Ok, so a big part of the legitimacy of an elected position is that they have obtained more than 50 percent of "the vote". With gerrymandering, the social investment of the voters is poisoned and the authority of the "elected" official is restricted by the perceived cheating of basic democratic principles. This system has also enabled the assumption of kingmaking powers by the republican and democratic parties, the unelected leaders of which hold vast power over the entire government, ruling from behind the throne as it were. We dont actually need districts, they seem to be leftover from the days when segregation was a universal concept. Why separate voters for federal offices by sub state geographies? An office that represents the state should be voted on by the whole state. At first that sounded complicated in my mind but actually I think it might be simpler than we think.

I need to adjust my claim on the 50% dem voters... that was a very old figure. Still, generally there has be 10% less representation in Congress for the minority party than the actual voter affiliation would show. I would like to add, the opposing team were better debaters, but I feel the important points were completely lost on the side for the motion. The side against readily agreed to the harm caused by gerrymandering, that really is enough to win. Not playing fair, having to play for the team or get kicked out (the opposing argument in the beginning), polarizes the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, it statistically appears that the Right is more polarized than the Left... which fits the argument just fine. There is literally no need to try to prove that gerrymandering was the cause, nor the sole reason for polarization. Common sense, and basic data shows (and the opposition agreed) that it contributes to the polarizing outcome and bad feelings among the parties in general. If you listen closely the Opposing team makes a better argument FOR the motion, than not.

So, do you think that gerrymandering to maintain power would "Depolarize" the opposition if they group out of power are feeling repressed and unheard?                                                                                                                                                 ///                                                                                                         In my state, Democrats are about 50% of the population, but are only represented in the State government at a rate of 30%, and in the Federal Congress, nada.  Welcome to Utah.                                                                                                            ////                                                                Gerrymandering also has the awful impact of tearing apart local political gatherings that should be held at reasonable distances for the delegates of a party which need to meet and organize.  Nope!  The smaller party is often a tad less organized and spread thin so they already have to travel more, so the meetings are not always so easy to attend. This isn't helping, it's causing wedges on local levels among leadership.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     /////                                     Then you have the funding, the incumbents redirect funding to their own parties, which enables lovely things for that party, such as online voting that can happen over several days for that party's Primary, while somehow requiring the opposing party to have their primary on only one day for partial hours, that are often understaffed.  Now some of the onus does rely squarely on the parties themselves, but not all.                                                            ///////                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 The Party in power, especially if Republican, does not always play fair.  Gerrymandering is not fair, and only worsens the problem, if it didn't help instigate it long before redistricting in the 2000's that was referred to.   With the first gerrymandering successes, you play nice as a new power... so the fruit of polarization would lag.  The concept of fair play is dead, especially by the current powers.  They play "loyal" instead.  Que the enemies.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ///////////                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I will concur that gerrymandering may not be the sole thing gutting the center, or the main driver... I'll leave that to the human greed for power over what might be fair play.  However, gerrymandering is definitely having its negative impact, and therefore helping to shrink the center.

 Predebate. Anecdotally, I have to say that gerrymandering has given many people just the excuse they were looking for to not vote. Despite any initiatives or proposals or local elections, a number of people I know chose not to vote in the last election, or say they didnt at least, because of gerrymandered districts. Beyond that I would point to the rise of the independants as the first sign that the traditional parties hold little appeal and only have maintained power because they control all the mechanisms of election.

I believe those for the motion proved that gerrymandering is occurring and that it is bad, but the motion was that it is destroying the center. The opposing argument showed compelling evidence that the polarization is happening due to other forces.

The issue was nuanced and the data was in support of Against. Gerrymandering is stupid, no doubt, for the reason that it hurts having accurate representation in our democracy. But with regards to killing the political center, gerrymandering (from both the theoretical and empirical perspectives) is at most a slap in the face.

