Current Events > Anti-Gerrymandering Group Will Not Oppose Newsom Gerrymandering California

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/common-cause-changes-tune-on-california-redistricting-fight/ar-AA1KsN6C

California must stay blue no matter what.

I am anti-gerrymander myself but if it needs to be done to protect democracy, do it now and ask questions later. There's no way Republicans aren't going to do it and the only way to even the playing field is to do it back. If Democrats don't have the edge, they need to maintain even ground.

Sayoria posted...

I am anti-gerrymander myself but if it needs to be done to protect democracy, do it now and ask questions later. There's no way Republicans aren't going to do it and the only way to even the playing field is to do it back. If Democrats don't have the edge, they need to maintain even ground.

Agreed. Republicans chose to gerrymander, so therefore Democrats must also do the same.

If NY CA and IL gerrymander the fuck out of their districts they could potentially make it to where the house never goes red again, I'm all for it.

If only one side plays nice that's just unilaterally disarming. I am glad to see Dems playing to win.

Take it to its ultimate end so people can see how fucking ridiculous it is. You can't play by the rules when the other side never plays by the rules.

Sayoria posted...

I am anti-gerrymander myself but if it needs to be done to protect democracy, do it now and ask questions later. There's no way Republicans aren't going to do it and the only way to even the playing field is to do it back. If Democrats don't have the edge, they need to maintain even ground.

This is me too. I think this is a "have to go back to go forward" scenario, where gerrymandering will remain so long as one side sees an advantage from it. If it's not really a boon for either side, we may finally see some movement for a national ban on politically-based gerrymanders.

Being opposed to gerrymandering doesn't mean you must also stand against democracy. The Newsom plan is less about gerrymandering and more about fighting fascism.

Night night Ah-nuld

I'm conceptually against gerrymandering, but given the situation in Texas, & the dubious district lines in too many red states in general, I unfortunately accept this choice.

El_Dustino posted...

If NY CA and IL gerrymander the fuck out of their districts they could potentially make it to where the house never goes red again, I'm all for it.

Dont threaten me with a good time

El_Dustino posted...

If NY CA and IL gerrymander the fuck out of their districts they could potentially make it to where the house never goes red again, I'm all for it.

Could PA be in the cards here too or is their house too red?

Yeah, anti-gerrymandering can't manifest as sitting out. Make it against the rules everyone plays by, and if there are no rules everyone plays by then there are no rules. What would nuclear disarmament look like with one nuclear power?

Sayoria posted...

Could PA be in the cards here too or is their house too red?

Their house is almost evenly split with a slight blue lead, that might be tricky for PA to pull off, but I'd welcome it.

A lot of red states have already pushed their states as far as they can go, Dems have a lot of advantage left they could gain...

https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1955783563623694522

I agree, gerrymander the ever living fuck out of everything blue if need be, and then maybe when the Rs cry unfair, that shit can finally get their support to be outlawed.

Gerrymandering is bad, full stop.

But it's pure inanity for one side to stop doing it when the other side is doing it like crazy.

The GOP likely held on to the House solely because of their gerrymandering in the south and midwest, and you have a good argument to make that if California was Dem gerrymandered that the Dems would've held continuous control of the House since at least 2018.

Gerrymandering can only be done nationwide in one fell swoop, until then anything the GOP does in Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Ohio should absolutely be countered by the Dems in Illinois, California, and Texas.

I would like gerrymandering to end, but unfortunately we are at a point where we need to fight fire with fire. So here we are.

El_Dustino posted...

Their house is almost evenly split with a slight blue lead, that might be tricky for PA to pull off, but I'd welcome it.

A lot of red states have already pushed their states as far as they can go, Dems have a lot of advantage left they could gain...

I've heard the Republicans would have the lead at the end. They have less hurdles to redistrict than the blue states.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/08/politics/gerrymandering-texas-house-outcomes

But if the gloves come off and this truly becomes a free-for-all, its possible Republicans could flip between five and 10 seats, thanks to their superior opportunities.

Ohio is a Republican state that could gerrymander 3 more GOP seats.

The only way Republicans are going to agree to federal legislation that outlaws gerrymandering is if we get to a point where gerrymandering is benefiting Democrats more than it is Republicans.

Humble_Novice posted...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/common-cause-changes-tune-on-california-redistricting-fight/ar-AA1KsN6C

California must stay blue no matter what.

And the ass of the Country TexASS must stay red right?

Combating fascism with authoritarianism isn't admirable

We're probably heading towards endgame gerrymandering where every state has squeezed as many partisan districts as possible.

