During the trainwreck that is our current governmental situation — and this is certainly a trainwreck of an administration, with a revolving door of a West Wing, no cohesive message or leadership from the White House or Capitol Hill other than repeated mantras that sound good but do not mean much, destruction of our faith in government institutions for political gain, an absolutely skyrocketing national debt, failure to name ambassadors to key problem areas, and governance by tweet (#covfefe) — a lot of stories that would be headlines in any sort of normal time are being totally ignored. There are many, but one of them that will play a crucial role in the future of our country is the gerrymandering case currently going on in Pennsylvania.

A basic summary of events is that the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature redrew the state’s congressional districts — the districts that elect their federal House of Representatives members — after the 2010 census, as was their right; however, the state supreme court ruled that their map was unconstitutionally gerrymandered and demanded they draw a new, less gerrymandered map. They did, but it was rejected as not less-gerrymandered enough, and now the Supreme Court has drawn their own even-less-gerrymandered map. Instead of using this map, the legislature may, in the next few days, decide to impeach everyone on the Supreme Court and replace them, or simply sue the government and force the case up to the national level.

So. Why does this matter?

Pennsylvania is a decent microcosm of our nation. Split almost perfectly between Democrat and Republican in terms of total voters — Trump won Pennsylvania by less than one percent — you would therefore assume that Pennsylvania’s delegation to the House would at least be close to 50-50 Republican/Democrat.

You would be wrong. Republicans hold 12 seats in the House, Democrats 5, and there is one vacant seat. So, even giving the vacant seat to Democrats, that means, in a state where roughly fifty percent of voters vote one way and fifty percent of voters vote the other, two-thirds of representation goes to one party and only a third to the other.

This is crazy. And it is in a state that is split 50-50. In a state that is 55-45, or even 60-40, you could essentially write the minority party out.

Gerrymandering and the broken electoral college system must be addressed. Call me a snowflake for complaining about the electoral college, but think about this: if we went majority-wins like most normal democracies, then Democrats would have won the presidency four of the last five times rather than only twice — to rephrase, in the last four presidential elections Democrats have won the majority of votes four times but only won the position twice. That’s insane! The only thing being done is making sure that votes have unequal power. That’s it. Dress it how you want, but gerrymandering and the electoral college inherently ensure some votes are more important than others — directly working against true democracy.

It is important to note that Democrats absolutely gerrymander too, which is why this should be the definition of a bipartisan issue. It’s not complicated: the only people who would actually suffer from less gerrymandered districts would be career politicians who never face a competitive election during their tenure. It’s literally better for the voter at the expense of parties, something everyone says they want but never seems to get done.

I was taught to wrap up pieces like this with a call to action and would like to have something to tell you to do, but there isn’t much you can do about this one. It’s already in the courts and I kind of think petitions won’t change the minds of the already-elected officials. So, just join me in watching helplessly. It will be kind of like an adventure.