They specifically delayed the redistricting hearings so they wouldn't have to have a hearing on the shitty maps they drew and insisted on putting them into position prior to the primary happening tomorrow. Pure malice.
The only thing you can do is get more democrats to vote in Texas and not stay home. It is trending blue but conservatives still have a high single digit advantage.
@@deplorablefederalist7908 interesting question. Are you sure everyone has equal and easy access to vote? Are precincts equitably available to all voters? Are required IDs and registration processes equally and easily available to all voters?
@@ajs11201…..voter ID is done very easily online, or by the mail; but voter ID is apparently racist. If someone can’t physically get to the poll location, then they can easily cast a vote by mail with no signature verification….it doesn’t get much easier than that, does it? Hell, if their ballot is late, the post office will still accept it and it gets counted.
@@hoppingrabbit9849 Thank you for sharing your opinion. By the way, yes, it is that hard when DMV offices are closed for miles around you. It's also hard to vote when your voting precincts are closed. Funny how all those closed DMV offices and voting precincts are clustered in neighborhoods that favor Democrats.
To everyone crying about IL and NY: Illinois' efficiency gap is 13.2 and NY's is only 8.6. They're gerrymanders no doubt, but they also both vote for Democrats by way bigger margins than Texas votes for Republicans.
Although in IL and NY, you would expect compactly drawn districts to benefit republicans since Democrats are highly concentrated in the Northeast of IL and the south of NY. All the rest would naturally be red. While in Texas, Democrat districts are spread between 5 major cities and naturally forming districts would take some of those cities into suburban and rural districts meaning gerrymandering is way more natural in Texas. The districts in Texas aren’t that much more egregious; they just have a better opportunity. All 3 do everything to make the most skewed map possible in their state.
@@optimalcharb one problem with gerrymandering is that no one can decide what is a "fair" way to do it. Texas is more compact, it's true. But it's less proportional and less competitive than NY (haven't compared it directly to IL). There is no perfect map.
I've been playing around with the 538 Redistricing tool in Rshiny, and based on the current map proposals, it's looking like we can expect a distribution around 144 solidly dem/51 competitive dem/39 toss up/32 competitive republican/169 solidly republican. Comparing it to the previous map, Dems are losing 4 solidly blue districts to gain 18(!) competitive districts, while Republicans are bolstering 13 of their districts to be solidly red, but in the process losing 20 of their competitive districts. It speaks to the offensive and defensive strategies the two are taking, and leaves Dems with 195 seats to the GOPs 203, a significant tightening of the gap from the current 181 Blue to 208 Red. The 8 seat GOP advantage seems very low to me. Of the 39 remaining tossup seats in this scenario, GOP will need to win about 14 of them for a majority (assuming all others go according to expectations, which seems unlikely) while the Dems would need to win 22 under the same assumptions. That may seem like quite the advantage for the GOP, but compare that scenario with the current situation according to the same tool, where GOP only needs 11 swing seats to the Dems 37, and it looks like it'll be a lot easier for the Dems to control the House of Representative than it has been over the past 10 years. Nobody, including myself, checked any of this math so take this with a grain of salt, but it feels like there's a pendulum shift swinging back to about even between the two parties. I'd be curious to see a video discussing the potential ramifications of these approximations.
This isn't good tho. Most of the democrat gains from redistricting come from gerrymandering as well. Democrats are following the Republican lead on the subject. This redistricting cycle creates even fewer swing districts which produce more moderate candidates. We can expect the American politics polarisation to increase even further sadly...
And now I understand why the Texas primaries were so early! I think there was also gerrymandering to benefit Trump Republicans against surviving traditional Republicans as well…
This should be impossible in any democracy. Each vote should count and each vote should count equally. I see the main problem in the USA and UK as the first-past-the-post election systems. My country moved from first-past-the-post to proportional representation in 1917. The US system is a century out of date. In a national election, the election should be national, be it for representatives, presdent or any other nationally elected office. It should not be by state or by district.
The inherent problem is this biases population centers with urban culture over rural areas with a different culture. You trade one problem for another.
@@PaxAmericana76 are you seriously trying to justify a rural minority having disproportionate power? That's just feudalism with extra steps... But, if you are really that worries about lack of representation for small rural minorities, there's a solution for you in a mixed member proportional system.
