all 80 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 119 points 2 days ago (22 children)

Dumb fucks took safe Republican districts and tried diluting them just enough to steal as many seats as possible. Turns out that doesn't work when your public opinion takes a nose dive.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    Yeah, a lot of people don't know in detail how gerrymandering works. For it to work you need to pack as many D voters as possible into a small number of districts and add a few extra R voters to all the remaining districts. You have to dismantle the safe R districts because you need to distribute those voters among the other districts.

    In a standard election that works because the Ds get a huge win in a small number of districts and the Rs get a bunch of tight wins in a larger number of districts, so the Rs win.

    But, when there's a huge wave election, the small number of R voters they added to districts aren't enough and not only do the Ds get a huge win in a few small districts, they also win some of gerrymandered R districts. There's nothing safe anymore.

    If you don't gerrymander, you naturally get some safe R districts, some safe D districts and some toss-ups. But, gerrymandering has to eliminate the safe R districts to shift those voters around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    Well said. I was brushing my teeth getting ready for bed when i made my comment last night and didn't have the brain power to explain it as well as you did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (2 children)

    It's a bit tricky to understand, and to explain. But, if you don't understand it, you think it's just a way of ensuring that you get more R districts.

    IMO, it's important to know how it can backfire if you underestimate the number of R voters you need to add to the D districts to flip them.

    Anyhow, I hope that one result of this election is that more places go with laws to ensure gerrymandering can't happen. It's absolutely bullshit that parties get to draw districts to pick the voters they want. There are some places (Minnesota?) that have non-partisan commissions that draw the maps. That's how it should be done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    We've got non-partisan maps in CO as well, but we actually got rid of them as a reaction to the gerrymandering Repubs were doing in Texas and other states. It really needs to be fixed at a national level - since a state by state solution is basically like the honor system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    since a state by state solution is basically like the honor system.

    One of the strengths and also weaknesses of the US system is that states handle their own elections. If there's a problem with how elections are run, at least it doesn't become national. OTOH, you have things like this, where a state can decide to do the right thing, but another state can be dishonest and gerrymander for one party.

    I wonder if there's a solution you can do where it's the honour system backed up by a nuclear option if other states don't follow the rules. Like, say that an electoral commission should create 3 maps, one gerrymandered for Ds, one gerrymandered for Rs, and one fair one. If other states play fair, the fair one will be used. If any state defects and gerrymanders to favour one party, then the map that combats that gerrymandering goes into effect.

    It could be really effective if a bunch of states band together and say that they will all issue fair maps, but they all agree to switch in case another state doesn't play fair. That way you could have something like the Republicans gerrymandering Texas, or the Democrats gerrymandering California, and either way this defensive pact is activated. Maybe by doing it this way, you could even get typically Republican states to enter the pact.

    The tough part then is proving that another state is gerrymandering to favour a specific party, and deciding if that crosses the threshold. But, at least it's not just the honour system.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 2 days ago* (15 children)

    I'm looking forward to some democrat gerrymandering.

    If Republicans thought this was bad

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 days ago (10 children)

    Should they gerrymander to solidify control for a cycle or 2? Probably. So they need to? Maybe not.

    I think most areas would lean Democrat if maps were fairly drawn. There would definitely still be some GOP strongholds but they would be fair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (9 children)

    Just restore the originals. I honestly don't want to see them stoop that low if they don't have to. Just revert them so it doesn't look they are being just as pety as they were.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 days ago (5 children)

    Is there really any “original” we can go back to? Gerrymandering’s been happening for so long - the word was first used in 1812. Entire towns have been created since then. Numerous states have joined the union. Political parties started and died out.

    We’d kind of have to start from scratch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (2 children)

    Yeah, the country didn't even have the west coast yet then

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    Should set a law that you can only draw a district with 4 straight lines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    No, because gerrymandering actually has a place. It can be used to elevate the voice of minorities so we don't just end up with mob rule.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Just give seats proportional to the votes a party got. So kinda like how most developed nations do it.

    Would also dismantle your bullshit 2 party system

    (Im not trying to defend the democratic systems in Europe, they still suck, but they're a whole lot better than the US system)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 62 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    I chose to avoid the news yesterday and just deal with it in the morning.

