> In fact, Delaney himself was "first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him," according to @mobilefriendly's linked sources. I fail

> In fact, Delaney himself was "first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him," according to @mobilefriendly's linked sources. I fail to see how that's an argument for anything. Unless maybe, if you want to argue that Delaney is voting against his personal interest. > Gerrymandering is generally not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. > [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca.... That primarily seems to be an argument for it not being that a huge issue in CA. Or maybe that the mechanisms for redistricting weren't great in CA. Given that a significant numbers of states have houses with significantly different party percentages than the popular vote suggests, this is a hard to understand argument.