Oof; yeah. So, Texas has a primary and then election system: candidates are selected for the ballot in the primary, and then voted on in the general election. The probability that a candidate will win the general election having won the primary is north of 95%. That means the "real" election is the primary. The turn out for the primary is the highest turnout in my district (Williams; US HD 25), which is ~25% in a contentious year, but usually 10–15%. The race is usually split 3-ways, with Williams just barely getting 50%. That means, the most competitive district in Texas chooses their rep with ~12% (high! or ~5-7%, norm) of the voting age population.
Most US representatives from Texas are elected with far fewer; many Democratic gerrymanders mean that as little as 1% of the population is choosing the representative.
As always, I advocate for some form of random election (sortition) — it'd be way more representative — and it'd be harder for people to mess with the election: we'd literally have more representative representatives and more robust elections. (I'd also require risk limiting audits, paper trails, and non-identifying ballot checking.)
Maybe you can enlighten me how the shape plays a role here? In the end isn't this about how close the absolute vote matches the political outcome? One could easily come up with rectangular districts that skew the result, right?
I am from somewhere where all important democratic elections are won by absolute numbers, so we don't even have the whole problem.
Most US representatives from Texas are elected with far fewer; many Democratic gerrymanders mean that as little as 1% of the population is choosing the representative.
As always, I advocate for some form of random election (sortition) — it'd be way more representative — and it'd be harder for people to mess with the election: we'd literally have more representative representatives and more robust elections. (I'd also require risk limiting audits, paper trails, and non-identifying ballot checking.)