We use analytics cookies to understand how readers use the site. They only run if you accept. Privacy policy.
Gerrymandering has its own small dictionary, and two words do almost all the work: “packing” and “cracking.” Understand those, and you understand how a party can win fewer votes but more seats — or shut a 40% bloc out entirely. Start with the four terms that matter, in plain English.
Drawing the boundaries of electoral districts to give one party, group, or incumbent an unfair advantage.
Every district line is a choice, and whoever draws it can decide elections in advance. Gerrymandering is the deliberate manipulation of those lines — not to make districts compact, balanced, or fair, but to lock in a result. It comes in two flavors that often travel together: partisan gerrymandering (rigging the map for a political party) and racial gerrymandering (diluting the voting power of a racial group, which is illegal under the Voting Rights Act). The core move is always the same: waste your opponents’ votes. Concentrate them where they’re already winning, or scatter them where they can’t win at all. The math is simple; the maps are not.
Gerrymandering is not a glitch in the system — for most of American history it has been a feature of it. The Constitution hands states the power to set the "times, places and manner" of elections (Art. I §4) and says almost nothing about how district lines should be drawn. That silence is the opening. The fight over gerrymandering is really a fight over a deeper question: should the people choose their representatives, or should the representatives choose their voters?