Disadvantages of Gerrymandering:
- the number of representatives for each party elected do not match the population’s actual preferences.
- reduced competetion between political parties means the population’s needs receive less attention.
Disadvantages of a one party dictatorship:
- The number of representatives for each party elected do not match the population’s actual preferences.
- Absent competetion between political parties means the population’s needs receive no attention.
- no checks and balances means no bill of rights exists.
- no checks and balances also means no regulation to protect the population’s needs.
- possible human extinction in nuclear winter.
Democrats should fight fire with fire!!
Fuck that, we should be fighting fire with God damn napalm.
Kyle had a fantastic segment on this : https://youtu.be/QnOu0kDW-Kw
This was honestly the ballot item I was most concerned about. If we don’t retake the House in 2026 I’d say we’re pretty much cooked, and this at least keeps us in the game.
It alone won’t be enough. Motherfuckers still need to vote in the midterms.
Yeah, but if the dems aren’t progressive enough I won’t bother to get up off my ass to vote to stop fascism. It’ll be the dems fault for not enticing me to vote.
Edit: really? /s ffs
Makes you a rotten sack of shit.
Guys like you are gonna be real popular in the gulag
I suspect that was sarcasm
A perfect example of no matter how obvious you think the sarcasm might be, the “/s” tag should be included.
Interpretation of that message changes wildly with and without the tag.
Seriously asking, what is progressive enough? Would you vote for AOC? Is it a matter of FPTP support, or genocide, or strike solidarity?
Call me naive but I think Mamdani is the shape of things to come and we’re going to start seeing much better candidates.
So you’re not willing to do the bare fucking minimum to oppose the current administration, and want to blame other politicians instead of using the best tool we currently have in a democracy. Got it.
I suspect they were being sarcastic.
Then them being misunderstood is on them. There’s nothing in that comment that shows they’re being sarcastic. Poe’s law
Using the word fascism was my clue.
Poe’s law, man. Fascists are here, that word has lost its hyperbolic nature.
Sure, you’re not wrong. But I think the way the language is used makes it at least possible, and if you look at their other comments, it makes it clear.
Saying outright “it’s the democrats fault that I won’t get off my ass to stop fascism” just really smacks of satire.
Progressive > fascism > moderate democrat
Got it
Imagine the ketchup all over the new marble and gold…
Is this gerrymandering? I’m not sure I understand.
Anyhow, even pro-democrat gerrymandering would be a plus at this point. Until it can be abolished completely.
Is this the first time you’ve run into this initiative…?
The main webpage for Prop 50 says that the gerrymandering that will come prior to the California 2026 midterm elections is a direct response to Republicans’ gerrymandering in Texas to gain 5 more seats in the House of Representatives. This gerrymandering would not happen if Republicans didn’t do it first.
Prop 50 also says that these new election districts will be nullified in 2030 with the new US Census.
Yes, it is fully gerrymandering. There is no other term for it.
It sucks but we had to do it. I voted yes, mainly since it plans to self terminate and aims to stop Texas, who didn’t let it’s citizens vote on the same issue.
Yes, the idea came from countering Trump’s gerrymandering push in Texas.
And I’m like 99% sure Texas didn’t get to vote on this matter. At least we did.
Yeah. Feels bad to vote for something like this, but if it’s between fighting dirty and living with fascism, well… I’m glad we passed it.
I heard that it only comes into effect if Texas goes ahead with their shenanigans.
So gerrymandering good if it’s Our Team™?
As a general rule, gerrymandered district is only “safe” from partisan rivals. What we’ve seen in GOP gerrymandered districts is some hotly contested primaries - even primaries against incumbents - that produced a strain of conservatism that is less interested in national partisanship and more interested in appeasing the district’s primary voting base.
If you think Dem primary voters are frothing fascists who need to be bottled up and kept away from positions of power, then Prop 50 is bad news for democracy. But if you think Dem primary voters are reasonable and rational, with the wisdom to select leadership that can effectively govern and improve the country, then Prop 50 is good news.
In this case, unfortunately, yes. It also cancels after the next census in 2030 and control is handed back to the committee. The expiration date is the only reason I voted yes.
They did it first and the only way to fight it is to do the same with this type of thing. We will have no democratic power if we don’t fight election rigging
No, it’s not good. But we’re past caring about that.
In the same way that killing someone who is about to kill you is good.
Prisoners dilemma, but in this case we’ve already seen how the other prisoner (Texas) has acted. Should we take 3 years while they go free? Or make it 2 and 2?
It’s not good, but at this point, the President is pushing Republicans to redrawn districts to explicitly favor Republicans, which is explicitly illegal. He should be impeached for this, along with any Republicans who go along with it. But… With Republican control of all 3 branches of government, he will never be impeached and removed. At this point, fighting fire with fire is the only option left.
So no, it’s not good, it would just be way worse not to do it
Because disenfranchising people is the solution to disenfranchising people. But who knows - this may be the least bad option.
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.
Useful idiot response.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
