• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Because disenfranchising people is the solution to disenfranchising people. But who knows - this may be the least bad option.

    • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      They’re welcome to leave and move to a red state. I left a red state and went to a blue one last year. They can do it too.

    • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      I don’t think anybody sane wanted to go there, but the reality of the right-wing’s willingness to stoop to whatever absurd thing it takes to ensure their power-grab is built to last has left little other option but to fight fire with fire.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I think you’re probably right, in the sense that not doing this would probably be even worse, but we’re destroying the town to save it, as the saying goes. Win or lose, there won’t be much left of a very important norm.

        • tko@tkohhh.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          How is it “destroying the town” when the measure explicitly returns redistricting control to the independent commission in 2031? It’s temporary by design to address the moment we are in.

          • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            56 minutes ago

            Things intended to be temporary often end up permanent, especially when it is in the interest of the party in power to make them permanent (and gerrymandering is always in the interest of the party in power, because that’s the party that does the gerrymandering).

            With that said, the intent to revert this gerrymandering is the intent to rebuild the town, but even if the town will be rebuilt someday, it’s still being destroyed now. California Republicans have a right to representation, and the Democrats are deliberately depriving them of that right because of something that totally different people in Texas are doing.

            I’ll extend the war metaphor: sometimes military necessity dictates a course of action that will cause civilian casualties, but even then we should still acknowledge that there are civilian casualties and that that’s bad.

        • brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          At least this would give us a chance to rebuild it. If we don’t, we may never have the opportunity. If things settle again, these are the people who would agree to creating some rules around gerrymandering and even consider eliminating it across the country so it can never be used again to try and consolidate power.

          But if we let the Republicans do so without challenge, they will enshrine it and it will never go away.

        • stephen01king@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          It’s the difference between having a destroyed town and letting it be taken over by fascist that will use their power to both destroy the town and remove any opposition, leading to a situation where you have no power to even fix the town for decades into the future.