Gerrymandering Should Be Eliminated

1. Gerrymandering allows officials to more effectively represent the interests of their constituency.60% is a vast majority the last time any president received 60% of the popular vote was in 1972, and within the last 100 years there was never a party that received that much in the house of representatives. They would have a 20 point advantage over the other party which is almost impossible to win if you are the lower party. Just a few more points and you could amend the U.S. Constitution. Just because a party wins one district does not infringe on the other parties' ability to represent their citizens. It makes no sense to claim that people who are not being represented are having their rights infringed, that would mean nearly half of the citizens would be having their rights infringed. This is not a problem with gerrymandering, but more with majority rule (democracy).California house seats 2008 (before election reform) Democrats won about 60% and 64% of seats. 4% difference.California house seats 2012 (after election reform) Democrats 61% and 72% of seats. 11% difference.It was actually more proportional before the reform than after.It is best with bipartisan packing because citizens will be happier with their individual representatives overall.2. Gerrymandering will allow the legislature to be more accurate of how the citizens feel.Low voter turnout is not such a bad thing because it means people are content with either choice, and less people will be upset at the final result because less percent of the population voted for the opposition. Further, you can not say it is the representative elections fault of low turnout because there will also be local issues, state wide issues, possible presidential issues. If people don't vote it is because they don't care. I would like to see a source that would show otherwise. If we take a poll and 70% show support for enacting slavery again does that mean we should. Of course not, because popular opinion has no relevance on if something should happen. Further, a majority has limitations due to the constitution, which can prevent certain things like banning interracial marriage, which would not be until the mid 1990s before a majority would agree to allow it [1]. It is still a logical fallacy and improper argument.Gerrymandering doesn't nullify the voting process either because if then it should affect each party equally because if you already know who going to win why would supporters or opponents vote? They wouldn't. Gerrymandering happens because people vote and because no votes means no one wins. Anyways, even if it was already decided then still a majority is happy because the person they want is going to win.3. Gerrymandering Increases Party PolarizationI saw no reason presented on why this is bad. Less compromise, that might be a good thing to quote a very popular British Prime minister "To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects." - Margaret Thatcher [2]. 4. Gerrymandering Is IllegalRace gerrymandering is illegal, but in the supreme court case which asked if Indiana's new districts which "the Democrats argued that the apportionment unconstitutionally diluted their votes in important districts, violating their rights" [3] the supreme court ruled 6-3 that it was not unconstitutional. Further, in the case Karcher v. Daggett it ruled that one-sided political redistricting, which in this case favored democrats was unconstitutional; however, bipartisan gerrymandering has not been in front of the court probably because people are happy with their representatives. Sources[1] http://www.gallup.com...[2] http://quotes.lifehack.org...[3] http://www.oyez.org...