Random Acts of Eccentricity

Gerrymandering relies on two-party predictability

Map-drawers (often state legislatures controlled by one party) can carve districts based on predictable voting patterns—Dem vs. GOP.

This works because in a binary race, even a 51% edge guarantees total control of that seat.

But…

—

 Enter a viable third (or fourth) party:

Now the math goes chaotic:

A district that’s “safe” at 53% suddenly isn’t, if 10% of voters now go Green, Libertarian, Forward, No Labels, etc.

Spoiler risk and vote splitting create unpredictable outcomes.

The old formulas for “cracking” (splitting opposition across districts) and “packing” (concentrating them into one district) break down when there’s more than one opposition.

> In short: you can’t gerrymander what you can’t predict.

—

 Bonus effect: gerrymandering becomes riskier

Parties could accidentally create their own opposition by drawing a district that leans heavily toward them—but fractures due to ideological differences (e.g., MAGA vs. traditional conservatives, or progressives vs. establishment Dems).

That uncertainty:

Discourages overreach

Incentivizes fairer maps

Empowers coalition strategies

—

⚠ Caveat: Still need systemic reform

Adding new parties isn’t a magic bullet alone. You still need:

Ranked Choice Voting to prevent spoilers

Independent redistricting commissions in more states

Ballot access reform