By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst President Trump’s initiative to redraw congressional districts in Texas, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) advocated for Democratic-led states to counter by redistricting Republican representatives in their own states. AOC believes both parties should abide by the same rules to create a level playing field. California Governor Gavin Newsom echoed this sentiment, expressing frustration with gerrymandering and suggesting his state may need to reconsider its fair play approach, possibly through special sessions and redistricting. This response comes after Trump’s plan to redraw districts in Texas to favor Republicans, with potential implications for other states as well.
Read the original article here
AOC Backs Redistricting Blue States To Fight Republicans: ‘We Shouldn’t Have One Set Of Rules For One And One For The Other’
The core of the discussion revolves around the concept of gerrymandering and the strategies Democrats should adopt in response to Republican tactics. It’s a debate born from the understanding that fair play seems to be a losing strategy when one side consistently disregards the rules. The general sentiment is that gerrymandering is inherently undemocratic, a practice that distorts the will of the voters. Yet, the consensus seems to be that in the current political climate, Democrats need to consider employing the same tactics they’ve long decried.
AOC’s stance, and by extension, the perspective of many commenters, is a pragmatic one. If Republicans are using gerrymandering to their advantage, then Democrats should level the playing field. The argument is that a naive adherence to principles, while admirable, ultimately leads to a disadvantage. The feeling is that the Republicans have been playing hardball for years, while Democrats have been bringing a “potluck casserole” to a gun fight. In this scenario, the call is not to lower one’s standards in a vacuum but to strategically counter the opposition’s moves. The goal isn’t just to play the game; it’s to win the game.
The immediate, practical implication of this strategy is the potential for blue states to redraw their electoral maps to maximize Democratic representation. The example of California, with its large number of congressional seats, is frequently cited as a prime opportunity. The overall idea is that by redistricting aggressively, Democrats could potentially gain a significant number of seats in the House. This would serve to balance the scales, and it would act as a deterrent to future Republican overreach.
The frustration among many Democrats is palpable. There’s a sense that the party has been too slow to recognize that they can’t afford to continue playing by a different set of rules. There’s also a deep seated concern that the only way to stop Republicans from gerrymandering is to force them to stop gerrymandering by threatening their power base. The need to get “in writing” is mentioned. Many express a desire to fight back with the same ferocity, acknowledging that it’s the only way to survive in the current political landscape.
The implications of this strategy are quite significant. The discussion brings up the idea of escalating the political conflict to a point where the Supreme Court may be forced to intervene. Some believe that an increase in the use of gerrymandering by both parties is a necessary step to trigger a broader legal challenge. The underlying logic is that the Supreme Court might be forced to outlaw gerrymandering altogether if it becomes a rampant practice. This, in turn, will create an opportunity to bring the system into balance, and level the playing field in a way that fosters more democratic outcomes.
The issue also touches upon the broader failings of the Democrats. There is the feeling that Democrats need to be more forceful in their attacks on the Republicans’ corruption and bad policy, instead of playing by an established set of rules. The concern is that a passive or overly tolerant approach is not an effective response to the actions of opponents. Many are urging Democrats to embrace a “fight fire with fire” approach. It’s seen as a necessary measure to prevent the erosion of democratic norms and values.
The conversation also highlights the need for the Democratic Party to expand its base and to ensure high voter turnout in every election. However, this remains a difficult challenge. While the tactical application of gerrymandering may be a useful tool in the short term, it’s not a sustainable long-term strategy. The idea is that Democrats would have to be willing to play the same dirty games as the Republicans, in a tit-for-tat war.