The answer is that in this specific case they won fairly. They didn't try to blow up the system because they had the winning position.

Yes, in other cases the idiots were sleepwalking into knocking the system over, but that broken clock is right twice a day, and this was a case where they stumbled into a win by the rules.

@volkris
Right now, #Felon47's #cult is losing races everywhere, which is why this sudden spate of mid-decade redistricting.

It was that very #gerrymandering that brought this to #MafiaDon's hand-picked #SCotUS leading them to decimate the #VotingRightsAct.

So I challenge the idea any of this was achieved "fairly".

You're missing a couple of things, especially that part of being in that cult (or echo chamber) involves obliviousness to their losses.

They literally don't know they're losing races. Their preachers preach every day about how much they're winning races.

What you're saying here gives them too much credit. But it's also ahistorical, as the mid-decade redistricting started long, long ago. Remember, the high-profile LA case has been in the works for many years, and the redistricting behind it for years longer than that.

But all of this is fair because it's followed the rules of the system, just as a play in baseball might be fair so long as it was within the rules. They don't blow up the system, they use it.

Maybe the rules themselves need reform, but that's a different question.

@volkris
I'd argue mid-decade redistricting was NOT "following the rules".

It was an aberration initiated by a terrified #Felon47 who saw the writing on the wall and convinced a willing TX gov/sycophant in Gov Abbott that the GOP "deserved" additional seats due to his "historic" (not historic) victory.

We know it wasn't initiated by Trump because it was being talked about and put into place long before he glommed onto it.

Remember, don't give Trump credit for leadership. It's just his thing to hitch his wagon onto whatever looks like it's going to win so he can claim to be on the winning team, even if he undermines the effort.

But yes, it was following the rules. We may or may not LIKE the rules, but the rules where there for these states to follow.

@volkris
Agree with your opening (to an extent), but I still contest mid-decade redistricting "followed the rules".

The rule was always "right after the census". This is a first.

To be clear, by rules I'm not talking about what might be a norm or a good idea or a gentleman's agreement. I'm talking about the actual laws that govern these things.

The norms may say redistricting only happens after a census, but the laws aaround districting provide for them at any point.

@volkris
The problem with that argument ("norms" vs a "law") is that the people breaking with those norms are the very people who would have to pass such a law.

The fact they refuse to pass such a law to grant themselves the right to abuse a privilege makes it no less of an abuse of power.

But I'm not talking about passing new laws. I'm talking about the laws as they are today.

My point is that they followed the rules, the laws as they are. Might they change the laws for the worse in the future? Sure, but that's a different discussion.

That they followed the rules/laws is itself meaningful.