For example, if a state has 9 districts and 2 cities, wouldn't it be better to create 2 districts around the cities and 7 around the rural/suburban areas? This way the state would have a definite 7-2 GOP advantage rather than to split the cities up and make all 9 districts competitive and vulnerable?
Gerrymandered districts are no guarantee of safety. Democrats were tossed out of districts they held for years.
I prefer districts drawn to nonpartisan and objective criteria that value fair representation, territorial contiguity and ensure competitive elections. Partisan advantage and incumbent protection should be irrelevant to the redistricting process.
In other words, every voter should get the chance to see his candidate win. In gerrymandered districts, people of the minority party stay home because their vote counts for nothing.
That needs to change.
That wouldn’t seem to be the smartest way to gerrymander.
Suppose you had a 60/40 split of people registered GOP/Dem in a state. If you concentrate the 40% into their own districts, then you guarantee they win those 4 out of 10 districts. By carefully arranging each district so it includes that same 60/40 split, the party with 60% of the voters means they can take ALL the districts. The party representing 40% of the people will never get any seats because they’ll be outvoted in their district every time.
Conversely, if the 40% get to control redistricting, they could arrange those districts so their loyal voters have a majority in 3/4 of the districts.
That is essentially what they will do in North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, among other places.