As the dust settles following the 2010 midterm elections, we’re back to agonizing over the political nature of spatial relationships. Both sides are gearing up for the state-level redistricting fights that will occur with the arrival of data from the most recent nationwide census. Gerrymandering is the oldest geostatistical art, but it doesn’t have a long history in the public eye. This could be intentional; dividing a republic into fair, representative districts is both a philosophical and a practical exercise, mind-boggling in its complexity. Small wonder that it becomes a game of party advantage, played by a select few.
Two recent projects have sought to shed some light on the process of redistricting:
- The Redistricting Game, produced by Annenberg Center for Communication and the USC School of Cinematic Arts. It raises all sorts of insights about how the current process is tailor-made to reinforce partisanship, including this excellent point by David Winston, a former RNC mapping strategist:
. . . When I, as a mapmaker, have more of an impact than the voters, the system is out of whack.
- David Sparks could be referred to as a “Cartographic Political Scientist”. His recent work on redistricting alternatives should - and most likely will not - be considered at the national level as a fairest way to subdivide the population into voting units. In a manner not unlike the geodemographic segmentation analyses offered by GeoSprocket, he’s created voting districts based on the greatest possible contiguity, or the shortest travel distance for voters to their district center. This is a stated - but largely ignored - goal of redistricting today; contiguity is usually only considered when it works to party advantage.
Demo “Contiguous” Districts in North Carolina
Geospatial technologies have proven to be essential tools for partisan demographic division in politics. In a representative democracy, how can spatial analysis be used to promote real representation?