Gerrymandering Should Be Eliminated

1. Gerrymandering Does NOT Increase Representation of Constituency Interests To respond to my opponent"s first argument, gerrymandering only allows the party to more effectively represent the interests of their constituency in that they are allowed to manipulate district lines to illegally garner votes. In cracking, a "vast majority" is not going to favor one party. The idea of cracking is to distribute opposition party votes just enough that they can"t get a majority in any district. So, if Democrats are in control of the legislature, they will spread out Republican voters just enough that they don"t have enough to win in the district. A district could be 40% Republican and 60% Democrat (typically they won"t risk making it more even than this). 60% is definitely not a "vast majority" favoring Democrats. I would argue further that even if your claim is true, and the dominant political party is better representing their constituency, this also means that gerrymandering results in the infringement of the other parties to represent THEIR constituencies. The goal of the democratic process is not to allow the dominant political party a monopoly on representation and speaking, but rather to afford everyone proportional representation and the equal opportunity to express themselves. Thus, by your definition, gerrymandering is infringing on the rights of all citizens not represented by the empowered party. Additionally, it is to be expected that a party might not gain the precise number of seats proportional to the percentage of the votes they took in any given election; as you state, this would be virtually impossible in our current electoral system. However, this is a lot better than the giant discrepancies that exist between votes given and seats won with gerrymandered districts. In response to "non-partisan committee are not always as non-partisan as they sound," I certainly hope you aren"t attempting to argue that a non-partisan committee is better than our current gerrymandering system. To be sure, there is always a possibility of a "non-partisan" committee introducing partisan incentives; however, I would argue that this is better than blatant party manipulation of district lines. It is at least a step towards removing some of the power parties are exercising over the electoral system to nullify votes. 2. Gerrymandering Devalues the Vote and Undermines the Democratic Process Realistically, because of these safe seats in our first-past-the-post voting system, all of the opposition votes are essentially worthless. This is one of the largest causes of falling voter turnout in the United States; in 2012, 93 million voters didn"t place their vote. Thus, the poll cited earlier absolutely is relevant. It is an appeal to popularity; this should have even more weight, seeing as in democratic nations everything is based on the majority. Many people don"t bother voting, especially those that know they"re in an opposition safe district where their vote is essentially already meaningless. It is even arguable that gerrymandering essentially nullifies the voting process, because who wins in elections is often determined before the voters even get to the polls. In many cases, it is determined years before the election itself. Essentially, voters are only participating in a predetermined script written by the dominant political party. Inherently, the power of parties to redraw district lines devalues the importance of the vote, and in so doing undermines the democratic process. 3. Gerrymandering Increases Party Polarization Further, to introduce another argument against gerrymandering, it is only helping to create the party polarization we see in the US government today. Without gerrymandering, there would not be nearly as many "safe districts" come each election, meaning that officials running for office would be required to appeal to a much wider voter base. This means they would need to be much closer to central as opposed to far right or far left in their political leanings. However, because there are so many safe districts, politicians are able to get elected without appealing to as wide of a base as they would need to if they were not given a guarantee through gerrymandering. This ultimately results in two parties that become more polarized over time and less likely to compromise. 4. Gerrymandering Is Illegal Finally, the strongest argument for the abolishment of gerrymandering that I feel has gone largely unnaddressed is the fact that it is illegal. Gerrymandering is illegal, in the United States, per Karcher v. Daggett (1983) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [1]. Sources: 1. http://www.propublica.org...