I agree. The Court majority has abandoned the laws and constitution. It most certainly has jurisdiction over racial inequality in gerrymandering. Shame on our majority Supreme Court.
When we reach a super majority, I suggest that we increase the court by 3 more fair- index justices to out vote the christoNaziNationalists.
I agree. We have the numbers. We have the votes. We even have fair-minded moderate republicans on our side and there are many. Trump is not a conservative. He has no beliefs besides hating darker people. No he’s in it exclusively for the dough. And power and to the degree he can destroy anything and everything before him, he will. And the more he floods the zone, the less attention to his pedophile past.
He couldn't, because he would have needed to change the filibuster rules in order to do so, and 2 Democratic senators (Manchin and Sinema) were opposed. We need to elect at least 50 Democratic senators who are willing to change the filibuster rules to allow adding 4 Supreme Court justices who are willing to defend the Constitution rather than Donald Trump and Trumpers primarily. Then, of course, we need to elect a Democrat as president, and end the lawless, unconstitutional rule of Trump or Trumpers.
I don't believe he had the Senate numbers to push through such legislation. Also, Democrats have been tragically undermotivated to do more than fundraise and support the interests of a wealthy status-quo donor class. A major reason we have what we do now.
The by-now hackneyed nick-name of the Extreme Court makes sense. I would increase the court by two nominees at home with the Democratic Party to make for a one vote Republican-appointed majority (of six-to-five). That would undo the packing; with Senator McConnell's and Trump's packing the court, that Republican majority would b five-to-four. The first appointee should be Merrick Garland.
This isn’t equilibrium. It’s proof the game is rigged and both sides now accept that rigging is how you win.
Texas gerrymanders offensively to manufacture 5 seats Trump demands. California gerrymanders defensively to neutralize it. Supreme Court shrugs and says political gerrymanders are fine, we lack jurisdiction.
The “uneasy equilibrium” Joyce describes isn’t balance, it’s the formal abandonment of the principle that voters choose representatives.
She’s right that Trump started it. But the real story isn’t Trump’s demand for partisan maps. It’s that the infrastructure now exists where election outcomes are determined by map-drawing, not voting. California “blocking this particular effort” doesn’t restore democracy — it proves both parties now optimize within the rigged structure rather than dismantling it.
Trump didn’t invent gerrymandering. He weaponized it as explicit regime consolidation: “create more seats or lose power.”
Joyce wants us ready to defend California against outrage. But the defense is “yes, California had to cheat because Texas cheated first”? That’s not preserving democracy. That’s describing its collapse while calling it strategy.
November 2026 doesn’t hinge on voters anymore. It hinges on who drew which lines in which states. Trump understands that. Joyce is still pretending “free and fair elections” means something when the maps predetermine outcomes.
As a Texan (and former Californian) I see the two gerrymanders as different. Texas enacted theirs with no input from the people. In California the people voted to approve the new maps. I don't like gerrymandering of either type, but at least California asked for voter input.
Certainly on its face or in theory. On the ground may be a different story. This cycle presents a real possibility of a so-called "dummymandering" risk for the party formerly known as Republican, where spreading seats too thin can lead to unexpected losses during wave elections.
I agree with your argument, but "..who drew which lines..." has been the basis for how we have elected our representatives for a long time. Add in recent attacks on the Voting Rights Act and its hardly a surprise that we find ourselves in our current situation.
My preference would be to strengthen the VRA and to require states to adopt independent methods of redistricting. Even this is no guarantee of fair redistricting, but it might at least prevent state legislatures from gaming the system any more than already occurs. That said, I am not holding my breath for Congress to take up this issue as, Constitutional issues aside, what constitutes a fair election is in the eye of the beholder.
You raise some excellent points Johan, I was particularly taken by your comment that what we are describing is the collapse of democracy, while calling it strategy.
It is disheartening that this tyrant has forced people who believe in democracy at their core, to take measures that are quite anti-democratic... Further proof that everything he touches dies.
For now, I will take comfort in knowing that they can't gerrymander their way out of Statewide elections. We have some really important ones coming up here in Ohio- Governor, Secretary of State and getting Sherrod Brown back in the Senate.
Johan, My understanding is that gerrymandering is the handiwork of state legislatures which are almost certainly elected by the citizens of the state. So there are indeed voters somewhere in the often crooked road leading to a gerrymander.
That they are elected from districts which could have been gerrymanderd does add complexity to the question.
