Arguments Against Gerrymandering

510 Words2 Pages

Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating the boundaries of Congressional districts so as to favor one party or class. The goal is to create more seats in legislature or protect the seats the party has by grouping people who will most likely vote for them. This is an issue because these boundaries can be manipulated so much that a party can lose the popular vote by a lot and still win the state. Obviously if Americans had an issue with George W. Bush winning the Presidency without winning the popular vote then they should be upset about this. Gerrymandering should not be allowed because it allows people who are in power to stay in power, regardless of what the people want. The main reason against Gerrymandering is the fact that it allows people currently governing to manipulate the boundaries of districts to favor their party. This would be the same as winning a game of chess and then taking most of the pieces away from your opponent, so that it looks like they might win when really they stand no chance. Gerrymandering was specifically created for this purpose. Gerrymandering is named after early 19th-century …show more content…

African Americans, Latinos and other racial and ethnic groups be underrepresented, as well as liberal and conservative voters. Because these groups are minorities in america, not having their own congressional district (made by gerrymandering) would mean their voices would not get heard. But I disagree with this because I feel like we at least need to try, if we did not then all competition. Companies like Comcast and other monopolies thrive even though they are hated, they thrive because there is no competition. If we do not at least try to put an end to Gerrymandering then soon things might get out of hand and out Democracy would go into even more of a

Open Document