You Should Know

Most sane countries leave electoral boundaries to an independent commission

Gerrymandering should be a crime and conviction should mean removal from office and a life long ban on working in politics.

Now we just need a way to do that that isn't vigilante violence.

It is kind of frustrating how every system needs to resist people (usually conservatives) from acting in bad faith.

Some of these are absolutely insane

I will never understand how the highest number of votes isn't winning. Bucha cheatin ass bitches

It's almost like the idea that representation based on land instead of based on people is flawed to begin with.

Illegality is slowly being erased in america

Why even have the system with districts? Just calculate all the votes and see who wins? If you live in a place where most people vote x, why even bother to vote y. Your vote will go straight in the bin.

I've said it many times, the US is a model example of what not to do in so so many different ways.

The United States is not a nation anymore. It’s a corporation. It’s also 100% corrupt. When will people come to terms with this? As long as most people are in denial of this, it will always be so.

What's even more unfair is area based voting, where your individual vote doesn't count to affect the government, you instead vote for a local representative which in turn effects the government. Your vote for president or prime minister should be direct, not a postcode lottery even without gerrymandering.

https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/

Where do we draw the line?

In my opinion there shouldn't be districts at all. Too much potential for fuckery.

Both sides have had opportunities to make it illegal and neither have done it. I wonder why.

Integrity is most common in other countries, but not in the united states.

Number 2 is the actual ideal, not number 1. Number 1 represents, "good," gerrymandering that politicians argue for, but it really only serves them. They get to keep highly partisan electorate that will reelect them no matter what, which means they can be less responsive to the will of their voters. They only have to worry about primary challengers, which aren't very common, and can mostly ignore their electorate without issue.

It's also important to note that this diagram is an oversimplification that can't express the nuances of an actual electorate. While a red and blue binary might be helpful for this example, a plurality of voters identify as independents, and while most of them have preferences towards the right or left, they are movable. The point is that actual voters are more nuanced and less static than this representation.

Number 2 is how distracting would work in an ideal world; it doesn't take into account political alignment at all, but instead just groups people together by proximity. A red victory is unlikely, but still possible if the blue candidate doesn't deliver for his constituents and winds up with low voter turnout. It also steers politicians away from partisan extremism, as they may need to appeal to a non-partisan plurality. That being said, when literal fascists are attempting number 3, we'll have to respond in kind if we want any chance of maintaining our democracy, but in the long term, the solution is no gerrymandering, not, "perfect representation," gerrymandering.

In the USA, politicians chose the voters!

Yeah, a common pattern in pseudo democracies like Hungary...

Obligatory mention of CGP Grey and his fantastic animal kingdom voting series: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY

Anything to undermine democracy

This is kinda if topic, but why does the US have term limits for the presidency, but not all the other major positions?

The more I hear about this Jerry Mander fella, the less I care for him.