Gerrymandering is a not destroying the political center, on its own ,there are many other factors that are doing this as well. This is not to say that gerrymandering is not a problem which at the very least could use some modifications. The big problem with gerrymandering is said to be that the minority in certain districts lose their voice almost completely ,at the same time the districts are decided to keep the majority party in power and in some cases that gives the opposition a voice as well, by grouping the minority together they can achieve more seats than they would in an election based purely on a states popular vote where in states like California where nearly all seats would go to the democratic party, with gerrymandering  there are at least about 10 out of 50 house reps from California that are republicans. In my opinion  gerrymandering does actually allow for a voice, however small, for the minority voters, that would not be able to be heard at all in something like a popular election.           

Nolan McCarty's theoretical argument that there is a trade off between incumbent security and maximizing partisan success is flawed. It would only be true if the relationship between the partisan distribution in a district and the probability that a party win a district were linear, but this is clearly not the case. For example, consider a district with 70% Republican leaning voters and 30% Democratic leaning voters. Such a district would go to Republicans nearly 100% of the time, despite not being homogeneous.  His use of a two district state is a simplified scenario which serves to obfuscate his arguments shortcomings. The following example clearly illustrates the flaw in his argument:Consider a state with 3 congressional seats and a voter distribution of 50% Republican  leaning and 50% Democratic leaning.  Clearly, if the 3 districts were drawn with voter distributions which matched the state's, then all would be highly competitive and each party would on average win 1.5 seats. Now consider the following redistricting:- 1 district with 100% Democrats- 2 districts with 75% Republicans and 25% DemocratsThis redistricting has both made 3 highly non-competitive districts, and essentially guaranteed that Republicans would win 2 of the state's 3 seats.  Incumbents are protected and partisan success (for the Republicans) has been improved.Dr. McCarty has a PhD in Political Economics, so he is certainly extremely mathematically literate and is aware that the theoretical argument he makes is highly suspect. The use of disingenuous and misleading arguments is fair in the context of a debate, but I generally hope that IQ2 debates be more honest and enlightening.

Gerrymandering has been used for a very long time. It helps to make campaigning more competitive. This is good because it makes those running for office get their ideas out there. It lets the public know the policies and ideals of the officials that they are voting for. And theoretically “safe districts” are not totally safe, as the party in control does not always win.  

Gerrymandering is an important part of the voting process. This is because it creates a more diverse and interesting voting process due to the constantly changing voting districts. In our constantly changing country it is important that our voting districts be malleable to better fit the country at a specific time. 

Gerrymandering creates a more competitive landscape for those running for office. It also simplifies the process of campaigning by isolating like-minded voters with each other making it easier for the candidates to know where they should rally. Most of the time these candidates are successful regardless of the effects of gerrymandering.

Not term limits, but there is no restriction on how many times they can be re-elected.

The act of gerrymandering is something that never should have started in the first place.  Because of the ability of politicians to shape a state's congressional district map, this allows them an almost certain victory while running for re-election.  Since they do not have term limits, they can do this as long as their district is happy with them.  As the argument for the motion states above, certain small groups of the opposite side can be put in the same district as the majority party to cancel out their votes (A.K.A. "cracking").  This oppresses those people's privilege of being able to vote as a citizen, which just seems incorrect.  

\

Gerrymandering 

  Gerrymandering is creating safe districts. This has allowed career politicians stay in office for a longer time period. These safe districts have also destroyed the political center, as the motion states. The safe districts have put likeminded voters together in one district. This has allowed for more polarizing political candidates running and getting elected.  

I strongly support the motion.  Gerrymandering is inherently divisive -- literally geographically dividing the electorate into people who generally tend to think one way or another,  people who are then an attraction for those people with the most extreme version of that "train of thought" to seek leadership positions in that geographical area. Such extremist "leadership" -- on either side of the political spectrum --  is then much less likely to even consider compromise and much more likely to seek to reinforce long held beliefs rather than be interested in even considering any ideas or arguments to the contrary.

I'm strongly for the motion. The lines are clearly being drawn for partisan reasons. This inherently polarizes the country. I'm an independent voter, yet I voted for Clinton in this election. I do not support democrats or republicans or the bipartisan system. I'd prefer the parliamentary system so that independent thinkers like myself can elect officials based on merit, not based on being forced into voting for one of the two major parties. Gerrymandering makes matters worse and is inherently divisive. It is anti-democratic.

