There's a high level of interest in the November elections this year, in Pennsylvania and across the United States.

The familiar storyline is that since the party in power suffers losses in so-called off-year elections, that means trouble for Democrats this year. There is talk of control of the U.S. House of Representatives and possibly the Senate shifting to the GOP.

Another story this election season has been the impact of the various tea party groups and their success at defeating some mainstream Republicans in primary elections.

The Nov. 2 election is shaping up to be a tough battle with major implications. But the real story of the upcoming balloting is less well-known and involves behind-closed-doors meetings in which party leaders in nearly every state redraw congressional and state electoral districts.

While a potential shifting of power in Congress is big news, the bigger news, and the main reason why so much money is being spent by national organizations in races across the country, has to do with the power of redistricting to reshape the political landscape for years.

Every 10 years, following the constitutionally mandated national census, the party that controls each state's legislature gets to redraw district lines, typically making districts a "safe seat" for members of the ruling party and sometimes drawing lines in such a way that what was a safe seat for the other party is now in play.

It's a terrible system, abused by both parties. And when abused, it's known as gerrymandering and produces some oddly shaped districts. The name was coined in 1812 for a Massachusetts district signed into law by Gov. Eldridge Gerry that looked like a salamander.

The sad fact of most redistricting is that it flips the basic theory behind a representative democracy on its head. Instead of voters choosing elected officials, the elected officials are choosing voters — or the party affiliation of voters they need to keep them in office without serious competition.

Gerrymandering results in districts featuring bizarre shapes — districts intended to carve out — or in — areas with Republican voters or Demo-crats, depending on which party controls the redistricting.

Another sad fact about redistricting: It has led to only about 60 U.S. House of Representative districts out of 435 across the United States being considered competitive. This probably is a reason for 95 percent of incumbents being re-elected year after year. It's not that voters think they are doing a good job; it's that party leaders in the states made sure most districts are noncompetitive.

Gerrymandering is all about incumbent protection. It tends to produce more partisanship since the critical election is the primary, and taking more extreme positions motivates each party's base to vote in primaries.

Politicians of both parties and at the state and national levels are gaming the system with redistricting. The public should demand that redistricting be removed from partisan politicians who only redraw lines to retain or regain political power.

Voters are being treated as pawns in professional politicians' games. The public should demand that more states follow the lead of Iowa and Maine, which have moved redistricting duties to independent, nonpartisan bodies.

The current system is below the radar for most people. That must change.

Redistricting is a clear abuse of power, it corrupts the system, it entrenches power and makes it nearly impossible for challengers to be elected. In short, redistricting, as it's done in the majority of states, is anti-American and anti-voter, and benefits only career politicians and ensures perpetual partisanship in Washington and state capitals.

Before the next census rolls around, citizens should press for reforms across the country so that gerrymandering ends.