Inportant fact to consider is that: Political gerrymandering is a “non-justicable political question” according to the supreme court, meaning the courts claim they have no constitutional power to decide this, and its up to congress (via passing a bill with the president’s approval) to decide if it should be legal, and in the mean time, it’s currently legal.

Republicans have been gerrymandering in red states.

Democrats in blue states on the otherhand, are either currently using non-partisan or bi-partisan commitees/commissions to draw the districting maps, or are in the process of switching to said methods of drawing the districting maps.

This mean that the house would become tipped in favor of republicans.

California and New York surely has a lot of red districts that we can gerrymander out of. The question is: Should Democrats do that? Should Democrats play dirty like republicans have? (Again, supreme court have said that political gerrymandering is legal)

Because I fear that we would have republicans perpetually in control of the house even if Democrats have the most votes nationwide.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    12 days ago

    What they should do is push for voting reform. There are tons of proposals for voting systems that solve the two party stalemate and the issue of gerrymandering.

    If they really wanted to stop the insanity of the Republican party, that’s what they would do. Until they do, they are complicit in it.

  • @DomeGuy
    link
    445 days ago

    Yes, absolutely.

    The American left has a terrible habit of playing nice instead of playing fair.

    Congressional gerrymandering should be regulated nationwide or not at all. Instead, we’re stuck with this asinine “no gerrymandering except in redcap occupied states” situation.

    • stinerman [Ohio]
      link
      fedilink
      75 days ago

      Yep. You play by the rules on the ground. Gerrymandering shouldn’t be a thing, but as long as it is, the Democrats should use it to their advantage.

  • @rtxn
    link
    English
    26
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Being the more virtuous party doesn’t work, so yes. Yes to all of the dirty tricks, including extralegal. Anything to preserve some kind of sanity because the alternative is unacceptable.

    • @HowManyNimons
      link
      85 days ago

      The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

      • @elephantium
        link
        English
        15 days ago

        Four legs good,

        Two legs better!

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod
    link
    English
    195 days ago

    Maryland is a good example of gerrymandering in a blue state.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashedOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      165 days ago

      That state has like 8 seats.

      Meanwhile, California, New York, Washington, Colorado, New Jersey, uses Non-Partisan Independent Commissions to draw the maps. These commissions aren’t gonna gerrymander.

      red states, on the otherhand, almost all are using the republican-dominated legislature to draw the maps. They gerrymander the shit out of them.

      Democrats are so bad at this gerrymandering game.

  • @njm1314
    link
    155 days ago

    What on earth makes you think they don’t already?

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashedOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35 days ago

      They do, just really bad at doing it.

      They’ve been passing anti-gerrymandering laws in several safe-blue states, meanwhile republicans in red states are doing the best gerrymandering they can.

      Democrats and their “Norms and Traditions”…

      🤦‍♂️

  • HubertManne
    link
    fedilink
    135 days ago

    There is still some gerrrymandering going on in blue states, just not as outrageously.

  • dream_weasel
    link
    fedilink
    54 days ago

    Yes. Play as absolutely dirty as possible.

    That’s the only way to get laws to outlaw loopholes. There’s no incentive for cheat-to-win to stop cheating because the losing side gets really noble about it.

  • bluGill
    link
    fedilink
    95 days ago

    Democrats have been gerrymandering since they discovered it was legal. Sure a republican was first way back when, but as soon as they realized it was legal the democrats were doing the same thing. And of course both sides complained about the other doing it when the other was in power as if they were not doing the same. Once in a while someone puts some restriction in place but this is a clear case of both sides are doing it.

    • @DomeGuy
      link
      145 days ago

      Very-blue New York has an anti-gerrymandering law so severe that that it netted Red three seats two years ago.

      Very-red North Carolina just ignored court rulings and gerrymandering their way to three extra seats this year. And then there’s Texas.

      While both sides SHOULD play by the same set of rules, they aren’t. Not even close.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashedOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      105 days ago

      Democrats are so bad at it tho.

      For example, some of the blue states, California, New York, Washington, Colorado, New Jersy, uses a Non-Partisan Independent Commission. These commissions are not gonna gerrymander maps.

      Meanwhile, every red state has the republican-dominated legislature draw the maps. They gerrymander the shit out of them.

  • @cabron_offsets
    link
    55 days ago

    Yes, of course they should. Have the past 40 years not taught us anything at all?

  • Bear
    link
    fedilink
    English
    35 days ago

    No. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      105 days ago

      High roading your way into fascism, a liberal classic.

      The reality, however, is that Dems do gerrymander when they can, because you will simply lose if the other side does it while you don’t. That’s why anti-gerrymandering efforts need to be legislative and apply to everyone.

  • @FireTower
    link
    25 days ago

    Q: Should (insert political party here) disenfranchise voters for the benefit of (insert political party here)'s political ends?

    A: No.

    If you have no principles you have nothing.

      • @FireTower
        link
        04 days ago

        The thing is that they’ve got teeth. E.g. redistricting, along with the plurality of powers granted to the countless offices across the nation that they hold.

        • dream_weasel
          link
          fedilink
          04 days ago

          Ohh THATS why we keep reading about R gerrymandered districts being struck down, then delayed, redrawn, struck down, and delayed until they are used again for the next election because no time for with literally zero recourse after consolidation of power. Pretty sure that list now includes in the last 5 years NC, OH, and VA minimally.

          Where teeth?

  • @WoahWoah
    link
    1
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    It’s only a non-justicable political question when Republicans do it. That part is written in invisible ink, which is only visible if you sign your entity’s legal name diagonally across the written decision with a red pen.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashedOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Actually, Democrats can do it. At least federally they can.

      But Democrats love “Norms and Traditions” and made their blue states harder to gerrymander.

      Democrats have trapped themselves.

      “Norms and Traditions”

      🤦‍♂️

  • Chozo
    link
    fedilink
    -25 days ago

    I would say no, because I’m of the opinion that the practice needs to be done away with altogether. There’s no reason why somebody’s vote should count any more or less than their neighbor’s. If they both live in an area that will be affected by their vote, their votes should have equal weight, period. I’ve yet to hear a single compelling argument for why we still do this today.