There may not be another way to get the Congress that is needed to eliminate various forms of gerrymandering or require independent commissions.

Patriotwolf posted...

Combating fascism with authoritarianism isn't admirable

No, but when one side refuses to play by the rules, you have to play by their playbook, or you are always going to end up on the back foot. Maybe once Dems are back in power, they will issue federal-wide anti-gerrymandering rules to stop this bullshit.

I read that if CA does this it may erase Darrell Issa's seat and if that is true it is worth doing for that reason alone.

It really becomes a question of whether you want the Democrats to ever govern again. They already have fewer opportunities and they're only getting worse and less fair.

You're not going to win if you simply accept that your margin of victory is already eliminated before anyone has voted. And all because your voters are not in the right place or have been packed away to dilute their influence.

Patriotwolf posted...

Combating fascism with authoritarianism isn't admirable

I see you're still lying about this topic.

Sayoria posted...

Could PA be in the cards here too or is their house too red?

We can't do it. The Dems have a slim lead in the house and Republicans hold the Senate. We also have laws against it which would allow the courts to come in and throw out gerrymandered maps. They have done that in the past.

Bass posted...

We can't do it. The Dems have a slim lead in the house and Republicans hold the Senate. We also have laws against it which would allow the courts to come in and throw out gerrymandered maps. They have done that in the past.

You guys literally had goofy kicking donald though.

Alucard188 posted...

No, but when one side refuses to play by the rules, you have to play by their playbook, or you are always going to end up on the back foot. Maybe once Dems are back in power, they will issue federal-wide anti-gerrymandering rules to stop this bullshit.

Except it's not even Democrats deciding not to play by the rules. The current wave of gerrymandering in Texas and other states has been sparked by a series of Supreme Court rulings saying that partisan gerrymandering is legal. The rules should be that legislatures can't redraw their districts purely for partisan political gain, but that's not what the rules are according to the SCOTUS.

Patriotwolf posted...

Combating fascism with authoritarianism isn't admirable

The GOP treats every "hot stove" tier lever of government as if it needs to be used. How are you supposed to fight that when institutions are not as strong as we thought?

Patriotwolf posted...

Combating fascism with authoritarianism isn't admirable

Shut up.

Sayoria posted...

You guys literally had goofy kicking donald though.

The Supreme Court of PA throw out that wack map and ordered a new one made because of gerrymandered bullshit like that.

Biggest problem with California gerrymandering is that it has to be voted on in a refenderum.

My stance on gerrymandering is simple, until we get rid of it completely Democrats should use it when ever they get the chance, just like Republicans.

Patriotwolf posted...

Combating fascism with authoritarianism isn't admirable

Taking the high ground doesn't mean much when people are throwing shit.

Patriotwolf posted...

Combating fascism with authoritarianism isn't admirable

We tried the "when they go low we go high" bit since 2008. This is where it got us.

Alucard188 posted...

No, but when one side refuses to play by the rules, you have to play by their playbook, or you are always going to end up on the back foot. Maybe once Dems are back in power, they will issue federal-wide anti-gerrymandering rules to stop this bullshit.

Starks posted...

The GOP treats every "hot stove" tier lever of government as if it needs to be used. How are you supposed to fight that when institutions are not as strong as we thought?

creativerealms posted...

Taking the high ground doesn't mean much when people are throwing shit.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

We tried the "when they go low we go high" bit since 2008. This is where it got us.

So you'd rather be just like them? Let's not pretend that Biden didn't screw the Democrats and Kamala buy staying in too long. Let's not pretend that Kamala didn't screw up with her messaging. The consequences of that and the lost election had nothing to do with gerrymandering and everything to do with being prideful.

Gen Z is growing up with a heavy distrust of both parties. Keep acting like Republicans and you'll continue to be treated like them. They will call you hypocrites, and they'll be right.

There is no path to Dems governance anymore if only the GOP maximally redistricts. And at the end of all of this if both parties do, it may still not be enough for Dems.

A wave election would no longer matter.

Im not in favor of gerrymandering, so please no one take my question to be a stealth way of supporting it:

If there were no gerrymandering of any kind, how would the district boundaries be determined? Would it be, likelaying a square grid across a map of the country and then just roll with the divisions the grid reflects? Or do you go within each state individually and base the divisions around geographic things like rivers and whatnot?

VectorAgent posted...

