Editing Gerrymandering (section)

===Less descriptive representation===
Gerrymandering also has significant effects on the [[representation (politics)|representation]] voters receive in gerrymandered districts. Because gerrymandering can be designed to increase the number of wasted votes among the electorate, the relative representation of particular groups can be drastically altered from their actual share of the voting population. This effect can significantly prevent a gerrymandered system from achieving proportional and [[descriptive representation]], as the winners of elections are increasingly determined by who is drawing the districts, rather than the voters' preferences.

Gerrymandering may be advocated to improve representation within the legislature among otherwise underrepresented minority groups by packing them into a single district. This can be controversial, as it may lead to those groups' remaining marginalized in the government as they become confined to a single district. Candidates outside that district no longer need to represent them to win elections.

As an example, much of the redistricting conducted in the U.S. in the early 1990s involved the intentional creation of additional "majority-minority" districts where racial minorities such as African Americans were packed into the majority. This "maximization policy" drew support from both the Republican Party (which had limited support among African Americans and could concentrate its power elsewhere) and by minority representatives elected as Democrats from these constituencies, who then had safe seats. <!-- cite a famous politician or political scientist that has a good quote of this here -->

The 2012 election provides a number of examples of how partisan gerrymandering can adversely affect the descriptive function of states' congressional delegations. In Pennsylvania, for example, Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives received 83,000 more votes than Republican candidates, yet the Republican-controlled redistricting process in 2010 resulted in Democrats losing to their Republican counterparts in 13 of Pennsylvania's 18 districts.<ref>Ting, Jan C. "Boehner and House Republicans Lack Mandate to Oppose Obama." NewsWorks. NewsWorks.Org, 14 December 2012. Web. 5 February 2013.
[https://whyy.org/articles/boehner-and-house-republicans-lack-mandate-to-oppose-obama/]
</ref>

In the seven states where Republicans had complete control over the redistricting process, Republican House candidates received 16.7 million votes and Democratic House candidates received 16.4 million. The redistricting resulted in Republican victories in 73 out of the 107 affected seats; in those seven states, Republicans received 50.4% of the votes but won in over 68% of the congressional districts.<ref>Wang, Sam. "The Great Gerrymander of 2012." The New York Times. 2 February 2013. Web. 5 February 2013.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html]
</ref> While it is but one example of how gerrymandering can have a significant effect on election outcomes, this kind of disproportional representation of the public will seems problematic for the legitimacy of democratic systems, regardless of one's political affiliation.

In [[Michigan]], redistricting was conducted by a Republican legislature in 2011.<ref name=":3">{{cite web|url=http://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Michigan|title=Redistricting in Michigan|work=ballotpedia.org}}</ref> Federal congressional districts were designed so that cities such as [[Battle Creek]], [[Grand Rapids]], [[Jackson, Michigan|Jackson]], [[Kalamazoo]], [[Lansing]], and [[East Lansing]] were separated into districts with large conservative-leaning hinterlands that diluted the Democratic votes in those cities in Congressional elections.<ref name=":3" />