Gerrymandering

A part of American politics for over 200 years, gerrymandering districts is nonetheless unfairly political, regardless of the party drawingthe lines. Representatives should be representing a set of constituents that live together in a community or region with common economic, cultural, and social perspectives, not a set of constituents with nothing more in common than being likely to vote for a given political party that had power when the districts were last redrawn to balance the populations of each. 

Redistricting for population shifts is necessary and appropriate, but drawing boundaries that are designed primarily to ensure the majority party will gain the most seats with oddly shaped districts that bear no resemblance to commonly accepted community or regional boundaries is disenfranchising voters in those divided communities who are split just because otherwise they might elect a representative from the minority party.

Take my home state of Illinois and home district, the 18th. The district sprawls and snakes around, reaching all the way from Peoria to Bloomington, down to Springfield and west to Quincy while not even including all of the Peoria area, the Bloomington area, or the Springfield area. Why not include all of the Peoria and Bloomington areas and leave the far west to another district?

In the Chicago area, take a look at the 1st and 11th districts. Those have no resemblance to any natural group of neighboring communities with common interests.

What would make more sense is to take away the redistricting process privilege from the political party in power and place it in the hands of bipartisan board with strict legal guidelines that limit the ability to create gerrymandered districts.

Requirements might look like the following:

1. Districts shall not cross geographic telephone area code boundaries except where a community (county, township, city, neighborhood) would be divided arbitrarily.
2. Districts shall not divide a metropolitan area as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau except where such an area has a population greater than the size of a district, and then only by first creating entire districts within those boundaries and ensuring the remaining population is within a single district.
3. District boundaries shall follow postal ZIP Code boundaries except where necessary to follow community boundaries (county, township, city) that cross ZIP Codes.
4. District boundaries shall not divide a county, township, or city except where the population of that entity is greater than the size of a district, and then only by first creating entire districts within those boundaries and ensuring the remaining population is within a single district.
5. District boundaries that must fall within a city or township must follow other existing boundaries such as school district, fire protection district, police precinct, park district, subdivision, historical neighborhood, city legislative district, etc

It wouldn't be perfect as I've outlined it above, but it would be more fair than what we have now.