I can't understand why a literate paper like The Times would defend partisan gerrymandering. Can't you see that it's wrong? Can't you see that it does nothing for the electorate? It is solely for the benefit of those in office.
If you belong to the minority party, you lose your voice. You cast your vote either in a district where your party has a top-heavy majority or where it has no chance of winning. If you belong to the majority party, you can be satisfied that your party will win. However, there will be times when you disagree with your party and take issue with those in office. How can you discipline and punish them if they have safe seats?
I have had it with legislators who create safe districts for themselves and with newspapers who apologize for them. Dammit, that isn't democracy!