[mhaymo]

I think you're massively overstating the effects of gerrymandering.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026137941...

> while Republican and Democratic gerrymandering affects the partisan outcomes of Congressional elections in some states, the net effect across the states is modest, creating no more than one new Republican seat in Congress

[blanderman]

It has a more dramatic effect on state governments: "In 2000, 21 state governments had governorships and state legislatures controlled by one party; 15 of those were Republican. But by 2010, 33 state governments were under one-party control, 22 of them Republican." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/04/2...

[Retric]

> gerrymandering or the electoral college

Look up just how many races had exactly one candidate and say that again. US politics has been adjusted based on it's ridiculous rules, different rules would have vastly more competitive races.

IMO #1 change would be nationwide proportional representation for at least one side of congress which mean every single vote counts and 3rd parties are viable.

[bbeonx]

IMO, even if gerrymandering doesn't have a huge effect on seating in Congress (perhaps it has more effect on state level politics? I didn't read the other commenter's link so I won't make any claims) it makes a lot of districts non-competitive. The effects of this are hard to quantify and so we don't hear as much about it, but I argue that they are at least as profound as the numerical differences in congress on our national dialogue.

[cimmanom]

the issue is more that the country is self-gerrymandered such that despite the majority of total votes going to democrats, the distribution of house and senate seats across the states heavily favors rural areas that tend to vote overwhelmingly republican.