As Texas Republicans try to muscle a rare mid-decade redistricting bill through the Legislature to help Republicans gain seats in Congress – at President Donald Trump’s request – residents in Austin, the state capital, could find themselves sharing a district with rural Texans more than 300 miles away.
The proposed map chops up Central Texas’ 37th Congressional District, which is currently represented by Democrat Rep. Lloyd Doggett, will be consumed by four neighboring districts, three of which Republicans now hold.
One of those portions of the Austin-area district was drawn to be part of the 11th District that Republican Rep. August Pfluger represents, which stretches into rural Ector County, about 20 miles away from the New Mexico border.
A quick reminder that gerrymandering, the unethical process where politicians choose their voters (instead of the other way around), is not legal in any other western democracy. It’s runaway corruption, shouldn’t exist, and needs to be publishable by jail time…
Just enough farmer jokels in there to neutralize democratic city dwellers.
Question, does that make it overall blue or red for everyone else? I imagine Austin has more people than that rural area but idk
It’s only a small portion of Austin. If you take a sliver of a city where 20k people live and add it to a large rural district with 30k people across thousands of square miles you then spread the population of the dense city across the rural districts without overwhelming the ratio.
This repub regime is really showing us how much our system of government depends on having good-faith actors in (elected) positions of power. There truly are not sufficient checks in place to protect against one election’s worth of bad actors.
Kind of amazing that this all worked for about 250 years, and heartbreaking that it could crumble in the next 2.5.
worked for about 250 years for a select group of people only
didn’t work for the native americans, slaves, poor people, etcetera
Things have improved for those groups over time, notably. We took a shit system and tried to make it represent all of us.
Apologies if I misunderstood the american election system, but the fact that for the past 100+ years you’ve had a bipartisan system in which both parties pander to the wealthy tell me it hasn’t really worked. Or rather only worked for the ruling elite.
Yes if you elect people that agree to the majority of the house, senate, president, state houses, and governors, they tend to get their way.
Even strong checks can’t hold back bad faith actors indefinitely
Sure does help, though.
Any system that ultimately doesn’t work for the greater good is bound to fail, because someone will come along promising to deliver the people from their woes.
It’s happened very many times throughout history, and yet many “checks” are perpetuated on convention alone, in many systems around the world.
You’re just asking for it, at that point.
Letting politicians draw their own electoral boundaries, and “certify” their own elections is beyond ridiculous.
Git gud, USA, yikes.
Brought to you by the independent electoral commission gang.
No, it depends on a population that actually cares about democracy and will punish those “bad faith actors” at the polls. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with Americans here.
These assholes are going to make violent revolution inevitable. Why they think they will survive that revolution is a mystery.
Because it worked for people like them in China and Russia.
it’s all I cling to, to make it through every day
Ranked choice
Popular vote
All this goes away.
I think using a method of proportional representation is the most effective defence against gerrymandering. You cannot have unrepresentative elections when the system has representation built into it.
However, that would be difficult to do in the US from what I understand. There would need to be several changes to the law to give it a fighting chance.
Implement an actual independent electoral commission, proper scrutiny, paper ballots only (seriously, the US are fucking brain-dead for using voting machines, it’s caused issues at elections dozens of times), and all this goes away.
But yeah, ranked choice voting is definitely high on the list also
Nope, that would only help with state-wide and national elections, not for district-level ones. If they’re gerrymandered to be a majority republican district, the winner will be a republican even if there is ranked choice and popular vote. Or vice-versa if gerrymandered to be a Dem-majority district.
If you can’t win, cheat. It’s the official slogan of conservatives worldwide.
Oh no. anyway, here’s a map of Illinois’ congressional districts.
What’s funny is if you did split up 12 and 15, the GOP would likely lose a seat. 15 is mostly empty land and 12 includes east St lewis and Springfield. Give any of those cities to the empty land and suddenly we’d have a lot of upset corn being represented by a Democrat.
Oh no! Just cause Illinois district is fucky doesn’t mean Texas’ should be even more fucky. It’s not a god damned contest.
Sounds like you’re just upset that the Republicans are following the Democrats’ lead. It’s like watching a kid cheat in a game, then watch the kid get upset when the other kid also starts cheating.
Are you genuinely that obtuse?
No, but you seem to be. Do you honestly think the Democratic Party doesn’t jerrymander every chance they get?
Classic whataboutism. Jfc get a life
Reminds me of Kansas…
what fucking idiotic ideas. why, I am curious, are districts not drawn by immutable things like latitude and longitude?
Because you have to take into account population numbers. The same number of people represented per representative(in the house) in a given state is one of the points of census.
that’s just a ratio - population / max ppl in cohort.
On a basic level the stuff rural populations need/care about is different than urban populations and suburban is again different. Whether thats farming subsidies, car pollution/traffic, etc.
Dividing simply by lat x long gives all the power to the urban areas. Like a 3rd of NY lives in NYC. However you slice rural areas on the west or north of the state hundreds of miles away with very different concerns would end up getting represented by people from the city while people on the outskirts of the city get represented by rural area interests again hundreds of miles away. And you’d still have arguments about whether to slice longitude or latitude for whatever possible advantage that could give one side or another.
Then you say OK we’ll just sorta cube the city and make a big rural area and thats basically how things started in the first place. Then you have people argue they are better fit for the district next to them try and squiggly the lines et viola you’re just back to where we are now.
Really what is needed is an open-source algorithm that we agree is fair and apolitical. But fat chance of that right now.
i agree re an open source algo! but also - if things are so vastly different then maybe a solution is county based or make new states, etc.
not easy or simple.
but gerrymandering is so freaking evil.
Physical landmarks like rivers and mountains would be best, but even county lines would be good.
why have districts at all?
Assigning a politician who is accountable to a specific group of people is important. The people can petition one person with requests.
In the Netherlands we have proportional representation, everyone’s vote is equal, you can vote for more than two parties, the votes are divvied out to fill an amount of seats in a parliament, that parliament needs to create coalitions that enact laws from 51% of the seats.
Gerrymandering is not normal and is illegal in most more functioning democracies.
Proportional representation would require ranked choice voting, which is another reform the US sorely needs. If the US had ranked choice voting then each state could be its own district and you would find the candidate that most resonates with your values. Then township seats would be used for local representation. State legislature could also be ranked similarly to National elections.
This is the only sensible way to do it. Arbitrarily-drawn districts are silly, proportional representation serves all those needs but far better.
I get that. Makes me think though … that’s what states and counties are for. Then again my state is smaller than some counties in other states!
Ranked choice voting and proportional representation in National and state government, then townships are the local representation. Even then voters could rank councilors and petition as their ideology aligns.
That doesn’t change much, it’s possible to define this district that way.
Aportionment voting. As close to possible make sure the voting for a party gets appropriate representation then vote in who by primary. If this is a 100 seat senate and the state goes 48%red 51% blue and 1 % green each color holds a primary after the election to choose who will represent this platform that got them elected. This creates unity inside a party on issues in which everyone should campaign on and if you aren’t striving to enact the platform it is more seen and you are less likely to be voted in in the primary next time. This creates more parties as if you have a different platform what is the point being in the same party. You still have to play smart like the green party should work green if they have the same agenda that way people don’t get upended but generally this is better
I wonder if an AI system could feasibility generate fair, compact, impartial districts given appropriate prompts - if those prompts were agreed upon by all parties, and the AI and associated data gathering administered by a 3rd party non-profit.
