BigN--00 said:

---

Gerrymandering is the cause of a lot of our problems. It drives politician too far to the right or left and makes them beholden to leadership on each side.

According to FairVote, regarding the upcoming 2026 election::

• 352 of 435 (81%) seats have already been decided, and are "safe" for one party. We project only 38 (9%) true tossups, with another 9% of seats "leaning" either Democrat or Republican.

American not as polarized as Washington. Texas is bluer than many of you care to admit; just as California is a lot redder than many assume.

---

And the response is always "but the other guy does it!!"

Teslag said:

---

Drive by posting

---

Some are above the rules

CDUB98 said:

---

Every state jerrymanders. The problem you have is that the Republicans are finally doing it.

---

Where did I say I supported either party, for extreme gerrymandering? I'll support the R's, always have, doesn't mean I should like the weird Congressional maps.

oh no said:

---

TX taking lessons from Illinois, California, etc.

I guess they figured out they need to play by the same rules as dems do, where they can.

---

Yes they need to gerrymander all republican states, just like ALL the Dems states are maxed out to favor Dems.

BUT Rs are very weak in doing so, I think Texas is the only one that will have their new districts by midterms

When I say weak Rs, look no further than Indiana. Huge majority Rs in that state and they elected to not redraw the state. PATHETIC

Trump is trying to make them stronger and teach them but they are Fing weak asses

I think Rs could redraw and flip as many as 25 or so and we have only gotten 4 flipped. Rs got a huge ruling on the race thing, now the southern R states can redraw

AJ02 said:

---

I didn't hear a peep from Dems about how gerrymandered She Jack's district is, so honestly I don't give a crap now either.

Edit...should've said how it "was".

---

She Jack's old district was essentially created to throw a bone to democrats, because in creating a district that was guaranteed to vote D 100% of the time the R's were able to carve out 2 (maybe 3?) districts that would vote R for the foreseeable future.

northeastag said:

---

Gonna be done all over again in the few months when SCOTUS kills the VRA

---

BigN--00 said:

---

Gerrymandering is the cause of a lot of our problems. It drives politician too far to the right or left and makes them beholden to leadership on each side.

---

Which reps vote too far to the right? Haven't seen one yet. Meanwhile, democrats won't even confirm judges.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

BigN--00 said:

---

Gerrymandering is the cause of a lot of our problems. It drives politician too far to the right or left and makes them beholden to leadership on each side.

---

Which reps vote too far to the right? Haven't seen one yet. Meanwhile, democrats won't even confirm judges.

---

What is "far right" anything? I know the libs use the term "far right" to scare moderates. But it's become the norm for normies to call basic stuff like support for strong borders as "far right".

To me, it's staunchly pro-Constitution and rule of law. I am proud to be both of those.

GSS said:

---

DistrictViewer

Districts #10 and 11, central Texas, almost laughable in boundaries.

---

Honestly man, I don't care. How many republican votes are locked away without any representation in blue states?

In Texas, the majority of republicans are so mealy mouthed RINOS that the democrats will have power even if they only represent a sliver of seats.

Source: Look at Burrows forming a coalition of democrats and RINOS to subvert conservative agendas and give us the steaming pile of BS that is the voucher bill.

Kind of cool to live in the same congressional district as my eldest son. We only live 323 miles apart.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

BigN--00 said:

---

Gerrymandering is the cause of a lot of our problems. It drives politician too far to the right or left and makes them beholden to leadership on each side.

---

Which reps vote too far to the right? Haven't seen one yet. Meanwhile, democrats won't even confirm judges.

---

What is "far right" anything? I know the libs use the term "far right" to scare moderates. But it's become the norm for normies to call basic stuff like support for strong borders as "far right".

---

Correct there is no elected far right in this country. It's just another terminology change by the left.

northeastag said:

---

Gonna be done all over again in the few years when Texas picks up 3-4 additional seats.

---

And again when they kill Sec 2 of the VRA...

2026NCAggies said:

---

oh no said:

---

TX taking lessons from Illinois, California, etc.

I guess they figured out they need to play by the same rules as dems do, where they can.

---

Yes they need to gerrymander all republican states, just like ALL the Dems states are maxed out to favor Dems.

BUT Rs are very weak in doing so, I think Texas is the only one that will have their new districts by midterms

When I say weak Rs, look no further than Indiana. Huge majority Rs in that state and they elected to not redraw the state. PATHETIC

Trump is trying to make them stronger and teach them but they are Fing weak asses

I think Rs could redraw and flip as many as 25 or so and we have only gotten 4 flipped. Rs got a huge ruling on the race thing, now the southern R states can redraw

---

Not yet...

one MEEN Ag said:

---

GSS said:

---

DistrictViewer

Districts #10 and 11, central Texas, almost laughable in boundaries.

---

Honestly man, I don't care. How many republican votes are locked away without any representation in blue states?

In Texas, the majority of republicans are so mealy mouthed RINOS that the democrats will have power even if they only represent a sliver of seats.

Source: Look at Burrows forming a coalition of democrats and RINOS to subvert conservative agendas and give us the steaming pile of BS that is the voucher bill.

---

Moderates cry "what about us in the middle". What they don't seem to realize is that the republicans by and large are a moderate party that represents the middle more than they represent the conservatives that elect them. Conservatives do not have near the actual representation that liberals and moderates do.

Gerrymandering is an inherent flaw of the single-member district system.

The solution is proportional representation. But it would have to be mandated by constitutional amendment, because few states would willingly give up the power to gerrymander.

A proportional system assumes identical interests across a population - which itself is a critical flaw. A panhandle (R) and a Beaumont (R) have VERY different local concerns, and stripping geography from the equation disenfranchises local interests.

I also think we need to substantially increase the total number of congressional representatives to decrease the number of people each one represents. I would suggest tripling it.

When it was set at 435 in 1929 the population of the US was about 122 million, we are now at 342 million.

GSS said:

---

DistrictViewer

Districts #10 and 11, central Texas, almost laughable in boundaries.

---

How's it feel? Turnabout is fair play.

GSS said:

---

DistrictViewer

Districts #10 and 11, central Texas, almost laughable in boundaries.

---

You say it goes too far. I say it doesn't go too far enough.

samurai_science said:

---

double aught said:

---

BigN--00 said:

---

Gerrymandering is the cause of a lot of our problems. It drives politician too far to the right or left and makes them beholden to leadership on each side.

According to FairVote, regarding the upcoming 2026 election::

• 352 of 435 (81%) seats have already been decided, and are "safe" for one party. We project only 38 (9%) true tossups, with another 9% of seats "leaning" either Democrat or Republican.

American not as polarized as Washington. Texas is bluer than many of you care to admit; just as California is a lot redder than many assume.

---

And the response is always "but the other guy does it!!"

---

They do. So what is your point? I guess in your mind Rs should be better than Democrats and never win another election? That will show them!!

---

Both should do better! A pipe dream, I know. But this tit for tat nonsense has gotten so tiresome. It's the sort of stuff I have to deal with with my kids. But these are fully grown people we're talking about. Someone has to be a GD adult at some point.

GSS said:

---

DistrictViewer

Districts #10 and 11, central Texas, almost laughable in boundaries.

---

Go test your hypothesis. What percentage of Texas voters cast their ballots for Republicans and what percentage of house seats did Republicans get. Then go do a blue state like Illinois. You'll find that Texas congressional districts have one of the lowest bias rates in the country.

double aught said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

double aught said:

---

BigN--00 said:

---

Gerrymandering is the cause of a lot of our problems. It drives politician too far to the right or left and makes them beholden to leadership on each side.

According to FairVote, regarding the upcoming 2026 election::

• 352 of 435 (81%) seats have already been decided, and are "safe" for one party. We project only 38 (9%) true tossups, with another 9% of seats "leaning" either Democrat or Republican.

American not as polarized as Washington. Texas is bluer than many of you care to admit; just as California is a lot redder than many assume.

---

And the response is always "but the other guy does it!!"

---

They do. So what is your point? I guess in your mind Rs should be better than Democrats and never win another election? That will show them!!

---

Both should do better! A pipe dream, I know. But this tit for tat nonsense has gotten so tiresome. It's the sort of stuff I have to deal with with my kids. But these are fully grown people we're talking about. Someone has to be a GD adult at some point.

---

We are well past the point of taking the high road. There is one party in this country that wants to make this a one-party country and transform it into something no of us will recognize. They are playing for keeps. You can't negotiate with them.

Rossticus said:

---

GSS said:

---

DistrictViewer

Districts #10 and 11, central Texas, almost laughable in boundaries.

---

You say it goes too far. I say it doesn't go too far enough.

---

I'm not big on setting precedents, that later can bite you in the as*. Yep, the Dems did it back in the early `90's, but I don't recall just how ridiculous their boundary line drawing was,

lb3 said:

---

GSS said:

---

DistrictViewer

Districts #10 and 11, central Texas, almost laughable in boundaries.

---

Go test your hypothesis. What percentage of Texas voters cast their ballots for Republicans and what percentage of house seats did Republicans get. Then go do a blue state like Illinois. You'll find that Texas congressional districts have one of the lowest bias rates in the country.

---

I don't have a hypothesis...just savvy enough to know actual representation is diminished, when your location is disconnected from the main boundaries. And the only Dem I ever voted for, was on the County Commish level, back before the Dems went BSC. And that Commish is now a solid Republican.
No doubt states like Illinois and California have the Republican voters feeling "unaccounted for".

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

You come to TexAgs thinking that AGGIES will share your angst that Austin voters will be subordinated to rural voters?!?

OF COURSE we support minimizing sip representation! Those CA transplants are insane!

---

I came to TexAgs, knowing that the District boundaries (at least for 10 & 11), are not drawn for an elected Representative to actually represent the constituents, but to simply ensure more US rep on the GOP side.
And FYI, I cannot recall voting for a Dem, in 50+ yrs (other than my County Commish, 20 yrs ago...now he's an R).

double aught said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

double aught said:

---

BigN--00 said:

---

Gerrymandering is the cause of a lot of our problems. It drives politician too far to the right or left and makes them beholden to leadership on each side.

According to FairVote, regarding the upcoming 2026 election::

• 352 of 435 (81%) seats have already been decided, and are "safe" for one party. We project only 38 (9%) true tossups, with another 9% of seats "leaning" either Democrat or Republican.

American not as polarized as Washington. Texas is bluer than many of you care to admit; just as California is a lot redder than many assume.

---

And the response is always "but the other guy does it!!"

---

They do. So what is your point? I guess in your mind Rs should be better than Democrats and never win another election? That will show them!!

---

Both should do better! A pipe dream, I know. But this tit for tat nonsense has gotten so tiresome. It's the sort of stuff I have to deal with with my kids. But these are fully grown people we're talking about. Someone has to be a GD adult at some point.

---

It was started more than 200 yrs ago in Mass. by party of Jefferson, Democratic-Republicans, which became parent to the modern Dem Party when it fractured in 1820s

But please, continue to wax poetic about doing better instead of living in the world as it is.

GSS said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

You come to TexAgs thinking that AGGIES will share your angst that Austin voters will be subordinated to rural voters?!?

OF COURSE we support minimizing sip representation! Those CA transplants are insane!

---

I came to TexAgs, knowing that the District boundaries (at least for 10 & 11), are not drawn for an elected Representative to actually represent the constituents, but to simply ensure more US rep on the GOP side.
And FYI, I cannot recall voting for a Dem, in 50+ yrs (other than my County Commish, 20 yrs ago...now he's an R).

---

This practice started 200 years ago by Democrats, and they will never stop. The less Demorats represented the better

AgNav93 said:

---

double aught said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

double aught said:

---

BigN--00 said:

---

Gerrymandering is the cause of a lot of our problems. It drives politician too far to the right or left and makes them beholden to leadership on each side.

According to FairVote, regarding the upcoming 2026 election::

• 352 of 435 (81%) seats have already been decided, and are "safe" for one party. We project only 38 (9%) true tossups, with another 9% of seats "leaning" either Democrat or Republican.

American not as polarized as Washington. Texas is bluer than many of you care to admit; just as California is a lot redder than many assume.

---

And the response is always "but the other guy does it!!"

---

They do. So what is your point? I guess in your mind Rs should be better than Democrats and never win another election? That will show them!!

---

Both should do better! A pipe dream, I know. But this tit for tat nonsense has gotten so tiresome. It's the sort of stuff I have to deal with with my kids. But these are fully grown people we're talking about. Someone has to be a GD adult at some point.

---

We are well past the point of taking the high road. There is one party in this country that wants to make this a one-party country and transform it into something no of us will recognize. They are playing for keeps. You can't negotiate with them.

---

Yes, I'm we'll aware that both parties use this as their excuse.

BigN--00 said:

---

I also think we need to substantially increase the total number of congressional representatives to decrease the number of people each one represents. I would suggest tripling it.

When it was set at 435 in 1929 the population of the US was about 122 million, we are now at 342 million.

---

The problem with that is that even though the pop has tripled, the density is concentrated almost exclusively in urban centers.

So you would be essentially tripling the democrat votes in congress because of how the population density vs. voting tendencies is established.

This ain't going the way OP thought it would....

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

A proportional system assumes identical interests across a population - which itself is a critical flaw. A panhandle (R) and a Beaumont (R) have VERY different local concerns, and stripping geography from the equation disenfranchises local interests.

---

Perhaps we could compromise by dividing the state into 6 districts each with 6 or 7 seats in the House, elected by STV.

Or do like Germany where half of the representatives are elected in single-member districts, and half are selected from party lists to compensate for any disproportionality in the district seats. But that's complicated.

BigN--00 said:

---

American not as polarized as Washington. Texas is bluer than many of you care to admit; just as California is a lot redder than many assume.

---

Texas has 4 large counties that vote approximately 65% d. However, in 2 of them, the metro area still votes largely or by the majority for R. That does not mean Texas is "bluer" in any sense of the word.

When is the last time a Texas statewide office went d?

91AggieLawyer said:

---

BigN--00 said:

---

American not as polarized as Washington. Texas is bluer than many of you care to admit; just as California is a lot redder than many assume.

---

Texas has 4 large counties that vote approximately 65% d. However, in 2 of them, the metro area still votes largely or by the majority for R. That does not mean Texas is "bluer" in any sense of the word.

When is the last time a Texas statewide office went d?

---

13.68% (R) margin in the last presidential election.

By that standard, New York is closer to being red than Texas is to being blue.