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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Starks posted...

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.

The Republican majority on SCOTUS doesn't care about this because they are partisan hacks.

Patriotwolf posted...

So you'd rather be just like them?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/fcb1bca3.jpg

Gerrymandering is terrible and absolutely should not be a thing. But letting the GOP's gerrymandering go uncontested just so you can claim moral purity isn't an anti-gerrymandering stance, it's self-destructive naivety. There will be no anti-gerrymandering movement or avenues to get rid of it if you just let the GOP destroy democracy.

You have to beat the GOP first, then start fixing the system.

https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1956059430057075133

People against Democrats doing this have some real "If we kill our enemies, they win" energy.

It sucks that this probably puts Newsom as the frontrunner for a Presidential Democratic Primary but shit, if he and Pritzer are the only 2 major players who are going to at least act like democracy is at stake then go for it.

Fight fire with fire all day. People arguing against it are definitely republicans in disguise and not to be taken seriously.

Southernfatman posted...

People against Democrats doing this have some real "If we kill our enemies, they win" energy.

I think there should definitely be some moral lines that Democrats don't cross even if Republicans are more than willing to do so, but gerrymandering isn't one of them.

Gray_Areas posted...

I think there should definitely be some moral lines that Democrats don't cross even if Republicans are more than willing to do so, but gerrymandering isn't one of them.

There is a difference between morals and ideals. Ideals are things you strive for and goals. They are important and people should absolutely have them as ultimately, that is what we fight for. But you cannot prioritize ideals in the short term if it means losing in the long term, because then your ideals will die anyway. Ending gerrymandering is an ideal.

Morals are actual lines in the sand that you cannot cross. Beliefs that, if sacrificed, undermine the entire reason you are fighting.

Kaitouace posted...

It sucks that this probably puts Newsom as the frontrunner for a Presidential Democratic Primary but shit, if he and Pritzer are the only 2 major players who are going to at least act like democracy is at stake then go for it.

Newsom is the only democrat trying to be a national level leader now. Schumer is just sucking up to Israel and I don't think I've heard anything about Jeffries for a few months since he was last crying and whining about the electorate wanting him to fight.

It really sucks, Newsom did his weird appeal to the right wing with his podcast and I really don't trust him but I don't know who is going to be able argue they're doing more than him.

The Newsom plan for redistricting doesn't even do away with the independent commission permanently. They'll still be drawing the districts in 2031 or w.e.

Kaitouace posted...

It sucks that this probably puts Newsom as the frontrunner for a Presidential Democratic Primary but shit, if he and Pritzer are the only 2 major players who are going to at least act like democracy is at stake then go for it.

Pritzker would make a damn good President

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/14/leaked-chart-reveals-winners-and-losers-in-californias-democratic-gerrymander-00510363

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.

People should distrust both parties, as neither of them have your interests at heart. Judge them based on their actions. Can you tell us the actions of this administration vs the previous?

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?

This is actually a great question with a few potential answers, although first we need to know why we need districting in the first place. Ultimately, the ideal should be similarly sized districts that group together voters with similar needs for representation. For example, people who live in the same suburb of a city probably have similar concerns. A grid wouldn't work because there's no way there will be appropriate distributions of people in the districts.

You could try and use some algorithm, which would ensure fair districts but might produce some weird ones, although I feel confident in saying it would be an improvement over the current system as it would get rid of stuff like that Onyx shaped district in Texas.

You could weirdly embrace gerrymandering but in a way to make intentionally competitive districts. Obviously this would need a nonpartisan third party to administer and quite frankly I have doubts that this could work in the USA, but isn't doomed to failure. It also feels a bit icky to use gerrymandering to fight gerrymandering.

What I'd like to see is MMPR voting, which effectively lets people vote for a local representative while adding representatives to make the government more representative of the electorate. You can look at New Zealand for an example of this in action.

EPR-radar posted...

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.

That's...what I said.

And again, I am not a republican. I have presented ample evidence to support this. Including in that thread about Arnold Schwarzenegger that seems to have vanished.

Please present evidence, or make a formal apology as I have challenged you with before.

EPR-radar posted...

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.

I have a hard time believing that your confirmation bias is this bad, which leaves the option of you just trolling.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/fcb1bca3.jpg

Nice strawman. But that is not at all what I have been saying

If you can't describe this golden gerrymander-free utopia way of governing and posturing that the Dems need to adopt and actually have a way to win, then you're offering nothing.

So I've never tried to pretend I was conservative while expressing my actual views to conservatives before... is it fun?

I honestly don't get why so many conservatives put so much effort into trying to convince people they're actually liberal.

reincarnator07 posted...

This is actually a great question with a few potential answers, although first we need to know why we need districting in the first place. Ultimately, the ideal should be similarly sized districts that group together voters with similar needs for representation. For example, people who live in the same suburb of a city probably have similar concerns. A grid wouldn't work because there's no way there will be appropriate distributions of people in the districts.

You could try and use some algorithm, which would ensure fair districts but might produce some weird ones, although I feel confident in saying it would be an improvement over the current system as it would get rid of stuff like that Onyx shaped district in Texas.

