Work Reform

18,089 readers

2,360 active

23 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 3 years ago

moderation log

moderators

kat_angstrom@lemmy.world

Will the Democrats gerrymander every state they control? (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 days ago by VioletTea@lemmy.world to c/workreform@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Should the Democrats gerrymander ever state they have a trifecta in? Why should they put themselves at a disadvantage in the 2028 presidential elections?

Democrats now can remove all of the gerrymandering in the states they currently have control over. The districts would be redrawn by the state legislature to be more fair. They would remove all the GOP gerrymanders.

But if Trump and Republicans opposes the democrats legislation the democrats will heavily gerrymander all the states they currently have control over and change the retirement age of the state supreme courts.

So if Trump vetoes legislation Democrats heavily gerrymander one state. If he vetoes more legislation they gerrymander another state. If he vetoes more legislation they change the retirement age and appoint their own justices.

They could later negotiate with republicans to pass new Civil Rights Act banning all forms of gerrymandering and voter suppression.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago

In the context of the current political landscape, I really do not agree.

I completely agree that gerrymandering is bad. But the Tribunal of Six has repeatedly reinforced that they think it’s perfectly fine and legal.

So, it’s time for malicious compliance. Do it so luridly, so grotesquely, so shamelessly, that the Six are forced to concede that they have concocted a strategy that leads to them losing if both sides resort to it, instead of only their side resorting to it.

And yeah, it’s totally possible that they’ll be stubborn, regressive fucks in such a committed way that they refuse to concede that point; so the other side of the coin is to use the effect that rampant Democratic gerrymandering will have (steamrolling republican representation) to wrest control of the Supreme Court away from the Nationalist Christian-aligned Six by either packing it, or just waiting for them to die and doing it the “normal” way. Then, and only then, will the Supreme Court be in such a state that it will be able to rationally conclude that political gerrymandering is unconstitutional and caustic to the very fabric of the country and its society. The cherry on top would be if the Democratic Party sued itself alongside the Republican Party and brought that all the way to the Supreme Court, just to make it abundantly clear that gerrymandering was absolutely never the end goal.

The third option is a non-fascist president having a monkey-paw moment and just shooting the Six dead as an “official act” (remember: the oath is to defend the union against enemies foreign and domestic), but that would surely cause just as many problems as it would solve.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent