Thanks for the fine-grain analysis. One factor not considered is the GOP's (and especially Texas GOP's) capacity and willingness to ratchet up their voter suppression tactics as needed to make sure even a blue wave with Hispanic overtones does no damage to their 5-seat plan. For reasons that should be obvious, intimidation of voters in the current environment will likely have outsized impact among Texas Hispanics -- among whom even many of those with citizenship are aware of their peril and laying low.
I'm most familiar with Hispanics in the west Texas/New Mexico regions near the Mexican border.
"Hispanic" is a problematic category for election analysis. There are many socially conservative Catholics, who are open to populist economic ideas; and also many Hispanics with center-left or progressive views. The popular Hispanic public figures manage to appeal to both groups.
If Republicans can make the 2026 political fight about coastal elite uber-woke progressives versus traditional American values and common sense, it undermines Democratic Hispanic candidates. If Democrats can make the fight about the economy, respect for institutions and social justice, I think the Hispanic vote could swing their way.
Single member legislative districts decided by a plurality winner selected from often closed primaries demonstrates a massive democratic failure in America. The Democratic party has been a leader in this failure, with the party leaders focused on authoritarian leadership and archaic political practices inherited from England and embedded in a failed Constitution. Like the Bible, the Constitution is past its time of relevance and guidance.
The US needs citizen leadership because the two party system is a key reason for gerrymandering, Trump's winning, and Biden's many failures. The US needs to move towards open primaries and ranked choice voting. Australia is a better example of where the US should be heading with legislative elections.
Dithering and diddling with a failed archaic Constitution is like the few people who are locked onto a Bible that says many different things to different people. Most Democratic leaders are locked in a past, focused on issues from the Sixties and Seventies. The national Democratic primary system is a total failure, demonstrating how out of touch Democratic leaders are.
The failure of NYC Democratic leaders to embrace an open primary system along with RCV confirms the power hungry, out of touch reality of NYC Democratic leaders.
The MAGA Republican party is hopeless. "Bipartisanship" is a senile demented virtue of blarney blasting politicians. Playing nice in a war is a losing strategy.
The US constitution is a lot like the Model T Ford: at the time of its invention, an innovative and groundbreaking advance that was unparalleled in its early success and popularity, and paved the way for a lot of what came after.
But I wouldn't want one as my daily driver in 2025.
I don't like failure. I don't like the simple fact that Biden's blunders gave the WH to Crazy Donald. I don't like stupid, or arrogant, or autocratic. Binary thinking is usually a weak path. The world has lots of gray, and blue skies often have a few lovely clouds. Binary thinkers are people with minds and hearts captured by rules and excess judgment. Democratic leaders have led America into the abyss of Crazy Donald and his MAGA Maggots. There are more than two paths through the woods!
What about the districts that have gotten less Red to make the new Red districts? If you apply the same shifts are there possibilities for pickups/competitive races in unchanged districts?
What I'm hoping to see (though I don't expect in the near term), is an analysis by someone (say Texas A&M's demography department) that redistricts the state along "fair" rules (compactness, tradition, etc.) and forecasts the results using precinct-by-precinct data (the data the gerrymandering map-makers use). Once someone gets this set up, they could throw a little "monte-carlo" at it and see what happens under perturbation.
I suspect that the Rs would still come out on top, but I'd feel a lot better about it (I live in Dallas county).
When I immigrated and eventually naturalized (from Canada) I was astounded at how inertial the US political system is. Gerrymandering, incumbancy, and "primarying" (used as a weapon) really prevent voters from picking their preferred candidate (instead politicians pick their preferred voters). Something like the 1993 Canadian federal election (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Canadian_federal_election) could never happen here.
When friends ask me "Does Canada have term limits?" I scrunch up my face (I find them undemocratic), I say "No, Canada has effective elections."
This is the good, solid analysis of the topic that Silver Bulletin readers expect; I'm giving it a B+ grade.
I withheld an 'A' because it's missing one thing we should all be talking about, but aren't, and have no hope of being led to talk about from other news sources.
And that thing is an answer to the fundamental question of this topic: What IS the optimal, fair, nonpartisan method for drawing congressional district boundary lines? All we hear about are bad and worse examples of gerrymandering; what would be an acceptable or ideal one?
I dare you to answer without using the word 'not' until you've finished at least the broad strokes of an answer.
Myself, I have a pretty thorough method defined in a spreadsheet program that I might even try to publicize as a way to nudge the nation to the only happy outcome, which is to settle by law on one uniform, less partisan method.
Perhaps before describing an ideal method it's easier to describe the ideal method's outcome in a hypothetical state.
Take one like mine: I live in a state with eight districts and party A dominating party B by twenty points, i.e. 60-40, statewide. The districts are currently, after making some simplifications:
- seven with party A dominating 62-38, and
- one with party B dominating 55-45.
What would be a 'perfectly fair' set of districts?
A) all eight districts dominated by party A 60-40;
B) four leaning A 70-30 and four 50-50;
C) four leaning A 80-20 and four leaning B 60-40; or
D) five, aka approximately 60% of the state, leaning A 66-34 and three 50-50?
Choice 'A' represents hyperpartisanship, but only in a state lopsided enough to make the average district easy for the majority party to consistently hold. For closer states it's hard to figure what would constitute hyperpartisanship.
Choice 'B' is kinda likeable, as it emphasizes 50-50 districts which will swing with 'the wind' each election. That sounds great from a distance, but not if you're in the minority of one of the other four districts.
Choice 'C' is quite a weird outlier, magically giving half its districts to the minority party by the majority party's statewide margin. Those lines should be hard to draw from both the standpoint of the drawers' political motives and the straight math of finding 80-20 regions in half the state.
Choice 'D' I figure would be popular among folks trying to be nonpartisan, "giving" districts to the dominant party in the quantity voters suggested they should have, and giving the minority party a fair shot at all the others.
Perhaps most popular would be 'E', aka NOT THESE!, and I actually agree, but that was not a choice!
Still, I'd like to see a method like mine that works something like a fantasy football draft, with more popular parties getting somewhat more drawing clout than the others, and placing priority on keeping counties unified by congressional district.
So what result would SB choose above, and what's the ideal, SB-approved redistricting process?
Very interesting; so despite the Republicans having 5 more GOP-favoring districts as of today, assuming they take the vote today, nevertheless the real point is the 2026 election. Possibly the GOP won't get all five of the seats.
Some interesting side-shows: Gavin Newsom has found a new way to keep his face in front of the American public, saying California will replace whatever Democrats lost in Texas. Good luck with that ---
And as Nate says, it's all about Hispanics. Since polls don't work, we'll have to guess and catch vibes out of the air about that. And read the actual election results.
Dems fleeing the state in Texas whenever the vote goes against them has been going on for DECADES in Texas; it's a kabuki dance. Other states are pretending to get in on it, but except for California and White House-hungry Newsom, I don't think they are really going to get involved. I'm more interested in the redistricting story the Wall Street Journal has been covering, that so many people (espec. people with money) have left the Democrat hell-hole states for nicer places to live in Flyover America, the Journal is estimating 10 seats lost to the Dems in 2030 purely from population shift. That could help out the Speaker of the House quite a lot.
Great analysis! We haven't seen anything like this in Texas media, so thank you and well done.
Thanks for the fine-grain analysis. One factor not considered is the GOP's (and especially Texas GOP's) capacity and willingness to ratchet up their voter suppression tactics as needed to make sure even a blue wave with Hispanic overtones does no damage to their 5-seat plan. For reasons that should be obvious, intimidation of voters in the current environment will likely have outsized impact among Texas Hispanics -- among whom even many of those with citizenship are aware of their peril and laying low.
