Gerrymandering is definitely manipulation, it is defined and has a wikipedia article that states "gerrymandering is when a party or group manipulates district boundaries"

Sure, but data shows that after gerry mandering, the incumbent party in a district is more likely to lose. Please read the source cited or at least be familiar before arguing in bad faith. I'm open to criticism of the work cited

Wouldn’t incumbents losing suggest that gerrymandering makes elections less competitive and favors incumbents?

Well, after redistricting by supposedly partisan committees one would expect the redistricting process to further entrench incumbents because either party would be unwilling to yield established seats. In fact, the opposite happens.

Wouldn’t incumbents losing after partisan gerrymandering suggest that current gerrymandering favors parties so much that they can’t improve the system in ways that benefit them specifically, and that even a partisan committee led redistricting would be more representative of the voters more will than the current districts?

> ...moving the EC (which should not be abolished IMO) into electing actual electors by district.

It’s honestly surprising that only two states are winner-takes-all by district. The other 48 are winner-takes-all for the whole state.

That's neglecting this, though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

It deserves to be neglected, it is an extremely foolish idea. It literally can only hurt the Democrats advocating for it in the solid blue states that are signatories.

It only comes into force when a majority of EC delegate-states agree, not before.

This is illegal. The constitution mandates that each state must offer its residents representative democracy. If a state apportions electors based on the results of another state that is basing their election on the votes of residents of another state, which means the voters of the state in question are being disenfranchised.

According to the wiki article above that doesn't seem to be the case:

> The Constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its state college of electors.

I would really suggest reading the Constitution. It's like 5 pages long, and really not difficult. It's so simple that really one ought to expect every American to be able to repeat all its clauses, even if they can't remember what goes where.

Nevertheless, Article IV, Section 4:

> The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

If a state is choosing electors based on voters not in the state, then the citizens of the state no longer have a republican form of government. The state cannot simply arbitrarily choose who to force their electors to vote for. The process must be a republican one somehow.

> see the Big Sort by Bill Bishop

Set it in this font: https://uglygerry.com

>> see the Big Sort by Bill Bishop

Can you elaborate on why that’s relevant? Sorry, I’m not going to buy and read an entire book on this.

There's a one eyed Congressman in Texas near Houston whose district is shaped like a freaking C because it's the only way to get a Republican elected in the area, but okay.