> The idea that the states can cheat in elections how they will, even federal elections, and there is no recourse This is false. The recourse, and the correct

> The idea that the states can cheat in elections how they will, even federal elections, and there is no recourse This is false. The recourse, and the correct course of action, is for state citizens to be shown convincing evidence that gerrymandering is unjust and bad (which isn't hard to provide) and elect better representatives. Representatives elected via gerrymandered elections still do actually have to be voted for by members of those districts, and so a sufficiently large grassroots effort will likely succeed. > Given the FEC's extremely limited budget, the fact that they can only enforce a subset of violations is completely necessary. This is selective enforcement. I hope you agree that that's bad. > These two are crappy decisions that are bad for the country and bad for the average citizen. No, they're decisions that are consistent with the constitutional system of the United States. They have undesirable outcomes because of the laziness of voters, but they are principled and correct. Subversion of the tripartite system of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government to try to obtain a better outcome is obviously unsustainable and extremely abusable - a clearly terrible idea, advocated for only by those with a partisan desire for some specific changes to be made, and not because the justices are actually doing a bad job (so far).