There&#x27;s a funny contradiction in the setup of this piece. It starts off like this:<p>&gt; PARTISAN gerrymandering is an offense to democracy. It creates districts that are skewed and uncompetitive, denying voters the ability to elect representatives who fairly reflect their views.<p>But the <i>issue</i> they&#x27;re talking about is actually the opposite of this! Further down:<p>&gt; Partisan redistricters stuff voters of the opposing party into a smaller number of districts, while spreading their own voters over a larger number of districts to eke out as many bare wins as possible. It is possible for a party to win more than half of the popular vote in a state, yet control fewer than one-third of the legislative seats. This is not a theoretical problem: Precisely such a thing happened in 2012 with the congressional delegations of Pennsylvania and North Carolina.<p>The charge here is that the party controlling districting wants to make it <i>as easy as possible</i> for voters in the enemy party to elect the representative of their choice, by taking away all of their opposition. At the same time, the controlling party is trying to make the districts it wins <i>as competitive as possible</i> (while staying above 50%). Any votes you earn above the 50% threshold would be put to better use in some other district.<p>Now, the strategical analysis is perfectly sound and this is a reasonable complaint to make. I just think it&#x27;s funny that the rhetoric of the piece is actually opposed to the policy complaints.