this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
303 points (97.8% liked)

politics

25211 readers
2974 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When politicians redraw congressional district maps to favor their party, they may secure short-term victories. But those wins can come at a steep price — a loss of public faith in elections and, ultimately, in democracy itself.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] marsza@lemmy.cafe 30 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Clearly we need ranked choice and no electoral college. 🤷‍♂️

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Agree on both points, but gerrymandering doesn't apply to the function of the EC. Even with Ranked Choice voting, they would still be susceptible to gerrymandering. Independent redistricting commissions seem like the best compromise, but then you get into a situation where not all states are playing by the same rules, and actually supporting your citizens rights is bad for the country if an equally large state can gerrymander the shit out of districts.

The article does suggest also having "proportional representation, in which parties win seats based on their share of the statewide vote, rather than in winner-take-all districts" which remove a lot of the fuss about districts maps, but would still probably still disenfranchise some voters. I also can't imagine a ballot in a big state like CA or TX having to rank 70+ representatives for your house seat.

The unfortunate reality is the politicians currently in power would rather pull up the ladder and secure their seat than make things more fair and add more ladders.

[–] marsza@lemmy.cafe 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Of course, we are fucked. It’s all over. The best outcome we can hope for at this point is a civil war

[–] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And to win that war. And to somehow ensure that, in the vacuum of power that immediately follows, whomever takes over leading the nation isn’t influenced by foreign actors.

[–] marsza@lemmy.cafe 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

There won’t be any winners in a civil war these days. There will be too many sides.

[–] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 1 points 8 hours ago

Indeed. The folks that need to organize aren't, the fascists are, and the oligarchs are buying everyone that isn't affiliated one way or another. Then there's China, Russia, Israel, etc. It's a mess and we all lose at the end.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)