this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
558 points (98.9% liked)
Political Memes
11682 readers
5658 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, when this latest round of gerrymandering kicked off it was stated this was a contest the Democrats would ultimately lose because they control fewer US States.
In the last few days there's been some triumphalism as two? or three? Democrat run States have redistricted. But based on the assumption that Republican States do the same, this isn't actually good news.
Am I out of the loop on some developments here?
Are Democratic run States finding it easier to redistrict than Republican run? Or is there some tangible reason theres an air of triumphalism?
Or are people not appreciating the wider arms-race-like contest and focusing too much on small wins out of context?
With the exception of Texas and Florida, all the other Republican controlled states have a lower population. Theoretically, if all 50 states gerrymandered for their majority the Democrats win.
There is also the fact that republican states weren't really not gerrymandered to start with.
Good point. The gerrymandering has been exploited more by the Republicans, so they have less to gain from further redistricting.
So each State can send as many reps to the House as they want?
I'm not sure how a larger population in a State translates into more Federal House seats for that State.
I assumed the whole number of seats allocated to each State in the House was set. But i've never really had reason to question that assumption.
Every ten years they adjust the number of house reps per state based on the state census survey.
The total seats / number of districts is capped and set for each state. It should be uncapped but that is besides the point
. The redistricting / gerymandering makes use of packing (putting as many X voting areas into a single district to give them less voting power by basically wasting their vote since their candidate wouldve won that distric anyways) and cracking (splitting X voting areas up into multiple districts which will be majority Y voting).
This means that with even numbers of X and Y voting people, they can be partitioned so that 9/10 districts for example are 55-45 for Y, and the remaining X voting people can be packed into the last district. The end result is Y winning 90% of the districts with only 50% of the overall support.
The number of reps is not set, but it is capped. The numbers are evaluated every ten years via the census survey.
Personally I’m taking it one day at a time and celebrating the wins where they come.
Thats fair
If every state went full Gerrymander, Republicans have more trifectas by number of states, but Democrats gain more based on population and house seats.
Whats a trifecta? Is it House, Senate, Governorship?
So, the Republicans control more, due to winning more State Senates and Governorships but there are more, in raw number of reps, Democrats elected to the State Houses?
Can't even say that since the last 30 special elections show that the independents are **done ** with the pedo GOP & they are a much larger cohort than either the GOP or Democrats.
This is the reason why Florida won't actually be redistricted.