• aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I was thinking about this the other day and if you’re gonna gerrymander a state, having a state-wide vote about it first makes it a bit more fair.

  • LoafedBurrito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Democrats tried to ban gerrymandering for the last decade. Republicans have ALWAYS voted against it.

    They know they lose when they don’t cheat and they are upset Democrats are not playing nice anymore.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      15 hours ago

      also they cant gerrymander too hard, or they affect thier states republican strongholds. thats why they add in VOTER Suppression to top it off.

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 day ago

    I like how apparently a partisan judge is trying to block this now.

    Texas: Fuck voters, we’re doing it without them.

    CA/VA: Let’s defer to the voters as we should. Ok, they voted for it.

    Partisan Hack Judge: Wait, no, not like that.

  • ceenote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    115
    ·
    1 day ago

    Their crocodile tears have been delicious.

    Totally on board with outlawing this shit entirely, by the way, but also totally over getting punched in the groin by the people who go low.

    • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s also a great way of pressuring Republican politicians into actually banning it.

      “You don’t like us playing by the rules you wanted? Help us change the rules then!”

      They’ll only accept losing the power to gerrymander if it hurts Democrats more than Republicans.

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        1 day ago

        The funny part is where you think Republicans would abide by their own ban, if not outright reverse it, the second they have a chance to reverse power.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          19 hours ago

          that’s an easy solve though…

          it’s pretty easy to put a number to how gerrymandered a region is: ungerrymandered means that if you were to look at all the votes in the state without districts that’s your ideal ratio… if you then add districts and that ratio is different, it’s perhaps gerrymandered

          so if the goal is to stop gerrymandering, you get a bunch of states to sign some interstate compact that measures gerrymandering across the country and says any state that’s part of the compact will (perhaps in the next election, perhaps based on projections for the current voting maps based on prior voting behaviour) gerrymander to an equal or greater degree to offset or punish gerrymandering overall… ie you can gerrymander your state but at best it’ll mean nothing when it comes to the ratio of votes

      • ceenote@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 day ago

        We’ll have to do it more. There’s a reason they could only gerrymander 5 more seats into a state the size of Texas, and that’s because Texas was and is already gerrymandered to shit.

        They still don’t want a ban because even after a few high profile Democrat gerrymanders, Republicans still benefit more.

    • iThinkDifferentThanU@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      Exactly that, I have stopped a while ago, I’ll joke with some of the naive ones say I can upset them with one sentence but, tell I mean in jest but I can act just like them, they ask what and I say one simple phrase that works every time loL “all Republicans must die” Then I say I don’t want to be serious about it so…

  • Grass@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    24 hours ago

    is there any actual benefit to having it subdivided at all in the first place? it just seems like another thing to fight over and undermine the value of particular voters.

    • stickly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Theoretically you get hyperspecific representatives. Maybe a district in the west would want to vote differently than a district in the east. Theoretically your vote is still just as valuable and you’re voting with your geographic peers.

      In reality it just gets optimized for party votes and you end up with this

    • kahjtheundedicated@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      24 hours ago

      The sort of idea of it is/was to give farmers and people living in rural i.e. less population dense areas a “fair” amount of voting power compared to cities. The idea does make sense to some extent, as city dwellers often make up a majority of the population, and are unlikely to have the farmers best interests in mind, which could be problematic for everyone. But this already shaky line of reasoning has been abused pretty much since its inception by the party in power to swing the vote in their favor by redrawing lines

  • mrmaplebar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 day ago

    They control all 3 branches of the federal government, so I warmly welcome them to pass a law or ruling that makes partisan gerrymandering illegal.

    If fighting fire with fire is what’s needed to make them feel like it’s a problem, then so be it.

  • Tempus Fugit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 day ago

    The fact that their evil dickhead grifters are doing overtime to cry and blame the Dems for not taking the gerrymandering laying down is awesome. We’re only here because of Trump demanding Texas gerrymander for five seats. You cocksuckers don’t get to punch someone in the face then complain when they fight back. I fucking hate right-wingers with all of my being. Horrible traitorous human beings.

      • mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        like lil’ maple maga Pierre Pollievre up here

        keeps whining about liberals causing high prices and reduced affordability of everything. then literally just yesterday every single conservative voted against a food pricing transparency act. then continues whining about hidden taxes on groceries

        my guy… you just voted against price transparency. shut the fuck up.

    • Goodeye8@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, ‘Fool me once, shame on…shame on you.’ Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.

  • wheezy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 day ago

    Ok. First. Awesome! More. More. More of this. Democrats actually doing something. I’m happy.

    Now, second, once you do something like this you have to be ready to fight HARDER now. My pessimism and time spent watching the Democratic party gives me an awful taste in my mouth.

    If any, if fucking any Democrat tries to do the “what we need is to not allow blue states or red states to do this. We need reasonable democratic districts” they should be immediately be removed from the party. They are either delusional or just a Republican fascist. The Republicans aren’t suddenly going to “be reasonable”. Shut the fuck up and get out of politics.

  • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yokels surrounded by empty land want their 3x voting power back, boo fucking hoo. I’m proud of my state right now. SCV better not shit the bed on this one.

    • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is for members of Congress. Simply counting total votes would mean 100% of the delegation to the house are from whatever party gets 50%+1 votes.

        • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          All congressional districts already work like that. Gerrymandering is the practice of re-drawing distirct borders within an area so that your team has more districts with your voters as the majority.

        • wheezy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          You’re confusing the districts with Presidential election results.

          In the presidential election the district lines actually don’t matter in terms of the outcome. They are just usually reported on election night as “by district”. This is likely what you are confusing or misremembering.

          But, the state itself is based on a popular vote for the presidential election that determines who wins ALL of the states “electoral college votes”. Yes, stupidly confusing i know.

          Meaning after counting all the votes in the entire state the winner is declared based on popular vote and ALL the “electoral votes” of those states will go to that winner.

          Now, this is true for all BUT two states. Main and Nebraska are the exception. Their electoral votes are not “winner take all” for the popular vote. So, if it was one of those states what you are thinking would be correct actually. They split their electoral votes of the state based on the districts.

          What is being discussed about districts in the OPs image is the redrawing of district maps. Each district elects a single representative in The House of Representatives. This is won by popular vote within each district and each district is independently represented. The votes from one district have nothing to do with the votes from another in this case.

          This has always been a means of drawing the lines such that more of a certain party is likely to get more representatives. But, historically, this has primarily been aggressively done in red states. Especially in the south in order to reduce black voter and minority voter representation. Usually by attempting to draw a single district with as many black and minority voters as possible so they only get one representative.

          Hope that clears up the confusion. You’re being downvoted but I think you’re just confused in a very purposely confusing electoral system.