Both parties draw district lines to lock in their own seats whenever they get the chance. Should independent commissions draw every map in the country, or is redistricting just part of the game? Argue it out.
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentMy grandmother marched in the 60s for the right to have her vote count. She is 84 now and she says gerrymandering is just Jim Crow with a calculator. I'm not saying she's entirely right but I'm not saying she's wrong either.
lol both parties screaming about gerrymandering only when the OTHER party does it. the hypocrisy is truly something to behold
My son just turned 18 and he asked me why his vote matters if the district is already decided. I didn't have a good answer. That moment hurt more than any political argument I've ever had.
Look, I've gone back and forth on this. I used to think it was just how the game works. But I watched my entire community get split across four districts so none of us have real representation anywhere. That's not democracy. That's dilution. I'm convinced now. Ban it.
Yes. Full stop. The fact that politicians get to choose their own voters is one of the most absurd things about American democracy and we've just normalized it because it's always been this way.
I genuinely don't understand why this is even controversial. You don't let a football team write the rules for their own game. Why do we let parties draw their own districts. It's not complicated.
The person above me just described the problem perfectly without realizing it. 'Win elections to draw maps so you can win more elections' is a self-reinforcing feedback loop that has nothing to do with what voters actually want.
I used to volunteer for my state party and the redistricting meetings were genuinely the most cynical thing I've ever witnessed. Grown adults talking about 'packing' and 'cracking' communities like they were moving chess pieces. I quit shortly after.
my dad was a state rep for 22 years in ohio and even HE said redistricting was the dirtiest backroom game in politics. this isn't partisan, both sides do it and both sides should be embarrassed
I live in a district that looks like a broken pretzel. It snakes through three counties and connects two cities that have absolutely nothing in common economically or culturally. My congressperson has never lost by less than 30 points. That is not representation, that's a coronation.
The Iowa example keeps coming up and honestly it should. Competitive districts, reasonable shapes, and the world didn't end. If a reliably red state can do it, there is zero excuse for the rest of the country not to at least try.
iowa has a nonpartisan staff bureau draw their maps and their districts are some of the most competitive in the country. iowa. of all places. if iowa can do it literally any state can
Constitutional amendment. That's the only real fix. Congress isn't going to ban something that benefits them and the courts have been squeamish about striking it down. Amend the constitution to require independent commissions. Yes it's hard. Do it anyway.
To the person above: that's a reason to design the commission structure carefully, not a reason to leave it entirely to the legislature. A lock with a flaw isn't the same as no lock at all. Some states have built in bipartisan confirmation requirements, academic criteria, even random citizen selection. It's not perfect but it's measurably better.
I will believe politicians want fair districts when they voluntarily give up the power to draw them. Until then, everything they say about reform is noise.
here's a wild idea: what if we just had MORE districts with MORE representatives so no single line matters as much. proportional representation. works in like 50 other democracies but sure lets keep doing the thing that makes everyone miserable
Hard disagree. Independent commissions sound great until you realize whoever appoints the commissioners controls the outcome just as much. You're not removing politics, you're just hiding it.
The states' rights argument would be more convincing if states were actually using that freedom to produce fair maps. They're not. Freedom to gerrymander is not a constitutional value worth protecting.
I moved from North Carolina to Colorado a few years back and the difference in how my vote FEELS is wild. Back home I was in a district so safe for one party that candidates didn't even hold debates. Here there's actual competition and I swear the elected officials actually try harder. Coincidence? I don't think so.
I'm a registered Republican and I support independent commissions. Competitive districts make my party stronger, not weaker. Safe seats breed lazy politicians who never have to answer to anyone.
I'm a political science professor and I want to push back on the idea that all gerrymandering is equivalent. Racial gerrymandering and partisan gerrymandering have different legal histories and different effects. Treating them as one issue muddies the debate considerably.
to the person who said this doesn't affect their life — the maps determine who your representative IS, which determines every vote on healthcare, schools, and everything else you just mentioned. it all connects
The term 'gerrymandering' comes from Elbridge Gerry, a governor of Massachusetts who signed a salamander-shaped district map into law in 1812. We have literally been arguing about this for over 200 years. At some point you have to ask why we've never fixed it.
from a purely legal standpoint the supreme court basically punted on partisan gerrymandering in 2019 and said federal courts cant touch it. rucho v common cause. so unless that changes the only real avenue is state courts, state constitutions, or federal legislation. just so people know what field we're actually playing on here
both parties do it so both parties have an incentive to KEEP doing it. thats the real reason reform never happens. its mutually assured corruption
California uses an independent commission and it's been messy but it's genuinely more competitive than it used to be. Not perfect. But better. That's all we can ask for.
Banned? No. Regulated hard with clear criteria? Absolutely yes. There's a middle ground between 'anything goes' and 'federal takeover of every state map.' Compactness requirements, county integrity rules, and transparency mandates would go a long way without starting a constitutional crisis.
because the people who would pass the law to stop it are the same people who benefit from the current system. that's why it's complicated. the incentives are completely backwards.
Computer algorithms for districts sounds clean until you realize someone still codes the algorithm and someone still decides what inputs matter. There's no such thing as a 'neutral' process when power is at stake.
Fight me on this: the real villain isn't the party that draws the map, it's the party that LETS them. Opposition parties that don't fight back hard enough in state legislatures, that skip off-year elections, that don't fund state races — they're complicit too. Gerrymandering thrives on voter apathy at the state level.
I asked my rep at a town hall about independent redistricting. He changed the subject three times. That told me everything I needed to know about where he actually stands.
There's actually a really elegant mathematical solution called the shortest splitline algorithm that draws districts with zero human judgment involved. Pure geometry. Obviously nobody in power wants to talk about it.
constitutional amendment lmaooo you need 38 states to ratify. the states with the most gerrymandering will never vote yes. this is why nothing ever changes
Honestly I'm more worried about healthcare costs and my kids' school than who draws a map. Can we focus on stuff that affects my actual life?
independent commissions are just gerrymandering with extra steps lmao. you think the people appointing commission members dont have political interests? please.
Proportional representation would require completely restructuring Congress. I'm not opposed to discussing it but let's not pretend it's a simple swap.
i just think its funny that the same politicians who talk about sacred democracy and protecting every vote spend all of november drawing maps specifically designed to make certain votes not matter. the audacity is genuinely impressive
Nope. States' rights. The federal government mandating how every state draws its maps is exactly the kind of overreach people on my side of the aisle have always opposed. Let states figure it out.
redistricting is just part of the game bro. you win elections, you get to draw the maps. thats how it works. don't like it? win more elections
ok but can we talk about how the media barely covers redistricting until it's election season and then suddenly everyone acts shocked that maps are drawn weird. we've known about this for decades. where was the outrage in february of every year ending in 1
Can you be a genuinely good person without any religion at all?
110 comments
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Are dating apps genuinely harder for men or for women?
108 comments