I agree with the court that if what I've written above is correct, gerrymandering is an activity direct or indirect of an elected body.
I would add that I'm very much against the idea of packing the court. There's an elegance to the present number that might, with a few more thoughtful members, lead to debates from which no-one could hide.
Yes, state legislatures gerrymander. Yes, they’re elected. That’s circular logic, not legitimacy. Legislators elected from gerrymandered districts draw new gerrymandered districts to elect more legislators who will draw more gerrymandered districts. The “voters somewhere in the road” aren’t choosing representatives, they’re ratifying outcomes the maps already decided.
Most democracies don’t operate like this because it’s insane! Think about the stupidity in what we are discussing.
Germany uses mixed-member proportional representation: half the Bundestag elected by district, half by party vote, ensuring seats match actual vote share. New Zealand, same system. Netherlands, pure proportional. Israel, proportional. Scandinavia, proportional with regional adjustments. None of them let politicians draw their own districts because that’s not democracy, it’s self-dealing.
The “elegance” of nine Supreme Court justices doesn’t fix anything when those nine declare gerrymandering beyond their jurisdiction. The Court already said political gerrymanders are fine. There’s no debate. They explicitly refused to intervene.
The whole system is archaic bullshit.
Single-member districts drawn by partisan legislatures to predetermine outcomes is 18th-century amateur hour masquerading as representative government.
The fact that it’s “legal” under current doctrine doesn’t make it defensible. It makes the doctrine stupid.
Other democracies solved this a century ago. We’re still pretending mapmakers choosing voters is somehow legitimate because “an elected body did it.”
Congratulations, you’ve described the mechanism of democratic collapse while defending it as proper procedure.
Yes, but it's our archaic bullshit. I don't like it either. I hadn't thought that what I'd writtenw as anything other than trying to understand what the Court was getting at.
The thing I worry about is how wewould insulate a consttitutional convention from this sorry mess. Or worse, its runaway at the hands of the radical right.
You’re right, I mean, you’re correct about how the mechanics work. I agree with you there.
But when you step back and look at it from the outside, it’s nuts. I’ve spent years living in actual democracies and actual authoritarian states, and when I look back at the US I just think: what the hell are we doing?
Why are we still operating with this archaic system? And then it hits me…oh right, because now it’s becoming authoritarian. The outdated structures aren’t bugs, they’re features. They make the transition easier.
I get it now. I just wish I didn’t.
After I'd thought about it, I wodered that there were 5 seats to be shifted to Democrart leaning in California or the same in reverse in Texas which would suggest that each of these states had had a "fairer" apportionment.
I was also impressed that in Indiana some of the Republicans in office were not in love with having part of their districts reassigned because their 13 point advantage might be reduced to 7. Before realizing this, I had no idea that there might be a cost to the party doing the gerymandering that might be seen as a check.
At the same time, it seems possible that a state could be gerrymandered such that no district could be won by one party. That a state is split 55-45% doesn't at all guarantee that the elected will be in that proportion.
In England which I know better than elsewhere, the depradations of the worst tyrants usually led to corrective, nay preventative legislation to prevent repeats.
I'd like to hope that we might have the same improvements.
This is a great question, and the answer is uncomfortable.
The people who benefit from the archaic system are the ones with power to change it.
The Constitution is nearly impossible to amend by design: two thirds of both chambers plus three fourths of states. Any group benefiting from current structures can block reform. Small states benefit from the Senate. Republicans benefit from the Electoral College. Incumbents benefit from gerrymandering. Wealth benefits from money as speech.
France is on its Fifth Republic because they’re willing to blow it up when the system fails. We fetishize a document written by slaveholders (all men, of course) in 1787 and treat amendment as near sacrilege. Originalism isn’t constitutional interpretation. It’s ancestor worship. I have always been sickened by this. No one should ever be elevated to cult status. Well, maybe Leonardo da Vinci;) But definitely not a bunch of guys who couldn’t agree on whether humans could be property.
New Zealand switched to proportional representation in 1996. We’re still using the Electoral College because we can’t admit the Founders designed it to protect slavery.
The archaic system persists because it distributes power in ways current power holders want to preserve. Rural overrepresentation, gerrymandering, filibuster, money as speech. These aren’t bugs. They’re working exactly as intended for the people with veto power over change.
We’re not stuck because we can’t imagine better. We’re stuck because those who benefit can block reform, and those harmed can’t force it.
