politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Then what the fuck do you suggest?
Let the midterms go how they will. This is all premised on the idea that texas' map change will secure the house in 2026, when all the signs point to a democratic blowout in 2026.
You are asking everyone to trust in the system and behave as if everything is normal when the system is on fire and about to collapse.
That's the line democrats always give whenever they want to force through an unpopular item. They said that would happen if trump got elected the first time, and when he got re elected but here we are saying that the second half of his second term is when hes actually going to destroy democracy. Don't get me wrong it's a shit situation, especially for the poor and minorities, but the system has not collapsed. This is because established powerful corporate interests don't want the country to collapse, and they're the ones who call the shots. It's why trump chickened out on the tarriffs, they won't let him run the country off a cliff.
Even if trump is an existential threat to democracy, 5 extra seats from California isn't going to stop him. We'd need a supermajority in the senate to impeach him, and that's not happening. If he is going to try to subvert the election then this sort of move only helps his case as it discredits California and allows him to call all the representatives from there invalid. In what case are these 5 reps going to save democracy?
There is more than one branch of government.
Tit-for-tat is actually a good game theory strategy which encourages cooperation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
That game theory assumes only two agents though, the republicans and the democrats, when there is a third agent that is losing if this escalates, the democratic will of the people. If Texas gerrymanders to win 5 seats and California gerrymanders to win 5 seats then it's not just a wash as the people of California have lost there right to determine there districts democratically.
If anything both sides have a perverse incentive to gerrymander to further entrench there power in the areas they already have and make it harder for challengers, again at the cost of the people's democratic will. Tit for tat assumes there's some cost to the agents to incentivize stopping, but the democratic party of California may not necessarily care about Republicans getting elected in Texas, especially if there gonna get a majority in the house anyway, which all signs point to that outcome. They do care about getting democrats elected, and this tit for tat will help them with that, so they have an incentive to escalate.