Gerrymandering Propaganda.
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Gerrymandering is actually something I found on this website that has even more fallacies that the book doesn't cover: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/here-are-15-common-data-fallacies-to-avoid/
Gerrymandering is the deliberate change of a geographical location in order to change the results, usually meaning apportion in order to take the biggest benefit. For instance if you take the a democratic election in Texas, United States which is 60% Democrat and 40% Republican, Democrats win right? However, politicians use tactics such as Gerrymandering in order to alter the result in specific shapes/methods showed on wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#:~:text=In%20representative%20democracies%2C%20Gerrymandering%20(%2F,economic%20class%20within%20the%20constituency.
Is this a fallacy?
Comments on Question
You have reached an incorrect conclusion. Perhaps, it is a fallacy using Wikipedia as a source or citation. Gerrymandering is done before the election by changing the boundaries to favor one party over the other. In the scenario you posit, a district with a 60/40 split is redrawn before to give the 40 percenters a majority of the vote. Gerrymandering is a before an election strategy.
Regards
Gerrymandering, which is over 200 years old in the US, is simply dirty politics with a view to winning by any means necessary. A 2017 Boston Globe article is titled, "It’s unfair and unjust. So why has gerrymandering lasted this long?"
Now if one were to say that they won in a free and fair election while participating in such a practice, that would be outright lying and dishonesty because what has taken place is stacking the deck in their favor.
For those who are interested, back in 2015 The Washington Post published an article, "This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see," which is worth reading. Or you can also watch this video which explains the practice.
Answers
2A fallacy has to be in the context of an argument.
If it's an incorrect empirical claim, it's just factually incorrect.
If it's a long-term systemic error in general reasoning, then it's a cognitive bias .
In the case of gerrymandering, it's neither. It's just a (morally dubious) policy.
Gerrymandering is not a logical fallacy, and as Shawn points out, has been (unfortunately) around for a couple of centuries.
What. is a logical fallacy is when Democrats or Republicans lambast the practice when utilized by the other party but ignore it when done by their their own party. This is cherry picking. Attorney General Garland has filed lawsuits against Republican states with gerrymandering but ignored it in Democratic states. Tuesday's Wall Street Journal had an article describing the ridiculous lines being drawn In New York to prevent Republicans from getting a few seats in the mostly Democratic state. It should be abolished but in the meantime it should be acknowledged that it's politics as usual by both sides.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
1. I didn't come to a conclusion, I plainly stated the question at the end of this question.
2. It being done before the election doesn't mean it is not a fallacy, if a political party member makes a strawman argument against their opposing candidate and this being before the election, it is not a fallacy now?