Dibujando fronteras: igualdad de la ley electoral y sus consecuencias democráticas

Abstract

This chapter examines the concept of fairness in electoral boundary drawing and argues that prevailing approaches to electoral redistribution suffer from a significant democratic deficit. Electoral districting is often justified by reference to fairness, yet the meaning of fairness remains contested. Levy identifies three principal conceptions of fairness in electoral law: outcome-oriented fairness, which seeks substantively fair electoral results; positive procedural fairness, which relies on decision-makers faithfully applying agreed principles; and negative procedural fairness, which focuses on preventing partisan manipulation and bias.

Using Australian electoral redistribution as a central case study, the chapter analyses how different institutional arrangements embody these competing conceptions. It contrasts legislative control of district boundaries, independent redistribution commissions, and bipartisan balancing models, showing that each reflects distinct assumptions about how fairness can be secured. While independent commissions have become the dominant response to partisan gerrymandering, Levy argues that they do not eliminate the underlying problem of democratic legitimacy. Decisions about electoral boundaries inevitably involve contestable judgments, and transferring these decisions from elected representatives to experts or commissions may reduce accountability without resolving disagreements about fairness itself.

The chapter concludes that fairness in electoral regulation cannot be understood solely as a technical or procedural matter. Because districting decisions shape political representation and democratic outcomes, conceptions of fairness must ultimately be assessed in light of broader democratic values. Electoral institutions should therefore be evaluated not only by their capacity to curb partisan manipulation but also by their ability to maintain democratic legitimacy, public trust, and responsiveness to citizens’ preferences. Show more