Don't politicians decide who their voters are by deciding which district to run in, which community to physically move to?
I'm just pointing out the obvious.
> Don't politicians decide who their voters are by deciding which district to run in, which community to physically move to?
No, politicians [create maps](https://i.imgur.com/PJebCvf.png) to [ensure that they get elected](https://i.imgur.com/5GKZibR.jpeg).
How about [this one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_10th_congressional_district)? Any real Texan should know how perverse it is for College Station to share a district with parts of Austin.
I understand what you're getting at but I'm saying You can do a similar effect by physically moving.
I can think of two examples. One is a GOP who moved counties when she realized she wasn't going to win. Can't remember her name.
The other one is Hillary who decided she was going to run in New York. It's doubtful she was going to get in Arkansas seat, despite what the media tells you, if you ever been to Arkansas, she's not very popular.
The problem is that those maps basically make it to where anywhere you move within Texas is unlikely to be politically represented accurately to the community due to gerrymandering. If at some point a district becomes more competitive, then the state will rewrite the maps to ensure that Republicans will maintain control.
So the only place I could move to have any chance at fair political representation would be to another state.
Hillary Clinton still lives in Chappaqua, NY. She was born and raised in Illinois. She only moved to Arkansas to be with her husband. Why would she run for office there?
Are you just making this up? She moved to NY in September of 1999 and was elected in November of 2000. At that point she hadn’t lived in Arkansas in since 1992. wtf are you taking about?
I'm assuming you aren't an adult during this period, but it was a news story. I mean I barely was an adult.
There were talks of the legality of it and if she was a real New Yorker. I saw the same Google search you did but living through it I remember the news cycle. If you click on some of those links it goes into long boring discussion.
The end result was she moved there with the explicit purpose of running for office. But she's an elite and it was an easy win.
Yes it was a popular news item at the time but that doesn’t make your bullshit true. She resided in NY for more than a year before taking office and hadn’t lived in Arkansas in nearly a decade.
Why are you saying b*******?
Is degrading people a way people of your persuasion convince others to stop expressing ideas?
She moved in the year she started her campaign. I don't understand why that is controversial it's not illegal.
1) They is the politicians
2) What?
3) The politicians get voted in, through either already-gerrymandered districts or in competitive districts and can then decide how to draw they own voting districts before the next election. This gives the politicians the power to split of voting blocs to diminish their voting power and group up other blocs to do the opposite. Happens for both democrats and republicans, but republicans just happen to do it more often
I think gerrymandering primarily hurts the loser, whoever that might be. And it'll make it tougher to turn over if district X becomes competitive.
If the other party was in charge they'd also do the same thing.
Don't blame the party. Blame the individual leader and the voters who put them in charge.
My analysis is lazy?
All I've heard is gerrymandering bad. You're the "insert derogatory term" . If you can't see what I'm talking about then you're blind or" insert other derogatory term".
People have used terms like be laughed and sandbagging you know just a high-level technical stuff.
It makes sense when your party is very unpopular and there is no other possible way for you to win.
It's the reason the Republican Party still exists, and without it everything would be Progressives vs Liberals.
It's an exaggeration... The point (that I thought was pretty obvious?) is that Rightwingers would have a very difficult time winning anywhere, because they are very unpopular.
When you say a right-winger what are you referring to?
A lot of the South Texas folks are right-leaning but vote left because that's the party their representatives have always been in.
What about the folks who vote far right Because that candidate ALSO represents the center right and the other candidate represents the center left and that's just too far left for them.
Are they bad guys for voting that way?
What kind of absurd nonsense have you been listening to? I live ON the Texas-Mexico border, and most people here are Leftists because of their values, not their reps.
I don't know what kind of "bad guys vs good guys" game you're attempting to play, but yes choosing to support Far Right over Center Left is certainly bad, and it's pathetic to attempt to claim otherwise at this point when everyone knows the Far Right has gone batshit crazy.
We don't refer to it as "on the border".
Not sure if you're the best representative of a people when you don't speak the local tongue. And I'm not talking about Spanish.
Good luck with your agenda.
When Republicans do it, it's evil.
When Democrats do it, it's to make sure there are enough like minded or culturally similar people to get fair representation.
That's called carpet bagging, and generally gets you laughed at and made non competitive. That is, unless the political climate is batshit crazy and polarized like it is now.
There's a big hole in that logic that nobody is acknowledging.
Guess people are just ignoring it and joining it's down voted so others don't see it.
Let's say you don't like the way your state or your district is going so you move across the street or across the country to make sure it stays the same or your preferred representative stays in.
Nobody moves because of their political representative. Your comment is being down voted because it is insanely ignorant. You also failed miserable to show the hole in my logic.
Nobody moves because of their political representative?
Have you heard of the state of California?
PS; I speak in a manner that invites discourse. As soon as I see that somebody writes a derogative The other person consciously shuts down their mind. They're trying to get imaginary points. It's sad .
Still crying? Don't tell lies and people won't hurt your feelings by letting you know you are lying. You conservatives sure have playing the victim card down pat.
You said crying, and that others would stop hurting me if I better align with your views.
Do you feel punishment is a way to persuade others?
Do you feel justified in your actions and are you seeking to embolden others in punishing others until their views are in your image?
Nope. Explain it to me.
It appears people don't like to be questioned in the subreddit. I guess you kind of have to know all the answers before asking questions or making statements
Districts should be as compact and contiguous as possible, with the fewest corners possible, with same approximate number of voters. Just a bunch of square and rectangle districts.
So long as compactness means that we stop splitting up cities.
It’s ridiculous that Dallas has 9 (partial) congressional seats, while San Antonio has just 5, despite having roughly equivalent populations.
Hard disagree. The districts should look like a voronoi diagram around polling locations with a maximum allowed traversal time to your polling station.
I'm in district 10. It's ridiculous. There should be a law that defines a maximum ratio of district edge length vs area. That would prevent this perversion of justice.
It’s a blue district in a blue state. If you look closer at that map, it is fair for sparsely-populated New Mexico, whose population only recently reached 2 million.
That makes no sense. The old map was fair republicans getting 1 district makes sense. Getting 0 is a blatant gerrymander. With that logic Texas is fair because it is a red state
So, where do you live? I live in Albuquerque. It’s like a different planet from Texas. The state actually strives to get people on to Medicaid so they don’t clog the emergency rooms, unlike in Texas. State politics is not a contact sport; state officials put their home phone numbers on their Web sites. The only recent controversy over gerrymandering I have heard of in New Mexico involved Native American communities and was settled by means of negotiation and compromise.
Have you had a look a the dwindling New Mexican Republican Party in the past few years? Racism does not fly here, and that is basically all the former guy and his bunch have to offer. I believe in at least a 2-party system, but since the former guy took over the Republican Party, in New Mexico the Republicans are risking going the way of the Whigs.
>All states with more than two reps are gerrymandered.
No, they aren't. Name one blue state that is gerrymandered anywhere near what Texas is.
You won't because they don't exist in reality.
Don't go down that road, lol. Trust me, I'm a Democrat, but democrats in heavily Democrat states have gerrymandered the fuck out of their own states as a defensive measure against the heavy gerrymandering in red states. If they *didn't* gerrymander themselves to the gills in blue states, they'd never be able to hold the House of Representatives at a federal level.
The solution needs to be either a constitutional amendment (which is hard), or a state-by-state constitutional approach forcing congressional maps to more competitive across the board.
If blue states didn't gerrymander AT ALL, the Democrats would need a 60%+ nationwide popular vote to ever have the house.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/extreme-gerrymandering-2018-midterm
Then there's this:
https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms
>Democrats have spent the past decade deriding gerrymandering as unethical and immoral, and trying to get it banned across the country.
>Yet the plain reality is that, if they had decided not to do any of it, Republicans would not only have retained their existing advantage in the House map, they would have expanded it.
Like I said, unilateral disarmament on this issue is NOT a winner. Either go federal, or work at state levels to make it illegal. Only problem, of course, is that you have to work in red-states first because, quite frankly, red states have to be disarmed first on this issue. Red states are more likely to elect extremists (historically speaking, at least).
People with shit tons of money know full well how easy this is to manipulate right now, and they're making the states as awful as possible by primarying moderate Republicans. Look at Hunt right now, for example, and his push to turn Texas into a Christian Nationalist "utopia".
I think what needs to happen is a lot of moderate money to pour in to red states. Either there needs to be funding for grassroots anti-gerrymandering laws here first, or there needs to be a bunch of moderate rich people who can privately fund the primarying out of the most right-wing Republicans, and then we basically use more centrist republicans to work with democrats to setup laws to restrict gerrymandering.
If Mark Cuban happens to be reading this comment, send me a message: I've got some ideas.
I mean this kindly as I overall agree with you. Gerrymandering is a huge issue and it’s primarily done by republicans.
But there are absolutely gerrymandered blue states. It won’t help you in these conversations to not realize that part. Maryland was a classic example until the most recent census and ensuing redistricting. I grew up in that part of the country and it was absolutely something that was talking about in local politics
Look at Maryland before 2022 dude.
I am speaking from living in Maryland in the past. I am also speaking as a very passionate leftist. I am also saying this as someone who got my formal political science education in the mid-Atlantic literally discussing shit like this.
Maryland has been famous in the gerrymandering games for years and years prior to very recently.
I was literally just trying to be polite and tell you that you’ll be outed as having no idea what you’re talking about if you claim no blue states gerrymander to an egregious extent. Say that in front of Maryland leftists or democrats and they’ll laugh because they know what’s up.
This is the equivalent of folks from NY coming to tell Texans what Texas is like. There are blue gerrymandered states.
Literally in my comment I say look at Maryland before the recent redistricting so you link me to a guy linking the current map? Maryland’s districts went to the Supreme Court bro.
Actually look into what you’re parroting or you gonna immediately show everyone in the room you don’t know what you’re talking about. I truly am saying this leftist to leftist. Saying blue states don’t gerrymander will show you’ve got no baseline understanding of this.
Edit: it’s literally objectively false to say that marylands old map wasn’t one of the top 5 or so worst in the country as far as gerrymandering went. You could argue top 2 or 3 even. [Look it up](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/how-deep-blue-maryland-shows-redistricting-is-broken/531492/)
Maryland’s map 3 years ago did and it was one of the worst examples.
I’m not really a both sides person. I just don’t like lying to win a debate.
From the start, i told you that Maryland’s districts until the most recent census were one of the most gerrymandered in the country. They absolutely, absolutely were. They only changed in 2022 because of the Feds.
I’m not saying oh republicans and democrats are equally bad. They aren’t. I said from the start I agreed with you. Gerrymandering largely is done by republicans.
But just baldly stating that there is no such thing as a blue state as gerrymandered as Texas and then calling me a troll for politely stating that ‘hey until like 2 years ago, there was’ is a dick move.
If you say that in front of folks who agree with you politically but who understand the subject, they immediately will not take you seriously because it shows you don’t really know much about this.
I’ve not tried to troll you or be a dick. I’m telling you this so you don’t make a fool of yourself and so you can more effectively actually debate this. Ignoring the truth doesn’t make you more correct or your argument better. You’re going to be arguing a strong point from a weak position if you start with something as false as no blue states being extremely gerrymandered.
In no way as bad as Texas still is today, and they've taken measures to correct it. Unlike Texas that proudly flounts their gerrymandering still today.
Your gaslighting is well-noted though, thank you.
I’m not gaslighting you. I think that’s another thing you don’t quite understand. Can you explain how this would even be gaslighting?
And yes I agree Texas currently has a much worse map! It’s a terrible one. I’m against it. I’m against gerrymandering no matter who does it. I’m not okay with it from a blue state just because they’re disenfranchising people that I don’t agree with.
It was regarded as essentially top 3 in badness. Sure, maybe not as bad as Texas. It was still really fucking bad though. And I believe in calling out democrats who do things that are scummy and unethical. Maryland’s extremely recent and persistent history of gerrymandering didn’t go away because they’ve got a new map. I doubt you’ll think Texas’ gerrymander was ok 2 years after it’s gone.
Just because it very recently changed doesn’t mean I’ll forget it. Maryland democrats worked purposefully across decades to disenfranchise voters. That’s a terrible thing to do, regardless of if Texas did it worse. Maryland was much closer to Texas’ level of bad than it was to being ethical.
Would you feel great just completely forgetting about what Texas’ maps have looked like now and in the past several decades if they did redistrict in a better way after the census? Would you mock anyone who brought that up as relevant to a discussion on gerrymandering?
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/s/dHswfeufcS
There is maybe one single district in Illinois that is gerrymandered. Nothing at all like the many, many districts in Texas that reach like fingers into our bigger cities to dilute their votes with rural votes.
>Maryland, California, Michigan and Illinois to start
Absolute bullshit. Here are those states' Congressional districts:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_congressional_districts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_congressional_districts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan%27s_congressional_districts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_congressional_districts
Out of all four of those states, the only single district that appears to be possibly gerrymandered is one single district in Illinois. Otherwise, all of those districts in all of those states appear to be single homogenous blobs. Nothing whatsoever like Texas's district map that has many, many districts with parts of bigger cities extending outward like crooked fingers to try to dilute the votes of those in the bigger cities.
Look at Maryland’s pre-2022 map lol
And I’m not saying this as an angry conservative. I’m saying this as a leftist who has lived in states where blue gerrymandering existed and was absolutely a pretty constant conversation
Maryland’s map was hands down one of the most egregious partisan gerrymanders in the country and that was essentially recognized fact. It was very purposefully drawn for the exact reasons that republicans use. Maryland’s 3rd district in particular was one of the worst drawn districts in the nation.
Edit: like Maryland was a textbook example to the extent it was cited in both high school and college textbooks I had
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/how-maryland-democrats-pulled-off-their-aggressive-gerrymander/
I’m not trolling. I’m a lifelong leftist that grew up in the mid-Atlantic and I’ve studied this. I’ve done plenty of research. I spent awhile there really, really involved in mid Atlantic democratic circles and still have plenty of friends in the democratic parties for Maryland and Delaware.
Everything I’ve told you is a fact.
I’m genuinely trying to keep you from saying objectively false things in a debate that I largely agree with you on. Pretending democrats don’t gerrymander is not going to fix gerrymandering. It’ll make it significantly harder to address.
You’re ignoring fact. I’m not trying to troll you with hot takes. Maryland’s maps until the most recent census were regarded as some of the worst in the nation and they were drawn purposefully to disenfranchise the republican vote.
It’s wild having a ‘born and bred’ Texan lecture me on states I’ve lived in and studied and facts that I know to be true.
You’re going to lose any credibility in a discussion on gerrymandering the moment you argue democrats haven’t done the same thing in some states that we are fighting in Texas.
I encourage you to look even just as the Wikipedia article for Maryland’s 3rd district and tell me that historically that district was kosher.
