This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
The introductory sentence says "Gerrymandering is the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries with the intent to create undue advantage for a party, group, or socioeconomic class." But there are instances where that is actually the remedy to gerrymandering, not gerrymandering itself. When a minority is relatively evenly distributed throughout a state, then it becomes impossible to create majority-minority districts without manipulating the electoral district boundaries to advantage that minority group. In fact the courts have at times required that states do this in order to counter perceived "gerrymandering" that is preventing majority-minority districts. It seems to me that this contradiction should be pointed out in the introduction, similar to how contradictory meaning is explained in the introduction to the "Original Equipment Manufacturer" article.--Westwind273 (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Darknipples: The disputed text is A striking modern example of malapportionment is the U.S. senate, where states receive equal representation despite widely varying populations. By this logic, the UN General Assembly would seem to be malapportioned. India and Nauru get the same number of votes. I do not understand this sort of complaint. But since you found one RS that uses 'malapportionment', I've left it in (although whether it is relevant here is another matter). Srnec (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the discussion. The UN may or may not be considered malapportioned by some standards, but I do not believe it is a complaint or criticism, rather, it is a notable example that seems to have consensus among RS including academia. I'm confused as to why the Guardian source was removed. I checked Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Why do you consider it unreliable or otherwise not worthy of inclusion here? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a better source sufficient for the point. Srnec (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that this article doesn't include any discussion of proposals to remedy gerrymandering. I found Gerrymandering in the United States § Remedies, and suggest something similar be added to this article. Daask (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
