How electoral districts are "sliced up" before US congressional elections and why it's dangerous

The fiercest struggle in American politics today is not between two presidential contenders.

It is happening between states, which control the electoral maps that determine who sits in Congress.

Read more about how gerrymandering poses a threat to the United States in the article by Carla Norrlöf of University of Toronto political science: Texas vs. California: how Trumpists plan to win the new US congressional elections.

Gerrymandering has become the decisive tool in this struggle, allowing state-level authorities to create maps that neutralize opposition voters.

By clustering such voters into a handful of districts so that most districts go to your party, or by scattering them across many districts so that they cannot prevail anywhere, parties can translate cartography into control.

Ballots are still cast, but the outcome has been predetermined.

Texas offers the clearest example.

Republicans just passed a congressional map designed to yield them as many as five more seats in the House of Representatives.

When Democratic lawmakers fled the state to deny a quorum, Texas Governor Greg Abbott threatened to send troopers to bring them back.

Each state is free to redraw its map unchecked, and the results are not subtle. In 2024, a Brennan Center for Justice analysis showed that current maps already tilt the field by about 16 congressional seats in the Republicans’ favor – enough to decide control of the House.

California – a heavily Democratic state – then responded in kind. Governor Gavin Newsom wants to override his state’s independent redistricting commission to secure a Democratic advantage, arguing that if Texas tilted the battlefield, California must not remain idle.

Where will all this lead?

Polling shows that most Americans see such partisan map-drawing as a threat to democracy.

California’s redistricting commission is constitutionally independent.

By mirroring Texas, it is showing how easy it is for partisan imperatives to override democratic guardrails. Mainstream commentators are increasingly describing the clash as a kind of "war."

The Nobel laureate economist and game theorist Thomas Schelling warned that such escalatory contests do not end in victory, but in instability.

Once one side redraws its front lines, the other must answer. 

Other countries show how corrosive the spiral can be once it begins.

In Poland, the Law and Justice (PiS) party changed the electoral rules after 2015 to tilt the system in its favor, deepening polarization.

Hungary offers a cautionary twist. When Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party redrew districts in 2011, the changes gave it a short-term edge, but later created distortions that became liabilities. Winning too heavily in some areas meant wasting votes in others.

Gerrymanders may deliver certain wins today; but over time, the skewed maps can create unforeseen vulnerabilities.

When maps dictate outcomes, elections risk becoming hollow rituals.

The real battles shift to party primaries, where candidates cater to the most committed voters. Extremists thrive, moderates vanish, and polarization deepens.

The true danger is not that elections will cease, but that they will cease to matter.

 This article originally appeared on Project Syndicate and is republished with permission from the copyright holder.