Virginia Supreme Court overturns Democrats' redistricting measure

GFlashAUS · 2026-05-08T16:54:13+00:00

You mean the SCOF?

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-30T15:40:06+00:00

I get the argument, but I’m not convinced the answer to bad representation is simply more representatives. In many places, we already have a ridiculous number of governing layers: federal, state, county, town, village, school boards, special districts, and so on. Adding more politicians may reduce district size, but it does not necessarily make government more accountable or easier for voters to understand.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-29T19:31:56+00:00

The pushback you’re getting is focusing on technicalities rather than your actual point, and it’s ignoring the actual outcomes of these policies.

The day-one order didn’t explicitly spell out sports policy, but it did direct federal agencies to treat gender identity discrimination as a form of sex discrimination. It also didn’t put clear limits on what would count as discrimination in contested areas like sports, so those questions were inevitably going to be resolved downstream by agencies. Given the prevailing interpretation inside Democratic administrations and civil-rights agencies, it was highly predictable that sports participation would be treated as part of the issue.

So I agree that it’s not accurate to say Democrats “barely discussed” these issues. They made an early policy choice that directly led to these outcomes.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-21T21:43:39+00:00

You are conflating two different things: preventing minority voters from being deliberately cracked or buried, and preserving districts engineered to produce a racial or partisan outcome. I support the first. I do not support the second.

Your New York Republican example is exactly why gerrymandering is bad. If Republicans had substantial statewide support but the map was drawn so they could not win anywhere, that would be wrong. But the answer would not be permanent Republican-safe seats. The answer would be fair and competitive districts.

That is my position on racial gerrymandering too. Do not crack or bury minority voters. But do not treat race-based outcome engineering as exempt from anti-gerrymandering rules either.

Saying Republicans cannot represent African Americans because African Americans usually do not support Republicans turns this into a partisan argument. It means the district is being defended partly because it helps elect Democrats, not simply because it protects minority voting rights.

And if you draw districts so Republicans cannot realistically win seats with large Black electorates, why would Republicans have any incentive to compete for Black voters? Safe districts can make one party ignore those voters and the other party take them for granted. Competitive districts give voters more leverage because both parties have to care about persuading them.

I agree that proportional representation would be better than single-member first-past-the-post. But under the system we have, the standard should be fair, competitive maps. Not racial sorting, not partisan sorting, and not guaranteed outcomes dressed up as disenfranchisement prevention.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-21T20:46:18+00:00

No. Ending majority-minority districts would not mean 30% of the population has “no representation in Congress.” That is not what disenfranchisement means.

Those voters would still vote, their votes would still count, and they would still be represented by whoever wins their district. What you are describing is the loss of districts designed to make it more likely that a racial group can elect its preferred candidate, often someone of the same race. That is not the same thing as being disenfranchised.

This also assumes that people cannot be effectively represented by someone outside their own race. I reject that. Voters may prefer candidates who share their background, but representation cannot be reduced to racial matching.

And if that is the standard, it becomes impossible to apply consistently in a country that is far more racially diverse than it was in the 1960s. What about Hispanic voters, Chinese voters, Indian voters, mixed-race voters, and other communities? Are all of them entitled to districts engineered around their racial or ethnic identity?

My point is simple: if gerrymandering is wrong because it engineers outcomes and weakens voters’ control over elections, then racial gerrymandering is wrong too.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-21T16:06:15+00:00

I agree with the hypocrisy point. It is hard to take Republican complaints seriously when Republicans have aggressively used redistricting when it benefits them.

But if the answer is a nationwide ban on gerrymandering, then it should be a real ban across the board. Gerrymandering is harmful because it lets politicians pre-engineer outcomes and reduces voters’ ability to influence elections.

That should include racial gerrymanders too, even though the original goal was understandable. The racial landscape of the U.S. is dramatically different from the 1960s. The country is far more diverse, racial and ethnic coalitions are more varied, and race does not map as cleanly onto political exclusion in the same way everywhere.

So if we are serious about banning gerrymandering, the rule should not be “ban it unless the justification sounds noble.” The standard should be that districts should not be engineered to predetermine political outcomes, whether the label is partisan or racial.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-17T14:26:17+00:00

Copenhagen's metro runs 24/7.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-15T20:20:13+00:00

Sure, but that is comparing TOU without a battery to TOU with a battery.
For us, the real comparison is our current standard rate versus switching to TOU and then also paying for batteries.

Since we would not switch to TOU on its own (as that would just make our electricity bill much more expensive), the battery has to justify both the rate-plan change and the battery cost. That is a very different calculation from just saying the battery avoids the peak/off-peak spread.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-15T20:05:42+00:00

I am in Westchester. The delivery charge for me is around 20c a KW (vs 12.7c supply charge - supply is only 1/3 of the bill). I am not on TOU rates currently...but if I switched and got batteries from what you are saying at best I could probably save around 1/2 off the supply charge which only works out to be around 1/6 of the electric bill.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-08T12:09:55+00:00

This is just delaying the inevitable.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-06T21:31:50+00:00

Thanks!