Pure incentive structures analyzed from the perspective of behavioral economics.
The Texas gerrymander was imposed on Texans by order of trump. California's gerrymander was drawn up legally and presented to the voters in a special election. 60% of the voters said YES. If that's not democracy , I don't know what is.
60% of voters approving a gerrymander doesn’t make gerrymandering democratic. It makes it popular.
There’s a difference: democracy is a system where votes translate into proportional representation. Popularity is when a majority approves something, even if that thing destroys fair representation.
Voters don’t get to vote away the principle of proportionality any more than they get to vote away free speech.
If California held a referendum saying “let’s make it illegal for Republicans to run for office” and 60% said yes, would that be democracy? No. It would be tyranny by majority.
The whole point of representative democracy is that districts reflect communities, not partisan advantage. When you draw maps to predetermine outcomes, you’ve replaced “voters choose representatives” with “mapmakers choose outcomes, voters ratify the rigged game.”
California’s gerrymander being “legal” and “voter approved” doesn’t change what it is: a response to Texas’s gerrymander, which was a response to Trump’s demand for more seats.
Both sides now accept election rigging as legitimate strategy as long as there’s a referendum attached.
That’s not democracy. That’s democracy’s corpse getting a ballot initiative.
Most actual democracies don’t let politicians or voters rig their own election maps because they understand that structural fairness isn’t subject to popular vote. You can’t referendum your way into fair representation when the question is “should we rig the system in our favor?”
60% said yes to fighting fire with fire. Congratulations. You’re both burning down the same house.
You didn’t engage with a single substantive point I made.
I explained the difference between democracy and popularity. I explained why letting majorities vote to rig representation destroys the system. I explained why most democracies don’t allow this. I gave you the structural argument for why gerrymandering by referendum is still gerrymandering.
You responded with “metaphors” and “those of us on the ground.”
That’s not a rebuttal. That’s dismissal without engagement. When you can’t answer the argument, you attack the tone.
“Legally bringing the country back into balance” by rigging maps isn’t balance. It’s mutual destruction dressed up as strategy.
You’re not fixing democracy, you’re participating in its dismantling while calling it necessary.
But sure, ignore the substance and keep working. The structure doesn’t care about your intentions.
Best of luck with your bringing the sh*t show into balance.
"Dismissal without engagement". Yes, you're right there. I have no desire to engage with your ideals or your tone. Ideas and solutions are more interesting to me. You offer none.
Totally agree! Big mistake for CA voters to accept Newsom’s strategy, tossing principle out the window rather than fighting inTX in the newly less lopsided red districts raided for
Voters and presumably only slightly red formerly Blue ones. Feed voter outrage at being treated as passive chess pieces being played.
No worries in Oklahoma where the Republicrat super majority in the state legislature has so gerrymandered my district that there is no hope any Demopublican can be elected to any office unless they can get an endorsement by the Republicrats. This is about as close to rigging elections as it gets here in the Christian nationalist swamp of Oklahoma. Nationalizing the elections will have no effect here-the future has already arrived. Nothing to see here, move along .
Yes please, Chris! I am a fellow Californian (up in San Bernardino County) and I loathe Issa. I was so excited when he announced he wouldn’t run for CA re-election and was moving to Texas to run there. Sadly, I just learned that Issa has changed his mind (coz of the Texas dummymander, I wonder?) and claims he can hold his current CA seat. Let’s prove him wrong! 😏 Up here in CA-23, we are gearing up to oust our useless R congressman, multi-millionaire Jay Obernolte. His days are numbered too!
Fortunately, I have no such dimwits in my family I need convincing. It's an absurd race to the bottom of a barrel of shit, indeed, but millions of us are sick and tired of bringing wooden spoons to a shiv point. More power to Governor Newsom and California Prop 50 voters!
So, the Imperial Court apparently is still clinging to its last shred of integrity. When it gave Texas a pass, it seemed to approvingly cite California’s counter effort in the process. So, how could the Court not approve the Democratic-friendly California move? After all, a lower court quoted Alito’s concurrence in rejecting the GOP’s claim that California’s map was an unlawful racial gerrymander. Yet, considering the Court's, let's say, questionable recent decisions, this one has to be in the "will wonders never cease" category. Okay. Now let's see what happens with tariffs (and birthright citizenship in April).
