Called by another name, it’s still gerrymandering

I read dumbfoundedly an op-ed by a ChangeIllinois director about how gerrymandering can be fair if it’s done for the right reasons [“Why city’s earmuffs’ are about fairness — not about gerrymandering,” March 13].

The right reason to create incredibly contorted voting districts is to create a majority/minority district, so we can be sure that we get a minority representative, because that is fair. It is certainly not fair to all the non-minority residents who live in those districts.

But it still meets the definition of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering isn’t simply diluting a group’s numbers; it also occurs when you concentrate a particular group into as few districts as possible. Oh, they may get their one or two candidates of choice, but they will be the only people looking out for their “unique” needs vs. having many representatives with a lot of those constituents in their districts. Any representative with a sizable group of any demographic in their district will always have their back.

True fairness, it seems to me, requires virtual districts. Let every person fill out a form defining their demographic in order of importance: race, ethnicity, religion, age, language, wealth. Then let the computers sort it all out.

We won’t number our districts anymore. We will have the black districts, the Latino, the rich, the Christian, the Muslim, the Jewish, the old people. But we will be linked together with all the other people whose values and interests best match ours, and then we will all truly be represented.

Other than that, I would recommend that districts be drawn blindly, compactly, following natural boundaries. Anything beyond that only leads to mischief.