You could weirdly embrace gerrymandering but in a way to make intentionally competitive districts. Obviously this would need a nonpartisan third party to administer and quite frankly I have doubts that this could work in the USA, but isn't doomed to failure. It also feels a bit icky to use gerrymandering to fight gerrymandering.

What I'd like to see is MMPR voting, which effectively lets people vote for a local representative while adding representatives to make the government more representative of the electorate. You can look at New Zealand for an example of this in action.

After the previous suggestion of basing it on counties, which I agreed with, it occurred to me that the size of a county and the size of a district arent necessarily the same, so that might not quite work unless its no big deal to potentially lose/gain some representatives based on how that all comes out.

But I do still think working off of county boundaries is a sensible place to start. Depending on population distribution, you could then further divide a single county if needed, or perhaps group more than one county. As far as the physical appearance of the map, youd likely get something that at least appears to make sensealthough I suppose that within the really populous counties that get divided up further, thered still be potential to gerrymander.

Glad to see the Democrats wake the fuck up and start fighting.

Republicans openly admit to gerrymandering but it's only a serious problem that needs immediate addressing when Democrats do the same.

I stole this comment from Reddit, but instead of "They go low, we go high" it should be "They go low, we kick them in the teeth."

BlackScythe0 posted...

So I've never tried to pretend I was conservative while expressing my actual views to conservatives before... is it fun?

I honestly don't get why so many conservatives put so much effort into trying to convince people they're actually liberal.

Here are two possible motives:

1) The thrill of the lie. Conservatives love to lie.

2) In sensible communities, conservatives and their ideas are rejected out of hand. So stealth is the only way to go if they want to push their loathsome cause.

VectorAgent posted...

After the previous suggestion of basing it on counties, which I agreed with, it occurred to me that the size of a county and the size of a district arent necessarily the same, so that might not quite work unless its no big deal to potentially lose/gain some representatives based on how that all comes out.

But I do still think working off of county boundaries is a sensible place to start. Depending on population distribution, you could then further divide a single county if needed, or perhaps group more than one county. As far as the physical appearance of the map, youd likely get something that at least appears to make sensealthough I suppose that within the really populous counties that get divided up further, thered still be potential to gerrymander.

The problem would actually run the other way, you'd have to combine several counties. To use Texas as an example, Loving Country has a population of... 48. On the flip side, Harris County has a population of 5 million. Starting with county boundaries really just moves the problem, not least because they're basically as artificial as electoral boundaries.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/7/7152fc24.jpg

reincarnator07 posted...

What I'd like to see is MMPR voting, which effectively lets people vote for a local representative while adding representatives to make the government more representative of the electorate. You can look at New Zealand for an example of this in action.

Mighty Morphin Power Ranger voting?

AlCalavicci posted...

Mighty Morphin Power Ranger voting?

I vote for the green ranger ofc!

But srsly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation

As I've said before, you don't necessarily want to see the end result of 50 states gerrymandering or even with the subset that realistically can within the next 3 or so years.

It'll be an equilibrium, but I don't think the Democrats will like it. Democrats barely breaking even or coming up just short of a majority. And then they get slapped hard in 2032 after reapportionment. All for nothing.

Starks posted...

As I've said before, you don't necessarily want to see the end result of 50 states gerrymandering or even with the subset that realistically can within the next 3 or so years.

It'll be an equilibrium, but I don't think the Democrats will like it. Democrats barely breaking even or coming up just short of a majority. And then they get slapped hard in 2032 after reapportionment. All for nothing.

So what exactly should they do in order to win?

Accept that countless states will mid-cycle redistrict with increasingly partisan maps until the Supreme Court weighs in again, likely to give another set of unpalatable lines to draw within.

And then forget about independent commissions entirely unless codified into law or especially an amendment. Dems will have to accept for upwards of a generation that the Senate is lost and even longer for governing beyond reconciliation.

You can only fight so hard until you're literally protesting at a brick wall.

Starks posted...

Accept that countless states will mid-cycle redistrict with increasingly partisan maps until the Supreme Court weighs in again, likely to give another set of unpalatable lines to draw within.

And then forget about independent commissions entirely unless codified into law or especially an amendment. Dems will have to accept for upwards of a generation that the Senate is lost and even longer for governing beyond reconciliation.

You can only fight so hard until you're literally protesting at a brick wall.

That doesn't sound very hopeful. I think one solution is for them to wage war against the GOP-friendly media and dominate them completely in order to persuade more people into voting blue.

Starks posted...

Accept that countless states will mid-cycle redistrict with increasingly partisan maps until the Supreme Court weighs in again, likely to give another set of unpalatable lines to draw within.

And then forget about independent commissions entirely unless codified into law or especially an amendment. Dems will have to accept for upwards of a generation that the Senate is lost and even longer for governing beyond reconciliation.

You can only fight so hard until you're literally protesting at a brick wall.

The Dems are finally accepting that. This is why Newsom is doing this, they are seeing that the system is not functioning as intended.

