I hyperfocused on “maximizing” and “safe”. The concept of “safe” in the context of electoral districts has a real definition in political science. Which is probably exactly why they put it in quotes.

It’s like calling a Chihuahua “big dog”.

OK yeah, it just really hits my eyes and ears strangely.

Like that spinning ballerina silhouette… I really gotta squint and fold my brain to make her spin the other way kinda thing.

you’re right though: those quotes do heavy lifing and in a specific direction.

They could, but they won’t.

The major way they broke capitalism was by not going public. Gabe has to answer to nobody, so the usual gang of corporate fucking idiots can’t force him to do short sighted shit to make a short term squeeze at the cost of long term viability.

This is the key. It’s the WHOLE thing. A runaway cap table destroys companies, always. Investors have different exit horizons and they are fundamentally incompatible with long term viability.

All you need to do to compete with a publicly owned company is capitalism is wait for their investors to get too greedy.

Exactly the opposite.

Instead of winning one district by a lot and losing 2, you redraw the map to win all three by a little.

The result isn’t more safe districts, it’s less.