democracy in action

[Impenitent]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ngNewsSerp

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/04/21 ... g-election

yesterday in a special election, the democrats elected to redistrict Virginia to ensure "fair" elections

but, but the republicans redistricted first...

shut up and pay more taxes

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ngNewsSerp
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/04/21 ... g-election

yesterday in a special election, the democrats elected to redistrict Virginia to ensure "fair" elections

but, but the republicans redistricted first...

In a repeated "game" of this sort where either player may choose "cooperate" or "defect" there is no tactic in response better than "tit for tat".

Note that we are likely going to see the same if the Senate Republicans choose the "nuclear option" (rule change to do away with 60 votes needed to "call the question")

BTW -- I have encountered THIS exact situation many times. In a properly written set of rules/bylaws any rule calling for a super majority should itself be protected against change unless by at least that super majority. But this is rarely the case. The framers of the set of rules/bylaws just not properly looking ahead.

[mickthinks]

but, but the republicans redistricted first...

So the Republican voters have no grounds for complaint. Who then is there to complain?

Do you object to redistricting, Imp?

[FlashDangerpants]

but, but the republicans redistricted first...

This is perfectly true. It was a mistake on the part of the Democrat party in the 2010's to not retaliate against Republican gerrymandering. It is absurd that in Wisconsin Dems can win 53% of the vote and all statewide elections, yet the Republicans hold six of that state's eight US House seats.

If Americans could stop feeling so super f****** special for just a little while and look at the world beyond their borders they might note that other countries don't allow politicans to pick their voters the way that you guys do. Sadly it is only outside America that the whole one man one vote thing is expected to actually imply equality of voting power.

[Impenitent]

but, but the republicans redistricted first...

So the Republican voters have no grounds for complaint. Who then is there to complain?

Do you object to redistricting, Imp?

nope, I object to calling it "fair"

-Imp

[Impenitent]

but, but the republicans redistricted first...

This is perfectly true. It was a mistake on the part of the Democrat party in the 2010's to not retaliate against Republican gerrymandering. It is absurd that in Wisconsin Dems can win 53% of the vote and all statewide elections, yet the Republicans hold six of that state's eight US House seats.

If Americans could stop feeling so super f****** special for just a little while and look at the world beyond their borders they might note that other countries don't allow politicans to pick their voters the way that you guys do. Sadly it is only outside America that the whole one man one vote thing is expected to actually imply equality of voting power.

even sadder, most "democracy" loving 'mericans don't realize that a constitutionally bound representative republic ain't no "democracy"

yeehaw!!

one man, one vote, three guns.

-Imp

[mickthinks]

nope, I object to calling it "fair.

But that entails an objection to redistricting, doesn’t it? That is, unless you believe it is okay for redistricting to be unfair.

[Walker]

Virginia votes about 50/50, Democrat and Republican.
The redistricting creates a representation of 10 Democrat districts, and 1 Republican district.
That ain’t fair.
The result is city slickers in Washington suburbs representing farmers in the south, at the opposite end of the state.

Texas redistricted to clean up a mess such as this.

[Impenitent]

https://www.aol.com/news/virginia-circu ... 28863.html

unconstitutional? but it was democratic

we voted and this 51% must be the voice of god for eternity

unconstitutional...

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

https://www.aol.com/news/virginia-circu ... 28863.html

unconstitutional? but it was democratic
we voted and this 51% must be the voice of god for eternity
unconstitutional...

-Imp

Uh, case NOT decided yet (long way to go through the legal system). And do note carefully, election result thrown out based on ballot technicalities. We almost always see these legal challenges. Thus an appeals court MIGHT throw out THIS iniitial ruling based not on the ruling itself but whether timely (should a "ballot technicality" issue have been filed BEFORE the election instead of after when you know if your side won or lost.

Bear in mind, possibly just a tactical moves. Expect not to prevail in the appellate courts but induce enough delay so the redistircting cannot take place in time for the 2026 midterms.