Drawn Together: Can Math Nerds Beat Gerrymandering?

How to spot a gerrymandered congressional district.

Illinois map: National Atlas, Texas map: Center for Range Voting

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Read also: Can one Democrat hell-bent on revenge reverse Tom DeLay’s redistricting power grab?

The art of drawing congressional districts to benefit one party or another goes back to the earliest days of the republic. Detailed census and election data have made it even easier to construct electorates with an all-but-guaranteed political leaning. You can usually spot a gerrymandered district by its wacky boundaries. Or you can use this formula (PDF), developed by John Mackenzie, a professor of resource economics and geographic information systems at the University of Delaware:



Mackenzie’s formula gives lower gerrymandering scores to districts with a low perimeter-to-area ratio (like the entire state of Wyoming). Higher scores go to irregularly shaped districts, like Illinois’ pincer-like 4th district (above).

The formula doesn’t take into account how a district got its odd contours. Take North Carolina’s 12th, which has the country’s third-highest gerrymandering score. Drawn as a majority-black district in 1992, the snaking “I-85 district” used to be barely wider than the interstate in some places. After being found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it was redrawn Texas in 1997 with a slight white plurality. But it’s kept its meandering shape, and its representative—Rep. Mel Watt, a black Democrat.

So what might an ungerrymandered nation look like? Mathematician Warren D. Smith, cofounder of RangeVoting.org, has used an algorithm to redraw every state’s districts in a geometrically precise manner that ignores party lines (left). Would his solution shake up the partisan or racial composition of Congress? Who knows. But it sure would look pretty.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend