this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
320 points (98.8% liked)

politics

30329 readers
2148 users here now

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

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's what's desired. Someone who isn't interested in politics just whether a computer program is biased. All states would have to use the winning computer program.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So now you're saying the federal government should impose this computer algorithm on the states? Don't you realize the constitution explicitly gives electoral power to the states?

Your idea just gets worse and worse the more you try to defend it.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

No, there are limits to state powers. Gerrymandering is essentially disenfranchising some voters.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Of course there are limits to state powers, and I never claimed otherwise. However, there are also limits to federal powers. And elections are the purview of the states, not the federal government. This is made explicitly clear in the constitution and it's the way elections have been run for 250 years now.

Of course gerrymandering is disenfranchising voters. That's what gerrymandering is. But redistricting is not the same thing as gerrymandering.

Plenty of states have protocols for redistricting without gerrymandering. It's called an independent redistricting commission. It's non-partisan.

Contrast this with gerrymandered states, where the legislatures handle redistricting, which is partisan by nature.

I lost count of how many times I've already explained this to you.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

With control of Congress dependent on just a few changes in party affiliation, gerrymandering makes a huge difference. A computer program will completely end gerrymandering.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

You continue to ignore what I'm saying. The argument isn't about whether or not gerrymandering is bad for democracy. Of course it is.

I'm telling you, that gerrymandering has already been solved in many states by using independent redistricting commissions instead of having partisan state legislatures redraw maps.

Computer programs are not guaranteed to end gerrymandering, and instead are more likely to make gerrymandering worse in states that still have gerrymandering.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

But what about states which use gerrymandering? These are enough to shift the balance of power in the House of Representatives. Computer programs are guaranteed to end gerrymandering. Peer-review of the winning program will ensure that. How will a computer program which is required to be used by all states make gerrymandering worse?

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

Computer programs are guaranteed to end gerrymandering.

No they're fucking not!

How will a computer program which is required to be used by all states make gerrymandering worse?

Because according to the Constitution, the federal government cannot dictate how states run elections.

How fucking many times do I need to repeat that?

University CS departments don't write government policy, either, and would not be the ones to write that algorithms. There would be no "peer review" like you're imagining. Realistically, you'd be putting a lot of trust in whomever the sitting congress decides to commission for that computer program. If it were this one, it would probably go to one of their buddies to ensure the continued ratfucking of democracy by the republican party.

So it's a good fucking thing the Constitution doesn't allow that!

Yes, gerrymandering is a problem. But that's up to the states to fix. Some states refuse to, because they're already gerrymandered and it benefits the party with legislative majorities in those states (usually republicans) to continue gerrymandering. That's why it's such a stubborn problem that hasn't been fixed yet.

A solution already exists though, it's called an independent redistricting commission, which most states already use anyway. It's just that some continue to refuse to change so that they can keep gerrymandering. That's the problem, and a computer program won't fix it.