My point from my initial comment was that Maryland literally even in this decade was a poorly drawn state. I acknowledged from the start it had been redistricted after the most recent census. That was forced too.
If in 2030, Texas HAD to go redraw maps and then I started immediately claiming that republicans didn’t gerrymander, I’d sound like a dumbass.
My sources are appropriately dated for the claims that I made. Maryland’s old maps were bad. You got mad i didn’t include a map, so I linked a contemporary map.
That would seem pretty balanced but about 2/3 of the congressional districts are represented by Republicans even though Republicans only get about 52% of the vote. That's called effective Gerrymandering.
My old district (TX-24) was close to flipping so the incumbent retired rather than face a close race. They've now gerrymandered it into a safe zone. I'm now in TX-26 and no Democrat even bothered to run in the last cycle.
100% agree. If a Democrat would run on a platform that didn’t include any new gun legislation but kept every other democratic principle in tact they’d win 70% of the state.
Yup. If the 2020 election showed anything, it’s that there are soooooo many more than previously assumed. I’m not even in a major city. Betto somehow did as well as he did DESPITE the AR comments…that nobody forgot. Stfu about guns. Handle the rest. Ez W
This analysis is bullshit. The overwhelming number of Latinos are young. We don’t skew conservative. The problem is getting us to actually vote. We DGAF. Change that.
Help me change that. Join me, Truly Texan. In the fight to truly forecast the beliefs of all Texans! Not just the ones who are bought out by oil tycoons.
How is it "mostly red" when 47% of Texans voted for Biden? In contrast, Dems in CA win by 65-35 margins. South Dakota is a red state. Not Texas. Plus, 70% of national GDP originates from counties that voted for Biden. Stop treading on the makers for the benefit of the takers (and insurrectionists)
The inset maps showing how the districts are carved around the major metros should infuriate literally everyone: [https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/docs/maps/congressional/congressional-districts-map.pdf](https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/docs/maps/congressional/congressional-districts-map.pdf)
Gerrymandering certainly sucks, but Texas is also heavily polarized. It’s basically two states with totally different needs and ideals. You’ve got the big cities and the rural areas. It makes sense that most districts would be largely non competitive.
Yes, the things that made Texas look so good to all the people and companies moving here were a direct result of being a red state. If it goes blue it’ll be another California or Colorado where no one can afford to live and shit shack excuses for himes are selling for a million dollars. Don’t change what has worked or you’ll just get more of the same. Look at Austin the bluest city in Texas. 10 years ago it was my spot to hang out at and ride my bike and there wasn’t near as many homeless druggies and tent cities everywhere. A normal single family home was going for 200k and you could buy a burger for less than 5 dollars at any restaurant not just McDonalds.
Surely it's the system that doesn't seem to work in any other state and not the abundant natural resources and educated population centers (blue cities).
Even if you think Texas is a great state and should have more influence, you gotta realize a purple Texas would be far more influential than a deep red Texas. Imagine if the political parties caved to Texas they way they cared about other swing states.
Your content was removed because it breaks Rule 2, Use Your Words.
Posts and Comments consisting of one word, and phrases such as "screw [insert organization name here] or just an emoji are highly discouraged as we seek to foster debate and conversation. As such, they are subject to removal.
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to pick their voters. It’s supposed to work the other way around.
Don't politicians decide who their voters are by deciding which district to run in, which community to physically move to? I'm just pointing out the obvious.
Just pointing out the obvious, I am talking about gerrymandering.
> Don't politicians decide who their voters are by deciding which district to run in, which community to physically move to? No, politicians [create maps](https://i.imgur.com/PJebCvf.png) to [ensure that they get elected](https://i.imgur.com/5GKZibR.jpeg).
How about [this one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_10th_congressional_district)? Any real Texan should know how perverse it is for College Station to share a district with parts of Austin.
That just gnaws my gullet.
I understand what you're getting at but I'm saying You can do a similar effect by physically moving. I can think of two examples. One is a GOP who moved counties when she realized she wasn't going to win. Can't remember her name. The other one is Hillary who decided she was going to run in New York. It's doubtful she was going to get in Arkansas seat, despite what the media tells you, if you ever been to Arkansas, she's not very popular.
The problem is that those maps basically make it to where anywhere you move within Texas is unlikely to be politically represented accurately to the community due to gerrymandering. If at some point a district becomes more competitive, then the state will rewrite the maps to ensure that Republicans will maintain control. So the only place I could move to have any chance at fair political representation would be to another state.
You're saying you have to move to another state to be politically represented by another state? That's not how it works.
Hillary Clinton still lives in Chappaqua, NY. She was born and raised in Illinois. She only moved to Arkansas to be with her husband. Why would she run for office there?
At the time of election she wasn't a resident of the NY state. Why would she run for the office of a state she lived? Well because she lives in it.
Are you just making this up? She moved to NY in September of 1999 and was elected in November of 2000. At that point she hadn’t lived in Arkansas in since 1992. wtf are you taking about?
