Just because the Democrats have more people voting for them doesn't mean they deserve to win? Am I parsing that sentence correctly?

>Most of the people in the red will get by just fine without the blue, but the people in the blue wouldn't survive without the red.

That's a shitty philosophy. The farms only exist because of technologies developed by scientists who live in those blue areas. They can only sell their products by using ports in blue states. You're using a very self-serving view of the economy with that statement.

Everyone deserves a say in politics. No one deserves more than one vote, an gerrymandering makes some people's votes count as more. Gerrymandering allows for commercial sectors that lean one political direction to be ruled by the other party because their district also includes enough farmland, and this does a disservice to those commercial districts. You seem like you would care if it was the other way around, if a city's vote set policy for farmland, so why can't you recognize that it isn't fair to cut districts this way?

If you have a city in one district entirely and the farms in another disrict entirely, both can vote for someone who represents them. Then those people can talk like rational human beings and vote in state assembly. You do not need for both districts to be controlled by the farmers, and you sure as hell wouldn't support this idea if it weren't benefiting your party.