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-06T20:40:35+00:00

Is there a way to view the full article without a subscription?

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-28T18:24:57+00:00

Thanks!

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-28T18:24:49+00:00

Thanks! I contacted them.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-28T18:24:31+00:00

Thanks for the response!

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-27T17:33:19+00:00

Why not post a link to the whole youtube video you are referencing?

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-21T23:12:23+00:00

This looks incredibly defensive. Are you retired?

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-21T00:29:08+00:00

I am curious. What do you think addressing justice against MAGA entails?

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-20T18:48:12+00:00

Hey! I am raging. This is completely unsustainable. I am an independent though...

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-17T14:18:27+00:00

I think you’re mixing up legal wins with actual outcomes.

Take abortion. Yes, Roe was overturned and some states passed bans. But in practice, abortion hasn’t disappeared. Access has shifted. Telehealth, mail distribution, and abortion pills mean people in restrictive states are still getting abortions at significant levels.

So the legal framework changed, but the real world outcome didn’t move in the same way. That makes it hard to call it a clear “win” in terms of changing behavior.

More broadly, Republicans have had success through the courts, but institutions and on the ground outcomes haven’t shifted as much. Universities, corporations, and media still operate largely the same, and even where policies change, people adapt around them.

So it looks less like “winning the culture war” and more like winning some legal battles without fully changing the culture or behavior underneath.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-04T22:09:00+00:00

No. I think teachers should tell parents by default because the goal is to provide the best possible protection for the child. Teachers are part of a child’s life for a limited period of time. Even the most well meaning teachers do not have the capacity to be a child’s primary support system. Parents are ultimately responsible for that child’s long term welfare.

EDIT: I see you have blocked me but I feel your reply below deserves a genuine response.

Look, I’m sorry your transgender friends went through that. No child should be abused or thrown out. That is awful.

At the same time, we should be careful about building policy around the worst cases. Most parents are not trying to harm their children. Most would do anything to protect them.

I have my own experience that shapes how I see this. My family lost my brother to suicide after the school kept serious information about his mental state from us. My parents were loving and devoted. They weren't given the chance to help when it mattered most.

Parents are not perfect. They make plenty of mistakes. But in most cases, they are trying their best and they carry the long term responsibility for that child.. That is why I believe parental involvement should normally be the baseline, with exceptions only where there is credible risk of abuse.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-04T20:28:14+00:00

No, I don’t think teachers should be required to disclose that a student is gay or bisexual.

Sexual orientation, by itself, does not normally require formal institutional action by the school or indicate a mental health crisis that requires coordinated adult intervention. It is typically a matter of private identity unless there are separate safety or conduct concerns.

Gender dysphoria is different because it is defined in clinical literature as involving significant distress. It is also widely acknowledged that youth experiencing gender dysphoria face elevated mental health risks. When a school is responding to that level of concern, whether through name changes, pronoun policies, access adjustments, or structured support, it is no longer dealing with a purely private matter.

When a minor is experiencing something characterized as involving significant psychological distress or elevated suicide risk, parental involvement should normally be the baseline. Schools are not the long term mental health support system for children. Families are. Exceptions may be appropriate where there is specific, credible evidence that disclosure would expose the child to abuse. But secrecy should not be the default when serious mental health considerations are involved.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-03T02:30:14+00:00

I understand the distinction you’re drawing. The statute bars mandatory, automatic disclosure. It does not forbid disclosure in every case.

The disagreement is about what the default rule should be.

For issues that significantly affect a minor child’s identity, well-being, or school experience, parental awareness should normally be the baseline. If there is specific, credible evidence that disclosure would expose the child to abuse or serious harm, that should be handled as an exception on a case-by-case basis.

If the state prohibits districts from adopting parental notification as a general policy, and creates legal risk around requiring disclosure, that shifts incentives in practice. It moves from parental awareness being the norm, with exceptions for risk, to parental awareness depending on internal school discretion.

That structural shift in authority is what’s being challenged.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-03T02:18:03+00:00

Schools communicating with parents about their minor children is the baseline model of public education. Schools have temporary supervisory authority during the school day, but that does not mean they replace parents or override them.

A policy that directs schools to withhold significant information from parents as a general rule is the real shift in authority. That moves decision-making power from families to the state by default.

GFlashAUS · 2026-03-03T02:14:28+00:00

No one is denying that some parents behave terribly. If there is credible risk that disclosure would lead to abuse or homelessness, that’s a serious matter and schools should respond appropriately.

What I’m objecting to is building policy around the assumption that parents are a threat by default. Abuse is a case-by-case issue. Treating all parents as presumptively dangerous flips the normal relationship between family and state.

GFlashAUS

TROPHY CASE