A Declaration for Making Democracy More Representative

A Declaration for Making Democracy More Representative


In the 2012 general election, Republicans running for Congress lost the popular vote by 1.4 million ballots; in the same election, they won control of the House of Representatives by a margin of 234 to 201. This disparity is due to an undemocratic process of rigging electoral districts known as gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering, named for a former governor of Massachusetts, is the process of, following the census, redrawing electoral districts (those areas which congresspersons and state legislators represent), such that certain parties have an advantage, and are guaranteed election in those districts, disenfranchising both minorities, and members of opposing parties.

In the past, this process has been used so as to lessen the value of a person’s vote, by putting more people in certain districts than others, but has since been prohibited. Now, gerrymanderers use processes called cracking, whereby they both spread out members of opposing parties over various districts so that their votes have no impact over those of the ruling party, and packing, whereby they pack members of the opposing party into one district, leaving the others safe for the ruling party.

Gerrymandering, without doubt, is a process which undermines the representative nature of our democracy, giving us representatives that do not represent the views of the majority of Americans. This process is perpetrated by both major parties, in various parts of the country, undermining the value of all of our votes, regardless of our ideology.

The process of redistricting is constitutionally required to be decided by state legislatures, wherein the party holding the majority has the say as to what final maps are used until the next census. This is where gerrymandering comes into play, with those majority parties redrawing the maps unfairly so as to ensure they are safely in the hands of that majority party.

To fix this problem, we need to create a non-partisan citizen-led redistricting committee, like the one recently adopted in California. A solution like this can rid us of partisan tampering by giving the power of redistricting back to the people. If we make our voices heard and contact our representatives in our state legislatures, we can make democracy more representative.


– Sawyer Neale,

Elizabethtown, PA


  1. John Peeples 2 years ago

    Sawyer Neale,

    Quick note that the recent Washington and California efforts to make use of bi/non-partisan redistricting commissions were made after the Democratic parties in those states either did gerrymander districts or were threatening to do so. Your attempt to name and shame one particular party falls flat.

    Further, each seat in the House of Representatives these days represents different numbers of people. So, it is not gerrymandering that results in a House of Representatives apportionment that doesn’t exactly match the national apportionment. Even when each seat represents exactly the same number of people, and there is no gerrymandering, you can still get the result you dislike above.

    Further still, proponents of citizen-led redistricting commissions frequently betray their anti-gerrymandering position by advocating ‘minority’-majority districts in an effort to ‘ensure’ ‘minority’ representation in state, local, and national legislatures. That is, of course, a form of gerrymandering.

    Besides those points, I actually agree with you that gerrymandering is wrong for whatever reason be it political party, cultural, or racial.

    -John in Seattle

  2. Sawyer Neale 2 years ago

    Oh, sorry for a typo above. Reynolds v. Sims had to to with state legislative districts. Wesberry v. Sanders definitely requires that Congressional districts have roughly the same number of people.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *