Gerry-Neutering
 |
| By Elkanah Tisdale (1771-1835) (often falsely attributed to Gilbert Stuart)[1] - Originally published in the Boston Centinel, 1812., Public Domain |
Tired of gerrymandering tilting the balance in favor of one political party and all the fake news propaganda focused on swing voters (Cambridge Analytica’s “persuadables”) to decide elections? Gerryneutering is a simple plan to neutralize the effects of both of these cheating strategies.
But before that, a quick recap of gerrymandering.
 |
| Steve Nass [CC BY-SA 4.0] |
Gerrymandering, is a funny word for partisan redistricting, in which those in power redraw the voting districts to give themselves a better chance of winning subsequent elections, and districts often end up looking like funny shapes. Districts get redrawn every 10 years with the Census, and the GOP strategy in the last two decades has been to implement Project RedMap, whereby focused efforts on winning state legislatures majorities gave them this power to redraw the maps and create their advantage.
Map drawing may sound innocuous, but look at how it affected the 2016 elections: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 Million votes (a 2 percentage point advantage, but lost the electoral college vote by 77 votes (a 14 percentage point deficit and a 16 point swing!) To make matters worse, only 77,744 people across 3 states determined the U.S. presidential election for a population of greater than 330M. It is also estimated that 16 Republican seats in congress are a direct result of gerrymandering. Republicans clearly have an advantage due to unfair maps.
The good news is that most states agree on the solution and are moving towards independent commissions to draw districts, and the courts have been able to overturn highly partisan maps to enforce fairness. The bad news is that reform takes time and the Republicans still have the advantage going into 2020, where they can continue to build their lead in unfair maps.
Here’s where gerryneutering, or the “Democratic Migration,” comes in. Rather than go canvassing and spend money on political ads to appeal to swing voters, simply convince people from blue strongholds to move to swing states and vote there in the 2020 election. The total number of people needed to move is relatively low, Democrats have a clear advantage in numbers, and the relative cost of living in most swing states is low, making it affordable for folks who want to make a difference. Moreover, the people willing to move are resilient to fake news propaganda and their views will have long-lasting effects on their new community that go well beyond the 2020 campaign.
How gerryneutering works:
- Run a relocation program that pays a person 3 months of rent and moving costs to move to a swing state after proof of registering to vote in that state before the 2020 election. (Most states require 30d before becoming a resident, and voter registration can take up to 30d, plus 30d of buffer)
- Market the program to Democrats from blue strongholds (i.e. CA and NY). Potential slogans include: "move to save your country" or "bring economic growth to the midwest" and "make your vote count"
- Let them vote!
Sounds simple, but can this actually work? Is it feasible from a cost perspective? How many people need to move and where? So I ran the numbers… in fact, I wrote a linear optimization to run the numbers, and here’s what it calculated:
Using data from the 2016 Federal Election Results as well as the 2018 HUD report for Fair Market Rents, a minimum budget of $841M for a relocation program that would move ~150K people to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin blue and result in a Democratic Electoral College win!
 |
| Output of the Linear Optimization |
So it’s possible and can work, but…
$841M is a lot of money, is this too expensive?
Overall campaign spending was $6.5B in 2016, so this budget is a little less than a third of one political party’s total expenditures for all 2016 campaigns. Putting it in the realm of possibility. The program is paying much more per user, but keep in mind it’s only paying for conversion, people that actually move, which is more effective and efficient than political advertising.
Hold on, isn’t paying people to vote illegal?
Paying someone to vote is illegal. That’s why a gerryneutering program stops at voter registration. Ultimately, the person may not show up to vote on election day.
OK, but do swing states have the housing infrastructure to support an influx of new people?
Many of the battleground states that flipped the election have seen better days, and have the infrastructure to accommodate larger populations, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This would be more of an unknown for smaller states like Arkansas or Alaska, where a housing shortage could increase the cost of moving. However, municipalities are always in the business of attracting residents, like Tulsa, so my sense is that they would figure out a way to make it work.
Do these people exist, those willing to drop everything and change their lives?
Inertia is the biggest challenge of all for the migration. After all, a) moving is hard and most people hate doing it, b) moves for people with families and jobs are at least twice as hard, c) people are comfortable living in their current state, and d) the unknown, what will people do when they arrive, potentially without a job, in a new city?
For the migration to succeed, it must be framed as a movement, a chance to fight for your country and ensure everlasting democracy. Yes, it’s a sacrifice, but it can also be seen as an adventure. Why shouldn’t it be as enthralling as a study abroad program for a year? In fact, it’s probably more interesting and a more influential experience for them and the country, with first world amenities. Are people too selfish to leave the comfort of their home city and people that share their views? Why not experience different cultures and make new connections? Isn’t that the definition of the American melting pot? And if it works, the sacrifice turns into a gift - the start of a new, more meaningful life where one discovers what matters in jobs, community, and quality of life.
Maybe, but if this plan is so good, can’t the GOP just copy it?
Therein lies the beauty of the strategy - Republicans simply don’t have the numbers to counter a properly implemented Democratic Migration. Republicans would have to win on their ideas, bring more people into their party before mounting a counterattack. And that’s what politics in a democracy should be about: the ideas, not the party.
Wait, isn’t this just carpetbagging?
Carpetbagging tends to refer to opportunistic politicians who move somewhere to win an election. This is similar, but the other way around, like bagging carpets, where the voters move somewhere to win an election. I accept the analogy, and though it gets a bad rap, it’s a lot better than voter suppression, voter fraud, election interference, or gerrymandering.
Are you sure this will work in 2020?
No. The solver can find a solution because we have all the data from 2016, but it’s a historical optimization, not a predictive model. Many factors can change: the set of swing states in 2020 may change, political opinions change, people move between states naturally, turnout may be different, etc. Adding a predictive aspect to the model is possible and should be considered if one were to implement this proposal in earnest.
And that’s where you come in, I’m excited to share my work (github repository and an interactive notebook) to prove it out.
Does it make sense? Are you convinced? Maybe I made a mistake, missed something, or used incorrect assumptions? Send me pull requests and ideas for improvement.
Because if gerryneutering passes muster, there’s a clear path to balancing the US democratic system of government in 2020.
