The Economist:

American exceptionalism comes in many forms, but one of the odder ones is the way it sets its electoral boundaries.

Politically controlled redistricting helps drive the hyper-partisanship of politics. In turbulent political times, when large swings in the vote are possible, party bosses feel driven to construct safer seats than they once used to need. With fewer seats changing hands on election day, this tends to shift the focus of politics away from the general election itself, and on to the primaries in which the parties select their candidates. The turnout in primaries is tiny, typically only between 10% and 20% of voters, and tends to be disproportionately composed of activists. So those selected tend to be politically slanted to the left or the right extremes.

On November 2nd, a big blow could be struck against the ancient practice of gerrymandering, when California's voters will decide whether or not to turn the task over to an independent Citizen Redistricting Commission, laboriously constructed so as to be balanced and independent by a process of screening and random selection.

Most other states don't have the power to change voting rules by popular ballot, meaning that legislatures will, in effect, have to vote to disempower themselves.

Until every district matters, perhaps we could use a tool that vectors prospective authors of Wikipedia articles toward the "battleground" districts where their efforts at educational outreach might have an impact.

Aaron Swartz:

As described in Jeffrey Toobin's excellent New Yorker article, The Great Election Grab, new computer software allows whatever party controls the state legislature to redraw districts so finely and accurately that of the 435 House seats, only about 30 are actually contested.

Jeffrey Toobin:

Before 1990, most state legislators did their redistricting by taking off their shoes and tiptoeing with Magic Markers around large maps on the floor, marking the boundaries on overlaid acetate sheets. Use of computers in redistricting began in the nineties, and it has now become a science.

The software is called Caliper's Maptitude for Redistricting and costs about four thousand dollars per copy. The software permits mapmakers to analyze an enormous amount of data -- party registration, voting patterns, ethnic makeup from census data, property-tax records, roads, railways, old district lines.

Nathaniel Persily:

There used to be a theory that gerrymandering was self-regulating. But it's not self-regulating anymore. We have become very good at predicting how people are going to vote. The software is too good, and the partisanship is too strong.