Skip to main content
The boards are getting a new home!

We're pleased to announce an update is coming to the community boards.

Saturday, September 24th: We are migrating the boards to a new platform. The site is currently in read-only mode and we will bring it back online as soon as the migration is complete. | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 2
I can get behind this.

Gerrymandering, whether in Texas or California, is simply wrong.

But lets not pose this as a moral equivalence in terms of the number of states that engage in it, or the truly egregious examples to which we can point.

It’s simply, flat out, wrong.

Wherever it occurs.


Wrong, wherever it occurs. I agree with that. With any change there will be winners and there will be losers and the losers will always claim gerrymandering.

What sort of process could be employed to rule out that claim? Perhaps some limits on geometry that would rule out those amoeba shaped districts. Require all districts to be rectangular with the long side no greater than 2x the short side, or something like that. Even if something could work at the state level, there are still issues with city council districts and country government districts.

Entrenched politicians would probably still figure out ways to exploit anyway.
Print the post  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.