It is also worth considering the recording/counting process, which we have subject to its own granular analysis, as can be seen at pp. 12–21 of this forensic inquiry into E2020: https://codered2014.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/TheRealSteal-IntroAnalysisCombinedUpdated-js8_WWW-2.pdf and at www.econdataus.com.
I'm most familiar with Hispanics in the west Texas/New Mexico regions near the Mexican border.
"Hispanic" is a problematic category for election analysis. There are many socially conservative Catholics, who are open to populist economic ideas; and also many Hispanics with center-left or progressive views. The popular Hispanic public figures manage to appeal to both groups.
If Republicans can make the 2026 political fight about coastal elite uber-woke progressives versus traditional American values and common sense, it undermines Democratic Hispanic candidates. If Democrats can make the fight about the economy, respect for institutions and social justice, I think the Hispanic vote could swing their way.
Single member legislative districts decided by a plurality winner selected from often closed primaries demonstrates a massive democratic failure in America. The Democratic party has been a leader in this failure, with the party leaders focused on authoritarian leadership and archaic political practices inherited from England and embedded in a failed Constitution. Like the Bible, the Constitution is past its time of relevance and guidance.
The US needs citizen leadership because the two party system is a key reason for gerrymandering, Trump's winning, and Biden's many failures. The US needs to move towards open primaries and ranked choice voting. Australia is a better example of where the US should be heading with legislative elections.
Dithering and diddling with a failed archaic Constitution is like the few people who are locked onto a Bible that says many different things to different people. Most Democratic leaders are locked in a past, focused on issues from the Sixties and Seventies. The national Democratic primary system is a total failure, demonstrating how out of touch Democratic leaders are.
The failure of NYC Democratic leaders to embrace an open primary system along with RCV confirms the power hungry, out of touch reality of NYC Democratic leaders.
The MAGA Republican party is hopeless. "Bipartisanship" is a senile demented virtue of blarney blasting politicians. Playing nice in a war is a losing strategy.
The US constitution is a lot like the Model T Ford: at the time of its invention, an innovative and groundbreaking advance that was unparalleled in its early success and popularity, and paved the way for a lot of what came after.
But I wouldn't want one as my daily driver in 2025.
You don't actually like anyone, do you? Neither side.
I don't like failure. I don't like the simple fact that Biden's blunders gave the WH to Crazy Donald. I don't like stupid, or arrogant, or autocratic. Binary thinking is usually a weak path. The world has lots of gray, and blue skies often have a few lovely clouds. Binary thinkers are people with minds and hearts captured by rules and excess judgment. Democratic leaders have led America into the abyss of Crazy Donald and his MAGA Maggots. There are more than two paths through the woods!
As long as your alternative isn't Karl Marx, that's the great thing ----
The point about them just doing redistricting again in two years of this isn’t successful is not talked about enough.
Really challenges whatever sense of fairness low-information voters might ascribe to this idiotic process.
One very important thing left out here.
The results are quite different with Trump on the ballot vs without him. The GOP won the popular House vote in Texas by more than 18 points in 2024.
But in 2018 they won by 3 1/2, and Cruz only won the Senate seat by 3.
2018 was a D+8 blue wave nationally.
So the question is, without Trump himself on the ballot, is there a drop off? That’s the billion dollar question.
What about the districts that have gotten less Red to make the new Red districts? If you apply the same shifts are there possibilities for pickups/competitive races in unchanged districts?
What I'm hoping to see (though I don't expect in the near term), is an analysis by someone (say Texas A&M's demography department) that redistricts the state along "fair" rules (compactness, tradition, etc.) and forecasts the results using precinct-by-precinct data (the data the gerrymandering map-makers use). Once someone gets this set up, they could throw a little "monte-carlo" at it and see what happens under perturbation.
I suspect that the Rs would still come out on top, but I'd feel a lot better about it (I live in Dallas county).
