It was unconscionable to many Americans, particularly those with a leftward bent, that no less than four gun control measures were defeated Monday in the Senate. And that’s the grown-up chamber of Congress. Even if a compromise bill is ultimately passed- a new vote is expected Tuesday- what are the chances that the legislation will survive in the House, teeming with far right ideologues? With a nod to the bottomless pockets  of Citizens United and the peasants-with-a-pitchfork uprising of the Tea Party, a primary reason for today’s Congressional extremism is the redistricting that occurred after the 2010 midterms.

Engineered by Karl Rove, REDMAP analyzed vulnerable Democratic districts, then poured money into them (now unlimited thanks to Citizens United) to oust incumbents. The results were spectacular. The GOP gained a record breaking 700 state legislative seats, pushed 20 chambers to a Republican majority, and gave the GOP control over both houses in 25 states.  With the numbers in their favor, Rove and his team carved up districts to assure that they would remain red for perpetuity. Some were drawn so obliquely as to defy logic, certainly from a geographical standpoint. From its inception, the REDMAP strategy was a bold stroke of hunt-or-be-hunted politics that would make Machiavelli blush.

In the 2012 House races, Democrats received 1.7  million more votes than their Republican counterparts. Despite this, the GOP gained 33 congressional seats. The battleground states of Pennsylvania and Michigan exemplify the disparity between vote totals and victories. Obama won the Keystone State by 300,000 votes; Democratic congressional candidates bested their GOP rivals by 100,000. Still, Republicans captured 13 of 18 seats in the House. Likewise, in Michigan, Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenowby defeated her opponent by over 20 points; Obama won by almost 10. Yet Republicans seized the majority of House seats, 9 of 14.

Egregious redistricting has resulted in candidates flanking to the far right of the ideological spectrum. In these heavily crimson districts, turf wars are fought in the primaries, where moderation is equated to liberalism and, worse, heresy. Much like urban blight propagates criminal activity, gerrymandering creates polarizing politicians out of step with mainstream America. Not to say Democrats have not used redistricting to their advantage (though certainly to a less palpable degree). The inconvenient truth is that Dems haven’t been nearly as effective as their counterparts.

Efforts to alter the practice of redrawing districts have largely failed. Independent boards, supplanting the government in the task, have been spoiled by hidden partisanship of its members. Perhaps the only hope is that Trump will be such a disaster that his malignant candidacy will wreak havoc down ticket, putting even the reddest districts in play. Then, of course, the onus would be on the Democrats to do the right thing and redraw the lines in a more responsible fashion. Naive, sure, but the current system, corrupted by a toxic mix of money and extremism, desperately needs to be fixed. Ironically, the most polarizing candidate in recent history- perhaps in all of U.S. history- can unwittingly help pave the way towards reaching that goal.