    Never imagined I'd see a Blue Texas

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)
  • [–] 83 points 2 days ago (7 children)

    Me, I'm waiting for the end of MAGA and the knock-on effect it will have on neofascism around the world.

    This feels more like edging.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    I look forward to MAGA continuing, but let me explain.

    Republican voters will continue to primary these extremists that are now showing to be absolutely unelectable. They can't win general elections. This should continue to lock Republicans out of office and allow a progressive movement some foothold.

    I hope they hold on to the MAGA grift until it finally kills their party

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 days ago

    They absolutely can win. When Trump dies and we get more normal looking fascists, they will win again.

    Most of them are not as crazy as trump and some others. But there are plenty who support fascism who are electable.

    Remember, they largely control the media.

    It took extraordinary Natalie craziness from trump to get us less than a two third majority. It should have been almost unanimous. But it's still not enough to impeach and remove.

    This is a good day Don't get me wrong. But in the bigger picture, it's not nearly enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    It probably won't kill their party long-term. But, what I hope is that as a result of their losses the coalition breaks down and the libertarian, free market, anti-regulation, pro-immigration, athiest / agnostic wing splits from the christian conservative, pro-tariff, anti-immigrant group.

    If that happens and there are 2 conservative parties, first-past-the-post will mean that neither one will get a majority and even in conservative areas the democratic candidate will win.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 24 points 2 days ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Please consider not referencing that ableist slur. The term "retarded" is associated with people with cognitive and developmental disabilities. They know the word and it is hurtful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 18 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    Some of these states might actually have the opportunity to pass election regulation laws to prevent gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter caging, etc. Heck, they might even be able to address ballot stacking. (They might have to add consequences to officials and NGOs who do these things anyway. Harsh fines or something.)

    Imagine if the US actually strived to make its elections more free and fair.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Ban gerrymandering and implement ranked choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 33 points 2 days ago (6 children)

    Lurking b and pol is amazing to watch rn holy fuck

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    Just went to r/conservative.

    Damn, the people there are horrible and quite open about racism being their number one priority. But it is nice to see them despair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

    I woke up super early somehow.

    Im too excited to go back to bed lol.

    There are going to be a lot of angry rich old white men today.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 days ago

    America just blue itself

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    gerry mandering can actually blow up on your face real quick, that's what happened in Hungary

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago

    Sadly, my house district was not one of them. Its shape is absolutely ridiculous and designed so that basically all the blue areas get clumped into one with only irrelevant portions left (if any) in others. It was still neck-and-neck for a while at least.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    Where can I see trump and co losing their shit and flailing over this??

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    Probably overshadowed by Republicans in the fundraising sector ecstatic at the scale of money they'll be able to skim. Parties don't really lose anything when the lose. They are back in power in 10 years, and they make money in the meantime. And isn't making money the bigger picture? Both parties do this.

    The result is that voting does very little to persuade the parties to serve us over their doaners. If they do what their doaners want they make money. If they lose elections they make money. So when picking between doing what doaners want and winning elections, guess which one they are going to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    Orgasmic dare I say.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Are there any details on this? I can see that Texas District 23 is a huge one that flipped. It looks like it has a lot of rural voters in it, so I'd assume that it would normally have been a safe Republican district. But, I don't really know Texas politics.

    Is there anywhere that breaks down what things were like before the latest gerrymander, and where Republicans lost a formerly safe seat?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 11 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Democrats should not expect future hand-outs like from their voters, unless they actually, for once, dear god, do something useful with the power we just handed them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    They still managed to steal mine :(

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    With both you just lay there and watch?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    Also, Alison Gill is one of my better news sources, specifically her Daily Beans podcast.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Remember to clean your phones, folks

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    The most typical gerry mandering strategy is designed to lose. Ideally in one place instead of two. So it should be normal to lose in a gerry mandered district.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    What?

    Like. I don't know how to respond and l don't want to increase your engagement.

    If you're the rest of the comments here, these districts all lost far, far beyond gerrymandering.

    Everywhere is purple, when you have 66% in deep red areas, you dun' fukd up.

  • source
  • parent