If the polls are to be believed, Hillary Clinton is likely to be elected president, Democrats will probably capture the Senate, and Democrats will also probably win a majority of the nationwide House vote. Yet this nationwide majority is expected to translate into only about 200 seats for Democrats—compared to roughly 235 seats for Republicans. For the second time in three elections, Republicans are likely to retain control of the House despite being opposed by more than half of the electorate.

This undemocratic (or at least countermajoritarian) fact has sweeping consequences for the next two years. It means that, despite earning the support of a majority of voters, Democrats won’t be able to enact their policy agenda. They won’t be able to reform immigration, combat climate change, raise taxes on the wealthy, require paid family leave, regulate campaign finance, and so on. Instead, the federal government will remain gridlocked, with power divided between the parties even though the public preferred unified Democratic control.

Why will this happen? In a word, gerrymandering. In their landslide victory in 2010, Republicans won legislative majorities and the governorship in a host of purple (or even blueish) states: Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, and so forth. A year later, when it was time to redraw these states’ district maps for the next decade, Republicans took full advantage of their newfound clout. They systematically cracked and packed Democratic voters—either dividing them among many districts in which they comprised sizable minorities, or concentrating them in a few districts in which they made up overwhelming majorities.

Read more at Huffington Post