The Truth About Texas

[wing2000]

2.) TX is a unique case because they’re trying to do it off-cycle in an “emergency “ session. They already did their 2020 redistricting and now they’re trying to do another one.

There really was urgent legislation pending to address the recent flash flooding in Kerr County. The Governor and Texas Republican leaders chose to prioritize redistricting over the welfare of Texans.

 

[Yarddog]

That should apply to every state, not just the ones that would benefit Democrats. Hello Illinois!

Agreed. Illinois has the 2nd worst Gerrymandered district in the US. Texas has three of the worst.

 

[Yarddog]

Texas isn't "purple". You try to blame gerrymandering, but gerrymandering doesn't affect statewide races,

That's not true. Gerrymandering can effect any election. With the population of Texas booming, legislatures are constantly looking at retaining control through redistricting.

 

[probinson]

1.) Of the movements to push for fairness in redistricting, the only ones I’ve heard of are coming from (and happening within) left-leaning states. I haven’t heard so much as a whiff of genuine anti-gerrymandering sentiment come from the Right. The only times I’ve heard the Right complaint about gerrymandering are to point out Dems’ hypocrisy.

Can you clarify specifically what "movements to push for fairness in redistricting" you are referring to?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Congress House members---25 Republican, 12 Democrat (68% Republican)

Texas State House: 88 Republicans, 62 Democrats (59% Republican)

Texas State Senate: 19 Republicans, 12 Democrats (61% Republican)

Here's the shocker: Party affiliation among Texas registered voters
Party Registration Statistics

• Total Registered Voters: 17,323,617
• Democrats: 8,054,976 (46.50%)
• Republicans: 6,574,201 (37.95%)
• Third Party/Other: 0 (0.00%)
• Unaffiliated: 2,694,440 (15.55%)

It seems as if Texas is already far more gerrymandered than fairness, common sense, or the wishes of the Founding Fathers would dictate. This purple state should be redistricted to bring fairness and equal representation to the voting process.

You have to keep in mind that there's a regional component to party affiliation/voting patterns.

A person who votes for Democrats at the state & local levels doesn't automatically translate to how they'll vote in a national election.

Or in other words, a Texas Democrat isn't always the same as a NY Democrat.

In Southern states, many of Democrats would be described as just being more like "Pro-Union Republicans who are okay with pot"



The New England states are a good example of the inverse.

Several of those states regularly elect republican governors despite reliably voting for the blue team in presidential elections.

Case in point:

They voted for a republican governor (by a huge margin) at the same time period as they voted for Hillary over Trump by a huge margin.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Can you clarify specifically what "movements to push for fairness in redistricting" you are referring to?

There exist a variety of efforts around the country to eliminate, or at least reduce, the amount of partisanship that gets factored into the redistricting process. Usually, this means changing the makeup of the entities who draw and authorize the maps - for example, taking the authority from the majority party in the state legislature and handing it to something like a bipartisan or independent redistricting commission.

Eric Holder has been working on this for a while, but there are plenty of other groups:

Home - National Democratic Redistricting Committee

NDRC is building a targeted, state-by-state strategy to ensure Democrats can fight back against gerrymandering and achieve fair maps during the redistricting process.

democraticredistricting.com

I also remember some efforts to apply standards to the characteristics of the districts, trying to limit how convoluted the shapes were. I forget the precise terminology, but there were some mathematical ways of describing the shapes that made them more or less sensible. I don't remember if those efforts went anywhere.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There exist a variety of efforts around the country to eliminate, or at least reduce, the amount of partisanship that gets factored into the redistricting process. Usually, this means changing the makeup of the entities who draw and authorize the maps - for example, taking the authority from the majority party in the state legislature and handing it to something like a bipartisan or independent redistricting commission.

Eric Holder has been working on this for a while, but there are plenty of other groups:

Home - National Democratic Redistricting Committee

NDRC is building a targeted, state-by-state strategy to ensure Democrats can fight back against gerrymandering and achieve fair maps during the redistricting process.

democraticredistricting.com

I also remember some efforts to apply standards to the characteristics of the districts, trying to limit how convoluted the shapes were. I forget the precise terminology, but there were some mathematical ways of describing the shapes that made them more or less sensible. I don't remember if those efforts went anywhere.

If we could go back in time and do it from scratch, I like Germany's model for how they do it...

From my post in another thread:
**************************************************************
The more I've looked into it, the more I like what Germany has with their MMP system (Mixed Member Proportionality)

From my understanding (and any Germans on here, feel free to correct any misinterpretations I have)

German voters get two votes on their ballot. The first vote is for a local candidate in their district (like the US system), and the second vote is for a political party.

The final composition of their parliament must match the proportional party vote.

So half of legislature is populated by regional winners, and the other half is assigned by party leadership for the "filler seats" based on who needs to get what to make the numbers line up.


So, how that would work would be... (let's pretend the number is 700 just to keep the math easy)

350 of those seats would be populated by the regional winners, the other 350 would be assigned seats by party leadership.

Each "district" would be about 950,000 people (the states can divvy those up how they'd like, because gerrymandering would be a non-issue)


The results come in...
195 Republicans Won the local races, and 155 Democrats won local races
The party vote came in, and 53% of voters said "D", and 47% said "R"

How that would shake out for the "proportionally ensured seats"

• Democrats need: 371 total - 155 won = 216 proportional seats
• Republicans need: 329 total - 195 won = 134 proportional seats

That system not only makes gerrymandering "moot" in terms of unfair advantage, it actually make gerrymandering a liability if someone tried it.

