Gerrymandering Within Congress

"Gerrymandering is at least partly to blame for the lopsided Republican representation in the House. According to an analysis I did last year, the Democrats are under-represented by about 18 seats in the House, relative to their vote share in the 2012 election. The way Republicans pulled that off was to draw some really, really funky-looking Congressional districts.

Contrary to one popular misconception about the practice, the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably. Considering this dynamic, John Sides of The Washington Post's Monkey Cage blog has argued convincingly that gerrymandering is not what's behind the rising polarization in Congress."

It is interesting to me how this paragraph describes gerrymandering in such a way that it is not responsible for the sharp division within the political parties, when by definition gerrymander is when politicians change or manipulate the boundaries of their voting districts in order to benefit themselves or their political party.  According to The Monkey Cage blog the author does not believe this is the reason behind the rising polarization in Congress, if politicians being able to manipulate districts is not the cause, then what would the reason for it? 

I chose this section of the article because it seems that gerrymandering is a hot topic in terms of its responsibility and the role it plays in Congress. For example, "to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably." If a party is able to demonstrate such a huge dominance, than this is unfair especially for the other parties since there is no guarantee that they can or will regain control. For something so concrete, political, balanced, and important as our government it seems as though with gerrymandering everything is up in the air without no promise and main control lies within the politicians boundaries. Ultimately, I agree with The Monkey Cage blog because there would have to be more then just gerrymandering to determine the congressional districts. 

Civil Disobedience

Thoreau was very conscious in which respect for laws or traditions and mores can easily turn into a mechanical and unthinking submission to whatever the authorities may be:

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army; and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens (p. 223).

Henry David Thoreau was the was the author of the essay "Civil Disobedience" in which he strongly believed that breaking the law and challenging the authorities was the right thing to do if these laws were unjust. Although he rebelled against those unjust laws the main purpose of his essay was for everyone to act without committing any violence. This quote relates to the lecture text because Thoreau becomes aware on how the authority has the abuse that these laws. He states in this quote that  "The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies." He is trying to explain that people are following the law but being brainwashed into the system and not viewing how the government is using them as tools. Thoreau rebelled by not paying his taxes and going to jail because he will not support how the government will not do good with all this money. 

I chose this piece by Thoreau because it revolutionized how people should respect the law but also stand for what they believe in if its unjust. Furthermore, because of how he goes about it, which is a non-violent approach. This movement has inspired many historical activist such as Malcolm X, and Dr Martin Luther King to respect the laws but also make sure is equal and fair for everybody.