February is an important month in American history. Today marks the 206th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth. In 10 days, it’s the anniversary of George Washington’s birth. Anyone who made his way through high school history class can likely point to the contributions of these two former presidents. Yesterday, however, marked a largely unnoticed anniversary in American history that may be just as important in defining our democracy.

Governor Elbridge Gerry, 203 years ago, signed into law a redistricting plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. While a governor signing a redistricting law wasn’t uncommon at the time, what was unusual about this particular plan was the shape that one of the districts took. In an effort to give his party an advantage in the upcoming state senate races, Governor Gerry approved a district that was so unusual, his opponents, the Federalists, began to refer to it as a salamander.

ADVERTISEMENT

With that, Gerrymandering was born. Over the past 200 years, politicians of both parties have been engaged in an uninterrupted contest to figure out how to rig the election rules to create an advantage for themselves or their party. From how we design our ballots, to how we determine voter eligibility, to the rules we impose on candidates, our elected officials spend significant time and energy in an attempt to give themselves a safer path to reelection. If you get the rules right, the thinking goes, you don’t have to have the best ideas or nominate the best candidates. You don’t even need to serve your constituents.

In fact, this practice has become so commonplace, that Democrats and Republicans often work together to rig the rules at the expense of everyone else. For example, recent changes to campaign finance in the bi-partisan CRomnibus Bill that was signed in December further entrench the power of the two major political parties. Under the new rules, an individual can contribute up to $777,600 per year to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, but can only give $5,400 to an independent candidate running for federal office. Only a Washington politician could justify such a disparity.

The more the two parties work to rig the system to their advantage, the less responsive they become to voters. In the free market economy, we believe in the power of competition to bring the best the value to consumers. As a result, innovative upstarts often supplant stodgy companies that are set in their ways. This principle of economic freedom and valuing competition has made the lives of Americans better, improved our economy, and rewarded innovators.

When it comes to our politics, however, we’ve forgotten that lesson. It’s no surprise that a large plurality of Americans now consider themselves politically independent. As the two parties work to entrench themselves and become less responsive to the needs of voters, they are turning voters off. Eventually this will backfire.

While both parties are guilty of this behavior, in my home state of Kansas, this problem is particularly acute. Despite an almost a 2 to 1 party registration advantage for Republicans, our current Secretary of State is working hard to create an environment that builds on that advantage at the polls. Advocating for a straight party line voting option, he’s laughably suggested that the reason for his legislation is to make voting more “efficient”. That explanation insults the intelligence of Kansas voters.

This past midterm election had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years, as Americans grow increasingly disaffected with our political system and leaders that they view as more and more detached from average Americans. It’s nothing new that incumbents seek to protect their privilege, status, and power – it’s exactly what Governor Gerry was doing with his salamander district. Instead of working to entrench their power at the expense of more options and better choices for voters, true public servants should be working to solve the real problems facing our nation, such as immigration or tax reform, or the financial problems facing my home state of Kansas. Demonstrating to voters that they can get things done and genuinely serve their constituents is the best way to create a durable path to reelection.

Orman, an entrepreneur, ran an unsuccessful campaign as an Independent in 2014 for Kansas’ U.S. Senate seat.