I think the core issue is not which bad outcome is worst; it is which threat corrupts the system's ability to correct bad outcomes. Gerrymandering does exactly that. When mapmakers choose their voters, elections stop being a feedback loop. Voters in safe districts cannot punish failure, so misinformation, corruption, or bad policy persist without electoral consequence. Other threats can be fought at the ballot box. Gerrymandering can make that box structurally irrelevant. That is why I say it is the biggest threat.

In 2022, fewer than one in ten U.S. House races was considered competitive. My opponent says election denial is the bigger threat because it attacks the count itself. Fair, but denial finds fertile ground in safe seats: when the general election is a formality, the only real fight is a primary, which rewards outrage and punishes compromise. Gerrymandering does not just distort one election; it builds the incentive structure that lets denial spread. Courts and commissions can fix maps, but only after years of damage. That feedback failure makes it the biggest threat.

I think election denial is dangerous, but it needs an ecosystem. The practical consequence of gerrymandering is that it manufactures that ecosystem: safe seats mean the only competitive race is a low turnout primary, which rewards candidates who claim the system is rigged. More importantly, entrenched majorities write the rules for courts, commissions, and election administration, so the referees my opponent trusts can be defunded or bypassed. A fake count can be recounted and litigated. A structurally rigged map can make those remedies irrelevant for a decade. That is the biggest threat.