Having statewide offices is fine. The issue is district lines. If we had statewide elections where the seats are allocated to match a % of vote share in a state, then you can stop gerrymandering while maintaining federalism
If you're referring to the electoral college, then it's actually genius. We know that direct democracy doesn't work, which is why we have a representative democracy in the first place. The electoral college is there to balance the votes and give regions with less people (but a different culture) more voice. If there was a direct democracy, California would have a 68.5 times the number of votes in Wyoming. Why should one state be so overpowered, especially when people in the same state will tend to have similar views?? US is bigger than just California and handful other states. Thanks to the electoral college, California only has 18 times the advantage over Wyoming instead of 68.5! That's a huge difference, and it matters. We all know the only reason you want the electoral college abolished is because it would give you and Democrats advantage. The way it is now, is more balanced
@@lucidnonsense942 what do you mean? Without the electoral college, California and similar big states would carry the elections and no one else would have a voice! The US is a vast country and every state is like its own dominion. Why should all the peoples in cities, congregated in a handful of most populous states, control all the elections?! That's exactly why founding fathers established the electoral college, and it worked for us. That's what keeps our government more balanced than Canada, for example, and thus there are more negotiations and middle grounds, which benefits the country as a whole. The electoral college can be compared to bicameral congress. Both are there to provide balance, and it's actually a genius solution. You would abolish the electoral college any day, just because it would give the Democrats an advantage. You don't care about checks and balances, nor about the fact that direct democracy without a buffer is doomed to fail...
If you're that kind of Republican, you should be alarmed at the radical personality cult your party has turned into. I'm a Holocaust historian, and I've seen this movie before. The conservatives assured Hindenburg that they could control Hitler, and we know how that worked out. Not saying Trump is Hitler, but all civilian dictators from Lenin to Mussolini to Erdogan to Putin use the same playbook.
@@gspaulsson The Democrat party has cultish sections too. I’m not a republican and I don’t register for any party. I just know California is a mess and I like what I see out of texas.
Hugely telling that they had to gerrymander that hard just to hold the line. The blue/neutral half in Texas got way bluer in order to protect those Republican seats. I doubt they can keep it up through another census.
Indeed! If the current trends hold, at some point Texas is going to "suddenly" not be a red state anymore, and if the Democrats were to get a majority in the state government, and then gerrymander the state the other way, it could lock in a Democratic majority in the House for a decade. The trend-lines don't look good for the Republicans, even though the current state of things is very much in their favor.
@@jeremyjackson7429 I quite agree, and I think that the state-level gerrymandering is what adds another layer of insulation for the GOP from political reality in many states that are in the swingy-range (+/- 5 pts., say). In my mind, the best two changes would be laws that required districts to be drawn so that the voting results were reflected very closely in the partisan lean of the districts, or (even better) a change that eliminated single-representative districts in favor of proportional systems. That way, the results would actually mirror what happened in the voting.
@@lucasjames7524 that's not how house districts are supposed to work. It's It's common misconception that us house districts are supposed to be drawn in a way that reflects the state results. You are supposed to draw districts based on localities and based on geography. In other words, crack a liberal city into 4 districts and lumping them in with suburban or exurban places around the city for more blue districts, even to get a 'fair representstion', isn't actually correct and is therefore a gerrymander to get a result. A city should be lumped with itself if large enough because well...it's a city. City voters are alike so they should get their own district. Also, this Texas map is not the worst map there is, that's actually a hilarious statement considering the Illinois, New York, North Carolina, and California maps. North Carolina is a complete shambles. They cracked a liberal city into 2 liberal districts, blatant violation. Better than 11-3 GOP gerrymander, but certainly still a gerrymander even after the liberals in the state AGREED to the 9-4-1 map or whatever it was. They just know they probably going to lose the state Supreme Court seat so they decided to take it all the way.
Yeah, and those "guaranteed seats" means you get farther right evangelicals that don't feel beholden to their voters - and they prop up the whole state government. So you get all the crazy stuff from Abbott on a regular basis because he knows he can't be defeated -- and the legislature is hand-picked so that they support it.
@@redwolfexr I think you made an error. Abbot isn't affected by state maps. He is the governor so the election is state wide, not by house seats. Also, he hasn't done that much crazy stuff so I don't see the rationale here. What the house maps do tho is potentially send safe R and safe D folks to the US Congress and that becomes a mess. When we have more moderates in congress, they're forced to actually be moderate because that's their district.
@@kevinbarnes218 Buddhist countries have been historically weak which is why Hindus, atheists, and Muslims have driven Buddhism to near extinction compared to previous centuries
It's still not as bad as California. About 48% of Texans vote Democrat. The best case scenario for Dems in Texas is about 40% Washington representation. While that's bad, In California, which claims to have an independent commission mind you, 35% of California votes Republican. For Republicans, their best case scenario in California is to have 17% Washington representation. In Massachusetts, they don't even have 1 seat. Mississippi doesn't even do that.
