218
Prop 50: Californians pass redistricting measure that helps Democrats flip up to five House seats
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
218 points (99.5% liked)
politics
26293 readers
1854 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Texas is the one who kicked off the trend of mid-decade redistricting for the express purpose of getting more seats in a midterm election. Have both parties gerrymandered? Sure, there's a reason we don't hear much about Illinois jumping in for example. But to expressly say they're doing it because Trump wanted it for midterms... Yeah. That's incredible.
I mean, red states have been doing this for at least 15 years, anytime they get a veto-proof majority. Mississippi and Alabama lost high-profile court cases over it prior to 2024 and defied those court orders.
In the middle of the decade, and not from a court forcing them to?
May I see it?
Superintendent Chalmers references aside, feel free to prove me wrong. I'm going to have a hard time proving the negative.
Just a couple examples, no smoking guns:
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/court-ordered-redistricting-changes-since-2015-83113b
https://www.justice.gov/crt/status-statewide-redistricting-plans
I guess I’m thinking of the wrangling that goes on after they blatantly and illegally gerrymander Democrats out of power as they’renow openly doing in Texas.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/redistricting-litigation-roundup-0
All I'm seeing there (feel free to tell me what I missed) is either court-ordered, or part of the typical redistricting cycle.
The US census happens every 10 years on the 0's, and remapping happens soon after especially as states lose and gain districts (some may have a shift in where their populations are and with that the boundaries chance as well). I'm not talking about any gerrymandering there, because that's (unfortunately) part of the "normal" process.
Sometimes those maps get challenged in court, and the court agrees with those challenges, forcing a new map outside of that usual cycle. I'm not talking about that either, because that's done involuntarily after a court makes them do it.
Texas started it all by changing their maps about halfway through the typical census cycle, without any court requiring it. THAT is what I'm trying to say is so abnormal and where I want to be proven wrong. It sounds picky, but any other redistricting I'm aware of is common enough and can have good reason to do so, but not this.
I am completely on your side, but I find this little fact interesting.
They say the same thing, it may not be correct, sure but they say the exact same thing. That alone is worth noting. I don't know why I'm getting downvoted for that.
I didn't downvote you, but I'm going to guess it's because many people try to "both sides" something that's very clearly happening on one side. Maybe there's more finger pointing for the domino effects, but it very clearly started with Texas
Yeah, it's probably a lack of nuance, which is something I have noticed on this platform. I did not talk about who started gerrymandering. In fact, never did I even talk about Gerrymandering as a practice. I talked about people talking about it.
It's insane how much interpretation is happening to simple language nowadays. Shows how charged politics is nowadays. I'm not an exception, I'm sure.
Uh, and the comment you replied to? And the topic of the post was a whole?
Drink your morning coffee, friend.
Nah, your comments were completely fine. I don't drink coffe though and it's 4 PM.
Here's why I've downvotes you.
Your comment is at best rehotorical, or, more likely, a subtle "both sides are the same"
You can say it's not what you said, but it kinda is.
You complain about a lack of nuance, but your originall comment also provides none.
The reason this is seen as and faith here, is because a LOT of people will come here, point something like that out, take in 0 additional context, and then run off proud.
I can't tell if that's actually your attempt at trolling or if you've just haven't seen that kind of talk round these parts.
I'm not a troll, I'm am quite serious. I am also aware of the rhetorical device used by a lot of republicans and other countries' hiding fascists.
Seeing how the status quo speaks of something, whether that is left wing or right wing can help to understand where the divide is and help close it. I'm not a holy centrist, I would do things for which I will be put on a list if I say them out loud to have a world without billionaires.
But if republicans say this shit in advance to the exact opposite thing happening, that's powerful, because they can leverage that. It doesn't have to be true for that.
I'm making an observation that hopefully some less american-brained people will read exactly the way I wrote it and think about it.
So you guys can demonstrably show the community what a bad guy I am, but the people outside your fascihole of a country will work on this with me. I am also not the first one who has pointed this out either, it's just not on your land.
So I'm neither trolling, nor am I unaware of the rhetoric you speak of, nor am I one of your enemies. And I will continue speaking these things wether I find acceptance or not.
You don't have to interpret everything I say. You can also just read it as it stands there. You could also just help me to mark any future posts such as this one so people know it is meant literally. But no, you don't care about that, do you?
So I'm not American, I'm Canadian.
Your entire comment reads liek that one comic "ahhh but you participate in society I'm so smart".
No one is arguing what you said to be true or not. If it's that's simple, then was it wasn't really going to spark discussion. Did you really just intend to make a dead end statement?
No one is saying you shouldn't speak, it's just none of us want to listen anymore.
Also, to communicate is to interpret. That's just how language works. An artist doesn't get to determine how their work is seen. Its to be interpreted. What you say (and don't) still says alot about you.
Sorry, I just hate americans. I have met a lot of nice people, but never knowingly a nice american. The worst wars I see originate from them. They bring destruction to the world, to my friends. And I know there must be some pretty incredibly people over there, but I am yet to meet one in person. I view them as uneducated and moronic. That's on me.
I did not intend to make a dead end statement. But I most definitely wasn't going in the direction where I was justifying gerrymandering on the republicans side for the reasons that they did it. What I did intended to make was an observation. No emotions behind it, no alterior motives, just an observation. I'm aware that them saying it is equal is false, but that's doesn't me saying that they say it is false. It brings attention to the issue. Which I would say, despite me getting cyberbullied into oblivion (I'm good), I achieved. If you say you're sick of hearing it, then perhaps I misjudged the situation in that you are well aware. I'm from overseas, never been to the americas.
You, as in the community, are actively discouraging me as a human being with emotions from talking like this again. Which in this case means for me to show an observation of mine in a politically charged context. You don't tell someone over and over that they have an ill intend without that affecting them. After some time they might actually believe it themselves.
To communicate is to interpret. Absolutely. Then tell me why after me saying multiple times, that I meant what I said as a way to show that what they say equals, but not what they do, do you still misunderstand me? Are you having trouble interpreting what I mean? You are interpreting something into it that I did not say. That is the difference.
Buddhism disagrees with you. It's not the truth of course, but it says what I didn't say says nothing about me. It's what you make out of it that says a lot. If you can not see the things for what they are, then you are no better than a republican. In my culture we ask first before we decide if a person meant something he said the way we think they do, if that conflicts with us personally. I've been called all sorts of names by this community for such "inappropriate" behavior, even autistic.
You keep acting like your comment exists in a vacuum. It just simply doesn't.
You also need to see how this looks to everyone else.
You come in here, and just spew a right wing "both sides" comment. Knowingly or not, that's what you did. And you expect to not be pushed back against that?
You keep saying that's not your intent, when frankly, that doesn't matter. You don't get to determine how your comment gets interpreted. Because it's not your mind that's doing it. Just like artists, your speech is no longer yours to control once said.
"You keep saying that it's not your intend, when frankly, that doesn't matter."
You are literally making me sound like I'm inside a court being prosecuted. For a heinous crime, it shouldn't matter what I intended. But in this case it absolutely does. I don't go to a history teacher for talking about nazi propaganda and talk shit to them for it. Intent matters a lot. Especially in a conversation about politics. When I say I would like for all the criminals in america get deported I mean the vile sex offenders and murderers. When a republicans says it, they mean exactly what is happening now. If intend didn't matter, then you whole argument breaks down, because it assumes ill intend.