Debating a narrowly focused aspect of one of the thousands of examples of how our political system dysfunctions is boring, and pointless.How about a debate on better systems of representation.How about a debate about instant run-off elections, or any of the other far superior methods for making the system better.How about a debate about how a complete dirt-bag could become the "leader of the free world".[preceding phrase in quotes, because the u.s. hasn't been a source for peace in decades.]

Who comes up with the debate topics? If they are topics suggested by the subscribers, then someone still has to choose from them.This topic seems beyond absurd.The comment above suggests that "...everyone agrees that it is." I'm assuming he means everyone agrees that gerrymandering is a bad idea.So the notion of debating a narrowly focused aspect of a generally agreed on bad idea seems like a huge waste of time.Why not debate SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES to this utterly dysfunctional, unfair, incomprehensible, destructive political/economic paradigm, instead of debating how stupid all the various aspects of it are?

"Politicians do not lead, they follow their constituents."In theory.

Yeah, I don't disagree with what you've said. My point, is that, if you word a question this way, it essentially isn't possible for the FOR side to every make a meaningful argument, since there is an enormous burden of proof to show that one part of our political system is "destroying" the center. It would be the same as asking "Does the practice of arbitration destroy consumer's trust of banks?" Well, it may contribute to it, and probably does. But a much more appropriate wording would be "Is the current pratice of arbitration fair to the consumer?" Otherwise, all you're doing is wasting time debating how much it diminishes consumer trust, as if concluding that it's only a little somehow makes it look better.I guess a shorter way to explain it would be, if they were going to discuss Gerrymandering, why on earth did they pick THAT question? 

This is a difficult one to understand. I cannot begin to fathom a solution for the problem of gerrymandering itself. I see a lot of commenters essentially upset that the debate was lost by the FOR team but unconcerned that all 4 panelists condemned the practice itself. If what Jankowski said is correct, and he offered up some data as evidence, then there isn't much of a political center to start with. As the infamous Ann Coulter once said "Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster."

Forgive me but I don't understand how the wording made the motion less likely to pass. Had you asked me if Gerrymandering were simply good strategy I would have supported it on the basis that district lines are a reality and are better decided by those who can benefit than those who appear to be impartial but push their thumb on the scale for one side.But because of the wording "destroying the political center" I was compelled to agree with the motion that it undeniably polarizes the districts.So to recap, I would have voted against the motion had it been worded in the way you present it.

John Donvan is absolutely a liberal. It's not his choice how effective the debaters are or what the audience decides. I'm of the right and I was for the motion. By discussing the center it gave the motion a better chance to win because as I can see this clearly polarizes districts, whatever the benefits may be.

Whilst the Against side made some compelling arguments, the gist of their position was to deny all facts of the other side. That being said, the Against side may be correct in their assertion that partisan redistricting will ultimately spread their majority thin. However, we have yet to reach that point.

In fairness to IQ2: you actually want topics which are debateable - that is, about which some uncertainty exists. There is no "debate" about whether the gerrymander is fair or unfair - everyone agrees that it is.  Having a "debate" about that is beating a dead horse and boring.

not convincing enough arguments, interpretation of complex data in human sciences creates polarization in itself.

Politicians do not lead, they follow their constituents. Creating more polarized districts than would otherwise exist drives politicians to engage in increasingly polarized rhetoric. That voters are also self-sorting by moving, does not negate that the voter sorting driven by gerrymandering does not also accelerate or exacerbate the problem. However "safe" many Senate seats are (State boundaries are also often orthogonal to economic or geographic divisions), Senatorial Rhetoric is far less polarized than Congressional. The arguments against the motion were particularly weak and empirical evidence suggests patently wrong (eg, district packing)

It seems pretty clear that IQ squared's producers are right leaning people who are doing a pretty poor job of trying to appear non-partisan, or neutral.Just the way this "debate" is worded.The g.o.p. ,  always more willing to cheat than the left, benefits from gerrymandering far more than any other group.So, in order to keep from messing with that, IQ doesn't debate the validity of gerrymandering, but couches the debate behind whether or not it "destroys the center".Grow a pair, IQ, and debate something that matters.How about "Which of the two corporate owned political parties cheats the most?"