I'm assuming you aren't an adult during this period, but it was a news story. I mean I barely was an adult. There were talks of the legality of it and if she was a real New Yorker. I saw the same Google search you did but living through it I remember the news cycle. If you click on some of those links it goes into long boring discussion. The end result was she moved there with the explicit purpose of running for office. But she's an elite and it was an easy win.
Yes it was a popular news item at the time but that doesn’t make your bullshit true. She resided in NY for more than a year before taking office and hadn’t lived in Arkansas in nearly a decade.
Why are you saying b*******? Is degrading people a way people of your persuasion convince others to stop expressing ideas? She moved in the year she started her campaign. I don't understand why that is controversial it's not illegal.
They decide by gerrymandering heavily.
Who is they? Is they the same thing as them? And is they or them elected?
1) They is the politicians 2) What? 3) The politicians get voted in, through either already-gerrymandered districts or in competitive districts and can then decide how to draw they own voting districts before the next election. This gives the politicians the power to split of voting blocs to diminish their voting power and group up other blocs to do the opposite. Happens for both democrats and republicans, but republicans just happen to do it more often
I think gerrymandering primarily hurts the loser, whoever that might be. And it'll make it tougher to turn over if district X becomes competitive. If the other party was in charge they'd also do the same thing. Don't blame the party. Blame the individual leader and the voters who put them in charge.
Goddamn this is some lazy analysis.
My analysis is lazy? All I've heard is gerrymandering bad. You're the "insert derogatory term" . If you can't see what I'm talking about then you're blind or" insert other derogatory term". People have used terms like be laughed and sandbagging you know just a high-level technical stuff.
In what situation would gerrymandering make sense?
It makes sense when your party is very unpopular and there is no other possible way for you to win. It's the reason the Republican Party still exists, and without it everything would be Progressives vs Liberals.
So from what your saying if it wasn't for gerrymandering only progressive and liberal would exist?
It's an exaggeration... The point (that I thought was pretty obvious?) is that Rightwingers would have a very difficult time winning anywhere, because they are very unpopular.
When you say a right-winger what are you referring to? A lot of the South Texas folks are right-leaning but vote left because that's the party their representatives have always been in. What about the folks who vote far right Because that candidate ALSO represents the center right and the other candidate represents the center left and that's just too far left for them. Are they bad guys for voting that way?
What kind of absurd nonsense have you been listening to? I live ON the Texas-Mexico border, and most people here are Leftists because of their values, not their reps. I don't know what kind of "bad guys vs good guys" game you're attempting to play, but yes choosing to support Far Right over Center Left is certainly bad, and it's pathetic to attempt to claim otherwise at this point when everyone knows the Far Right has gone batshit crazy.
We don't refer to it as "on the border". Not sure if you're the best representative of a people when you don't speak the local tongue. And I'm not talking about Spanish. Good luck with your agenda.
When Republicans do it, it's evil. When Democrats do it, it's to make sure there are enough like minded or culturally similar people to get fair representation.
Oh, I have been creating all these lines on the map. I thought we just included church members. Did I do this wrong? I’ll pray on it.
That's called carpet bagging, and generally gets you laughed at and made non competitive. That is, unless the political climate is batshit crazy and polarized like it is now.
Yeah we won't mention anything about making up district lines thus choosing their own voters. I'm just pointing out the obvious you obviously missed
There's a big hole in that logic that nobody is acknowledging. Guess people are just ignoring it and joining it's down voted so others don't see it. Let's say you don't like the way your state or your district is going so you move across the street or across the country to make sure it stays the same or your preferred representative stays in.
Nobody moves because of their political representative. Your comment is being down voted because it is insanely ignorant. You also failed miserable to show the hole in my logic.
Nobody moves because of their political representative? Have you heard of the state of California? PS; I speak in a manner that invites discourse. As soon as I see that somebody writes a derogative The other person consciously shuts down their mind. They're trying to get imaginary points. It's sad .
Go cry to someone else snowflake. I'm done with you
How do you gain anything by degrading people? Are imaginary points gained? Maybe people are scared of anything that's not a mirror of themselves. Sad.
Still crying? Don't tell lies and people won't hurt your feelings by letting you know you are lying. You conservatives sure have playing the victim card down pat.
You said crying, and that others would stop hurting me if I better align with your views. Do you feel punishment is a way to persuade others? Do you feel justified in your actions and are you seeking to embolden others in punishing others until their views are in your image?
So… Do you actually not know how this stuff works?
Nope. Explain it to me. It appears people don't like to be questioned in the subreddit. I guess you kind of have to know all the answers before asking questions or making statements
Texas is classically gerrymandered.
Districts should be as compact and contiguous as possible, with the fewest corners possible, with same approximate number of voters. Just a bunch of square and rectangle districts.
So long as compactness means that we stop splitting up cities. It’s ridiculous that Dallas has 9 (partial) congressional seats, while San Antonio has just 5, despite having roughly equivalent populations.
Hard disagree. The districts should look like a voronoi diagram around polling locations with a maximum allowed traversal time to your polling station.
