In a nation that represents itself as the premiere example of democracy at work; it is hard to believe that the votes of many citizens are disregarded. This phenomenon is not the result of an ill-informed electorate, but rather a product electoral gerrymandering by elected officials.

Gerrymandering, the manipulation of the redistricting system, is an American tradition. It can be traced back to the election for the 1st US Congress, in which Patrick Henry deliberately redrew Virginia’s 5th district in an attempt to keep James Madison out of the House of Representatives. Today, gerrymandering is a common tactic that incumbents use to ensure reelection by creating “safe seats.” These seats are created by diluting votes, thereby bending election results in their favor. They accomplish this by packing or cracking votes. Packing involves redrawing district lines to compress a particular type of voter into one district. This tactic allows officials to retain their seats by enormous margins and simultaneously prevents the voter from having influence in closer races. Sometimes packing gives voice to minority groups, but more often it is problematic because the power lies with the officials rather than the constituents. Cracking dissolves votes by spreading them throughout many districts, allowing an official to hide the voices of their opposition party amongst the masses.

These practices present a clear conflict of interest for elected officials; they are essentially given the power to elect themselves. Making matters worse, in 2003 the Supreme Court ruled in League of United Latin American Citizens vs. Perry in favor of redistricting compatible with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act guarantees all voters equality in the voting process. This means that gerrymandering is only unconstitutional if the votes of a minority group are being dissipated throughout the system. Under this reasoning, the majority of America is not granted inalienable, constitution voting rights.

As a result of judicial inaction, electoral maps continue to be splattered like a Jackson Pollack painting. New York, a particularly active gerrymandering state, even has a teapot district. The district is located in a suburban Republican area which makes up the base of the teapot. The lines were redrawn, creating a steam image, which cracks the votes in the base. This allows their representative to slip by with a narrow Democratic majority.

However, the system is not completely controlled by elected officials. There are rules and guidelines concerning gerrymandering. Districts must have approximately the same population, within a ten percent margin. Though there are explicit rules, there are also loopholes. For example, state Senate District 45 in New York envelopes twelve prisons in order to fulfill a population mandate. Technically, these prisoners are constituents but they cannot vote, therefore giving more power and electoral influence one party.

Other nations have resolved gerrymandering problems by placing redistricting in the hands of a non-partisan group. Both the United Kingdom and Canada practice non-partisan redistricting to preserve the value of the individual vote and limit the unfair influence of incumbents in reelection battles. Within the United States, Iowa also practices this system. Proportional representation is another solution. Though unlikely to be implemented, it would dissolve the winner-take all system and create more electoral competition.

With the 2010 census rapidly approaching, districts nation-wide will begin the redistricting process. Elected officials will invest enormous amounts of time and money to manipulate the district lines in order to achieve the greatest number of votes. With the status quo, votes are not being counted at full value and as a result, the integrity of our democracy is compromised. Those with a vested interest in reelection should not be in control of redistricting. A non-partisan authority should be established in order to make every vote count.