The state census is taken only once every decade. At that time, it is understandable …show more content…
In the races, Republicans won half a million more votes than the Democrats. The Democratic Party won 31 more seats.” The facts that Reagan is relating in his quote seem to clearly prove that gerrymandering makes an extreme difference in election results. If those voting districts had been evenly and impartially divided, it is likely that the Republican party would have won the greater number of seats. At the very least, the number of seats for both parties would have been more evenly distributed according to the voters. The Wisconsin gerrymander of 2011-12 is another example of a time when gerrymandering was carried a little too far. The ratio of Republican to Democrat representatives in the State Assembly was dramatically increased. For anyone siding with the Republicans, this could be considered a victory. Considering the situation from the angle of an impartial citizen, neither party “wins,” because individuals are gradually losing their influence in American politics. Objectively, one can see that gerrymandering is no better than an extremely overlooked form of legal voting …show more content…
In an interview on gerrymandering, Lance Kelley noted that it is a case of “out of sight, out of mind” (“Kelley”). People seem to forget that gerrymandering is a problem until they are outraged by the unfairness of it. Unfortunately, at that point the districts have been drawn and confirmed, and it is generally too late to change them. After a gerrymander has been finalized, it is difficult to change it prior to the next redistricting. Occasionally lawsuits have been filed against excessive gerrymanders, stating that they are unconstitutional. Although there is foundation for such an accusation, very few of the lawsuits actually have a great enough effect to cause the districts to be