Once again, IQ2 has worded the debate question in a completely unforgivable and irresponsible way. It should have been about whether or not Gerrymandering leads to a congress that does not represent the political position of the majority of people they represent. Instead, as usual, the question was worded that gives Republicans miles of leeway to squirm away from the real topic. They essentially admitted that gerrymandering is cheating, and that it does result in a congress that doesn't represent the country - but since IQ2 worded it as "is it the cause of polarization", all the Rep side has to do to "win" this "debate" is provide some examples of polarization not being directly linked to redistricting. Audience and listeners now come away from it with a positive conclusion about gerrymandering - which they shouldn't, since it was clear - from what BOTH sides said - that it a terrible part of how our process works.IQ2, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself and the context in which you present very important topics of our time.

As often as not the topics devised by IQsquared are contrived to narrow the debate into something in which the Right can argue without exposing their fundamental penchant for accepting nonsense as facts.

Interesting debate and comments. CGP Grey's  videos has become the new School House Rocks! As far as the debate itself goes, I think the "for" side failed to define whether it is entirely responsible or exacerbating an existing trend. If its simply adding to the problem, I don't see how they could have lost. But the "against" side had terrible arguments. What I heard was 1) We are totally gaming the system, but its legal 2) Polarization is happening anyways so lets make the most of it 3) Its not a full-proof system to keeping extremists out either. The one part that I had to rewatch was when the guy tried to differentiate between incumbent gerrymandering and partisan gerrymandering. Umm... what? Incumbents dont live forever, and once they leave, it becomes partisan gerrymandering! Secondly, how does splitting a district into two where you have a small margin of error 53% make it MORE partisan? The politicians that run there have to build a broad coalition so they can't easily tack hard left or hard right. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of politics can look at redistricting lines and see that something shady is being pulled. 

It wasn't exactly clear whether they wanted to argue that gerrymandering is entirely responsible or simply contributes to an existing trend. But I don't think anyone can make an argument that it helps the center.

Lol, I got that too.

I wish you would have a Debate about the utter dysfunction of our entire political system.The Constitution was a valiant effort, and a groundbreaking document, but it was created by privileged people and adjusted and tweaked by more privileged people.The economic system, which is also fundamentally unfair and corrupt, was left to the economic elites to tinker and manipulate however they have seen fit.The little progress that was made towards fixing that unfairness was dismantled after the moneyed classes got tired of being exposed and got serious about buying and controlling EVERYTHING.Honestly, I thought it was too late to stop this neo-fascism three decades ago.

Perhaps in the future you could allow people to vote on specific wording, and this would enable a better debate on the subject, unless the intention was to promote a specific agenda rather than have a debate on the merits of gerrymandering.

They managed to define the motion do narrowly that it was won, even though it is obvious that Gerrymandering should be abolished. Maine has the right idea by implementing ranked choice voting. We should do away with districts altogether in legislative elections, and instead vote for all of the candidates using ranked choice voting, and then the legislators with the highest rankings should be chosen to represent the whole state. A system where candidates with less votes win over candidates with more votes is not democratic. The question should have been: "Abolish gerrymandering." The motion about it destroying the moderate vote is flawed.

As someone below said 'one problem is the idea of districting' and trying to put people's political interests together by group. •••••If I had to find something that affects all of this is the quality of our citizens ... that is people are selfish and disrespectful as a rule, and Donald Trump has just upped that exponentially ... and even worse now with his appointment to his staff of Steve Bannon of Breitbart. •••••  The point is that we do not think of others, and we are ( we - meaning everyone in general, but no your or me ) lacking respect and caring for each other.  •••••   If you worry about other than yourself you are a bleeding heart, or a socialist   •••••  For democracy to work we have to have a society, and more and more we only have markets, and markets are not enough to incentivize people to be civilized.   ••••• When we fragment people with identity politics it is impossible to represent them en masse, and of course only the rich and powerful are heard ... and that is just fine with them.   ••••• Over time the powerful diverge, just  like an animal in a new ecological system  •••••  All this to me boils down to these problems being caused by doing nothing about gaping inequalities in class by any measure.  •••••  If there is no system of equalization, say progressive taxes and social safety net these divergences will overcome us.  •••••  So, gerrymandering is a tool of the powerful to secure and expand their power in a society that is broken.

