481
Americans need to abolish the electoral college.
Sadly I think the best shot at it being abolished is if it proves that it advantageous to Democrats as well
GOP maps were gerrymandered with the expectation that a certain amount of minority groups would still support the GOP and would factor into the way the districts are divided. All of that has changed now, meaning the assumptions made using past statistical data from elections and demographics are invalid. Much of it has to do with the views of immigration enforcement for the ones not deported. This also factors into DNC gerrymandering in other ways. Remains to be seen what impact the actual deportations have on voting. As long as no one being here illegally was voting, there is no net political loss for Democrats. It's not like they are losing voters. So the midterms will be very interesting. It's no surprise they want to take what's going on in Fulton County, Georgia and try to apply an illegal immigrant angle to it, then have Bannon say ICE needs to run intimidation campaigns at the polling stations. The effect of this again goes back to the same root issues. There is a long history in the U.S. of voting site intimidation. Much of it having to do with people exercising their rights to vote during the Civil Rights Era in the South.
As long as no one being here illegally was voting,
Narrator: "They weren't."
there is no net political loss for Democrats.
Possibly the opposite. Many of those violently kidnapped and deported have friends and family that ARE citizens and CAN vote. Many of them probably naively voted R in the last election. I suspect many of them will not make that mistake in the midterms.
Remains to be seen what impact the actual deportations have on voting. As long as no one being here illegally was voting, there is no net political loss for Democrats. It’s not like they are losing voters.
Right, It should have no impact, seeing how non-citizens can't vote. The only impact would be to motivate voters to come through and vote out the fascists.
Good, but also holy fuck we need to ban gerrymandering
Not gonna lie, I was morbidly looking forward to how they were going to rule against California while still upholding Texas.
I think they're fully confident armed ICE and CBP will be able to keep any lefties and minorities away from the polling booths in Cali,
How would they tell who is who though? Not to say they won't try.
Stereotypes. They will intimidate or won't let in black people, brown people, LGBTQ+ (basically women with coloured hair or obvious trans folk), etc.
I think this is really dangerous, actually. SCOTUS is no implicitly (or on their way to) saying that severe and perverse gerrymandering, is okay
They have already ruled that severe and perverse gerrymandering is okay. Only racist gerrymandering is technically illegal, but they recently made that acceptable, too. Burn it down and start over.
Yes but allowing SCOTUS to weigh in and "grant exceptions" only goes one wsy.
This was already legally happening in Texas. Cali did this in response to Texas being allowed to heavily gerrymander their state in Republican favor.
Editing to add: And it's a time-constrained deal. This new map will only exist until 2030 when the maps would be redrawn anyhow. Cali put this up to a vote. Texas just...did it without a vote. Its near impossible for on-the-ground voters to get anything on a ballot in Texas due to the way the state Constitution is written.
Yes, I am aware of that. However, how do you eat an elephant? The same way the consevatives overturned Roe, one bite at a time.
The slow erosion of the voting rights act is a long and pernicious project. I dont know for certain, but SCOTUS weighing in to explicitly say it was okay to gerrymander on political grounds is almost certainly beggining, or continuing, a precent that we dont want set.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Aka the supreme court couldnt figure out how to argue this without making themselves look even more like clowns OR they have a plan B.
In guessing plan B. If California can use this democrat friendly slanted map then every other state can use whatever conservative slanted maps they draw up.
Plan B for sure. It smells like "Fine, gerrymander CA, we're gonna rig the shit out of this election anyway. Good luck, byeee!"
That's plan A.
They were already using it, California did this to get those banned and failed.
Is it really failing when you so often seem to wind up on the same team?
California Gov. Gavin Newsom doubles down on his criticism of the proposed billionaire wealth tax
The comment comes as billionaires in the state have made public their intent to relocate elsewhere in the wake of the tax’s proposal. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel, tech investor David Sacks, and Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have all taken steps to leave.
At the same time, billionaires are dishing out piles of cash to fund a campaign against the ballot initiative. Thiel made his biggest political contribution in years, donating $3 million to a California business group leading the fight against the billionaire wealth tax.
Sometimes it feels like Trump was the response of a crazy abusive asshole (Thiel/Musk/broligarchs) who "tried to do things the nice way by giving you somebody like Gavin Newsome," but since people didn't want that he decided to show how crazy he can really be for a 4 years to wear you down the next time around (if you're lucky enough to even get a next time around).
Then threatening this bullshit of "if you expect me to pay taxes, you're going to regret it. I'm warning you... you're going to be so sorry once I'm gone"
It's like stop flapping your fucking gums and leave already you piece of shit, nobody wants you, and we're already in the toilet with you here. America can do bad all by herself. At least then we won't have to deal with your bullshit on top of everything else.
Anyway, long winded way of saying, I don't trust Gavin Newsome anymore than I trust Peter Thiel. Fuck them both.
Just because they're on the same side doesn't mean they aren't greedy.
More Dems in office means more bribes for them.
Like more bribes from the Dems or more Dems willing to accept bribes? Either way, that's my point. It's not really a Dems vs Republican problem when it comes to a Newsome Dem. vs. a Republican. It's a problem of a bipartisan oligarchy seeking to destroy what's left of a democracy.
You could argue it's already been destroyed, but then that just leads back to the question of why bother wasting money on all the theatrics and big threats if they really are untouchable? Why would they need to make this campaign attacking a billionaire tax? Why would the supreme court need to give California the ok before giving the red states the same blessing?
More dems = more power = more bribes.
If Republicans can pass anything why bribe anyone else?
I think plan B is the ice agents at poking locations they announced today.
This is my exact take too. Opening the floodgates for ultra gerrymandered maps.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's both actually. The justices beholden to Trumpanzee were informed that the election will be stolen anyway and so the fallout from them "looking even more like clowns" wasn't necessary.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's one hell of an interesting twist.
Roberts and Gorsuch aren't obsessed with winning every short-game match up. They need gerrymandering to be legal in the abstract and for the long term. If they start trying to thread the needle between California and Texas, they give the lower courts more opportunities to overturn maps in Republican states and a future SCOTUS more elbow room to overturn their whole reading of legislative maps.
In a wave year where Republicans are likely getting swamped out of dozens of seats anyway, there's very little to gain and a lot to lose by creating an exception to the rule on when gerrymandering is legal.
If they start trying to thread the needle between California and Texas, they give the lower courts more opportunities to overturn maps in Republican states and a future SCOTUS more elbow room to overturn their whole reading of legislative maps.
The Roberts SCOTUS has already given any future SCOTUS ample precedent for utterly ignoring previous rulings as it suits their partisan needs several times over. If they think this one somehow stands separate from anything else it's laughable.
load more comments
(9 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
481 points (99.4% liked)
News
35471 readers
3975 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS