this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
396 points (99.7% liked)

politics

26277 readers
3893 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 25 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

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 -4 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

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 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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 0 points 3 hours 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 4 points 9 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 4 points 10 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.