I don’t like any of this. I think congressional districts should be nonpartisan and follow already existing city, county, or other political or natural boundaries as much as possible; and otherwise be compact. Maybe someday nonpartisan commissions will do that work, but for now, what’s good for tge goose is good for the gander.
Imagine that you have a beautiful apple tree in your yard that produces many delicious apples.
Your neighbor-who you don't get along with--also has a similar beautiful apple tree in their yard that produces many wonderful apples too. Both of you are so proud of your apple trees!
You return home early from vacation and catch your neighbor stealing apples from your tree.
Your neighbor won't return your apples, and you would rather not sue him. So, you take from your neighbor the same number of apples he took from you. Rough but effective justice.
Your neighbor is outraged that you did to him what he did to you. How dare you??!!?
Your neighbor appeals to the nine member HOA Board, which dismisses your neighbor's claim.
Everyone who has had questionable neighbors (not me in my current neighborhood) can understand the outcome of California's congressional voting case.
I do not understand why gerrymandering - especially the most obvious and egregious kind in Texas and in California recently - does not violate Reynolds v. Sims, 1964, which was the "one person, one vote" decision. To my mind, the new districts created in these two states disenfranchise Democratic voters in Texas and Republican voters in California. How can this be legal???
One way to protect the midterms would be to require ICE and CBP to stand down over some two week period around Election Day. During this period, no agent from either agency may appear on any public street or sidewalk and no agent may conduct any immigration enforcement of any kind. During this time all agents must attend civil rights training, in person, no exceptions.
Even though I dislike the shadow docket, I am pleased that the court upheld California's new maps. To my way of thinking they'd have to uphold them, given that they upheld Texas maps. But then again, this court doesn't necessarily keep the same thinking from case to case, even when the cases are essentially the same.
Today I listened to an interview with Terry Gross (NPR) and Atlantic writer Robert Kagan that provides a pivotal, definitive assessment of ALL the issues (including this 'Good for the Gander' post) under an overarching reality.
Just got done reading the GOP is pushing the SAVE Act 2.0 idea of requiring ID plus proof of citizenship to vote. And the wacko Steve Bannon going on his podcast of having ICE agents camping out at voting polls. Now if this isn’t a clear sign of trembling fear and desperation to squash the vote, don’t know what is. Will people be fearful going to the polls, good grief hope not. Am the type of person who doesn’t take crap from a bully and hope there are more of us than not.
Desperate people do desperate things and this Felon and these Republicans/MAGA people are surely desperate more and more — Would think more people should ask why? If things are going so damn “Great” for all Americans why so desperate to keep people from voting for more of this “utter Greatness” — (sarcasm is the best way to get through sometimes)
As Bannon spewed, “We’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November,” said on Tuesday’s episode of his War Room podcast, addressing Democrats. “We’re not going to sit here and allow you to steal the country again. And you can whine and cry and throw your toys out of the pram all you want, but we will never again allow an election to be stolen.”
Now Bannon’s comments came just a day after that PedoFührer said he believes that “Republicans should ‘nationalize voting’.” Which of course just escalates concerns that the president is plotting to interfere in this year’s midterm elections.
New SAVE Act Bills Would Still Block Millions of Americans From Voting
We need to mobilize ourselves to the counterweights to ice. If they can keep people away from abortion clinics they can keep people away from intimidating voters. I think there are some rules about that already.
Well, at least, the Court is not utterly lost to hypocrisy; close but not quite.
Ha.
Some encouragement from participants in the justice system (1½ min.vid.): https://www.defiance.news/p/exclusive-americas-prosecutors-are?utm_campaign
The Court clings to the preservation of status quo.
I agree. The Court majority has abandoned the laws and constitution. It most certainly has jurisdiction over racial inequality in gerrymandering. Shame on our majority Supreme Court.
When we reach a super majority, I suggest that we increase the court by 3 more fair- index justices to out vote the christoNaziNationalists.
Listen to yesterday's Terry Gross (NPR) interview with Atlantic writer Robert Kagan - he describes today's SCOTUS in clear terms.
https://www.npr.org/2026/02/04/nx-s1-5699510/is-america-headed-toward-dictatorship
I agree. We have the numbers. We have the votes. We even have fair-minded moderate republicans on our side and there are many. Trump is not a conservative. He has no beliefs besides hating darker people. No he’s in it exclusively for the dough. And power and to the degree he can destroy anything and everything before him, he will. And the more he floods the zone, the less attention to his pedophile past.
