TRUMP "MISSED THE DEADLINE" TO CALL OFF TX GERRYMANDERING; CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS”

[durangodawood]

Please don't try to tell me that people don't want partisan gerrymandering when just days ago that's exactly what they voted for.

You have a strange problem with the concept of a hierarchy of values.

Obviously CA voters on average want
First: the same rules for everyone
Second: no gerrymandering

They want both. But if circumstances force them to pick just one, its a fair contest by the same rules. This seems sensible to me.

 

[probinson]

We want the rules to be uniform. Otherwise, being virtuous gets you the reward of getting stomped by the vicious. Trump asked Texas for some additional viciousness, and he has reaped more.

Right. Texas wants gerrymandering. California wants gerrymandering. Both political wants gerrymandering that benefits them.

As long as people keep voting for gerrymandering, it's silly to pretend they don't want it.

 

[probinson]

You have a strange problem with the concept of a hierarchy of values.

Obviously CA voters on average want
First: the same rules for everyone
Second: no gerrymandering

They want both.

I don't really think they do. They want whatever benefits them politically. That's what both parties want, and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't really think they do. They want whatever benefits them politically. That's what both parties want, and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

The way its played out supports my sense of this.

CA would have 100% continued with their independent commision had TX not ramped up gerrymandering. CA would have stuck with it even though there was a partisan advantage to be had. There was zero movement toward abandoning the independent commission prior to TX.

You got any evidence to the contrary?

 

[probinson]

The way its played out supports my sense of this.

CA would have 100% continued with their independent commision had TX not ramped up gerrymandering. CA would have stuck with it even though there was a partisan advantage to be had. There was zero movement toward abandoning the independent commission prior to TX.

You got any evidence to the contrary?

Regardless of the circumstances, the current situation shows that both sides are willing to do whatever it takes to retain or gain power. Clearly, "fair" elections are secondary to such people in your hierarchy of values.

 

[durangodawood]

Regardless of the circumstances, the current situation shows that both sides are willing to do whatever it takes to retain or gain power. Clearly, "fair" elections are secondary to such people in your hierarchy of values.

Fair meaning same rules for everyone.

CA dems were not going to abandon the independent commission even though there was partisan advantage to be gained. It was low hanging fruit they just ignored. They only did it when TX basically changed the rules first.

I do wonder how Ds and Rs nationally would poll on a national no-gerrymandering rule?

 

[probinson]

Fair meaning same rules for everyone.

The way I'm defining "fair elections" are elections in which people's votes actually mater. There are Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California that might as well just stay home. Their votes have been gerrymandered into a meaningless gesture.

CA dems were not going to abandon the independent commission even though there was partisan advantage to be gained. It was low hanging fruit they just ignored. They only did it when TX basically changed the rules first.

I do wonder how Ds and Rs nationally would poll on a national no-gerrymandering rule?

The bottom line is that even in your first response to me, "No gerrymandering" is listed as a secondary value. Again, it's quite clear that both sides are willing to do what they need to do to retain or gain power.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Right. Texas wants gerrymandering.

Do they? The people of Texas, we don't even know about.

As for the legislature, they responded to the President's threats.

In June 2025, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration had urged Republican leadership in the state of Texas to redistrict the state's legislative boundaries in order to benefit Republicans. The plan elicited concern from some Texas Republicans, who argued that it could hurt incumbent Republicans. An official associated with Donald Trump warned lawmakers that the president was noting who would support his plan.
According to The Texas Tribune, Trump's plan was met by skepticism from Governor Greg Abbott; his concerns were alleviated after a call with Trump.[6]

As long as people keep voting for gerrymandering, it's silly to pretend they don't want it.

The people of California voted against gerrymandering. Then Trump called for more gerrymandering. And now he's going to get it.

 

[durangodawood]

The bottom line is that even in your first response to me, "No gerrymandering" is listed as a secondary value. Again, it's quite clear that both sides are willing to do what they need to do to retain or gain power.

CA was happy to coast along ignoring a huge opportunity for D partisan advantage that was staring them in the face.

TX house on the other hand grabbed at similar R advantage creating a really unfair situation between the two contending parties. Of course CA responded, as they should.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm starting to feel like Im using facts and reasoning to argue against something like attitude. We know these days that facts have no chance.

 

[probinson]

The people of California voted against gerrymandering.

They did not. They voted for it.

Then Trump called for more gerrymandering.

He did.

And now he's going to get it.

Sure. Because the people of California voted for it.

 

[probinson]

CA was happy to coast along ignoring a huge opportunity for D partisan advantage that was staring them in the face.

TX house on the other hand grabbed at similar R advantage creating a really unfair situation between the two contending parties. Of course CA responded, as they should.

Right. Because as you already stated, "No gerrymandering" is a secondary value for most voters.

 

[probinson]

I'm starting to feel like Im using facts and reasoning to argue against something like attitude. We know these days that facts have no chance.

Let's be clear about what you said:

Obviously CA voters on average want​

First: the same rules for everyone​

Second: no gerrymandering​

You're saying exactly what I'm saying. "No gerrymandering" is indeed "second" for most voters.

I agree 100%.

 

[durangodawood]

Right. Because as you already stated, "No gerrymandering" is a secondary value for most voters.

Yes. First is a situation that is fair to the 2 parties.

(Exactly why we have a natural 2 party duopoly is a whole other issue....)

 

[GoldenBoy89]

They did not. They voted for it.



He did.



Sure. Because the people of California voted for it.

We voted to offset Texas’ gerrymandering.

There’s no reason for only them to have all the fun.

 

[Say it aint so]

Please don't try to tell me that people don't want partisan gerrymandering when just days ago that's exactly what they voted for.

End game. If those are the rules then you do what you can to amass enough power to have that gerrymandering reform pass.

 

[probinson]

We voted to offset Texas’ gerrymandering.

There’s no reason for only them to have all the fun.

You can try to spin it however you like. The bottom line is, California voted for gerrymandering.

When someone tells me they're against something but then turn around and vote for it, I ain't buying it.

 

[probinson]

End game. If those are the rules them you do what you can to amass enough power to have that gerrymandering reform pass.

Let's see if that actually happens.

And I must say, the cognitive dissonance required to believe one must embrace gerrymandering to stop gerrymandering is astounding.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You can try to spin it however you like. The bottom line is, California voted for gerrymandering.

Yes, in response to Texas.

When someone tells me they're against something but then turn around and vote for it, I ain't buying it.

Right. It’s like the people who voted for “America first” only to watch billions of dollars be sent to Argentina while Americans are standing in line for food rations.

 

[Say it aint so]

Let's see if that actually happens.

And I must say, the cognitive dissonance required to believe one must embrace gerrymandering to stop gerrymandering is astounding.

Not really. Prop 50 in Cal for example is a temporary measure.