class 9a: political geography ii

23
Class 9a: Political Geography II • Reapportionment and redistricting • Gerrymandering • Local politics

Upload: prem

Post on 25-Feb-2016

17 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Class 9a: Political Geography II. Reapportionment and redistricting Gerrymandering Local politics. Proportional representation. VA Plan vs. NJ Plan  Great Compromise Large states wanted proportional repr. Small states wanted equal repr. 3/5 Compromise on slaves. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Class 9a: Political Geography II

• Reapportionment and redistricting • Gerrymandering• Local politics

Page 2: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Proportional representation

• VA Plan vs. NJ Plan Great Compromise• Large states wanted proportional repr.• Small states wanted equal repr.• 3/5 Compromise on slaves

Page 3: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Proportional representation

• 100 Senators, 435 Representatives• Basis for Electoral College• All votes are not equal

– Minimum representation– Winner-take-all

Page 4: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Reapportionment

• Population changes with migration• Need to reapportion seats• Based on Census• Every state keeps at least one Representative• Method of equal proportions

Page 5: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

2000 Reapportionment

Page 6: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Redistricting

• Redrawing district boundaries based on reapportionment

• In most states, done by legislature• Meant to maintain equality of votes• Can be manipulated

Page 7: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Gerrymandering

• Discriminatory redistricting• Consolidating power• Diluting opponents’ power

Page 8: Class 9a:  Political Geography II
Page 9: Class 9a:  Political Geography II
Page 10: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Gerrymandering• Racist gerrymandering after Civil War

– Put all minorities in one district– Dilute them among all districts

• 1982 Voting Rights Act– Majority-minority districts– Constitutional issues

Page 11: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

IL: 4th District

NY: 18th District

TX: 12th District

FL: 22nd and 23rd Districts

GA: 13th District

Page 12: Class 9a:  Political Geography II
Page 13: Class 9a:  Political Geography II
Page 14: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Gerrymandering and democracy

• Preserves incumbents– In 1992, 61% of races won by >20%– In 2002, 80% of races won by > 20%;

average margin of victory 39%– 1 of 53 seats in CA competitive

Page 15: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Gerrymandering and democracy

• Removes decision-making from voters• “Candidates choose the voters”• More polarized Congress

Page 16: Class 9a:  Political Geography II
Page 17: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Local politics

• Hierarchy of jurisdictions• Special-purpose districts• Local governments and urban sprawl

Page 18: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Hierarchy of jurisdictions

• First order divisions– Largest units within a state– Provinces, states, oblasts, prefectures– Unitary vs. federal

Page 19: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Hierarchy of jurisdictions

• Second order divisions– Counties, townships, parishes, boroughs– 3000 in US; from 24 to 20,000 miles2 and

from 100 to 8 million residents• Functions depend on the state

– Law enforcement, highways, taxes, statistics, welfare, elections

Page 20: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Hierarchy of jurisdictions

• Minor civil divisions– Townships, cities, villages

• Land use and zoning• Growth by annexation

Page 21: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Special purpose districts

• Consequence of federal system• Territory and organization for one purpose• Fire, water, flood control, mosquito control,

irrigation, etc.• Over 35,000 in 2002

Page 22: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

School districts

• Land granted to new territories (1 section per township)

• Land grant colleges• Historically, little federal input• Over 15,000 in 2002• Funding depends on local tax income

Page 23: Class 9a:  Political Geography II

Urban sprawl

• Too much local decision-making• Each MCD acts in its own interests

– Maximize tax revenue– Minimize need for services

• Reluctance for regional government