Turn the same votes into different seat counts
Three steps, the way the exam actually works: work through the lab, write down your own measurements, then answer a 6-point free response. What you recorded goes to the grader with your writing, so a conclusion that does not follow from your own numbers will cost you the point — exactly as it would with a real reader.
Run the investigation
- 1Choose the Clustered 60/40 voter distribution and note the statewide vote share it reports.
- 2Apply the Fair (columns) map and record how many of the five seats Blue wins.
- 3Switch to the map drawn to favor Red and record Blue’s seat count again.
- 4Switch to the map drawn to favor Blue and record the seat count once more.
Booting the lab…
Record what you measured
These are your numbers, not ours. The grader sees them, so your conclusions have to follow from what you actually recorded.
| Blue’s statewide vote share | % |
|---|---|
| Blue seats under the Fair (columns) map | of 5 |
| Blue seats under the Red-favoring map | of 5 |
| Blue seats under the Blue-favoring map | of 5 |
Answer the free response
Every map you drew used the identical set of voters. (a) Using your recorded seat counts, describe how closely each map translated the statewide vote share into seats, and identify which map produced the largest divergence. Note that with five districts each seat is worth twenty percent of the legislature. (b) Explain the two standard techniques of partisan gerrymandering — packing and cracking — and identify which one the map you examined relies on, supporting your answer with the seat pattern you recorded. (c) District populations must be roughly equal. Identify the constitutional principle that requires this and the case law that established it. (d) A group sues in federal court claiming a map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Explain the likely outcome under current federal doctrine, and identify one legal avenue that remains open to challengers.
Sign in to have this graded and saved to your progress.