Considering the question was "What should they do to win", your answer seems to me to be the exact opposite. You're basically saying give up. That is simply not an option for anyone who isn't a white guy, as well as not really being an option for many white guys either.

Starks posted...

Accept that countless states will mid-cycle redistrict with increasingly partisan maps until the Supreme Court weighs in again, likely to give another set of unpalatable lines to draw within.

And then forget about independent commissions entirely unless codified into law or especially an amendment. Dems will have to accept for upwards of a generation that the Senate is lost and even longer for governing beyond reconciliation.

You can only fight so hard until you're literally protesting at a brick wall.

So your solution is... give up, roll over, and die? WTF?

Starks posted...

Accept that countless states will mid-cycle redistrict with increasingly partisan maps until the Supreme Court weighs in again, likely to give another set of unpalatable lines to draw within.

And then forget about independent commissions entirely unless codified into law or especially an amendment. Dems will have to accept for upwards of a generation that the Senate is lost and even longer for governing beyond reconciliation.

You can only fight so hard until you're literally protesting at a brick wall.

Most of the Republican states ( outside of Texas) have been gerrymandered to hell already. They can't get much more out them.

California and especially NY need to all it can to make sure we aren't North Korea a year from now.

Nina Turner doesn't want Democrats to gerrymander.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9b84a92a.jpg

Humble_Novice posted...

Nina Turner doesn't want Democrats to gerrymander.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9b84a92a.jpg

Literally no one should ever listen to Nina Turner.

Or post something she said for that matter.

Starks posted...

Accept that countless states will mid-cycle redistrict with increasingly partisan maps until the Supreme Court weighs in again, likely to give another set of unpalatable lines to draw within.

And then forget about independent commissions entirely unless codified into law or especially an amendment. Dems will have to accept for upwards of a generation that the Senate is lost and even longer for governing beyond reconciliation.

You can only fight so hard until you're literally protesting at a brick wall.

This is basically advice to go down without a fight. If we must go down, there should at least be a decent fight.

I just hope with the gerrymandering being so brazen and open that this will lead to some federal law to stop it.

I'm not happy it is happening but of one side is doing it, then the other side should as well.

Humble_Novice posted...

Nina Turner doesn't want Democrats to gerrymander.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9b84a92a.jpg

Well, she's an idiot.

Doom_Art posted...

Pritzker would make a damn good President

Honestly would have never thought an IL governor would be even half way as good as Pritzker in my lifetime. So far he hasnt done anything stupid like Newsom has either. Heres hoping that stays that way.

Calling for useless performative actions is either ignorance or actively trying to prevent meaningful resistance. There is no magic strike and boycott movement that stops this.

Why does Bernie Sanders have horrid taste in campaign staff members?
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/96ee21e0.jpg

Humble_Novice posted...

Why does Bernie Sanders have horrid taste in campaign staff members?
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/96ee21e0.jpg

Wasn't that nearly a decade ago?

Starks posted...

Accept that countless states will mid-cycle redistrict with increasingly partisan maps until the Supreme Court weighs in again, likely to give another set of unpalatable lines to draw within.

And then forget about independent commissions entirely unless codified into law or especially an amendment. Dems will have to accept for upwards of a generation that the Senate is lost and even longer for governing beyond reconciliation.

You can only fight so hard until you're literally protesting at a brick wall.

translation: the only way they can win is to give up and die

No more high road bullshit. Do what the Republicans do.

Erase every Republican seat in every hard blue state.

CA says it'll give it to the voters. Will that get this through? 35% being Republican voters plus another 15-20% that oppose Gerrymandering in any case...

Justin2Krelian posted...

CA says it'll give it to the voters. Will that get this through? 35% being Republican voters plus another 15-20% that oppose Gerrymandering in any case...

That's the problem. I'm not liking what I've heard about the polling on this so far.

Justin2Krelian posted...

CA says it'll give it to the voters. Will that get this through? 35% being Republican voters plus another 15-20% that oppose Gerrymandering in any case...

Polls suggest that this is an unpopular opinion in California. Which means...yeah, this will probably fail.

Of course, what that means is that we will effectively be a single party governance for the rest of our lives barring a major shift in public opinion because once Texas and Florida get away with it, every other Republican Supermajority state is going to do it.

Flaming_Fire619 posted...

Polls suggest that this is an unpopular opinion in California. Which means...yeah, this will probably fail.

Of course, what that means is that we will effectively be a single party governance for the rest of our lives barring a major shift in public opinion because once Texas and Florida get away with it, every other Republican Supermajority state is going to do it.

Any polling youre referencing predates the Texas Senate passing the new redistricting map and really isnt applicable.

EPR-radar posted...

That's the problem. I'm not liking what I've heard about the polling on this so far.

Flaming_Fire619 posted...

Polls suggest that this is an unpopular opinion in California.

Oh, bloody fucking hell.

Can any other states do it instead?

EPR-radar posted...

That's the problem. I'm not liking what I've heard about the polling on this so far.

Honestly screw the polling. Polls have shown to be very flawed.