My point being that if both parties do it, then there likely won’t be any long lasting political advantages because an equilibrium will be reached. People move in and out of districts and people’s views can change. When candidates go into these hard to win districts and attempt to persuade them to vote for them and get active, the opposite party can win in partisan gerrymandered districts. So, in an ironic way, gerrymandered districts could help keep our democracy strong. There is some evidence of this in the fact that the House and Senate and Presidency change with some regularity based on the current political climate. If people are dissatisfied with their candidates, then they don’t reelect them. Trust in the voters is key. The citizens are the ones that decide whether a candidate stays in office, not their partisan gerrymandering, though it could help them get elected at first. Our democracy works best when we have two healthy parties that counteract each other and work together to solve our countries problems. In a way, gerrymandering forces the opposition party to keep in check with their constituency, as well as have a sense of where they are as a party. When a whole swath of Democrats got thrown out of office in 2014 and 2016 it was not due to gerrymandering, it was due to a flawed message and probably some flawed candidates that were not resonating with