Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating boundaries of electoral districts to favor  specific political political parties. By carefully selecting which voters are included (and excluded) from a district, politicians can almost guarantee they, or their party, will get elected and maintain power. 

Gerrymandering can have several negative effects on a democracy and its political processes. Here are some of the key negative consequences of gerrymandering:

1. Undermines Democracy: Gerrymandering subverts the fundamental principles of democracy by allowing politicians to choose their voters rather than the other way around. It can lead to outcomes where the will of the voters is not accurately reflected in the composition of elected representatives.
2. Reduced Competition: Gerrymandered districts often result in "safe" seats for one party or the other. In these districts, there is little competition, which can lead to complacency among incumbents and a lack of accountability to constituents.
3. Political Polarization: Gerrymandering can exacerbate political polarization. In safe districts, candidates may appeal to the extremes of their party, as they only need to win their party's primary to secure victory. This can lead to more extreme and partisan elected officials.
4. Wasted Votes: In gerrymandered districts, many votes effectively go to waste. If a district is designed to heavily favor one party, the votes for the other party are essentially wasted because they are unlikely to lead to victory.
5. Minority Disenfranchisement: Gerrymandering can disproportionately affect minority communities by diluting their voting power. This can result in the underrepresentation of historically marginalized groups.
6. Decreased Voter Turnout: When voters believe that their votes won't make a difference due to gerrymandering, they may become disillusioned and less likely to participate in elections. This can lead to lower voter turnout and a less engaged electorate.
7. Lack of Incentive for Moderation: In gerrymandered districts, there is often little incentive for candidates to moderate their positions or seek common ground, as they are primarily concerned with winning their party's primary. Candidates in these districts are actually more afraid of a challenger from the extreme wing of their party than the opposing party. 
8. Distorted Policy Outcomes: Gerrymandering can lead to policy outcomes that do not align with the preferences of the majority of citizens, as the elected officials may cater to the preferences of their party's base rather than the broader electorate.
9. Erosion of Trust in Institutions: Over time, gerrymandering can contribute to a broader erosion of trust in governmental institutions. When voters perceive the system as rigged, it can lead to a loss of faith in democracy itself.

Gerrymandering has always been an issue. In fact, the term was created in 1812 after a politician named Gerry created a district that looked like a salamander. In the past, politicians relied on their intuition and experience to figure out what cities or neighborhoods would support them and which would vote against them. Today, advanced data collection and computer modeling can accurate predict voting behaviors for each street or block. This level has pushed the practice from being an undemocratic nuisance to an full fledged corruption of the democratic process exemplified by the current case in Alabama. 

Both parties are guilty of this practices and even states that want to stop it worry that other states won't do the same. This practice must be stopped at a federal level. 

Combating gerrymandering and promoting fair and equitable redistricting is essential for upholding the principles of democracy. Here are some best practices and strategies for anti-gerrymandering efforts:

1. Independent Redistricting Commissions: Require the establishment of independent, bipartisan or nonpartisan redistricting commissions that are free from political influence. These commissions should be responsible for drawing district boundaries based on criteria such as population equality, compactness, and the preservation of communities of interest.
2. Bipartisan or Nonpartisan Processes: Require that redistricting processes are bipartisan or nonpartisan, with a balanced representation of both major political parties and impartial members to minimize partisan influence.
3. Clear and Fair Criteria: Require the establishment of clear and fair criteria for redistricting, such as population equality, contiguity, compactness, and the preservation of communities of interest. These criteria should be objective and transparent.
4. Anti-Packing and Cracking Rules: Implement rules that prohibit the packing of like-minded voters into a single district (to dilute their influence) or the cracking of communities into multiple districts (to diminish their collective voting power).
5. Use of Technology: Leverage technology and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to create and evaluate district maps objectively and efficiently. This can help ensure that boundaries are drawn fairly and meet established criteria.
6. Transparency: Require transparency throughout the redistricting process. Make all relevant data, maps, and proposed plans accessible to the public. Hold public hearings and allow citizens to provide input and feedback on proposed maps.
7. Continuous Oversight: Establish mechanisms for ongoing oversight and evaluation of redistricting processes and outcomes. Regularly review district boundaries and make adjustments as needed.

The fight against gerrymandering requires a combination of legal, political, and grassroots efforts. It's important to work toward reforms that prioritize fairness, transparency, and the representation of the diverse voices and interests within a jurisdiction.

Here are some links that can tell you more about gerrymandering:

• Biggest Problem With Gerrymandering - The Harvard Gazette
• The 12 Worst Gerrymandered Districts - Fulcrum
• Extreme Gerrymandering - Issue One
• The Case For Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation - Univ. of Michigan
• 3 Cases of Redistricting Reform: 2018 vs. Today - League of Women Voters