Leebra politics
login register

Prop 50: Californians pass redistricting measure that helps Democrats flip up to five House seats

9 months ago by MicroWave to c/politics

save

share

report

Approval of measure could determine if Republicans keep full control of government in next year’s midterm elections

It was a decisive victory for Democrats in deep-blue California, who had raced to counter a gerrymander in Texas, engineered at the US president’s behest, to carve out new safe Republican districts. The Associated Press declared Proposition 50 had passed almost instantly when polls closed statewide.

In approving the measure, voters chose to toss out the work of California’s independent redistricting commission and temporarily adopt maps drawn by the state legislature to help Democrats pick up five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.

Newsom and Democrats framed the measure as a way to safeguard US democracy from Trump’s “wrecking ball” presidency. By contrast, opponents offered a mixed message, with Republicans alternatively attacking Newsom and praising the work of the independent mapmaking panel.

rafoix 55 points 9 months ago

It doesn’t help Democrats flip 5 house seats. It helps Democrats cancel out GOP gerrymandering in Texas.

save

path: 0 20325247, hotness: undefined, score: 55, children: 48
Devjavu -29 points 9 months ago

Just an observation: It's incredible that both sides of the political spectrum say tge exact same thing about gerrymandering for and against their party.

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352, hotness: undefined, score: -29, children: 47
RunJun 34 points 9 months ago

This isn’t the same. A political party operating in its own self interests versus the opposing political party putting it to a vote to offset the damage.

Cancer kills cells. Chemotherapy kills cells. Wow, the same thing.

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20328306, hotness: undefined, score: 34, children: 20
Devjavu -12 points 9 months ago

I know that, where did I indicate that I am equating them?

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20328306 20328543, hotness: undefined, score: -12, children: 19
chuckleslord 17 points 9 months ago

You drew no distinction between the two sides you spoke of. So, yes, you did equate them by implication.

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20328306 20328543 20331408, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 4
webadict 3 points 9 months ago

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20328306 20328543 20332437, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 13
_stranger_ 13 points 9 months ago

Well, time is linear, so in this case it's easy to figure out what happened: Texas Republicans did a super shitty thing, and California is balancing it out.

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20327959, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 5
Devjavu -7 points 9 months ago

You are correct. Though does it actually fully balance it out?

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20327959 20328628, hotness: undefined, score: -7, children: 4
WindyRebel 9 points 9 months ago

So, this article says up to 5 seats which this article says that Texas could flip up to 5 seats.

If I did my math right then up to 5 seats minus up to 5 seats equals balance. What numbers actually turn out to be beyond the “up to” will be the deciding vote.

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20327959 20328628 20330871, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 3
rafoix 10 points 9 months ago

Gerrymandering is an issue in the US because the ridiculous laws allow politicians to draw their own districts. The GOP has been particularly aggressive with their efforts in disenfranchising any minorities with aggressive voter purges, voter ID laws and gerrymandering.

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20326978, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 1
Devjavu -4 points 9 months ago

I know, that's not what my comment was about though.

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20326978 20327002, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 0
spongebue 7 points 9 months ago

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.

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20326679, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 17
homesweethomeMrL 4 points 9 months ago

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.

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20326679 20328547, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 5
spongebue 1 point 9 months ago

In the middle of the decade, and not from a court forcing them to?

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20326679 20328547 20330710, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 4
Devjavu -3 points 9 months ago

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.

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20326679 20326740, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 10
spongebue 7 points 9 months ago

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

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20326679 20326740 20326774, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 3
DoPeopleLookHere 1 point 9 months ago

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.

save

path: 0 20325247 20326352 20326679 20326740 20347138, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 5
melsaskca 11 points 9 months ago

I'm glad but...if you can change the victor of an election by moving district boundaries then your democratic system is incredibly broken. You might want to tighten that up.

save

path: 0 20345259, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0
Feathercrown 3 points 9 months ago

It's so much more fun when we get to do it for once

save

path: 0 20349991, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1
DragonTypeWyvern 0 points 9 months ago

Basically the whole country is already gerrymandered to hell already, including California. This isn't actually new for either party it's just now they're bragging about why at each other.

save

path: 0 20349991 20351189, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
MedicPigBabySaver 2 points 9 months ago

Good job.

save

path: 0 20332253, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
politics
politics

@lemmy.world

login for more options
30855
32686
9702

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

go to feed...