I’ve read a few comments here suggesting that for this to be gerrymandering it would need to benefit one party over the other. Obviously this is the sort of definition that pre-supposes a two party system which is fine since that’s the de-facto world given us by our great leaders. Other commenters suggest gerrymandering doesn’t protect incumbents yet I’ve seen incumbent gerrymandering in action via packing so I’m not sure that position holds much water.
The problem seems to be that we’ve entered into the murky world of the argument of definition. To some of us, it looks like gerrymandering to others it’s not. What is not important here is the use of the term gerrymandering. That’s just a distraction. What is important here is that a politician who would have been unable to represent their own district when they moved to their new house decided to have the maps redrawn in order to sidestep state laws concerning who can represent whom. The corruption here was so systemic that even party opposition agreed with the change. Why? Well that’s simple. They want to maintain the current incumbent on both sides - for what reason I leave you to decide. This is the kind of naked corruption that leaves the public saying, “meh, whatever”. After all, we’ve been conditioned to accept this sort of thing from our elected representatives and since as others have pointed out, there is no third option, that’s what we get.
5 Likes
