In items #1 and #3 of the previous post, EA notes the freakout of Democrats over their own failed gerrymandering in Virginia and Tennessee’s elimination of its “black district.” On CNN, a Democrat acted as if the recent spate of gerrymandering was brand new to 2026, somehow managing not to mention the long-gerrymandered states above. Listen to this head-exploding discussion yesterday, below. It is pointed out that this “racist” redistricting of Memphis will likely remove a long time white Rep. Steve Cohen and that his likely successor will be a black Republican woman. At around the 6:20 mark, there is a cut in the video. What is left out is when one member of the panel asks, “Is allowing a black woman to take the seat of a white man racist?” and a Democrat answers, “Actually yes!” (Why was that telling exchange excised?)
Earlier, a progressive hack on the panel explains that including blacks in majority white districts means that they will no longer “have a choice.” They will have the same choice every citizen has in elections, unless the presumption is that all blacks will only choose to vote for black candidates, meaning that blacks will naturally discriminate against whites. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) is a spectacular hypocrite, saying that all members of both parties should be outraged now, while his party has benefited from the gerrymandering in the blue states above. Gerrymandering is terrible for Democracy, he says, but apparently that only concerns Suozzi when Democrats aren’t the only party doing it.
Yes, it is tit-for-tat, except that the Republicans finally woke up, first in Texas, and decided that the party was foolish to play a rigged game: nine blue states could legally gerrymander Republicans out of the House, but red states couldn’t respond in kind? Tit-for-tat is unethical, except when a short-term response in kind to unethical conduct can force a truce where the conduct is voluntarily eschewed by both sides. This is what the Republicans are doing now, and it is proof of that party’s irresponsible torpor that it didn’t do it years ago.
The problem is that I do not see what will bring this cycle to an end. The blonde hack on the panel demanding a constitutional amendment is grandstanding. That’s not going to happen.
The disinformation (or ignorance) the Democrats are flooding social media and the news with now is flagrant. Here’s Gavin Newsom:
Ethics Alarms 
I would nitpick that Hawaii is not gerrymandered. It only has two districts. There is NO map that even comes close to getting a 50/50 split of the districts. The only place that has a Republican tilt is Molokai, with a population around 6K.
I’d definitely include Illinois, Oregon and Washington on the list of states with significant gerrymandering tilt to the democrats even if they do not have 100% democrat districts. The wild shaped districts in all of those states net a significant tilt towards the democrats.
I think there is one possible amendment that could address the gerrymandering. Make a rule about the permissible perimeter of a district cannot exceed a certain multiplier over the square root of the area of the district. It estoppels long fingers that are used to reach groupings of strongholds to tie them together.
Of course this would greatly benefit the Republicans in some cases. Tennessee is a great example. The proposed redistricting turns the state into a bunch of rectangles. The current districts have to have fingers to meet the requirements of ethnic makeup. Tennessee is overall red enough that simple squares makes every district republican.
I have to credit Christopher Patrick Kohls for the idea. (He goes under the youtube handle “Mr. Reagan”)
To paraphrase: we need to turn the progressive statement “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression” back on them. Blacks have long enjoyed a privilege of extra voting power. Not only are whites denied this power, so are hispanics and asians. The striking down of special rules for drawing black districts was a privilege only they got. They’re now experiencing equality, and seeing it as oppression.
The fact that a state has no Democrat, or Republican, representation is not in itself proof of gerrymandering. It’s the contorted, contrived districts (like we have here in Maryland) that are the proof. It was amusing to read the actual argument which prevented even more extreme redistricting in Maryland: “if we make any more changes, a judge might force us to revert to a fair system. Don’t call attention to our current districts!” (The quotation marks are stylistic, not to represent the literal words of the argument).
I don’t quite understand why either party wants to be in charge when the manure hits the spreader.
That snippet from the Virginia Supreme Court opinion is delightful. I’m going to stop avoiding reading opinions. Plus, it makes me feel as if I’m back in law school and doing the only intellectually engaging thing on offer there.
I could have sworn that Virginia was a Confederate state 😉
Is Newsom too ignorant to know that, or too dishonest to include it in his whine? I’d like to say “both”, but don’t think that’s logically possible.
Never mind the absolute unspoken condemnation of Democrat voters that the DNC relies on when saying “the Virginia vote was the will of the people”.
Ok…
So you’re saying your progressive voting base is so depraved it actively wants to deprive its conservative opposition of a voice in government.
Duly noted.
“Tit-for-tat is unethical, except when a short-term response in kind to unethical conduct can force a truce where the conduct is voluntarily eschewed by both sides. This is what the Republicans are doing now, and it is proof of that party’s irresponsible torpor that it didn’t do it years ago.”
Tit-for-tat is a strategy in game theory (a branch in mathematics) with as goal to force the opponent into cooperative behavior. The game is cooperative, as the opening move is to cooperative, and as a rule each player mirrors the move of its opponent. If both players are completely predictable, each player will always cooperate. As tit-for-tat is basically an iterated prisoner dilemma this delivers a relatively good outcome.
The rule is not hard-and-fast, as a player may once in a while defect to test the opponents resolve. An opponent may also choose to have various responses (less forgiving, more forgiving) to defecting. This strategy is similar to bluffing in poker. Nate Silver explains in this book “On the Edge” that being too predictable may put a player at a disadvantage. Again, game theory provides math to suggest the percentage of moves that deviate from the rule of always mirroring its opponents move.
As in the prisoners dilemma the best outcome is when you defect or punish and the opponent does not defect, the worst outcome is that you cooperate or forgive and the opponent defects, the second best outcome is when you both cooperate or forgive.
What the Democrats have been doing for decades is to always defect. The Republican “strategy” has been way too forgiving and predictable, given the strategy of the Democrats. In other words, the Republicans have been playing a stupid and losing game for decades (e.g. in Indiana), and the Democrats know that and abuse the Republicans for the suckers they are.
This is not a matter of ethics in my opinion. Tit-for-tat is neither unethical nor ethical. It is a game strategy based on math. And as with poker you can only be successful if you know how to play the game, and how to read the playing style of your opponent.
Given the by now entrenched style of the Democrats, the Republicans can only win in the long term if they play for keeps with an unforgiving style until the Democrat playing style significantly changes to more cooperative.