328
'At Least He Admits It': Trump Says Pro-Democracy Resolution Would Destroy GOP
(www.commondreams.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
328 points (98.8% liked)
politics
30374 readers
2474 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This Supreme Court?!? Of course they ruled to allow gerrymandering. Most gerrymandered states are controlled by republican legislatures. It's no surprise the Scotus would let thise legislatures keep drawing their own congressional maps.
Typically it's up to the state courts to declare those maps to be illegally gerrymandered. That happened in Ohio, but the legislature ignored the ruling and somehow held elections with those illegal maps. But it's up to the state to sort that out.
A computer program absolutely can be partisan, if it's designed by someone who's partisan.
No it can't. That's not how the constitution works, you thick-skulled looby.
Clearly you don't know how gerrymandering works if you don't realize there's still room within those constraints for partisan fuckery.
This question is moot because a majority of states have already successfully implemented it. You wanna know how they did about it, go read about it instead of armchair politicking.
What inputs would you manipulate to make the program partisan? Once the state is entered, the program will know the state's boundaries and number of districts. Population size and locations could probably be extracted from the US census data base.
Do you not realize that there are still multiple ways to slice that pie?
The whole point of gerrymandering is to split up opposition strongholds (typically blue areas in red states, i.e. cities) and attach them piecemeal to larger-by-area districts with lower population densities in order to water down their votes in redder districts.
That way instead of a city having one or two reps who are blue and can actually represent their constituencies, you have a bunch of tiny slivers of that city that are represented by the reps for the rural districts they're attached to. It's how republicans have disenfranchised urban voters for a long time. And yes, there's a heavily racial subtext to this, since urban areas tend to be more non-white than rural areas. It's how republicans disenfranchise non-white voters.
A computer program can still do the same thing. That doesn't solve gerrymandering.
No, a computer program whose purpose is to gerrymander can be designed to gerrymander. An input to the program would be the party affiliation of various locations. A computer program which isn't designed to gerrymander would not be given that information. All it needs to know are the boundaries of the state, the population, the various locations of the population, and the required number of districts.
There are a multitude of proxies for political affiliation that can be used instead to stealthily gerrymander. And you have no way of ensuring that an unconstitutionally mandated computer program wouldn't include those.
No, since political affiliation would not be an input to the computer program. Peer-review by university computer science professors would catch any attempt to sneak it in. Do you think a company would risk being caught and punished? It is not unconstitutional to force a state to adopt something which does not disenfranchise a part of the population no more than it's unconstitutional to force a state to adopt a voting method which is not prone to fraud.
You're putting a lot of faith in the political awareness and good intentions of these computer science professors.
Yes it is. It literally is, when you're talking about electoral processes such as redistricting.
You're only continuing to reveal how little you know about the topic.
Political awareness is unnecessary, only knowledge of computer programming. It is improbable that all the professors would have bad intentions and are in one specific party.
It is not unconstitutional to force states to adopt something that ensures districting is impartial.
"Political awareness isn't necessary to design a system that all states will be forced to implement for their elections." Holy shit, a statement like this demonstrates exactly why political awareness is necessary, and makes abundantly clear that you have none of it. Thankfully I don't have to worry about your ideas seeing any daylight.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but the federal government meddling in how states run their elections literally violates the constitution. If that's not "unconstitutional" then I don't even know what that word means to you...
A computer program that is nonbiased need computer programmers that have no interest in politics. States do not have unlimited powers in running elections. For example, they cannot gerrymander based on race. They can gerrymander based on party affiliation because there is no means of determining what is too much partisanship, but with a computer program there will be none.
Nope. It needs programmers who can work apolitically, even if they have a preference.
The difference is ethics, and if a coder isn't ethical, he's useless and untrustworthy.
Correct. That's the reason for peer-review.
Writing an unbiased program to redraw political district maps requires political awareness. Having "no interest in politics" won't help with that. And you're continuing to demonstrate why that's dangerous.
And for the last fucking time, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT DICTATE HOW STATES RUN THEIR ELECTIONS. Now stop trying to claim otherwise.