I agree it isn’t a healthy trend, but this law has some good checks on it that don’t seem to be talked about much. It expires in 2030 when the next redistricting would happen. In 2030, unless we...
Exemplary
I agree it isn’t a healthy trend, but this law has some good checks on it that don’t seem to be talked about much. It expires in 2030 when the next redistricting would happen. In 2030, unless we vote another similar law in, our districts will again be set by the independent group that has done them in the past. Also, the law only applies if the Texas redistricting actually happens. If Texas backs off, our districts stay exactly the same as they were. Those two checks are the only reason I was willing to vote yes for a proposition that intentionally gerrymanders.
The text on the ballot was pretty informative. That’s not always a given like with the Uber/Lyft measure that was designed to be as confusing as possible.
The text on the ballot was pretty informative. That’s not always a given like with the Uber/Lyft measure that was designed to be as confusing as possible.
They're both trying to add/flip 5 seats for their "side". It's possible they don't work out that way because you're diluting your side's votes by spreading them out further and trying to...
They're both trying to add/flip 5 seats for their "side". It's possible they don't work out that way because you're diluting your side's votes by spreading them out further and trying to concentrate the other side's votes into the fewest areas. So it's the same goal but there's some complexities in the outcome.
There is only so much you can do though. I mentioned IL in another comment because idk how you gerrymander a state with those districts any more.
I got a text today asking to oppose mid-decade redistricting in Indiana. It's very rare for me to get non-Republican-leaning political texts because Indiana is already very red (I genuinely don't...
I got a text today asking to oppose mid-decade redistricting in Indiana. It's very rare for me to get non-Republican-leaning political texts because Indiana is already very red (I genuinely don't even bother voting Democrat in state/local primaries because often times there will be only one or zero Democrat candidates for positions), and they're trying to make it even redder.
So I agree it's not healthy in the long term, but I'd say it is critically necessary right now because other states are trying to turn even more red and skew the national scale even further than it already is. This not the time to take the higher road. The future of the United States (and arguably also the entire world, ridiculous as it sounds) is at stake.
You're absolutely right, gerrymandering is not a healthy trend for the country in the long term. This particular proposition, on the other hand, is literally the only piece of legislation that...
You're absolutely right, gerrymandering is not a healthy trend for the country in the long term.
This particular proposition, on the other hand, is literally the only piece of legislation that I've seen that's trying to fight it on the national level that has passed.
Well, I guess this officially marks the start of the gerrymandering arms race? I mean, it's not the first salvo, that would be Texas, but this is the shift from it being unilateral power...
Well, I guess this officially marks the start of the gerrymandering arms race?
I mean, it's not the first salvo, that would be Texas, but this is the shift from it being unilateral power usurpation by the red team.
I'd argue the gerrymandering arms race was silently started when the GOP decided to filibuster the bill to ban gerrymandering back in 2022. You don't fight that hard to oppose a bill unless you...
I'd argue the gerrymandering arms race was silently started when the GOP decided to filibuster the bill to ban gerrymandering back in 2022. You don't fight that hard to oppose a bill unless you have every intention to make use of that power.
maybe if powers change we can try one more time to ban this once and for all. It's clear the current makeup won't.
I did see Newsom call for other states to do this and I'm genuinely unsure if it's possible to gerrymander Illinois further than it already is. Illinois's congressional districts - Wikipedia
I did see Newsom call for other states to do this and I'm genuinely unsure if it's possible to gerrymander Illinois further than it already is.
Not a healthy trend for the country in the long term.
Probably critically necessary for course-correction in the short term.
I agree it isn’t a healthy trend, but this law has some good checks on it that don’t seem to be talked about much. It expires in 2030 when the next redistricting would happen. In 2030, unless we vote another similar law in, our districts will again be set by the independent group that has done them in the past. Also, the law only applies if the Texas redistricting actually happens. If Texas backs off, our districts stay exactly the same as they were. Those two checks are the only reason I was willing to vote yes for a proposition that intentionally gerrymanders.
You're right that those specifics aren't as well known - I didn't know about them, and am glad for the nuance they add to the message that is Prop 50.
The text on the ballot was pretty informative. That’s not always a given like with the Uber/Lyft measure that was designed to be as confusing as possible.
I do really like how it is tied to Texas fucking around. There’s an escape hatch for reasonable democracy, should they choose to take it.
Does the California proposition result in more Democrat seats than Texas's change adds Republicans?
They're both trying to add/flip 5 seats for their "side". It's possible they don't work out that way because you're diluting your side's votes by spreading them out further and trying to concentrate the other side's votes into the fewest areas. So it's the same goal but there's some complexities in the outcome.
There is only so much you can do though. I mentioned IL in another comment because idk how you gerrymander a state with those districts any more.
Agreed. Until we have a national law/ammendment preventing gerrymandering, this is, unfortunately, the only way to keep the other party in check.
I got a text today asking to oppose mid-decade redistricting in Indiana. It's very rare for me to get non-Republican-leaning political texts because Indiana is already very red (I genuinely don't even bother voting Democrat in state/local primaries because often times there will be only one or zero Democrat candidates for positions), and they're trying to make it even redder.
So I agree it's not healthy in the long term, but I'd say it is critically necessary right now because other states are trying to turn even more red and skew the national scale even further than it already is. This not the time to take the higher road. The future of the United States (and arguably also the entire world, ridiculous as it sounds) is at stake.
You're absolutely right, gerrymandering is not a healthy trend for the country in the long term.
This particular proposition, on the other hand, is literally the only piece of legislation that I've seen that's trying to fight it on the national level that has passed.
Well, I guess this officially marks the start of the gerrymandering arms race?
I mean, it's not the first salvo, that would be Texas, but this is the shift from it being unilateral power usurpation by the red team.
I'd argue the gerrymandering arms race was silently started when the GOP decided to filibuster the bill to ban gerrymandering back in 2022. You don't fight that hard to oppose a bill unless you have every intention to make use of that power.
maybe if powers change we can try one more time to ban this once and for all. It's clear the current makeup won't.
The end of unilateral disarmament.
Begun, the Gerrymandering War has.
I did see Newsom call for other states to do this and I'm genuinely unsure if it's possible to gerrymander Illinois further than it already is.
Illinois's congressional districts - Wikipedia