/california-congressional-delegation-braces-for-change.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220102/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/us/california-congressional-delegation-braces-for-change.html |archive-date=2 January 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live|title=New Faces Set For California in the Capitol|last=Nagourney|first=Adam|date=14 February 2012|newspaper=The New York Times}}{{cbignore}}</ref>