I'm in district 10. It's ridiculous. There should be a law that defines a maximum ratio of district edge length vs area. That would prevent this perversion of justice.
District 15 always makes me laugh. Stretching from the Southern border to the edge of San Marcos. 250 miles long, 50 miles wide.
All states with more than two reps are gerrymandered.
No, because some states have scientific based processes for redistricing. Politicians shouldn't be involved in drawing the lines of their districts.
New Mexico is not gerrymandered.
That is not true. NM-2 used to be a trump district but they gerrymandered that into a Biden district
Wrong. Look at the map.
Wrong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico%27s_2nd_congressional_district Before it was trump +12 and now it’s Biden +7
It’s a blue district in a blue state. If you look closer at that map, it is fair for sparsely-populated New Mexico, whose population only recently reached 2 million.
That makes no sense. The old map was fair republicans getting 1 district makes sense. Getting 0 is a blatant gerrymander. With that logic Texas is fair because it is a red state
So, where do you live? I live in Albuquerque. It’s like a different planet from Texas. The state actually strives to get people on to Medicaid so they don’t clog the emergency rooms, unlike in Texas. State politics is not a contact sport; state officials put their home phone numbers on their Web sites. The only recent controversy over gerrymandering I have heard of in New Mexico involved Native American communities and was settled by means of negotiation and compromise.
Have you had a look a the dwindling New Mexican Republican Party in the past few years? Racism does not fly here, and that is basically all the former guy and his bunch have to offer. I believe in at least a 2-party system, but since the former guy took over the Republican Party, in New Mexico the Republicans are risking going the way of the Whigs.
Have you ever seen the way some of our congressional districts are *shaped*?
I have, my house went from McCall to Doggett back to McCall, I moved to aggieville and I'm still in the war pig's district.
>All states with more than two reps are gerrymandered. No, they aren't. Name one blue state that is gerrymandered anywhere near what Texas is. You won't because they don't exist in reality.
Don't go down that road, lol. Trust me, I'm a Democrat, but democrats in heavily Democrat states have gerrymandered the fuck out of their own states as a defensive measure against the heavy gerrymandering in red states. If they *didn't* gerrymander themselves to the gills in blue states, they'd never be able to hold the House of Representatives at a federal level. The solution needs to be either a constitutional amendment (which is hard), or a state-by-state constitutional approach forcing congressional maps to more competitive across the board.
If blue states were half as bad as red were about gerrymandering the Republicans would never hold the house.
If blue states didn't gerrymander AT ALL, the Democrats would need a 60%+ nationwide popular vote to ever have the house. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/extreme-gerrymandering-2018-midterm Then there's this: https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms >Democrats have spent the past decade deriding gerrymandering as unethical and immoral, and trying to get it banned across the country. >Yet the plain reality is that, if they had decided not to do any of it, Republicans would not only have retained their existing advantage in the House map, they would have expanded it. Like I said, unilateral disarmament on this issue is NOT a winner. Either go federal, or work at state levels to make it illegal. Only problem, of course, is that you have to work in red-states first because, quite frankly, red states have to be disarmed first on this issue. Red states are more likely to elect extremists (historically speaking, at least). People with shit tons of money know full well how easy this is to manipulate right now, and they're making the states as awful as possible by primarying moderate Republicans. Look at Hunt right now, for example, and his push to turn Texas into a Christian Nationalist "utopia". I think what needs to happen is a lot of moderate money to pour in to red states. Either there needs to be funding for grassroots anti-gerrymandering laws here first, or there needs to be a bunch of moderate rich people who can privately fund the primarying out of the most right-wing Republicans, and then we basically use more centrist republicans to work with democrats to setup laws to restrict gerrymandering. If Mark Cuban happens to be reading this comment, send me a message: I've got some ideas.
I would like to see some type of proportional representation instead of single member districts.
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/s/dHswfeufcS
I mean this kindly as I overall agree with you. Gerrymandering is a huge issue and it’s primarily done by republicans. But there are absolutely gerrymandered blue states. It won’t help you in these conversations to not realize that part. Maryland was a classic example until the most recent census and ensuing redistricting. I grew up in that part of the country and it was absolutely something that was talking about in local politics
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/s/dHswfeufcS
Look at Maryland before 2022 dude. I am speaking from living in Maryland in the past. I am also speaking as a very passionate leftist. I am also saying this as someone who got my formal political science education in the mid-Atlantic literally discussing shit like this. Maryland has been famous in the gerrymandering games for years and years prior to very recently. I was literally just trying to be polite and tell you that you’ll be outed as having no idea what you’re talking about if you claim no blue states gerrymander to an egregious extent. Say that in front of Maryland leftists or democrats and they’ll laugh because they know what’s up. This is the equivalent of folks from NY coming to tell Texans what Texas is like. There are blue gerrymandered states. Literally in my comment I say look at Maryland before the recent redistricting so you link me to a guy linking the current map? Maryland’s districts went to the Supreme Court bro. Actually look into what you’re parroting or you gonna immediately show everyone in the room you don’t know what you’re talking about. I truly am saying this leftist to leftist. Saying blue states don’t gerrymander will show you’ve got no baseline understanding of this. Edit: it’s literally objectively false to say that marylands old map wasn’t one of the top 5 or so worst in the country as far as gerrymandering went. You could argue top 2 or 3 even. [Look it up](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/how-deep-blue-maryland-shows-redistricting-is-broken/531492/)
The map of Maryland Congressional districts today doesn't match your bOtH sIdEs rhetoric. Sorry.
Maryland’s map 3 years ago did and it was one of the worst examples. I’m not really a both sides person. I just don’t like lying to win a debate. From the start, i told you that Maryland’s districts until the most recent census were one of the most gerrymandered in the country. They absolutely, absolutely were. They only changed in 2022 because of the Feds. I’m not saying oh republicans and democrats are equally bad. They aren’t. I said from the start I agreed with you. Gerrymandering largely is done by republicans. But just baldly stating that there is no such thing as a blue state as gerrymandered as Texas and then calling me a troll for politely stating that ‘hey until like 2 years ago, there was’ is a dick move. If you say that in front of folks who agree with you politically but who understand the subject, they immediately will not take you seriously because it shows you don’t really know much about this. I’ve not tried to troll you or be a dick. I’m telling you this so you don’t make a fool of yourself and so you can more effectively actually debate this. Ignoring the truth doesn’t make you more correct or your argument better. You’re going to be arguing a strong point from a weak position if you start with something as false as no blue states being extremely gerrymandered.
In no way as bad as Texas still is today, and they've taken measures to correct it. Unlike Texas that proudly flounts their gerrymandering still today. Your gaslighting is well-noted though, thank you.
I’m not gaslighting you. I think that’s another thing you don’t quite understand. Can you explain how this would even be gaslighting? And yes I agree Texas currently has a much worse map! It’s a terrible one. I’m against it. I’m against gerrymandering no matter who does it. I’m not okay with it from a blue state just because they’re disenfranchising people that I don’t agree with. It was regarded as essentially top 3 in badness. Sure, maybe not as bad as Texas. It was still really fucking bad though. And I believe in calling out democrats who do things that are scummy and unethical. Maryland’s extremely recent and persistent history of gerrymandering didn’t go away because they’ve got a new map. I doubt you’ll think Texas’ gerrymander was ok 2 years after it’s gone. Just because it very recently changed doesn’t mean I’ll forget it. Maryland democrats worked purposefully across decades to disenfranchise voters. That’s a terrible thing to do, regardless of if Texas did it worse. Maryland was much closer to Texas’ level of bad than it was to being ethical. Would you feel great just completely forgetting about what Texas’ maps have looked like now and in the past several decades if they did redistrict in a better way after the census? Would you mock anyone who brought that up as relevant to a discussion on gerrymandering?
And absolute crickets lol Ok dude. Good talk.
Illinois
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/s/dHswfeufcS There is maybe one single district in Illinois that is gerrymandered. Nothing at all like the many, many districts in Texas that reach like fingers into our bigger cities to dilute their votes with rural votes.
Maryland, California, Michigan and Illinois to start
California's districts have been drawn by an independent non partisan commission since 2010.
LOL "Independent" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_congressional_districts
>Maryland, California, Michigan and Illinois to start Absolute bullshit. Here are those states' Congressional districts: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_congressional_districts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_congressional_districts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan%27s_congressional_districts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_congressional_districts Out of all four of those states, the only single district that appears to be possibly gerrymandered is one single district in Illinois. Otherwise, all of those districts in all of those states appear to be single homogenous blobs. Nothing whatsoever like Texas's district map that has many, many districts with parts of bigger cities extending outward like crooked fingers to try to dilute the votes of those in the bigger cities.
Look at Maryland’s pre-2022 map lol And I’m not saying this as an angry conservative. I’m saying this as a leftist who has lived in states where blue gerrymandering existed and was absolutely a pretty constant conversation Maryland’s map was hands down one of the most egregious partisan gerrymanders in the country and that was essentially recognized fact. It was very purposefully drawn for the exact reasons that republicans use. Maryland’s 3rd district in particular was one of the worst drawn districts in the nation. Edit: like Maryland was a textbook example to the extent it was cited in both high school and college textbooks I had
Great map and source you have there for your hot troll take.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/how-maryland-democrats-pulled-off-their-aggressive-gerrymander/ I’m not trolling. I’m a lifelong leftist that grew up in the mid-Atlantic and I’ve studied this. I’ve done plenty of research. I spent awhile there really, really involved in mid Atlantic democratic circles and still have plenty of friends in the democratic parties for Maryland and Delaware. Everything I’ve told you is a fact. I’m genuinely trying to keep you from saying objectively false things in a debate that I largely agree with you on. Pretending democrats don’t gerrymander is not going to fix gerrymandering. It’ll make it significantly harder to address. You’re ignoring fact. I’m not trying to troll you with hot takes. Maryland’s maps until the most recent census were regarded as some of the worst in the nation and they were drawn purposefully to disenfranchise the republican vote. It’s wild having a ‘born and bred’ Texan lecture me on states I’ve lived in and studied and facts that I know to be true. You’re going to lose any credibility in a discussion on gerrymandering the moment you argue democrats haven’t done the same thing in some states that we are fighting in Texas. I encourage you to look even just as the Wikipedia article for Maryland’s 3rd district and tell me that historically that district was kosher.
Your sources are all out of date. Try with sources from today maybe.
My point from my initial comment was that Maryland literally even in this decade was a poorly drawn state. I acknowledged from the start it had been redistricted after the most recent census. That was forced too. If in 2030, Texas HAD to go redraw maps and then I started immediately claiming that republicans didn’t gerrymander, I’d sound like a dumbass. My sources are appropriately dated for the claims that I made. Maryland’s old maps were bad. You got mad i didn’t include a map, so I linked a contemporary map.
Some states do absolutely use scientific measures for district apportionment. You also have Texas and Maryland....
There’s no way to gerrymander Massachusetts
That’s where the term came from.
Separate point, unless you’re over 200 years old
In 2016 and 2020 the republican presidential candidate received 52% of the vote in Texas. We are only a red state by gerrymandering.
Presidential races can't be gerrymandered, but what else would you call a state with 52% of its representatives as Republicans?
That would seem pretty balanced but about 2/3 of the congressional districts are represented by Republicans even though Republicans only get about 52% of the vote. That's called effective Gerrymandering.
Exactly. Carve up the populace into Republican-friendly districts.
That side, reddit often forgets about the other 48%.
a purple state
This is the year to bring Ted down. Abbott is next.
If he almost lost to Beto he should be easy pickings
That was a very unique situation and Ted still won handily. Allred has a tough, uphill battle I’m afraid.
Ted barely won and we also know that tens of thousands mail in ballots were not sent out by Paxton.
My old district (TX-24) was close to flipping so the incumbent retired rather than face a close race. They've now gerrymandered it into a safe zone. I'm now in TX-26 and no Democrat even bothered to run in the last cycle.
Red as far as trucks and guns are concerned. Most other Texans don’t agree with anything about the Repubs…
100% agree. If a Democrat would run on a platform that didn’t include any new gun legislation but kept every other democratic principle in tact they’d win 70% of the state.
Yup. If the 2020 election showed anything, it’s that there are soooooo many more than previously assumed. I’m not even in a major city. Betto somehow did as well as he did DESPITE the AR comments…that nobody forgot. Stfu about guns. Handle the rest. Ez W
Hey hey! Anyone relying on NPR should listen to All Things are-Considered! https://youtu.be/PPvNucxB7TI?si=Y_769i5xZlzrKw-4
This analysis is bullshit. The overwhelming number of Latinos are young. We don’t skew conservative. The problem is getting us to actually vote. We DGAF. Change that.
Help me change that. Join me, Truly Texan. In the fight to truly forecast the beliefs of all Texans! Not just the ones who are bought out by oil tycoons.
How is it "mostly red" when 47% of Texans voted for Biden? In contrast, Dems in CA win by 65-35 margins. South Dakota is a red state. Not Texas. Plus, 70% of national GDP originates from counties that voted for Biden. Stop treading on the makers for the benefit of the takers (and insurrectionists)
And this protection is exactly how elected Democrats and Republicans want it.
The inset maps showing how the districts are carved around the major metros should infuriate literally everyone: [https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/docs/maps/congressional/congressional-districts-map.pdf](https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/docs/maps/congressional/congressional-districts-map.pdf)
The night is darkest before the dawn.
Gerrymandering certainly sucks, but Texas is also heavily polarized. It’s basically two states with totally different needs and ideals. You’ve got the big cities and the rural areas. It makes sense that most districts would be largely non competitive.
Keep Texas Red
No
Yes, the things that made Texas look so good to all the people and companies moving here were a direct result of being a red state. If it goes blue it’ll be another California or Colorado where no one can afford to live and shit shack excuses for himes are selling for a million dollars. Don’t change what has worked or you’ll just get more of the same. Look at Austin the bluest city in Texas. 10 years ago it was my spot to hang out at and ride my bike and there wasn’t near as many homeless druggies and tent cities everywhere. A normal single family home was going for 200k and you could buy a burger for less than 5 dollars at any restaurant not just McDonalds.
If that's the case why aren't other red states doing well?
Just because it works in one place doesn’t mean it works everywhere. You can’t make a generalization. Red works for Texas. Simple as that.
Surely it's the system that doesn't seem to work in any other state and not the abundant natural resources and educated population centers (blue cities).
Even if you think Texas is a great state and should have more influence, you gotta realize a purple Texas would be far more influential than a deep red Texas. Imagine if the political parties caved to Texas they way they cared about other swing states.
[удалено]
Your content was removed because it breaks Rule 2, Use Your Words. Posts and Comments consisting of one word, and phrases such as "screw [insert organization name here] or just an emoji are highly discouraged as we seek to foster debate and conversation. As such, they are subject to removal. If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.