Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

I would modify that to "It's pretty much a given that US politicians will vote against any measure which increases the chance that they will personally be out of office." The California referenda are perfect cases in point. Republicans objected to open primaries because they wouldn't even be on the ballot in many districts. Tough. Be better candidates. Democrats objected because representatives with otherwise perfectly safe seats would suddenly find themselves at risk. Not from a Republican, but from another Democrat. Tough. Be better representatives.

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/GOP-Dems-agree-on-dislike-of-open-primary-3171004.php

It wouldn't (and didn't) change which party controlled the seat, but it could (and did on occasion) change which person in that party sat in the seat. If they wanted to stay in the seat, they had to change their policies. No effect whatsoever on the balance of power in Congress, but definitely affected the politicians themselves, hence the opposition.

https://www.uniteamerica.org/articles/new-report-shows-that-top-two-nonpartisan-primaries-are-improving-california-politics

There's a reason why, for example, Democrats are not fans of voter ID laws. I can see why they are not fans of voter roll purges: They believe it will reduce their current voting pool. I can see an argument against automatic pre-registration at 16 where eligibility to vote is based purely on where you happen to live the six months prior. I can see an argument in favour of voter roll purges as well. It all comes down to how it's done. What's perceived as 'good' for one party is perceived as 'bad' for the other party. But we can't say it's just a matter of 'didn't vote to remove gerrymandering' because there was more to it.

The gun control analogy is not as disconnected as you appear to take it. It's symptomatic of current US politics of bundling packages to try to get as much as possible. After Sandy Hook, there were a couple of proposals which purported to do background checks. One was proposed by a Republican, no Democrats signed on. That one actually only did background checks. The one that Democrats signed onto had additional things they wanted added on top such as federal-accessible records-keeping. Which one was submitted to the vote? It failed. And ever since, it's been "Republicans object to background checks", not "Republicans object to background checks and other requirements."

Maybe the Republican proposal might have failed anyway. We'll never know, though, because it wasn't tried.

I would like to see a bill submitted which says "All federal election districts to be drawn by an independent or bipartisan commission." And nothing else. It won't affect who votes, how they vote, when they vote or anything else related to the act or eligibility of voting. Given gerrymandering about evens out nationally, neither side will gain nor lose. I have suggested such to both my rep (more a matter of principle than expectation given who it is) and senators (maybe a bit more likely). Perhaps if more voters tried that sort of route, we could get somewhere.

If it makes you feel better (probably not) Prop 50 explicitly states that the new maps expire in 2030 & reaffirms that the California Citizens Redistricting Commission will again assume responsibility for redrawing congressional districts at that time

Not really, for two reasons.

Even before it passed, news sites like CNN were saying that it might embolden politicians to keep doing this. I'm inclined to agree. Secondly, something with an expiration date still sets an expectation of continuance. Witness the current shenanigans in Congress: We've been shut down for over five weeks because something which was enabled four years ago, with a set expiration date of next month, isn't being continued.

Why is it that observers of many political stripes in Ireland & globally, including many comfortably right of centre, can articulate just how toxic and destructive the MAGA iteration of the Republican party is without muddying the crisis with both sides rationalisations? Sometimes the view from outside the goldfish bowl can be less clouded.

It's not a 'rationalisation', it's a complaint. MAGA is worse, there's no doubt about it, and they have never received my vote. But that doesn't make the other side good or acceptable. Unlike observers of many political stripes in Ireland and globally, I spent most of a decade living in a gerrymandered blue state. I am now approaching a decade living in a gerrymandered red state. I'm fed up with it and do not tolerate the playground argument of "he started it" as being worthy of my support. That I'm not voting for Republicans doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote for a Democrat because (s)he's "less bad".

Is there a thing Arnie says here which is wrong? https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/26/politics/video/california-redistricting-arnold-schwarzenegger-cheating-anti-prop-50

And yes, there does seem to be some clouding. Remember the Supreme Court case about gerrymandering which was heard in 2019? (Rucho). Quick, without looking, which party's gerrymandering was being ruled upon? 2021/22 cycle, a state gerrymanders to such an extent that a court shoots it down. Was it Louisiana or New York? Is an R gerrymander acceptable because the Ds did it, or was the D's gerrymander acceptable because the R's did it? Or it is a pox upon both their houses?

As for "But if one side takes the high ground, then the other side will win", yes, that's likely. Fortunately, it takes three bodies to pass a law, and neither Senate nor President can be gerrymandered, so the effects are not as catastrophic. In the meantime, there was still a slow progression, even in red states, for independent redistricting. Sure, Texas wasn't one of them, but are we better off for stopping the progression entirely?

This is all happening because the US system as created was never intended to have a federal government with major domestic policy authorities. Blame FDR's court-packing threat. Of course, it's far too late now for the court to reverse, but we're stuck with it.

Now I may have missed it, but I don`t recall you being any way put out by that Texas legislation - where unlike California the citizens of Texas did not get to vote on - so why is Prop 50 now bothering you if the Texas legislation - which was the catalyst for Prop 50 - didn`t.

It does. But you guys have already gotten that part of it pretty well covered, not as if I'm going to add much to the conversation with that. What we are having now is an actual discussion. And as I said, the difference is that one is a lack of forward movement (we already assume the place is gerrymandered), vs a backward movement.

Not to mention that Congress isn't adhering to the Constitution with respect to the number of seats per population. The large states are massively underrepresented, which means a lot less representation for Democratic voters

Did you look that up, or are you just guessing? Sorting seats by population and party of the current incumbent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_congressional_districts

Biggest twenty from biggest population (so lesser 'weight' per voter to each house rep) to smaller: D, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R, R.

Smallest twenty by population (so more 'weight' per voter to each house rep), smaller to bigger: D, R, D, R, R, D, R, R, R, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, D.