 -- Who I live near should not be the standard upon which my representation is decided. --I'll buy that, but that is what we do with countries and states?  How else would we do it is my big question?  You can always find natural fault lines in any group.  You have people in a city that live downtown and those who lives in the burbs ... they have different realities.  I buy your premise, but I am not sure I buy your solution ... or that there is a solution.

Maybe I could agree with the argument if by "gerrymandering" it is meant a symbol of the ways in which the system is trying to manipulate the masses and the system in order to preserve the status quo and those who are at the top of it.I don't know is that is totally bad, but when I compare what I know of business in terms of changing an organization it is mightily hard and complicated and the American people I don't think are up to it in any way.  So we let the "whatever"-percent elite run things, and they demand it anyway.Maybe the problem is the makeup or the new modern character the of the "whatever"-percent elite.  If people like Donald Trump are typical, and I think in many ways they are, they live in a dream world from birth and think anything is possible and doable and worth doing.  They are not in general  scientifically or mathematically literate, and those who are use it to manipulate because the are not sociologically or politically literate, but wow do they have power like power that never existed before on this planet.The issue with gerrymandering seems to be ... how do you have democracy, or how do you create districts that are fair.  If there was a simple, obvious easy way to represent everyone in smaller sub-groups - it would have been thought of and found.Maybe we need a parallel system of polling where people weigh in on issues, and we can measure how close our leaders follow their general will.  But then will anyone ever vote for any pain?  We seem to have flipped that on its side and dump as much pain and misery on people and tell them by getting rich they can escape that, and when they don't we blame them and tell them their lives are punishment for being inferior.So if by gerrymandering, it is meant a way to keep the people from voicing in institutional ways that we were told we could, with free speech, equal before the law and in opportunity and with our votes, when you cheat and withhold that why expect that you would generate a public that knows something is amiss and gets more and more aggravated over time.So the answer of the "whatever"-percent elite is to use the media and social engineering to aim everyone at each other so cooperation, and even communication is impossible.  Is that is not what is meant or a part of gerrymandering, then I would have to be against the motion.

Good point about the Media highlighting identity politics.  Right after the election they went looking for someone to blame.  "It was the White Males.  It was the Evangelicals.  Those Latinos didn't come out and vote Democrat like they were supposed to."  They were blind-sided by the results the night of, and that tells me they don't really have a clue who voted for whom; but they're going to work their flawed poll numbers so that each side has someone to hate.

The AGAINST's argument: "Other stuff happens, therefore gerrymandering is irrelevant to the decline and fall of the American center". The moderate position has no chance in a gerrymandered political climate, and that's what is destroying the political center.

The clarity of the argument for the motion was very well done. They drew their points directly to the question and minimized the amount of additional analysis or interpretation I had to do. The team against the motion had a lot of data, but failed to directly link their argument to the question at hand.

It's sort of like a chicken/egg situation. Does gerrymandering drive polarization, or did polarization drive and incentivize gerrymandering? 

Please excuse the few omissions and other small errors.  Not used to posting something without editing it severely.  If you are curious about my meaning - just ask me!