When I immigrated and eventually naturalized (from Canada) I was astounded at how inertial the US political system is. Gerrymandering, incumbancy, and "primarying" (used as a weapon) really prevent voters from picking their preferred candidate (instead politicians pick their preferred voters). Something like the 1993 Canadian federal election (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Canadian_federal_election) could never happen here.
When friends ask me "Does Canada have term limits?" I scrunch up my face (I find them undemocratic), I say "No, Canada has effective elections."
This is the good, solid analysis of the topic that Silver Bulletin readers expect; I'm giving it a B+ grade.
I withheld an 'A' because it's missing one thing we should all be talking about, but aren't, and have no hope of being led to talk about from other news sources.
And that thing is an answer to the fundamental question of this topic: What IS the optimal, fair, nonpartisan method for drawing congressional district boundary lines? All we hear about are bad and worse examples of gerrymandering; what would be an acceptable or ideal one?
I dare you to answer without using the word 'not' until you've finished at least the broad strokes of an answer.
Myself, I have a pretty thorough method defined in a spreadsheet program that I might even try to publicize as a way to nudge the nation to the only happy outcome, which is to settle by law on one uniform, less partisan method.
Perhaps before describing an ideal method it's easier to describe the ideal method's outcome in a hypothetical state.
Take one like mine: I live in a state with eight districts and party A dominating party B by twenty points, i.e. 60-40, statewide. The districts are currently, after making some simplifications:
- seven with party A dominating 62-38, and
- one with party B dominating 55-45.
What would be a 'perfectly fair' set of districts?
A) all eight districts dominated by party A 60-40;
B) four leaning A 70-30 and four 50-50;
C) four leaning A 80-20 and four leaning B 60-40; or
D) five, aka approximately 60% of the state, leaning A 66-34 and three 50-50?
Choice 'A' represents hyperpartisanship, but only in a state lopsided enough to make the average district easy for the majority party to consistently hold. For closer states it's hard to figure what would constitute hyperpartisanship.
Choice 'B' is kinda likeable, as it emphasizes 50-50 districts which will swing with 'the wind' each election. That sounds great from a distance, but not if you're in the minority of one of the other four districts.
Choice 'C' is quite a weird outlier, magically giving half its districts to the minority party by the majority party's statewide margin. Those lines should be hard to draw from both the standpoint of the drawers' political motives and the straight math of finding 80-20 regions in half the state.
Choice 'D' I figure would be popular among folks trying to be nonpartisan, "giving" districts to the dominant party in the quantity voters suggested they should have, and giving the minority party a fair shot at all the others.
Perhaps most popular would be 'E', aka NOT THESE!, and I actually agree, but that was not a choice!
Still, I'd like to see a method like mine that works something like a fantasy football draft, with more popular parties getting somewhat more drawing clout than the others, and placing priority on keeping counties unified by congressional district.
So what result would SB choose above, and what's the ideal, SB-approved redistricting process?
Very interesting; so despite the Republicans having 5 more GOP-favoring districts as of today, assuming they take the vote today, nevertheless the real point is the 2026 election. Possibly the GOP won't get all five of the seats.
Some interesting side-shows: Gavin Newsom has found a new way to keep his face in front of the American public, saying California will replace whatever Democrats lost in Texas. Good luck with that ---
And as Nate says, it's all about Hispanics. Since polls don't work, we'll have to guess and catch vibes out of the air about that. And read the actual election results.
Dems fleeing the state in Texas whenever the vote goes against them has been going on for DECADES in Texas; it's a kabuki dance. Other states are pretending to get in on it, but except for California and White House-hungry Newsom, I don't think they are really going to get involved. I'm more interested in the redistricting story the Wall Street Journal has been covering, that so many people (espec. people with money) have left the Democrat hell-hole states for nicer places to live in Flyover America, the Journal is estimating 10 seats lost to the Dems in 2030 purely from population shift. That could help out the Speaker of the House quite a lot.