• blitzen@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 months ago

    Well, each vote is counted. Gerrymandering affects (federal level in the US) only the House of Representatives, and districts are drawn (ideally) proportional to population. How those lines are drawn are not and cannot be objective; Gerrymandering is when that subjectivity allows for bias.

    • 𞋴𝛂𝛋𝛆@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 months ago

      The objection is that lines are not legitimate. Lines and districts do not represent voters, they represent politicians and that is not democratic.

      • blitzen@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Districts by their very nature represent voters.

        I feel like you are misunderstanding representative government. There is value in districts, provided they are drawn apolitically. Without it, people living in sparsely populated areas would effectively have their unique needs unmet.

        I am not saying the system is without critique. There is loads wrong with it as is, as the gerrymandering problem illustrates. But while one person / one vote would be ideal for an office like president (and it should be changed so this is the case), it would have other issues if it were used for all offices.

        • Leon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Without it, people living in sparsely populated areas would effectively have their unique needs unmet.

          Why? That’s why you have different tiers of government. Parliament shouldn’t have to worry about the state of the water in a particular municipality, that’s a local government issue. Similarly, the state sets the budget for healthcare, but the regions allocate those resources based on the needs of the municipalities.