Serious question; why didn't Biden expand the court by 3 justices?
He couldn't, because he would have needed to change the filibuster rules in order to do so, and 2 Democratic senators (Manchin and Sinema) were opposed. We need to elect at least 50 Democratic senators who are willing to change the filibuster rules to allow adding 4 Supreme Court justices who are willing to defend the Constitution rather than Donald Trump and Trumpers primarily. Then, of course, we need to elect a Democrat as president, and end the lawless, unconstitutional rule of Trump or Trumpers.
Thank you John!
I don't believe he had the Senate numbers to push through such legislation. Also, Democrats have been tragically undermotivated to do more than fundraise and support the interests of a wealthy status-quo donor class. A major reason we have what we do now.
Thanks for asking little ole me. But who knows. He didn’t have a super majority? Maybe he didn’t believe in expansion.
I like Biden but I fear both he and Garland were not up to the task.
Hello.
I hate when I don’t edit my comments. It’s “fair-minded” not fair-index. Cheeses.
The by-now hackneyed nick-name of the Extreme Court makes sense. I would increase the court by two nominees at home with the Democratic Party to make for a one vote Republican-appointed majority (of six-to-five). That would undo the packing; with Senator McConnell's and Trump's packing the court, that Republican majority would b five-to-four. The first appointee should be Merrick Garland.
Too old. He was too old when originally nominated.
Biden should have done this
+1.
This isn’t equilibrium. It’s proof the game is rigged and both sides now accept that rigging is how you win.
Texas gerrymanders offensively to manufacture 5 seats Trump demands. California gerrymanders defensively to neutralize it. Supreme Court shrugs and says political gerrymanders are fine, we lack jurisdiction.
The “uneasy equilibrium” Joyce describes isn’t balance, it’s the formal abandonment of the principle that voters choose representatives.
She’s right that Trump started it. But the real story isn’t Trump’s demand for partisan maps. It’s that the infrastructure now exists where election outcomes are determined by map-drawing, not voting. California “blocking this particular effort” doesn’t restore democracy — it proves both parties now optimize within the rigged structure rather than dismantling it.
Trump didn’t invent gerrymandering. He weaponized it as explicit regime consolidation: “create more seats or lose power.”
Joyce wants us ready to defend California against outrage. But the defense is “yes, California had to cheat because Texas cheated first”? That’s not preserving democracy. That’s describing its collapse while calling it strategy.
November 2026 doesn’t hinge on voters anymore. It hinges on who drew which lines in which states. Trump understands that. Joyce is still pretending “free and fair elections” means something when the maps predetermine outcomes.
—Johan
As a Texan (and former Californian) I see the two gerrymanders as different. Texas enacted theirs with no input from the people. In California the people voted to approve the new maps. I don't like gerrymandering of either type, but at least California asked for voter input.
Certainly on its face or in theory. On the ground may be a different story. This cycle presents a real possibility of a so-called "dummymandering" risk for the party formerly known as Republican, where spreading seats too thin can lead to unexpected losses during wave elections.
Looks like we are all screwed. What a shameful time for what is left of democracy.
I would agree
This is a valid correction.
I agree with your argument, but "..who drew which lines..." has been the basis for how we have elected our representatives for a long time. Add in recent attacks on the Voting Rights Act and its hardly a surprise that we find ourselves in our current situation.
My preference would be to strengthen the VRA and to require states to adopt independent methods of redistricting. Even this is no guarantee of fair redistricting, but it might at least prevent state legislatures from gaming the system any more than already occurs. That said, I am not holding my breath for Congress to take up this issue as, Constitutional issues aside, what constitutes a fair election is in the eye of the beholder.
You raise some excellent points Johan, I was particularly taken by your comment that what we are describing is the collapse of democracy, while calling it strategy.
It is disheartening that this tyrant has forced people who believe in democracy at their core, to take measures that are quite anti-democratic... Further proof that everything he touches dies.
For now, I will take comfort in knowing that they can't gerrymander their way out of Statewide elections. We have some really important ones coming up here in Ohio- Governor, Secretary of State and getting Sherrod Brown back in the Senate.
Johan, My understanding is that gerrymandering is the handiwork of state legislatures which are almost certainly elected by the citizens of the state. So there are indeed voters somewhere in the often crooked road leading to a gerrymander.
That they are elected from districts which could have been gerrymanderd does add complexity to the question.
I agree with the court that if what I've written above is correct, gerrymandering is an activity direct or indirect of an elected body.
I would add that I'm very much against the idea of packing the court. There's an elegance to the present number that might, with a few more thoughtful members, lead to debates from which no-one could hide.
Yes, state legislatures gerrymander. Yes, they’re elected. That’s circular logic, not legitimacy. Legislators elected from gerrymandered districts draw new gerrymandered districts to elect more legislators who will draw more gerrymandered districts. The “voters somewhere in the road” aren’t choosing representatives, they’re ratifying outcomes the maps already decided.
Most democracies don’t operate like this because it’s insane! Think about the stupidity in what we are discussing.
Germany uses mixed-member proportional representation: half the Bundestag elected by district, half by party vote, ensuring seats match actual vote share. New Zealand, same system. Netherlands, pure proportional. Israel, proportional. Scandinavia, proportional with regional adjustments. None of them let politicians draw their own districts because that’s not democracy, it’s self-dealing.
The “elegance” of nine Supreme Court justices doesn’t fix anything when those nine declare gerrymandering beyond their jurisdiction. The Court already said political gerrymanders are fine. There’s no debate. They explicitly refused to intervene.
The whole system is archaic bullshit.
Single-member districts drawn by partisan legislatures to predetermine outcomes is 18th-century amateur hour masquerading as representative government.
The fact that it’s “legal” under current doctrine doesn’t make it defensible. It makes the doctrine stupid.
Other democracies solved this a century ago. We’re still pretending mapmakers choosing voters is somehow legitimate because “an elected body did it.”
Congratulations, you’ve described the mechanism of democratic collapse while defending it as proper procedure.
Johan. I noticed you used the word "collapse" twice now in your comments.
Good word. Keep using it until readers finally get it. The empire is collapsing. This gerrymandering is but one symptom.
Agree and I will
Yes, but it's our archaic bullshit. I don't like it either. I hadn't thought that what I'd writtenw as anything other than trying to understand what the Court was getting at.
The thing I worry about is how wewould insulate a consttitutional convention from this sorry mess. Or worse, its runaway at the hands of the radical right.
You’re right, I mean, you’re correct about how the mechanics work. I agree with you there.
But when you step back and look at it from the outside, it’s nuts. I’ve spent years living in actual democracies and actual authoritarian states, and when I look back at the US I just think: what the hell are we doing?
Why are we still operating with this archaic system? And then it hits me…oh right, because now it’s becoming authoritarian. The outdated structures aren’t bugs, they’re features. They make the transition easier.
I get it now. I just wish I didn’t.
After I'd thought about it, I wodered that there were 5 seats to be shifted to Democrart leaning in California or the same in reverse in Texas which would suggest that each of these states had had a "fairer" apportionment.
I was also impressed that in Indiana some of the Republicans in office were not in love with having part of their districts reassigned because their 13 point advantage might be reduced to 7. Before realizing this, I had no idea that there might be a cost to the party doing the gerymandering that might be seen as a check.
At the same time, it seems possible that a state could be gerrymandered such that no district could be won by one party. That a state is split 55-45% doesn't at all guarantee that the elected will be in that proportion.
In England which I know better than elsewhere, the depradations of the worst tyrants usually led to corrective, nay preventative legislation to prevent repeats.
I'd like to hope that we might have the same improvements.
What drives the reasoning behind governing the US in such an archaic way?
This is a great question, and the answer is uncomfortable.
The people who benefit from the archaic system are the ones with power to change it.
The Constitution is nearly impossible to amend by design: two thirds of both chambers plus three fourths of states. Any group benefiting from current structures can block reform. Small states benefit from the Senate. Republicans benefit from the Electoral College. Incumbents benefit from gerrymandering. Wealth benefits from money as speech.
France is on its Fifth Republic because they’re willing to blow it up when the system fails. We fetishize a document written by slaveholders (all men, of course) in 1787 and treat amendment as near sacrilege. Originalism isn’t constitutional interpretation. It’s ancestor worship. I have always been sickened by this. No one should ever be elevated to cult status. Well, maybe Leonardo da Vinci;) But definitely not a bunch of guys who couldn’t agree on whether humans could be property.
New Zealand switched to proportional representation in 1996. We’re still using the Electoral College because we can’t admit the Founders designed it to protect slavery.
