At its core, gerrymandering is a “glitch” in the democratic system that allows politicians to effectively choose their voters rather than the other way around. By using techniques like cracking (diluting the opposition’s power across many districts) and packing (concentrating them into a single district to “waste” their surplus votes), parties can secure a majority of seats even if they receive fewer total votes statewide. This creates “safe seats” where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, rendering the general election a mere formality. For the average citizen, this feels like playing a game where your opponent gets to redraw the finish line while you’re mid-sprint, making many feel that their individual ballots are essentially shouting into a void.
Beyond the immediate unfairness, gerrymandering fuels the hyper-polarization that often grinds modern governance to a halt. When a district is drawn to be “un-loseable” for a specific party, the only real threat to an incumbent is a primary challenge from someone even more ideologically extreme. This incentivizes politicians to avoid compromise and double down on partisan rhetoric to satisfy their base, rather than appealing to the broad interests of the general public. The result is a legislative body that is far less responsive to the average voter and more prone to gridlock, leaving complex national problems to gather dust while representatives focus on maintaining their artificial strongholds.