Snark here and then to the main issue:  The Ivies, e.g., Princeton, et al., generally grade on a B curve (learnt from a former student of mine who went to one of them on an ethnic oriented scholarship; returned to the fine public school where he had been my student after a semester at the Ivy school.).  After all, can't be flunking the children of those who are the providers to your endowment!As for the issue of gerrymandering, here in California we've dealt with the issue by asking the populace to vote on the issue.  The thinking populace (those who vote most often) decided they wanted to give it a chance to work.  The selection of the members of the committee was opened to the public at large.  Here we are a few years into this process and with very few exceptions, i.e., those who will complain about anything and everything no matter the issue.  Even the most adamant in their objections in this hugely blue state are no longer talking about overturning the will of the people.  This last election saw the Blue side pick up a supermajority, i.e., 67+%, but the last time they had this "perk," they did not do as the people willed at the next election cycle saw them lose that supermajority.  Given the nature of our form of governance, the California example is the closest we have to the idea of "participatory democracy" as many envisions the Athenian (Greek) experience of several millennia ago.  From here, it is apparent those who live here like the idea of having a say (see our Prop 53 for an example of a individually funded proposition - this Central Vally farmer scared the bejabbers out of career pols and lobbyists.  Point of this?  Until and unless the people rise up and say "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"  (Apologies to "Network," the movie, for the bit of plagiary.) what has occurred across the nation, in turn giving the position of POTUS to a narcissistic, misogynistic, ethnophobic, misanthrope, will not end any time soon.Those on the against side, of course, from their bios are representative of the people known as the "Framers" of our system of governance.  Careful study of the history of that time would reveal, there must have been several examples of imaginary "brain explosions" as the various individuals, i.e., T. Jefferson (slave owner and father of illegitimate children, number unknown, via the female slaves under his aegis), S. Adams, G. Washington; etc., inter alia.  See the pattern here?  Think about it.  The whole idea of the upper house (Senate) being appointed by the states instead of being elected by the people whom they would govern was anathema to them as it was the Senate whose sole purpose was to protect the power of the "ruling elites," i.e., rich, white land/property/business owners.  The House of Representatives could control the purse all they wished, but without the cooperation of the Senate in terms of the budgeting process, the government would never work except at the behest of (Are you ready?) rich, white land/property/business owners.  Oh wait!  This was the Athenian model brought to its ultimate fruition on a very grand scale indeed.  And there you it - it is certainly a much grander scheme than it was some 200 plus years ago.Ultimately, it was gerrymandering in all its slimy, ugly, xenophobic, racist form which has us in the badly leaking canoe in the middle of the Mississippi River (there's a metaphor there by the way).  Good luck to all those Red and Purple states from the cutting edge of the continent.  Maybe creating the State of Pacifica is not such a bad idea after all!!!!!

Amazing, instead of debating the cancer of gerrymandering, you're debating it's effects.

Jankowski [paraphrasing] "Yes, it is cheating and counter-productive, but it is legal."

How can the centrist position get a voice in a gerrymandered statehouse?

Gerrymandering HAS ALREADY destroyed the political center.

Hi Leah!  The stream is live on this page -- no need to refresh or go anywhere else.  When the video goes live it will automatically start streaming right here.  Thanks for joining us tonight!

Thanks. looks like they started late.  it was right here

Here is the link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEazVfXrL14

Is is there a link to watch live?

I live in Hale County Alabama.  A local man ran for the State Senate but his constituency was gerrymandered right out from under him.  His name wasn't even on my ballot.  Instead, his name appeared in another district where the constituents didn't even know him.  Here he was the banker's son.  Every one knew him and supported his campaign.  

It's self-sorting and inequality which intensifies the red and blue.  Read Coming Apart if you haven't.  "Gerrymandering" has always been with us, ability (or inability) to move (geographically) close to people who share your beliefs and tastes is a newer development. Media bias is another big, ugly factor: highlighting identity politics and intensifying the things that make us different from one another.  The big, lit up map of red and blue only debuted in 1976 - it used real light bulbs not computer projections and the party colors were reversed- maybe you remember blue Republican and red Democrat? The late Tim Russert injected "red states and blue states" as we know them in 2000. Just like the electoral college itself, sorting is not going away. It's rooted in Article I of the Constitution. One "solution,"  if needed would be for states to allow our "gerrymandered" Congressional districts to choose an elector each like NE and ME do already.  Not likely, however. Politicians like their districts safe and we get roughly the same result in our center-right country.  Obama was an aberration, face it.  Ds won with him and lost miserably without him.  History will show his ideology informed his strange policies and the country swings back as it always does. 

The root of the problem is not gerrymandering but the concept of districts themselves. Who I live near should not be the standard upon which my representation is decided. In my opinion, a representative should represent a certain number of voters; that number to be determined by dividing the population by the number of representatives.  If a person gets that many votes, he represents those people. That way, he is representing a population who supports him, and everyone's votes count equally.

I'd like someone to explain how the removal of gerrymandering effects the colors (Red and Blue) on the political map which is mostly red by area and blue by population density.  Maybe this is not the forum to ask questions.

