This is what America would look like without gerrymandering

We've written about gerrymandering here on Vox — we've described some of the worst examples, and potential reforms that might prevent it (one of which was just upheld by the Supreme Court). But what would a world without gerrymandering look like? Check out the map above, in which each colored district has a roughly equal population, for one possible glimpse. (Note that this map draws districts that cross state borders as well, which is impossible under our current system, but would end the overrepresentation of some small states.)

Their map of North Carolina is quite different from Our ludicrously gerrymandered one

The map was created by the Center for Range Voting, which was founded by math PhD Warren Smith and engineer Jan Kok to float innovative election reform proposals. To make it, they used what they call the shortest splitline algorithm. Basically, they used the shortest possible line to cut a state into two halves with roughly equal populations. Then they did so again, and again, and again, until they had the proper number of overall districts.

If the map that crosses state lines is too far-fetched for you, the site also features maps using the shortest splitline algorithm for each individual state. For instance, check out the difference between today's ludicrously gerrymandered North Carolina House map — featuring twisting, snakelike districts that stretch across the state — and the Center's version:

The drawbacks of nice-looking maps

Districts drawn this way would solve one of the main objections to gerrymandering — that politicians rig the process to benefit themselves or their parties.

But it's important to note that because of their simplicity, these maps don't take several factors into account — factors many people think are quite important in ensuring good representation.

For instance, they don't try to keep historical neighborhoods or regions intact. They don't try to ensure representation of racial minorities. And they don't pay any attention to striking a balance between political parties, or ensuring that districts are competitive. "Pretty little districts," John Sides wrote at the Monkey Cage, "could actually be pretty terrible."

VIDEO: Gerrymandering, explained

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via