Home | About | Donate

As Polarized as Americans Are, They Agree on This: Gerrymandering Is Wrong


As Polarized as Americans Are, They Agree on This: Gerrymandering Is Wrong

David Daley
America’s deeply divided electorate agreed on at least one thing on election day: Voters hate gerrymandering. In red states, blue states and purple states, they’ve had it with politicians drawing their own districts, choosing their own voters and distorting democracy.


Official page for Fair Representation Act


If appearances have any value, It appears “Americans” are not simply polarized but fractured.


No political party deserves even the slightest of advantages.

Any existing advantage must be challenged in court and overturned for obvious reasons of unfairness.


Here in Michigan, the anti-gerrymandering proposal passed with over 60% of the vote, despite energetic efforts by Republican groups (who else) to keep it off the ballot. The question went all the way to the State Supreme Court, where a Republican-supported (sponsored) judge provided the winning vote on the bench to allow the proposition to proceed. Strangely enough, this judge’s name then appeared NOWHERE in any campaign materials for the recent election but she was nevertheless reelected in what is farcically labeled in Michigan as the “non-partisan” portion of the ballot.


The word for this tactic, gerrymandering, was first adopted in the early 1800s. Complaints about this practice go back before that. In other words, it’s a long-established fact of US politics.


That is correct. Decades of hard work went into pitting Americans against each other by class, race, etc.


Do you think that railing against the “white patriarchy” or “the 1%” helps fuel this “pitting [of] Americans against each other by race, class, etc”?


While “the majority of Americans are against Gerrymandering” the problem is there such polarization that one side will not even entertain the thought of solutions to the problem if they come from the other side.

Conservatives , Liberals and Socialists can all come up with good ideas , it is up to the populace to LISTEN and understand this. Accepting one good idea from “the other side” does not mean one must accept their entire ideology.


It interesting to read this as here in BC we are having another referendum on changing the system from First past the post to one of Proportional Representation.

While I will likely go the PR route in my own vote , the other side does raise some issues such as it giving the ability of extremist parties to gain seats in the Legislature. That said it also true that under the current system absolute power can be given to a party with the minority of the vote.


It’s not enough to just win, as the winners hav to prove they know something . I have wanted this for a long time. Here’s why: : )
When I was in the 8th grade, we were told that if we didn’t pass the Constitution test we would have to repeat the 8th grade---- as all of our friends went on to high school! OMG!!! I think we studied harder for that than anything else in our lives. Left behind as out friends went on??? That would have been a horror!

I think that after the election, the winners have to take a Constitution test too, and before they are sworn in. In fact , each winning person is to be called up before the entire Congress and has to take an oral exam in front of Congress and its all done live and in real time so the citizens can watch----no cheating allowed.
Those -------to be tested wait outside until they are called in. Yes, I know many would say this is a waste of time-----but Congress wastes so much time anyway— and so many seem brainless----and at least this way, we would know if some of theses elected even had a clue as to how the government works. .
It would be a new version of Jeopardy----and everybody watching would learn something new about government and wouldn’t that be great for a democratic republic. : )


Gerrymandering is essential for members of the GOP to get elected. They are too unpopular to win fairly.