The archaic system persists because it distributes power in ways current power holders want to preserve. Rural overrepresentation, gerrymandering, filibuster, money as speech. These aren’t bugs. They’re working exactly as intended for the people with veto power over change.
We’re not stuck because we can’t imagine better. We’re stuck because those who benefit can block reform, and those harmed can’t force it.
Pure incentive structures analyzed from the perspective of behavioral economics.
The Texas gerrymander was imposed on Texans by order of trump. California's gerrymander was drawn up legally and presented to the voters in a special election. 60% of the voters said YES. If that's not democracy , I don't know what is.
60% of voters approving a gerrymander doesn’t make gerrymandering democratic. It makes it popular.
There’s a difference: democracy is a system where votes translate into proportional representation. Popularity is when a majority approves something, even if that thing destroys fair representation.
Voters don’t get to vote away the principle of proportionality any more than they get to vote away free speech.
If California held a referendum saying “let’s make it illegal for Republicans to run for office” and 60% said yes, would that be democracy? No. It would be tyranny by majority.
The whole point of representative democracy is that districts reflect communities, not partisan advantage. When you draw maps to predetermine outcomes, you’ve replaced “voters choose representatives” with “mapmakers choose outcomes, voters ratify the rigged game.”
California’s gerrymander being “legal” and “voter approved” doesn’t change what it is: a response to Texas’s gerrymander, which was a response to Trump’s demand for more seats.
Both sides now accept election rigging as legitimate strategy as long as there’s a referendum attached.
That’s not democracy. That’s democracy’s corpse getting a ballot initiative.
Most actual democracies don’t let politicians or voters rig their own election maps because they understand that structural fairness isn’t subject to popular vote. You can’t referendum your way into fair representation when the question is “should we rig the system in our favor?”
60% said yes to fighting fire with fire. Congratulations. You’re both burning down the same house.
The house is already ash.
This is just the arson report.
You can spin metaphors to your heart's content but those of us on the ground will move forward - legally- to bring our country back into balance.
You didn’t engage with a single substantive point I made.
I explained the difference between democracy and popularity. I explained why letting majorities vote to rig representation destroys the system. I explained why most democracies don’t allow this. I gave you the structural argument for why gerrymandering by referendum is still gerrymandering.
You responded with “metaphors” and “those of us on the ground.”
That’s not a rebuttal. That’s dismissal without engagement. When you can’t answer the argument, you attack the tone.
“Legally bringing the country back into balance” by rigging maps isn’t balance. It’s mutual destruction dressed up as strategy.
You’re not fixing democracy, you’re participating in its dismantling while calling it necessary.
But sure, ignore the substance and keep working. The structure doesn’t care about your intentions.
Best of luck with your bringing the sh*t show into balance.
"Dismissal without engagement". Yes, you're right there. I have no desire to engage with your ideals or your tone. Ideas and solutions are more interesting to me. You offer none.
Totally agree! Big mistake for CA voters to accept Newsom’s strategy, tossing principle out the window rather than fighting inTX in the newly less lopsided red districts raided for
Voters and presumably only slightly red formerly Blue ones. Feed voter outrage at being treated as passive chess pieces being played.
If we truly want to get rid of gerrymandering, we need to do away with the archaic system of the electoral college.
Amen and hallelujah!
No worries in Oklahoma where the Republicrat super majority in the state legislature has so gerrymandered my district that there is no hope any Demopublican can be elected to any office unless they can get an endorsement by the Republicrats. This is about as close to rigging elections as it gets here in the Christian nationalist swamp of Oklahoma. Nationalizing the elections will have no effect here-the future has already arrived. Nothing to see here, move along .
nice to your face friendly folks in OKLA, but too religious and preachy and not overly bright. I'm sure they enjoy living there.
I’m happy - I get to work hard with local democrats to vote out Darrel Issa. Energized and enthusiastic!!! Let’s turn America around in 2026.
Yes please, Chris! I am a fellow Californian (up in San Bernardino County) and I loathe Issa. I was so excited when he announced he wouldn’t run for CA re-election and was moving to Texas to run there. Sadly, I just learned that Issa has changed his mind (coz of the Texas dummymander, I wonder?) and claims he can hold his current CA seat. Let’s prove him wrong! 😏 Up here in CA-23, we are gearing up to oust our useless R congressman, multi-millionaire Jay Obernolte. His days are numbered too!
go for it !
