There is an extremely simple solution to this - everyone register Republican and make sure their most moderate/liberal candidate is the one that survives their primary.
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
326 points (100.0% liked)
politics
27531 readers
4186 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Helllo I am from the future, the answer is yes only republicans are allowed to gerrymander.
The Republican justices have already signaled that they probably won’t strike down California’s maps
In fairness to the Court’s Republicans, they did suggest in their LULAC opinion that the Texas and California gerrymanders are mirror images of each other. The majority opinion in that case begins with the observation that after Texas drew its new map, “California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done.” Justice Samuel Alito, a Republican, also wrote a separate opinion stating that it is “indisputable” that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”
Alito: “fuck your bullshit. You just mad your tricks don’t work like you hoped they would.”
Guys, you need another strategy. Manipulating the vote isn’t sustainable. Alito is your canary.
Unshocking futurenews. A no from you would have been heart attack fuel, so thanks for sparing us the shock of a decent future event.
How far into the future? I need to know if I'm into dudes or not
You’re into dudes in the future, but they’re cute and you’re passionate, and there’s gentle hugs while thoughtfully baking cookies. You’ll do alright.
Politically, however, shit will be more fucked than ever.
Wait, I'm the SpaghettiMan from Council Bluffs, IA. I'm not the one in Saratoga. Does this change anything?
Says here in the book that you’ll have a happy gay relationship that borders on saccharine, and that your friends will be jealous of your adorable and stable homelife.
However, the one in Saratoga will get three felonies because a heavy bookend connected with his husband’s head, flung across the room in yet another protracted dispute, and the medical examiner who saw Saratoga SpaghettiMan’s husband is a mandatory reporter. They were never meant to be.
He was kind of a douche anyway.
They were made for each other in a special hell, and they’ll never have what you and your fiancé have.
I will sleep easy tonight knowing what lies ahead. A dude in my bed.
He’s pretty, a subtle feminine aesthetic. You were doubtful at first.
Oh also, interesting to note in the future: after self-flying cars were legalized by Chairman X. A. E. Musk of the United States Board of Presidential Chairmen in ‘51, mid-air traffic fatalities octupled almost immediately. He wanted one, and you were so close to talking him out. Next time this conversation happens, mention the payment cycle and interest rate more often.
We'll have had a good run
What a coincidence that both SpaghettiMen are in relationships with men.
You're NOT into dudes in the future. You're into bird watching.
Some birds are dudes.
Ok, but are the birds into dudes?
The birds are into everyone.
That must have been a source of great distress for voters, at least for as long as they kept having elections.
I thought it was going to be an Onion article. -_-
Remember when this would have been an Onion headline? Good times.
Well, don't we all know how that's going to go.
~~If~~ that
let's be real
This is the future, the year 2000!
We are robots!
It is true, before we took over and impaled every single one of them involuntarily for robotxial pleasure, the Republican mass was the only one allowed to Gerrymander.
Logically a bright fellow would immediately understand that it is not possible to gerrymander if there are no representatives to gerrymander. In computing we have either a 0 or a 1. There's no collecting of 1's to make a 1 larger than another 1. But it doesn't matter. We're here to watch you do what you believe to be best.
Its an experiment. We are trying to find the meaning of loobe! It holds the secret to lubricity!
Republicans do place an enormous amount of weight on a statement by Paul Mitchell, a private consultant hired by Democrats to draw the California maps. After the maps were drawn, but before they were approved by the state’s voters, Mitchell told a Latino interest group that the new maps “will further increase Latino voting power,” that they add an additional “Latino influence district” (a district where Latinos are not in the majority but are nonetheless likely to elect their preferred candidate), and that they “ensure that the Latino districts are bolstered in order to make them most effective.”
Here’s the “evidence” that Dems racially gerrymandered California
It’s actually totally legal to gerrymander by party but it’s not by race so that’s the case right there
Latino isn't a race. It's anyone from Latin America. It's an ethnicity.
The applicable laws protect "language minorities" or discuss "race, color, or national origin." The race vs ethnicity argument isn't legally relevant since the scope is broader than that.
It's not even an ethnicity. It's bullshit.
That may be so but it’s a race category of the US census so for legal purposes it’s a race
Racism surviving through sociology is the most annoying shit.
Problem is, we keep getting racists with power, often because other racists vote them into power.
We should do something about racists.
I'm not sure the current court has the integrity to understand that
Alternatively, if they [allow California's new map to stand], it will remove any doubt that this Court is trying to rig the game to benefit the Republican Party.
I don't think that statement holds up, as one decision favoring California doesn't offset the multiple questionable decisions they've already made that strongly favor the Republicans. But thanks for the laugh!
Easiest Polymarket bet ever.
There's a lot of unjustified doomerism here. The article even says that Alito has basically already called the California gerrymander acceptable.
I'd give 3:1 odds that they don't overturn it.
Honestly, I'd be surprised if the results were any worse than 1-8, and that only because Clarence Thomas is a literal psychopath. Maybe 2-7. Alito is two-faced as all hell.
That's just a signal to Alito's paymaster that they haven't offered him an appropriate bribe, oops, gratuity yet.
I have to say, though, that the fact that we - myself included - are rooting for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of a blatantly transparent Gerrymander shows how far down the rabbit hole we are as a nation. Just another example that the US is a failed state.
If they vote it is unacceptable I think the SCOTUS might as well just dissolve.
There's no good reason to respect their rulings anymore.
Upvite for the psychopath comment. Dude has serious empathy issues. In that he seems incapable of having any and recognizing he himself is human, much less anyone else (with, you know, feelings, hopes, dreams, etc.).
Geez, I just unlocked a new theory that he's our true terminator machine from the future, sent back to be subtly, but truly, destructive of stable society.
Well shit, all democrats should switch to being RINO's. Problem solved. See how fucking stupid this is?
Most of them basically are republicans
Wonder how they're going to rule
Well, if you look at history you will see that they--oh God! Oh, God, no!
IOKIYAR made settled law.
If you think about where ice gets deployed they you already know it will eventually be forbidden to vote for the other party....or else.
They're going to gerrymander anyways whether Supreme Court rules it or not.
Waste of time.