On the 22nd local time, the Republicans lost Virginia, prompting Trump to angrily post: "Last night, a rigged election took place in the great Commonwealth of Virginia! The Republicans were winning all day long, with an unstoppable momentum—until the very end. Of course, suddenly a huge wave of 'mail-in ballots' appeared! Where have I heard this before? The Democrats win again through these dirty tricks! What was a 6-to-5 situation turned into a 10-to-1 landslide. Yet, the presidential election in November is nearly a 50-50 split. Moreover, the wording on the ballot was deliberately obscure and deceptive. As everyone knows, I'm an exceptionally intelligent person—and even I couldn't figure out what nonsense they were talking about in the ballot initiative. They don’t even understand it themselves! Let’s see if the courts can fix this farce of 'judicial' chaos."

This election result in Virginia has sparked intense controversy. In short, it was a referendum on congressional district redistricting. The Democrats secured a critical victory, which may completely reshape the state's political landscape. Trump reacted strongly, with his accusations focusing primarily on two points: alleged mail-in ballot fraud and intentionally confusing ballot language.

Virginia’s current congressional seat distribution is 6–5 (Democrats: Republicans). The new Democratic-drawn district map approved by this referendum will expand the advantage to 10–1. This shift occurred ahead of the midterm elections and could determine control of Congress.

This is itself part of the nationwide "redistricting war" ignited by Trump. Last year, he directed Republican-led states such as Texas to redraw district maps to gain advantages. This loss in Virginia represents a strong counterattack from the Democrats.

Regarding Trump’s claim that the election was "rigged," his main evidence centers on "mail-in ballots."

In the early stages of vote counting, the opposition side (Republican-leaning) briefly led. However, the support side (Democratic-leaning) surged ahead due to mail-in ballots. Still, election analysts argue this reflects the phenomenon known as "blue tsunami": Democratic voters are more likely to vote by mail, and the outcome aligns with pre-election expectations.

"Intentionally obscure" ballot wording: The phrasing and campaign messaging surrounding the referendum indeed raised controversy. The state Republican chairman directly accused it of being "outright dishonest," noting that the names for the "Yes" and "No" campaigns were strikingly similar (e.g., "Virginians Support Fair Elections" vs. "Virginians Support Fair Maps"), and TV ads contradicted each other. However, it should be noted that this was a $83 million election campaign, with both parties investing heavily in advertising. Not understanding the content does not necessarily imply manipulation.

Since Republican leaders successfully convinced a circuit court judge to temporarily halt certification of the referendum results on the same day (the 22nd), Trump now pins his hopes on the courts overturning the outcome. Currently, the Virginia Attorney General has immediately filed an appeal, and the case is expected to be decided by the state Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, facing defeat, internal divisions have emerged within the Republican Party: some blame insufficient campaign investment; others reflect that Trump himself instigated the "redistricting war," which has now come back to bite him.

The Republicans indeed lost in Virginia’s voter turnout—but this is just one round in the broader "redistricting war." This "gerrymandering" conflict, initially launched by Republicans in Texas, is now facing a powerful Democratic response. The final outcome in Virginia will depend on the ruling of the state Supreme Court. This matters not only for determining the fate of the state’s four congressional seats but may also reshape the balance of power in the House of Representatives during the 2026 midterm elections.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1863256705389568/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.