MATTHEW YGLESIAS wishes people would stop overstating the evils of gerrymandering. It's true that gerrymandering isn't the root of all evil, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem. It is particularly pernicious in combination with another problem: the primary system. Without the party primaries, rational choice among voters, even in gerrymandered districts, would produce more centrist winners. But in the vast majority of utterly safe districts, only one party's primary winner matters in the general. The primary is thus the real election, and a contest only to see who can turn out more of their red- or blue-faced partisan faithful.

Mr Yglesias asks, slightly sarcastically, for someone to explain to him just how the ungerrymandered Senate is better than the House. OK, deal. The Senate's tradition of comity is fairly legendary, even if it has been weakened a bit in the last few decades. (It was probably always overstated, but it is nonetheless real.) The Senate produces figures who are not only closer to the centre but who have the security of a six-year term. Thus many of us can name senators known for crossing party lines, and thus name bills with sponsors from both sides of the aisle: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, Kerry-Graham-Lieberman... Few of us can name comparable independent House members or truly bipartisan bills. Strict party-line votes have always been rarer in the Senate than in the House.

Perhaps the clearest way the Senate is "better than" the House? Senators can actually lose their seats. See these graphs from the Center for Responsive Politics:

Of course the Senate has its own problems. Holds and the filibuster leap to mind. But to say that "Gerrymandering isn't a problem; just look at the Senate" is a surprisingly shallow argument from the usually sharp Mr Yglesias.