Within the world of political science nerds, there has been much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments about the stupor-inducing topic of gerrymandering. Like its equally overrated cousin, campaign finance, gerrymandering is allegedly hastening the demise of the Republic with its malevolent manipulation of voters whose political intelligence is relentlessly insulted by the hand wringers and pearl clutchers preoccupied with these alibis for why their side loses elections they're obviously entitled to win. I'm not disputing the existence of gerrymandering. Both sides do it when they can. Both sides scream bloody murder when they're on the receiving on the receiving of this scam dressed up in democratic pretense. I'm not challenging its occurrence. I question its relevance, its utility. I question whether it works. My skepticism about the peril of gerrymandering is fortified by current events. Nearly every time we have a special election here in the age of Trump, the party of Trump loses. Increasingly those losses occur in places that haven't elected a Democrat since...well, they often can't remember. Whether it be Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Virginia, Kansas, or Wisconsin, districts stuffed to the gills with Republicans are using, you know, their BALLOT, to hand over legislative offices to Democrats. Maybe gerrymandering works when voters in a district are checked out. However, it increasingly appears that when voters are engaged and attentive, gerrymandering is puny protection indeed for an unpopular party. It's certainly a weak alibi for unhappy electoral outcomes.