If a party drew some wacky looking districts just to help a few specific guys get a victory, they'd actually be handing more proportional seats to the other party's leadership to assign (not elect), so there's almost an incentive to keep districts as proportional as possible, because you can strategize to beat someone in an election, there's no strategizing if the other party's leadership can pick whoever they'd like to fill a seat.

 

[SimplyMe]

If we could go back in time and do it from scratch, I like Germany's model for how they do it...

From my post in another thread:
**************************************************************
The more I've looked into it, the more I like what Germany has with their MMP system (Mixed Member Proportionality)

From my understanding (and any Germans on here, feel free to correct any misinterpretations I have)

German voters get two votes on their ballot. The first vote is for a local candidate in their district (like the US system), and the second vote is for a political party.

The final composition of their parliament must match the proportional party vote.

So half of legislature is populated by regional winners, and the other half is assigned by party leadership for the "filler seats" based on who needs to get what to make the numbers line up.


So, how that would work would be... (let's pretend the number is 700 just to keep the math easy)

350 of those seats would be populated by the regional winners, the other 350 would be assigned seats by party leadership.

Each "district" would be about 950,000 people (the states can divvy those up how they'd like, because gerrymandering would be a non-issue)


The results come in...
195 Republicans Won the local races, and 155 Democrats won local races
The party vote came in, and 53% of voters said "D", and 47% said "R"

How that would shake out for the "proportionally ensured seats"

• Democrats need: 371 total - 155 won = 216 proportional seats
• Republicans need: 329 total - 195 won = 134 proportional seats

That system not only makes gerrymandering "moot" in terms of unfair advantage, it actually make gerrymandering a liability if someone tried it.

If a party drew some wacky looking districts just to help a few specific guys get a victory, they'd actually be handing more proportional seats to the other party's leadership to assign (not elect), so there's almost an incentive to keep districts as proportional as possible, because you can strategize to beat someone in an election, there's no strategizing if the other party's leadership can pick whoever they'd like to fill a seat.

My issue is, it is not going to happen in the US -- not without some type of massive change of the political parties. To implement something like this would require a Constitutional Amendment and no Amendments are going to be passed in the US in the current divisive political environment.

Having said that, the German system would make a huge difference in the makeup of Congress. This is particularly true since it would encourage the development of third parties. You'd no longer have to get a majority of votes in any Congressional district to get members of a third party into Congress. Instead, you'd merely have to get a large enough percentage -- just a few percent of people voting for your party, to get Representatives elected into Congress. Think of it this way, there are 435 members of Congress, so if a third party gets just 5 percent of the vote you could have roughly 22 members of Congress elected in a proportional system. In this system, voting for a third party is no longer "wasting a vote" since they won't ever get a majority of votes.

Of course, to go back to my initial point, this is one of the reasons why such a system is doomed in the US. The two major parties will never allow a system that threatens to dilute the power of their parties.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Agreed. Illinois has the 2nd worst Gerrymandered district in the US. Texas has three of the worst.

And States have the legal rights to do so. I am happy that Republicans are finally fighting back instead of trying to play the better person.

 

[iluvatar5150]

And States have the legal rights to do so. I am happy that Republicans are finally fighting back instead of trying to play the better person.

When were Republicans ever "trying to play the better person" on this matter? Gerrymandering predates either of the current parties:

How Gerrymandering Began in the US

The practice was happening before the country's founding.

www.history.com

 

[Oompa Loompa]

When were Republicans ever "trying to play the better person" on this matter? Gerrymandering predates either of the current parties:

How Gerrymandering Began in the US

The practice was happening before the country's founding.

www.history.com

So you then concede that what is happening in Texas is a normal thing and that the only reason democrat politicians are butt sore is because they are disadvantaged? That they are just giving a dramatic show because they cannot stomach the fact that they are on the losing end and that this is not some grave threat to our "democracy?"

 

[iluvatar5150]

So you then concede that what is happening in Texas is a normal thing and that the only reason democrat politicians are butt sore is because they are disadvantaged? That they are just giving a dramatic show because they cannot stomach the fact that they are on the losing end and that this is not some grave threat to our "democracy?"

I already addressed all of this when responding to another member in post #20. To quote myself:

Dems are hardly innocent on this matter.

However:

1.) Of the movements to push for fairness in redistricting, the only ones I’ve heard of are coming from (and happening within) left-leaning states. I haven’t heard so much as a whiff of genuine anti-gerrymandering sentiment come from the Right. The only times I’ve heard the Right complaint about gerrymandering are to point out Dems’ hypocrisy.

2.) TX is a unique case because they’re trying to do it off-cycle in an “emergency “ session. They already did their 2020 redistricting and now they’re trying to do another one.

Gerrymandering is not uncommon and both sides have been guilty of it at various times.

Yes, I believe at least some of the complaints from Dems are self-serving.

The only factions I'm aware of currently trying to curb gerrymandering exist within the Democratic party. Not all Dems are pushing to end it, but I'm not aware of any Republicans who are.

What's happening in Texas is not normal, because they're trying to do and extra round of redistricting this halfway through the usual cycle.

 

[Yarddog]

And States have the legal rights to do so. I am happy that Republicans are finally fighting back instead of trying to play the better person.

Republicans have been doing this, almost since the nation wide as founded. Republicans like to split up large cities so that they can control the state, which cuts those cities out of representation.