Gerrymandering Should Be Eliminated

Gerrymandering allows officials to more effectively represent the interests of their constituency. Gerrymandering devalues opposition votes - there's simply no other way to put it. By controlling which districts hold which votes, the voting process can be manipulated so that while opposing party members may still place a vote, it is inherently worthless because the outcome has essentially been predetermined. It devalues the votes of groups of opposing political ideologies because they inherently don't have the capacity to win. You argued "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. " False! In sheer democracy where all votes are equal, this would be a problem with majority rule. However, gerrymandering absolutely infringes on the rights of those whose vote is not worth as much as the person in the next house over. And yes, sometimes this proportion could be close to half the population-but not quite, because we can't let them win a majority.2. Gerrymandering will allow the legislature to be more accurate of how the citizens feel. You argue "Gerrymandering doesn't nullify the voting process either because if then it should affect each party equally. " But see, the assumption that "the nullification of the voting process through gerrymandering effects both parties equally" is solely dependent on the assumption that both parties gerrymander equally, which is patently false. The level to which the vote is devalued and to whom it is devalued depends only on which party controls the legislature. Further, many people have no idea what gerrymandering is, and most fail to realize that their parties conduct this kind of business on a regular basis; the parties rely on this "ignorance," if you will, when they calculate how many votes they can crack or pack and still pull a win - ultimately most voters have no idea an election has been skewed before they have even placed their ballot. But my biggest dispute is with your statement "Anyways, even if it was already decided [an election] then still a majority is happy because the person they want is going to win. " See, it isn't just about the majority, but also about giving the minorities a fair and equal voice as well. I believe you also stated "popular opinion has no relevance on if something should happen. " As you so clearly stated, simply ensuring the majority has a clear voice and a winning opinion contradicts the very foundations our government was built upon. You argue that we cannot succumb to appeals to popularity, yet you also argue that predetermined elections and worthless votes are okay because the majority is still happy. This is a clear contradiction, and really the mentality that fuels such partisan gerrymanders. Even senior members of the government have argued that something should be done about gerrymandering because of its imbalanced approach to voting. Eric Holder states ""We should consider reforms to the redistricting process for state and federal offices - so districts are drawn in a way that's neutral, that promotes fair and effective representation for all, and that can't be abused to protect incumbents and undercut electoral competition. " [1]I feel the Court justification from Reynolds v. Sims & Wesberry v. Sanders sums up my stance fairly well: "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or ten times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. Of course, the effect of state legislative districting schemes which give the same number of representatives to unequal numbers of constituents is identical. Weighting the votes of citizens differently, by any method or means, merely because of where they happen to reside, hardly seems justifiable. " [2]3. Gerrymandering Increases Party PolarizationAs much as I agree that it is important to stand up for your deepest-held values, compromise is also a necessary element of politics. There are certainly issues one should not compromise themselves on; but by and large, without compromise the government comes to a standstill. Especially in a bipartisan government such as ours where there are essentially two parties in control, deadlocks result in such things as government shutdowns, as evidenced in 2013. Too many people view compromise as "surrender" or "appeasement. " The fact is that not everyone can get their way, especially not in a (predominantly) two-party nation that is very widely split on what they want. Too many politicians fail to see the larger picture of "what is good for my country" and instead pursue "what is good for me and my party"-which, many feel, are one and the same; I would disagree. Our current political system is only fostering this atmosphere of "no compromise," and gerrymandering is contributing to the problem.4. Gerrymandering Is IllegalThe reason that bipartisan gerrymandering has not been in front of the Supreme Court is because both parties feel that they are benefiting out of the exchange, not necessarily because people are happy with their representatives. Further, while it is generally true that the Courts tend to avoid gerrymandering cases unless some aspect such as race or ethnicity is involved, I would argue that discriminating against a voting population based off of their political ideologies is just as bad as doing so for any other reason; this is, however, another debate topic. Sources:[1] . http://www.fairvote.org... [2] . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...