Final Exam

Name
Professor’s name
Unit
Date
Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is defined as the process of achieving a political advantage through the manipulation of the lawmaking districts. Wisconsin applied gerrymandering to favor Republicans at the expense of Democrat legislators. In the process of gerrymandering, a particular political party is given an advantage by manipulating district jurisdictions. The method of manipulating the boundaries of legislative districts is not only used to gain a political advantage, but it is also used to favor or work against ethnic, racial, religious or linguistic groups. Gerrymandering has been applied in two ways; one is to strengthen and the other is to weaken the influence of minority voters on a political party. The process of gerrymandering has been in the United States since the year 1810, and it first applied in Massachusetts. Executives and other ruling officials use gerrymandering to place their parties at an advantage hence it is a prejudiced way of winning leadership positions. Recently, the state of Wisconsin was gerrymandered to favor the Republicans. The Republicans had violated the rights embedded in the constitution since the rule that assigns each a single vote was not observed. The gerrymandering process applied in Wisconsin did not favor Democrat candidates since the legislative jurisdictions were manipulated to place candidates affiliated with the Republican Party at an advantage over their Democrat counterparts (“Wisconsin’s Gerrymander Being Struck Down Should Scare Republicans Nationwide – The Washington Post”).

The Democrats were unfairly distributed in the lawmaking districts hence giving the Republican candidates the upper hand in the elections. Therefore, gerrymandering is a strategy that was used in Wisconsin to give Republican executives an advantage over the Democrats by manipulating the mapping practice of the legislative districts.
Impacts of gerrymandering
The manipulation of legislative boundaries has an impact on the leaders put in authority. The congressional districts are set with prejudice hence making the voters put leaders they should not have elected to power. The jurisdictions are set with prejudice hence placing candidates from certain political groups at an advantage. What happened in Wisconsin is that the legislative boundaries were set out in ways to place candidates from the Republican Party to be advantaged than those from the Democrat party. The legislative districts were unfairly designated hence disadvantaging both voters and candidates from affiliated to the Democrat Party. Therefore, what stands out is the fact that voters wanting to vote for candidates from their ideal political parties could not do so because the boundaries marking the lawmaking districts were set out manipulatively. Therefore, executives from the Democrat side could not defeat candidates aligned with the Republican Party. Therefore, gerrymandering hampers the choice of political leaders since the lawmaking districts are set out in ways to disadvantage other candidates.
Gerrymandering further promotes separation in a nation by ethnicity or political affiliation. Setting boundaries to place some candidates at an advantage could support segregation in a nation since the interests of all citizens are not addressed. Common concern forms jurisdictions of lawmaking districts; hence the elected officials may not represent those individuals having differentiated interests. Gerrymandering, therefore, works against the unity of the citizens in a state since it promotes favoritism. However, when gerrymandering is applied in the right way it will favor minorities hence improving their representation in politics. Lastly, the act of planned division of legislative districts has positive and negative effects depending on how citizens are represented.
Politico survey
The survey conducted by Politico involved sixty mayors who represented major metro areas such as San Francisco. Eighty-five percent of the respondents were democratic s while ten percent were Republicans. The survey is different differs from a public opinion poll because of the wider variety of issues covered. The survey was conducted to get the urban executives opinions on the numbers released by the Census Bureau that showed gains made in cities such as the increase in the median income earners (“Mayors to Trump: Enough With the Hellhole Talk, Already”). Unlike in a public opinion poll which is normally more focused and brief, the survey tackled a lot of urban issues. The survey also differed from a public opinion poll since polls employ simpler instrument designs. Questions asked in public opinion polls mostly involve straightforward answers such as yes or no. in the Mayors survey, the research was more flexible .explanations were given as part of the answers. For example in explaining the success and progress made in his city Michael Hancock of Denver explained that they had created over sixty thousand jobs in the past five years. Also, the analysis and reporting of the findings from the survey were more detailed unlike in public opinion polls where the information is usually summarized. The data collected was extensively analyzed. For example, in analyzing the diminishing confidence of constituents and the mayors, the analysis looked at the opinions of the major cities, smaller cities and even cities in swing cities. This led to a more detailed analysis of the report.
The survey carried out by Politico was scientific. The survey involved a sample of respondents who represented the population of the target population very well. The eighty-five percent Democratic mayors and ten percent Republican mayors were appropriate since most of the mayors are Democrats. Involving democrats and republican mayors ensured that the survey was not prejudiced hence making it scientific. The mayors were chosen also represented a variety of regions such as swing states and it also covered different economic regions. The collection of data from various respondents qualifies it as a scientific research. The extensive way the questionnaires were answered revealed that the respondents were willing participants and hence they gave adequate and relevant answers.
The survey involved the analysis of numbers from the census bureau. Hence the survey involved analysis of reliable and valid data. The methodology used in the research involved sampling of eighty percent of Democrat mayors and ten percent of Republican mayors. Though this may be deemed to contribute to a biased survey, the methodology does not affect my faith in the information provided by the research. This is because despite more mayors being Democrats the samples used were a good representation of the target population. At the same time, the nature of questionnaires used eliminated the possibility of biasedness in the survey. The questionnaire construction improved the accuracy of the responses from the survey. There were differences and split in the opinions held by mayors on various issues such as incentives and investments for entrepreneurs. This demonstrates that methodology used was good. The survey hence was able to give an accurate overview of the mayors’ opinion on the current status of their cities. The wide range in a variety of issues addressed in the survey also contributed in making the inquiry result in positive findings. I do not have faith on the survey since it was biased on the selection of interviewees.

Works Cited
“Mayors to Trump: Enough With the Hellhole Talk, Already.” POLITICO Magazine, www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/mayors-survey-census-poverty-incomes-2016-214384.
“Wisconsin’s Gerrymander Being Struck Down Should Scare Republicans Nationwide – The Washington Post.” Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/23/wisconsins-gerrymander-being-struck-down-should-scare-republicans-nationwide/?utm_term=.71aba408ab6d.