Gerrymandering is good, and we need more of it. It’s especially beneficial because mid-census cycle gerrymandering, currently being executed in red states, is likely to increase the number of Republican House seats significantly. Democrats object to this on purely moral grounds that they’ve already massively gerrymandered blue states, and therefore, this would hurt them, thus making it bad for Republicans to do it. We should laugh at them and shaft them as hard as we can.
Gerrymandering means creating sometimes bizarrely shaped legislative districts designed to make it more likely to elect a member of a particular party. Contrary to the conventional wisdom of unwise people, there is nothing wrong with doing that. It’s a moral necessity. It’s a good thing. The states decide on their own districts, and they should decide that the way that they decide everything else. That is, they should do it in the way that the winning political party wants – majority rule. Yes, they can leverage it so that the out party gets less representation in the House of Representatives. So what? We have to decide on district boundaries somehow, and we ought to decide on them through votes. And we should vote in our self-interest.
This is where the fake do-gooders start whining like little princesses. They tell us that we’re supposed to put politics aside. Except we’re not. What they mean is that we’re supposed to put the choices of the majority of voters aside and redistrict the way the whining people want us to do. I prefer we do it my way.
We should be celebrating enforcing our self-interest, but there is no objective way to do it regardless. Some states have what they claim are independent commissions to draw the lines, and shockingly, to no one who isn’t a drooling halfwit who licks windows for the taste, these allegedly independent commissions are always taken over by the parties and used to their advantage. Why are we surprised by this? Well, we aren’t surprised by it – stupid, naïve people who have zero understanding of human nature are surprised by it, or at least pretend to be.
Gerrymandering is a political act. There’s nothing wrong with that. Politics is the way that we allocate the costs and benefits of government, and the idea that there’s going to be some sort of neutral referee out there who divides up the costs and benefits of government without regard to self-interest is utterly ridiculous. This is the fetish of the progressive technocrats, the guys who believe that neutral experts are going to take self-interest out of government and rule on the basis of objectivity. Yeah, no. There’s no such thing as objectivity in politics. Remember all those neutral, objective technocrats during Covid? Me neither. That’s why the Framers were so wise – they understood that human nature means people will pursue their own self-interest. The only way to curb the resulting excesses is to create effective political checks and balances. The progressive technocrat ideal seeks to remove checks and balances because they hinder technocrat advocates from achieving their goals. When people say, “This issue should not be political,” they mean they want to decide the issue without your input. It doesn’t take a genius to notice how the objective technocrats always conclude that we must enact the policy that the people who love objective technocrats happen to want.
Weird how that happens. Have you ever noticed how the people insisting that we need to listen to the climate scientists about climate change already support all the remedies the climate scientists come up with? I mean, how lucky is that – climate change is such an emergency that it must trump politics as usual and enact all these policies that the people pushing climate change have always wanted anyway. What are the chances?
About 100%.
And it’s the same with this gerrymandering thing. Anyone who tells you he is mad about gerrymandering and that it is unfair and wrong and blah blah blah blah blah really wants a different gerrymander – one that benefits him. I live in California. We have 54 representatives, at least until the next census, when the exodus from what was once the Golden State and is now the Poo on the Sidewalk State will likely cost us several seats. About 40% of California’s vote is Republican, but we’ve got about 18% of the House seats. By the whiners’ standards, that’s unfair, though our independent redistricting commission was supposed to make things not unfair. No one should be surprised that a heavily Democrat state gerrymandered the districts to the nth degree. I wouldn’t expect anything else, because I understand human nature.
But the red states, because red states are often run by feminine Republicans with spines of tofu, have not done so, except in cases like Florida, where Ron DeSantis forced the GOP femboys to sack up and gerrymander the state. He intends to gerrymander it even harder soon. Awesome. Now, Donald Trump is pushing the rest of the red states to do so as well. They should. They should gerrymander as hard as they possibly can. This will match the Democrats, who have already gerrymandered their states as hard as they possibly can.
The Democrats are big mad because they know they are vulnerable to red states sacking up. Their fake moral appeals have failed – it’s kind of hard to argue that it’s morally wrong for the Republicans to do what the Democrats have done, so they’ve moved on to a campaign of intimidation. They’re threatening to redistrict in states like California, to which the Republicans should say, “Go ahead.” California and the other blue states are already as gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats as they safely can be. They could do more, but there’s a risk. The Democrats could dummymander the map. That means they could design districts with much smaller margins in the Democrats’ favor, thereby making them vulnerable in blow-out GOP election cycles. A representative wants a D+10 district, not a D+2 district. So, they face a conundrum. The Democrats might get a couple more nominally Democrat seats, but also put four or five districts at risk during a GOP wave. In other words, their threat is not that threatening.
There’s another factor, which is the existence of manifestly unconstitutional Voting Rights Act districts. There are a bunch of VRA districts in the South that existing federal law basically requires be designed to elect minority representatives. The underlying idea is that a black person can only be represented by a black Democrat. Well, this appalling and alien idea is repugnant to our Constitution, and there’s a decent chance that SCOTUS will punt it. In fact, the Southern states should redistrict these abominations out of existence and give SCOTUS the chance to repudiate this appalling and disgusting racist idea by eliminating the VRA districts. Let Mark Elias sue. He’s likely to lose, and that would mean the Democrats would lose maybe a half-dozen seats. Oh well.
It’s gerrymandering season, and there’s no bag limit. We’re under no obligation to play footsie with these people. Giving up representation to these aspiring communists is not the moral thing to do. In fact, it demonstrates the moral illiteracy of the Fredocons who prioritize an ideal of amorphous niceness over being men and doing what is right to preserve our country and our people. Democrats taking power means, at best, decline and, at worst, dictatorship – as I highlight in my new novel, American Apocalypse: The Second Civil War. It’s time to joyously gerrymander them good and hard.
Gerrymandering is good, both because it is honest, democratic, and comports with human nature. When you have the power, you should use it to your advantage. You should do so without apology. Yes, the people who win power in elections are going to have more benefits than the people who don’t. This isn’t a bug. This is a feature. We need to stop listening to the whining and get down to the business of winning.
