3 ms·
Painfully bad take. Talking about how gerrymandering doesn’t matter because a millennium from now, it’ll balance out. It can lead to immense suffering in the sh
by j33zusjuice 3y ago
Painfully bad take. Talking about how gerrymandering doesn’t matter because a millennium from now, it’ll balance out. It can lead to immense suffering in the short-to-reasonably-long-term.
Gerrymandering could lead to a bunch of complete lunatics taking office and doing things so detrimental to the environment that we could never recover, or they could enact policies that stand for several centuries and restrict intellectual and technological advancements (a new dark ages).
But why play with hypotheticals when we can instead talk about real life: recently in the US, gerrymandering led to enough representatives getting elected that they were able to overload the third branch of government with partisan hacks. The partisan hacks then overturned a very important court case, despite reportedly 70% of the country’s population supporting said court case.
I’m with you, though, fuck people who are living today. Stop being so selfish! It’ll balance out in a thousand years or so.
- 4RealFreedom 3y agoIt really doesn't matter how many people support an issue. If that issue isn't in their purview, they can't push it through. From the get go it was on very shakey ground. If you want federal oversight of abortion then add an amendment to the constitution. I'm so tired of hearing "government should do x - it's for the people". The problem today is that the federal government powers, enumerated by the constitution, are continually expanding. If everything happened at a local level there would be an opportunity to correct it. It's much more difficult at the federal level. Comparatively, gerrymandering is minor. Can you explain how gerrymandering got RvW overturned?