this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
260 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24789 readers
2638 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 77 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

They didn't need to be told. Frankly, I'm surprised Texas has room to be gerrymandered even more.

[–] bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It's a balancing act. To maximize likely seats won, they need to accurately predict who will vote on that election, which is difficult. Small predicted margins of victory now could evaporate and result in Democrats winning.

[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 15 points 21 hours ago

Yep, this is the thing people often forget about gerrymandering. The entire point is to take a large margin of victory in an area, and use it to offset your opponents margin in another area, usually by carving into your opponents margin with several of your own.

The more gerrymandered a set of districts is, the more likely they are to be tipped by an unexpected change of turn out by a given group.

One group gets complacent (my vote doesn't matter in this state, since my party always wins!) or one group gets fired up... And suddenly the story flips.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

Gerrymandered? You mean Donnytrumpered?

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 18 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (6 children)

Hardly newsworthy. Gerrymandering is literally enshrined in our constitution. Congressional maps have always been redrawn by the party in power to ensure that they remain in power. I would expect Democrats to be doing the same thing if we were talking about California.

[–] loie@lemmy.world 48 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (4 children)

If Barack Obama

Told California Democrats

To gerrymander their map so he wouldn't lose the House

Conservatives would have lost their goddamned minds.

(Again.)

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 12 points 23 hours ago

Of course. Those two scenarios are totally different, though. As different as black and white ....

[–] halferect@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago

I remember when new Mexico a strong blue state gerrymandering and even though we a Lil guy republican cried and cried but we just said we playing by your rules fuck faces

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world -5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Are you actually going to try to say that Democrats don't engage in gerrymandering? Really?

Barack Obama wouldn't tell California Democrats to gerrymander their map so they'd keep the house. He wouldn't have to, because they'd do it anyway. Just like every other Democrat state would. And just like every other Republican state does. Trump telling Texas to do it is redundant because it's something that Texas was going to do anyway.

And yes, Conservatives lose their shit when a Democrat does it. And Democrats lose their shit when a Republican does it. Because they both try to play the game under "Rules for thee, not for me" rules. But the fact of the matter is, for better or worse, gerrymandering is a part of our electoral system that both parties routinely engage in in order to maintain their majority.

It's literally an example of "Don't hate the player, hate the game".

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

There are different kinds of players in the same game. But I agree that the whole ability to bend districts in any favored direction should be removed. There are impartial ways to determine districts that change over time with the population, but neither side likes them because it's a loss of control and potential loss of seats for both. The irony is that it would favor the left more, just like changing how we vote would favor that lean, but that gets into the issue of what "left" means in the US vs. reality, and maybe that's part of the problem as well.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world -3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

This is why I said it's a case of "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

If our founding fathers were to have set up another method of dealing with changing populations, gerrymandering wouldn't be a thing and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the rules set up by our founding fathers was essentially little more than a blueprint for gerrymandering without actually using the word gerrymandering. I don't have to like it, but I can't necessarily hate one party or another when they're both just trying their best to exploit the rules they were given to maximum advantage.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

They tried. All those big ass states out west weren't states at the time and they all said fuck you guys with all your people and shit. So compromises were made.

[–] dmtalon@infosec.pub 0 points 22 hours ago

Are Democrats ok with this or are they also losing their shit?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

You've never heard of the California Citizens Redistricting Committee before today, huh?

I mean, New York is a close analog, and the relatively minor gerrymander in Democrats' favor was struck down, which is a large part of why Republicans control the House.

So you're right that Democrats tried, but also Democratic (and democratic) judges nullified the gerrymander.

I guess it's classic that they gave up political victory to have the moral high ground. So might as well give them that much?

[–] undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 8 points 22 hours ago

I live in California and I don’t recall the maps being drawn that way. At one point the State mailed a draft of the new map and explained that it was redrawn in accordance with the change in population. Overall it seemed pretty fair.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 22 hours ago

Congressional maps have always been redrawn by the party in power to ensure that they remain in power. I would expect Democrats to be doing the same thing if we were talking about California.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago

AFAIK it’s not enshrined in the Constitution, it’s a Supreme Court ruling that said federal courts have no authority to assess cases of gerrymandering.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 21 hours ago

That's like telling a cow to eat grass and burp methane..

[–] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

What they're gonna do is redraw all the maps of the states they are in control of, and eliminate ALL Democrat districts. Every single one. They'll do this and there will be challenges declaring it illegal but by the time it actually comes before a court it'll be too late to redraw so they'll just go ahead with the illegal maps and then Democrats won't just not win the house, they will lose 30+ seats. All because the Republicans are fascists and people refused to vote for democratic candidates last election cycle.

They might, might, leave one or two blue districts per state, but otherwise they will be gone. This is the plan in Ohio and in Florida, it's happening. It doesn't matter that it's BS.

Anyone who helped Trump win, including those who helped Harris lose, will be responsible for the downfall of the American democratic system.

Guess it's time for some successions.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

At least he still thinks he needs control of Congress and sees them as a possible problem if Democrats were to retain control.

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

They cheated before, they will cheat again.