Democrats have as of late been promoting, and seriously considering the idea of revising the constitution an order to prevent gerrymandering from occurring. On its face this seems like a rather noble endeavor however once one begins to sift through the facts of what exactly that would entail, it becomes clear, in my opinion, that to go down that road would be reckless at best, and disastrous at worst. Gerrymandering which originates from a supreme court ruling in the 19th century which allowed for the drawing of district maps by the states which those districts are in is a simple concept with sometimes archaic, often times almost garish results. This is not to say that it’s not popular or necessary. One oft cited complaint from Republicans is the sort of tribal results which these redistricting maps, as well as the laws which govern them can have. And though I don’t disagree with the outcome of these elections. I do disagree with the way in which they go about conceiving this outcome. The abolition of states rights in favor of a one state one party system is not the ideal from a Republican perspective. Though this is where the logic of banning district borders can lead to. For you see in the quest to ban one type of border the precedent is then established in the appeals, and circuit courts to establish a basis on which litigants can then argue, theoretically that the idea of borders between states is unconstitutional and should be abolished. It is then not difficult to imagine the makeup of a Supreme Court that would allow the abolition of gerrymandering, and also the abolition of states boundaries. Once done this would in effect marginalize the grassroots, and local political establishments. In favor of a national, Washington centric political apparatchik, which would cater to the ultra wealthy, and oft times ultra liberal elite in the country. It would then not be difficult to see a situation in which 24 governorships are up for contention, totaling in excess of 200 candidates. These candidates unless they are the ultra wealthy would then be forced to campaign for the nomination of their party in all fifty states, and on top of that garner the attention and affections of the party elites in Washington who would then pick and choose whom they feel are the most qualified candidates, and whom they feel should be most payed attention to by the media. This would in effect concentrate the reins of power into an unelected elite few who are not bound to any one political party or electing constituency. This would shift the majority of electioneering to the media since they would be the ones, along with the Washington elite whom would decide what the outcome of nationwide elections would be. This in my opinion is reprehensible and not the right direction which the country should gravitate towards. A similar effort was bolstered back in 2000 after the Florida recount in which Al Gore contested the election of George W. Bush as the 43rd President of the United States. This effort I believe will have similar results. So then while I agree with the spirit of the notion of having free and fair elections. I feel that this is one idea which is dangerous, and has perhaps run its course.