No. It had nothing to do with any Presidential election or Federal Senate election.
Gerrymandering only applies to the districts for the House of Representatives. They move them to favor the incumbents. Many districts the general electip means nothing the D or R will always win. And are often not even contested. These districts it is the primary election that matters. That is how AOC got in. She won the primary. General is a given. As Pelosi said "a glass of water witb a D next to it would win there."
Presidents are elected by 51 elections. (1 per state + DC) Bigger states have more Electorial votes but even the smallest state will always have at least 3 (same as the number of Congress people the have: min 2 Senators and 1 Rep...DC matches the smallest number (have no Senators)) The borders do not change they are the state border.
Senators are also voted on by the entire state.
Gerrymandering is changing the border of the representive district to make it easier for the incumbent to be reelected. The districts are redrawn ever 10yrs after the Census is completed.
I love ya, I do and I know you know your stuff? But I am not going to say thank you yet, until I study this and make sure you are not being weird. Give me a minute or an hour. I am gonna read it, I'm at work.
The "winner takes all" nature of the EC is a built in gerrymander. Case in point, Florida 2000. Dubya apparently won the State by a bee's genitalia (rumors of a crooked count remain). A sane system would have sent 15 R and 14 D delegates to the College - he won it by less than that but a 50/50 split with the extra delegate being Republican would have been a fair representation of the result, Floridians voted that way. Bush2 got all 29 delegates.
No. You need to look up the definition of Gerrymander. It has nothing to do with the electoral college.
They states are free to distribute their EC vote however they want. The decision must be made before the election. If all states split by popular vote then it would take the importance of a national candidate having to appeal to the nation rather than just a few larger states.
This post was edited by my2cents at September 16, 2019 8:52 PM MDT
One vote equals one vote, that's the definition of democracy. One Wyoming vote equals seven California votes, that's a gerrymander - but splitting each State according to the way the votes fall is a lot fairer than the current system. A setup such as the one described in my first answer means that a Presidential candidate has to appeal to everybody rather than swaying a few undecideds. If you get a State by a small margin, you get half the delegates plus one.
Under the current system, people in NY or CA might as well not bother turning out to vote - their votes just don't count. THAT is what is simply wrong.
Thrifty defined it exactly below. You may disagree with the electoral college system but that does not make it gerrymandered.
If I lived in CA as a Republican I would not bother or in IL etc. If that were the only thing on the ballot. But it never is. So any who stays home for that reason is missing something.
Gerrymander means drawing boundaries to create an advantage for one political party or the other. It is a legislative issue in the states. Elections are not gerrymandered. It is just the name given to the act of redrawing districts to favor a party or a race or a candidate.
This post was edited by Thriftymaid at September 17, 2019 1:01 PM MDT
Baba 