Redistricting Pros And Cons

Voters should care about redistricting because it cherry-picks voters, can be used to eliminate an incumbent, eliminate an opponent, skews state-wide representation, dilutes minority voting, and splits up communities. The lines are tailored more to fit the representatives and not the voters.

The negative effects of political redistricting is there is no compromise left when one party draws the lines so that they will win and the other will lose. Competition is critical when voters want or need something passed, but when one group has more control, then there is no need for compromise. It dilutes minority voting because the maps can be redrawn for a certain incumbent if the incumbent is losing that minorities votes. Redistricting

Another positive effect is that if the vote were based on one to one votes, cities would have more say than suburbs and rural communities. I do think a positive to redistricting, if used correctly, would help to protect minorities and give them a voice.

Redistricting should be determined by mathematics to make impartial districts. I am sure there is a formula someone could come up with to align with court rulings, divide up the districts evenly in population, contiguity, and compactness. This would make the districts more fair and representative of the people and we would not need the biases of a few people to draw the lines in their favor. Redistricting more impartial districts would also help raise competition and make the incumbents work for their votes.

According to Ballotpedia, both California and Arizona seem to be the only states that actually attempts to be bipartisan by having an independent commision draw the lines for both congressional and legislative district lines. Ballotpedia (2017) FairVote says redistricting is done in most states by the state legislature to draw both state legislative and congressional district lines. FairVote