The Parties Know They’re Losing, That’s Why They’re Redrawing Districts

Authored by Lura Forcum & Brett Loyd via RealClearPolitics,

Partisan affiliation in the U.S. has sharply declined over the past two decades. Today, only 28% of Americans identify with either the Republican or Democratic party, down from 34% in 2004. This drop in party loyalty helps explain the rise of the independent voter, who now make up 43% of the electorate. But just as the electorate becomes less partisan, the political system is becoming more so – thanks to recent gerrymandering in Texas, California, and potentially many more states. It’s no wonder so many Americans are walking away from the parties that have spent more energy protecting their turf than earning voters’ trust.

The overlooked plurality has woken up to the absurdity of a political system that no longer serves them. But outrage alone won’t fix what’s broken. It’s time to get organized.

The independent movement offers a way forward: candidates and voters who believe politics should serve the public good, not the party line. It’s a movement grounded in accountability and common sense and a coalition of voters tired of being divided and ready to reclaim a system that should have belonged to them all along.

But the two parties spend more time dismissing these voters as uninformed or spoilers than they do trying to court them. And their latest tactic for maintaining control is to gerrymander districts to insulate themselves from the effects of their toxic brands.

Partisan mapmakers try to “pack” as many voters of the opposing parties into districts they already control, leaving fewer opposition voters in surrounding districts. They also “crack” districts by spreading opposition voters over as wide an area as possible, making it unlikely they can form a majority anywhere. 

This gamesmanship reveals the two-party duopoly’s weakness. The fewer true believers each side has, the more they must rely on engineered maps instead of energized bases. And aside from being cynical, gerrymandering turns up the temperature of political acrimony in multiple ways. 

First, gerrymandering not only influences who wins an election, but it can also determine who runs. When district lines are drawn to guarantee one party’s victory, the real contest happens in the primary, when that party’s candidate is selected. 

When general elections are neck and neck, candidates play to the middle, appealing to moderates and independents, resulting in a candidate that is more balanced and appealing to voters with varying political beliefs. In primary races, on the other hand, only the most partisan voters tend to show up, rewarding candidates who play to partisan extremes instead. By making general elections a foregone conclusion, gerrymandering practices remove this check on extremism. 

At the same time, partisan redistricting makes many people feel powerless. Gerrymandering makes it harder for voters to give feedback to their representatives, since districts are increasingly unresponsive to voter preferences. When voters are denied responsive representation, frustration builds. 

For decades, dissatisfaction with the two parties has manifested as political disengagement, with fewer Americans turning out to vote than in most other developed countries. But frustration can also lead to transformative change when channeled into civic action: voting, volunteering and organizing. 

While we’d like to see politically homeless voters supporting independent candidates, they can also have a tremendous corrective impact on the political system by split-ticket and swing voting. When independents cast split tickets or swing their support between parties, they reclaim their right to choose political leaders who best represent their values and priorities. They vote for ideas and solutions – instead of being forced to vote according to party affiliation – while reminding candidates that they need to earn voter loyalty. 

Consider the great movements of America’s past, like abolition, civil rights, and women’s suffrage, which turned public discontent into lasting reform. Dissatisfaction can lead to a powerful opening once people decide that enough is enough. 

The independent movement’s strength lies in the very people the system tries to sideline: citizens who demand that political leaders behave with decency, who still believe in their right to say no to ineffective and unresponsive elected officials, and who believe in the American experiment. If gerrymandering is the parties’ last defense, civic engagement is the people’s first.

The very act of gerrymandering is a public admission that the two parties cannot win on a level playing field. It reveals their fear of a nonpartisan electorate and their complete dependence on a rigged system. The good news for independents is that these maneuvers fuel voters’ collective frustration, providing a political opening to finally end the two-party stranglehold. From local offices to Congress, independent candidates can represent a new era of politics, one where voters choose their leaders, not the other way around. 

Lura Forcum is president of the Independent Center, a nonprofit organization of political independents. She is a consumer psychologist and a former professor of marketing.

 Brett Loyd is a polling and research consultant for the Independent Center as well as the CEO of the Bullfinch Group.