Im not in favor of gerrymandering, so please no one take my question to be a stealth way of supporting it:

If there were no gerrymandering of any kind, how would the district boundaries be determined? Would it be, likelaying a square grid across a map of the country and then just roll with the divisions the grid reflects? Or do you go within each state individually and base the divisions around geographic things like rivers and whatnot?

If we didn't have gerrymandering then we'd probably have votes based on counties. They seem neat enough for everything else, they could probably be good enough to decide elected officials with too.

Let AI draw questionably contiguous lines. /half s

Patriotwolf posted...

So you'd rather be just like them? Let's not pretend that Biden didn't screw the Democrats and Kamala buy staying in too long. Let's not pretend that Kamala didn't screw up with her messaging. The consequences of that and the lost election had nothing to do with gerrymandering and everything to do with being prideful.

Gen Z is growing up with a heavy distrust of both parties. Keep acting like Republicans and you'll continue to be treated like them. They will call you hypocrites, and they'll be right.

Gerrymandering relates to the House, not to presidential elections, so your deflection is truly noted.

As for the rest, of course Republicans like you are happiest when Democrats continue with unilateral disarmament on gerrymandering. There is no "just like them" here, because Republican are presently gerrymandering much more than Democrats are, so this possible action in CA, NY and IL is just an attempt to make things more fair.

A_Good_Boy posted...

If we didn't have gerrymandering then we'd probably have votes based on counties. They seem neat enough for everything else, they could probably be good enough to decide elected officials with too.

Agreed. That seems like it would make sense to me.

Please don't dignify patriotwolf with paragraphs. He's just going to concern troll this topic like he did the last one, and posts in excess just give him more fuel.

Patriotwolf posted...

So you'd rather be just like them? Let's not pretend that Biden didn't screw the Democrats and Kamala buy staying in too long. Let's not pretend that Kamala didn't screw up with her messaging. The consequences of that and the lost election had nothing to do with gerrymandering and everything to do with being prideful.

Gen Z is growing up with a heavy distrust of both parties. Keep acting like Republicans and you'll continue to be treated like them. They will call you hypocrites, and they'll be right.

But gerrymandering, or the lack of, does have us in our current overall situation, because the trifecta would be broken. If the NY Supreme Court hadn't struck down the NY state legislature's attempt at a gerrymander after the 2020 Census, the House could've stayed with the Democrats. Fix the gerrymanders in Texas and/or North Carolina and the Republicans wouldn't currently have the House. Without the Republican House, no BUB (Big Ugly Bill).

I'd sooner trust the Democrats to use gerrymandering to combat the Republicans at their own game, then once they have a trifecta, pass some laws to tip things in their favor for future elections, including outlawing gerrymandering.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Please don't dignify patriotwolf with paragraphs. He's just going to concern troll this topic like he did the last one, and posts in excess just give him more fuel.

Unfortunately, Patriotwolf is reasonably good at pretending not to be a Trumpist chud. That means it's unwise to let his crap pass without comment. But yes, no back and forth with him.

VectorAgent posted...

Im not in favor of gerrymandering, so please no one take my question to be a stealth way of supporting it:

If there were no gerrymandering of any kind, how would the district boundaries be determined? Would it be, likelaying a square grid across a map of the country and then just roll with the divisions the grid reflects? Or do you go within each state individually and base the divisions around geographic things like rivers and whatnot?

Setting the districts up in grid patterns may look nice on a map, but it doesn't really solve the problem since people don't actually live in grid patterns. And population centers like major cities will inherently need more districts in order to be able to more evenly represent the larger amount of people in those areas. Using independent commissions to draw districts following each census is the real answer to stop gerrymandering, but setting that up requires lawmakers to willingly give up the power to draw their own districts.

Ideally, a district would be able to elect someone who represents the majority of the voters within while also separating different groups that might hold different values, even if those groups tend to both vote for a specific party (both black and Hispanic populations tend to favor the Democratic party, but having one representative to represent both in an area may not align with the values of one of the two groups). Obviously that's a lot easier said than done since drawing districts requires a lot of balancing between various demographics like ethnicities, age brackets, income levels, etc. But at the very least, you'd expect that a majority black area would be part of a single district and able to more likely elect someone who would best represent them and their values instead of being split apart and being wrapped into the tail end of multiple districts with different demographics which is what happens when political parties are directly drawing the maps.

We already have pretty decent ways of measuring gerrymandering, but the Supreme Court really doesn't care for them.

The efficiency gap. If there are too many wasted votes either by district or across all districts in a state, it could be unconstitutional.