±2%

Introduction

Early in the process of drawing legislative districts, choices must be made between competing ideals. Some of the most common are population equality, respect for civil boundaries, compact shape, and demographic affinity. If these are balanced, districts can be optimized to reflect the diversity of the electorate. If any single ideal is elevated to an absolute, the others must be compromised.

The United States Supreme Court has elevated above all else the constitutional "one person, one vote" principle, a standard requiring that representatives in Congress be elected from districts as nearly equal in population as possible. In applying this standard, each state maps its districts to a close population tolerance. Because a combination of complete communities is unlikely to fall within this range, adherence to the population standard often requires splitting cohesive communities between districts. The standard is used as justification for not only a minimum number of straightforward divisions, but also some of the most flagrant gerrymanders in contemporary American politics.

One alternative to this situation would involve relaxing the population straitjacket to allow districts to be stretched around communities.

In Ward Cleaver's 2% series, the standard has been relaxed to permit districts up to 2% above or below the average population in the state. This is an arbitrary number. A different degree of leeway may be chosen.

Ward Cleaver's loosening of the population standard allows district boundaries to stretch to fit many more civil, regional, physical, and neighborhood boundaries. At any one time, only a few under-ratio (smaller population than the average-size district) counties need to be divided in order to meet the ±2% standard. (Because of their location, Chester County, PA; Camden County, NJ; and Plymouth County, MA frequently turn up on this list. Other counties that might be split include Burlington and Monmouth Counties, NJ and Monterey County, CA, as well as the City of Chesapeake, VA.) Obviously, it is necessary to divide all counties, cities, and towns larger than the maximum district size allowed in the state.

Mathematical measurement of Congressional Districts (1980)

If each state could be divided into districts exactly equal in population, as the U.S. Supreme Court holds ideal, the districts would still vary in population from state to state. In 1980, the population of all 50 states, 225,867,174, might have been divided so that the smallest majority, the smallest 218 districts, would contain a population of 110,154,114, or 48.77% of the total. The largest minority, the largest 217 districts, would contain a the other 115,713,060, or 51.23% of the 50-state total.

Alternatively, with the range loosened to allow each district to stray up to 2% from the average for a state, the smallest 218 districts would likely contain a population of 109,916,524, or 48.66% of the 50-state total. The largest minority, the largest 217 districts, would contain the other 115,950,650, or 51.34% of the total. The public would benefit much and lose little.

The population transferred from the smallest majority to the largest minority by relaxing the standard, 237,590, is 46.8% of an average district, or 1/951 of the 50-state population. The smallest majority produced by the "ideal" system is already 2,779,473, or 5.35 districts short of the 50% which would reflect a true majority. By comparison, the reduction of smallest majority does not appear to be significant when compared with the number of communities nationwide which stand to receive cohesive representation.

Here is how Congressional districts with two percent leeway compare statistically to absolute equality of districts within each state:

MEASURE	IDEAL	2%
Year	1980	1980
Count (number of districts)	435	435
Total 50-state population	225,867,174	225,867,174
Average population per district	519,234.9	519,234.9
Largest district population	690,178 (South Dakota)	690,178 (South Dakota)
Smallest district population	393,345 (Montana 1st & 2nd)	393,052 (Montana 2nd)
Standard deviation	24,917.4	25,570.6
Variance	620,877,810.4	653,856,933.2
Median district		520,363 (California 44th)
Smallest majority (smallest 218 districts)	110,154,114	109,916,524
	48.77%	48.66%
Largest minority (largest 217 districts)	115,713,060	115,950,650
	51.23%	51.34%

The slight change in variance seems small compared to the number of communities nationwide that stand to benefit from cohesive representation.

Are legislative districts obsolete?

Visit Center for Voting and Democracy.