I just can't refrain from noting that Gerrymandering is now an issue given that Republicans now control some ~35 out of 50 statehouses. I have lived in Massachusetts for almost 60 years and cannot remember any complaints about Gerrymandering from the Democrats who have a strangle hold on our Congressional delegation. I understand 21 of 22 congressmen from New England are Democrats. 95% of New Englanders are NOT liberal/progressives.

I'm sorry for my undeveloped reply before; I was rushing to a meeting (just as I am now, unfortunately). However, I agree with your response above and appreciate the extra details (especially about Ohio--I had no idea).

On Item 1, that districts should be blind to Political Party:  The trend in the discussion seems to be emphasizing "balanced" districts, that is, with both parties represented evenly.  The problem is, in a winner-take-all system, that means that half the people are not represented (the Democrats in a Republic district, or the Republicans in a Democrat district).  Such a system would be even easier to manipulate and gerrymander, and would not result in districts that make geographic sense.  (Never mind that it doesn't make any allowances for third parties, which this country desperately needs, another discussion for another time.)  Ohio tried to produce a constitutional amendment that would do this, and the districts that resulted were, literally, all over the map.  One district stretched from Cincinnati to Toledo.  Luckily, the amendment failed.

There is a difference between allowing the legislature to make redistricting laws, and giving them the keys to the district maps.  The legislature (any state can try this) can say "After a decennial census, the districts will be drawn thusly..."  and then it outlines a reasonable procedure for determining the districts.  A non-gerrymandered outcome  can then result.    Anyway, the United States Congress does not draw the lines, the state legislatures do.

I absolutely agree, but don't think item 1 is possible.

Those are excellent videos. There are a lot of other resources on the subject, but those are great for illustrating the issue with a sense of balance and possible solutions in a quick, easy to digest manner. Thanks for bringing them up!

I have to be honest, I am very biased on this issue and all campaign reform issues -- I strongly support the "For" side here. I have been following this issue for a long time and it will be very hard for the "Against" side to move me. I spent a lot of time editing this post because I can't seem to avoid arguing viciously (as opposed to respectfully--I don't mind arguing in principle). I think my biggest challenge will be to remove myself from my background and listen with an open mind...which I will try, really, because I support reasoned and respectful discourse...or at least, I want to....

The legislature should not have the ability to determine redistricting laws. This would only be a band-aid. To really fix this along with the other major problems with our election system we need to amend the constitution. This might be the best way to accomplish it, as the congress in Washington seems to be totally corrupt and incapable of governance: on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The spaces I left for readability were removed when I posted. 

I know that any vote other than undecided will actually make whichever side I actually agree with less likely to win.You all should watch CGP Grey's videos about gerrymandering and elections on Youtube. (not joking, I'm looking at you debaters.)I will be mostly watching to see the people opposed to this motion try to argue that the emperor is in fact wearing clothes. In this day and age the notion that anyone would support our obsolete election systems is so absurd I can't imagine a reason other than partisan corruption to advocate for the status quo. First past the post has got to go. No more Gerrymandering. Abolish the electoral college and this absurd primary system. As someone who's spend most of his life on a college campus, I am not for a moment impressed by credentials like professorships at Princeton. They don't even teach logic! You had a professor of Philosophy at Yale who failed at the Socratic method! This is what economic inequality gives us; Incompetent elites.The emperor is not in fact wearing clothing, and no matter how many degrees you have you will not convince me otherwise.

hmmmm...doesn't seem to like me posting a link on this page.  So just Google "We Must Address Gerrymandering" and Time.com and you'll get it.  Published today. 

Great points made on this in a piece in Time:  

Agreed, Phil!  We need reasonable districts.  There are a number of ways to do it - almost any would be an improvement over the political gerrymandering most states (like us in VA) have.

Voting districts at every level should be determined by objective means that meet the following criteria: (1) They are completely blind to the political parties of the voters in the district, (2)  They make geographic sense.  Counties, towns, cities, neighborhoods, etc, should be kept intact whenever possible.(3)  They are stable, and are only adjusted when necessary, and even then only  by approval of the people represented.(4) Once it is decided to abandon gerrymandering, the lines should be drawn algorithmically, with particular attention paid to the first two rules.