Advocates of shifting the task of drawing United States House districts from state legislatures to independent commissions are likely to claim which of the following as an advantage of independent commissions?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question asks about the claimed advantage of shifting redistricting from state legislatures to independent commissions.
First, note that the provided answer options are missing from the data you gave me, so I cannot analyze each listed alternative. I will still address the core concept and the identified correct statement, and explain why that is seen as an advantage.
Option under consideration (the identified correct statement): 'Independent commissions significantly reduce the influence of partisan gerrymandering in the redistricting process.' This aligns with the primary rationale behind using independent commissions: they aim to reduce the impact of partisan bias and legislative self-interest, leading to more neutral district shapes and fairer representation. By design, these commissions are outside the direct control of political parties, use transparent criteria, and follow objective criteria, which collectively curb gerrymandering tactics that favor one party.
Why this is considered an advantage: gerrymandering relies on manipulating district boundaries to maximize political advantage; removing the districting task from partisan legislatures adds safeguards against partisan skew and improves the likelihood of competitive or proportionate outcomes. The independence and established procedures are intended to produce districts that better reflect actual voting patterns rather than the strategic goals of a political faction.
Potential reasons opponents might raise (for completeness, though not requested here): they might argue that commissions can still be influenced by hidden biases, or that process choices (competition, representation, and criteria) could still entrench incumbents if not carefully designed. However, the mainstream argument in favor of independent commissions is that, on balance, they reduce partisan manipulation compared to legislative redistricting.
If there were additional answer options provided, I would examine each one in relation to how well it captures the anticipated benefits of independent commissions, such as reducing partisan bias, increasing transparency, promoting competitive districts, and improving public trust in the redistricting process. Since the set of options is missing, the analysis centers on the identified correct statement and its justification.

APGOV25 T4. Ch. 4 Test MCQ

Advocates of shifting the task of drawing United States House districts from state legislatures to independent commissions are likely to claim which of the following as an advantage of independent commissions?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Which of the following is generally true of the gerrymandering of congressional districts?

Which of the following is generally true of the gerrymandering of congressional districts?

______ is a type of gerrymandering in which certain types of people are spread across many legislative districts, thus diluting their political power.

Mark the statement below true if that statement is always true and false otherwise. By skillful gerrymandering, one can get any distribution of seats among competing parties.

Gerrymandering refers to the acts of a person called Gerry in drawing district boundaries.

What does the term gerrymandering refer to?

More Practical Tools for International Students

Exam Browser Assistant

Stylized Writing Assistant

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation Assistant

In-Class Translation Assistant

Class Notes Assistant

Quiz Search Assistant

Past Exam Questions by School

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler