Proportional Gerrymandering

After reading many posts, I have decided, like Julia, and Gil, that proportional gerrymandering would be the most convenient method to use. In my honest opinion, I think all the ideas are susceptible to causing problems with disproportional districts and they are all flawed, but realistically, proportional gerrymandering works best. A bi-partisan redistributing committee sounds ideal, but as the video stated, the interests of representatives differ from those of its constituents and the only thing this committee is successful in doing is protecting incumbents. Independent redistricting commissions are just as ineffective and develop skewed districts because the races end up being uncompetitive. Safe elections undermine the principles this nation stands on, so if bi-partisan committees or independent redistricting commissions are used, the democratic essence of elections will be gone. Also, like Julia said, the shortest split-line method puts everything in the hands of technology and that solicits uneasiness from some voters. With this, candidates have to hope they don't have bad luck with the boundaries determined by a computer, and that the election does not end up skewed, as a result. Candidates should not be winning through luck or losing, due to their lack of. Although the bias wouldn't be intentional, skewed election results are still a possible effect from using this method. Technology isn't always as efficient as it is portrayed to be, people are useful too. Therefore, proportional gerrymandering would be the best form to use for redistricting. The person who makes districts does it for the money, and they have no intention of being loyal to one party. If the government pays gerrymanderers to develop fair districts, they will and the problem is solved. Gerrymanderers use technology and statistical models as well, so logic and fairness are present.
(Sorry balanda, the political cartoons make me laugh)