Fortunately, I have no such dimwits in my family I need convincing. It's an absurd race to the bottom of a barrel of shit, indeed, but millions of us are sick and tired of bringing wooden spoons to a shiv point. More power to Governor Newsom and California Prop 50 voters!
So, the Imperial Court apparently is still clinging to its last shred of integrity. When it gave Texas a pass, it seemed to approvingly cite California’s counter effort in the process. So, how could the Court not approve the Democratic-friendly California move? After all, a lower court quoted Alito’s concurrence in rejecting the GOP’s claim that California’s map was an unlawful racial gerrymander. Yet, considering the Court's, let's say, questionable recent decisions, this one has to be in the "will wonders never cease" category. Okay. Now let's see what happens with tariffs (and birthright citizenship in April).
I don’t like any of this. I think congressional districts should be nonpartisan and follow already existing city, county, or other political or natural boundaries as much as possible; and otherwise be compact. Maybe someday nonpartisan commissions will do that work, but for now, what’s good for tge goose is good for the gander.
Imagine that you have a beautiful apple tree in your yard that produces many delicious apples.
Your neighbor-who you don't get along with--also has a similar beautiful apple tree in their yard that produces many wonderful apples too. Both of you are so proud of your apple trees!
You return home early from vacation and catch your neighbor stealing apples from your tree.
Your neighbor won't return your apples, and you would rather not sue him. So, you take from your neighbor the same number of apples he took from you. Rough but effective justice.
Your neighbor is outraged that you did to him what he did to you. How dare you??!!?
Your neighbor appeals to the nine member HOA Board, which dismisses your neighbor's claim.
Everyone who has had questionable neighbors (not me in my current neighborhood) can understand the outcome of California's congressional voting case.
I do not understand why gerrymandering - especially the most obvious and egregious kind in Texas and in California recently - does not violate Reynolds v. Sims, 1964, which was the "one person, one vote" decision. To my mind, the new districts created in these two states disenfranchise Democratic voters in Texas and Republican voters in California. How can this be legal???
One way to protect the midterms would be to require ICE and CBP to stand down over some two week period around Election Day. During this period, no agent from either agency may appear on any public street or sidewalk and no agent may conduct any immigration enforcement of any kind. During this time all agents must attend civil rights training, in person, no exceptions.
Even though I dislike the shadow docket, I am pleased that the court upheld California's new maps. To my way of thinking they'd have to uphold them, given that they upheld Texas maps. But then again, this court doesn't necessarily keep the same thinking from case to case, even when the cases are essentially the same.
Today I listened to an interview with Terry Gross (NPR) and Atlantic writer Robert Kagan that provides a pivotal, definitive assessment of ALL the issues (including this 'Good for the Gander' post) under an overarching reality.
https://www.npr.org/2026/02/04/nx-s1-5699510/is-america-headed-toward-dictatorship
Just got done reading the GOP is pushing the SAVE Act 2.0 idea of requiring ID plus proof of citizenship to vote. And the wacko Steve Bannon going on his podcast of having ICE agents camping out at voting polls. Now if this isn’t a clear sign of trembling fear and desperation to squash the vote, don’t know what is. Will people be fearful going to the polls, good grief hope not. Am the type of person who doesn’t take crap from a bully and hope there are more of us than not.
Desperate people do desperate things and this Felon and these Republicans/MAGA people are surely desperate more and more — Would think more people should ask why? If things are going so damn “Great” for all Americans why so desperate to keep people from voting for more of this “utter Greatness” — (sarcasm is the best way to get through sometimes)
As Bannon spewed, “We’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November,” said on Tuesday’s episode of his War Room podcast, addressing Democrats. “We’re not going to sit here and allow you to steal the country again. And you can whine and cry and throw your toys out of the pram all you want, but we will never again allow an election to be stolen.”
Now Bannon’s comments came just a day after that PedoFührer said he believes that “Republicans should ‘nationalize voting’.” Which of course just escalates concerns that the president is plotting to interfere in this year’s midterm elections.
New SAVE Act Bills Would Still Block Millions of Americans From Voting
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-save-act-bills-would-still-block-millions-americans-voting
Steve Bannon calls for immigration agents at polling sites during midterms
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/04/steve-bannon-ice-immigration-agents-polling-sites-midterm-elections
We need to mobilize ourselves to the counterweights to ice. If they can keep people away from abortion clinics they can keep people away from intimidating voters. I think there are some rules about that already.
huzzah!