Some things about Gerrymandering we might need to consider–one of these is that it does not only need to be used to help politicians–it can be drawn to protect groups that might otherwise be displaced by gentrification. Now how can Gerrymandering be used to protect groups who would otherwise be underrepresented? If Gerrymandering were to redraw districts along the lines of communities, which do not always pay attention to the arbitrary lines drawn by the State (just as African Tribes did not always pay attention to the arbitrary lines drawn by colonialization) . . . then Gerrymandering could help minority groups in a State gain representation by maintaining majorities in districts. Are they under-represented if the demographics if a district changes and the lines do not? Is a district only a geographical limitation, or does it reflect community, which changes its boundaries by residents and their micro-customs in their communities? Equally so, are lines redrawn to displace voters from changing their representation? Gerrymandering could harness the process of sub-dividing districts, adding representatives to governing bodies? How could that be done without setting as precedent a virtually limitless sub-division of districts?
How can Gerrymandering be maintained because the demographics of areas are changed not always by the slow process of change over extended periods? They often change by forces that are not only demographic, but economic, financial, as a process in the greed-market of real estate; that is, gentrification as a new version of Manifest Destiny which was and has been used to rationalize the displacement of indigenous peoples, somewhat like what is happening in Gaza (or to extent with DAPL, not exactly). And please spare me the micro-division most us play when we say that Gentrification, Colonialism and Gaza are not all of a piece. They are.
So, Gerrymandering is not the problem; who controls the process of Gerrymandering is. To be a democracy, we must insure that especially minority groups have representation that they would prefer, and not some deferential representation because the dogmas of society say that other-representation not of the minority-group’s choosing needs to market his or her statements to the effect that she or he will represent all of the people . . . mostly, again, marketing and not real policy.