Yup, its massive. Gerrymandering isnt the issue, else an independant commision wouldnt be able to screw it up so bad. Somehow making it more fair makes it worse.
Your own website claims that while Illinois lost one seat, the Democrats are likely to pick up two. And while New York lost one seat, the Democrats gained 3. It also seems that many of the highly competitive districts have open seats. The real story of redistricting is that both parties seek to protect incumbents.
Nathaniel, I hope you love your job, for you are great at it. Your work on the fivethirtyeight polling and redistricting trackers is unparalleled. Thank you so much!
If a congressional map is forced to be redrawn, the most recent election using the illegal map should be forced to into a special election for those seats immediately. Which wouldn't fix the gerrymandered map use in the first place but would at least have some rectification.
If gerrymandering actually affects voting outcomes, then the solution is to change the voting system. Please see the video series "politics in the animal kingdom" by CCP Grey for further information on alternatives. I am personally a fan of ranked choice voting.
Given that people of different races don't vote the same, isn't every partisan gerrymander effectively a racial gerrymander as well (assuming you're in a diverse state). That seems like a correlation they try to point out purely as a way of trying to deem it illegal, and not because it's any worse of different than any other gerrymander. You can probably say most gerrymandering is age-discriminatory as well, if you were looking for bad faith arguments.
Loving Nathaniel on a set with the tv cameras! Please make the refresh rate on the cameras and lights / screens line up so there isn’t the flickering tho. 😘 So excited to be in a post-pandemic world
@@dannyhightower911 he talked about a lot of gerrymandered states like Illinois, Maryland, and New York which u would’ve seen if u payed attention instead of commenting
@@abufarsakh9919 I actually saw those videos, thanks for making incorrect assumptions LOL. But the way he talks about them are way different, he doesn't get outraged about how they're so bad gerrymanders, he just reports them matter of factly or neutrally like they're no big deal, who cares.
Yes buy in states like Tennessee, Mass, and Illinois, it doesn’t matter nearly as much as Ohio and Texas while the three take out 1 or 2 seats from the opposing party each, Texas and Ohio take alot of seats through gerrymandering
@@raulmedinahernandez1503 "doesn't mean nearly as much" is not an excuse because it's still gerrymeandered. And if it doesn't matter that much in Illinois, then why would the Illinois map look like it does in the first place? I don't see your argument... is the Democratic party in Illinois just playing with the map? Idk those carefully carved out districts that are sometimes joined by a thin area with no residents look fully intentional to me..
Well it's complicated. In Massachusetts there isn't really a reasonable map that would result in Republicans standing a chance in any seat due to the partisan makeup being fairly evenly distributed across the state.
@@karolakkolo123 what I’m saying it’s that it’s more important to focus on the more racially gerrymandered states like Texas or Alabama, Texas is far more gerrymandered than Massachusetts. I do agree gerrymandering should go but it’s more important to focus on Texas.
Gerrymandering happens with every seat redrawing process, which occurs after every census, which is indeed every 10 years. As demographics shift, the gerrymander is less optimal over time until the next redrawing. So, yes!
People say that it doesn't matter that much in these states because they have a solid Democratic margin in the first place. But I call BS. If they were confident that they'll hold the state no matter what, why would their maps look like they do in the first place? Those horribly stretched and almost disjointed districts in Illinois look fully intentional to me...
Gerrymandering isnt the issue in the United States. The district system itself is the issue. The gerrymandering in the USA generally outbalances the other states who have "fair" districting. When looking at the Proportional Representation of the seats in Congress and in states it shows that states which have independant redistricting boards often don't get it much better than Gerrymandered states. Which is very odd. Texas for example for the last few election cycles is off by between 1-5 seats vs a state like california with around the same amount. Hell, for 2018 Midterms, California's Republicans based on proportional representation could have gotten 17 Seats, yet in reality they only got 7 Seats. Texas on the other hand in 2018 gave Democrats 13 seats instead of the proportion which was more like 17 Seats. Only off by 4 Seats. WIth a narrow focus on the issues in the USA with regards to representation, you wont ever solve the problem and it will just devolve into partisanship. Gerrymandering isn't the problem, the underlying system by which Gerrymandering becomes a solution for some is.
*sighs* ok, here we go. Back before America even was a country, there was the Spanish Empire. The Spanish Empire controlled colonies throughout North and South America. Thats why there are so many Spanish speaking countries in what is now known as Latin America. The Spanish Empire also controlled modern day California, modern day Texas, and a bit more stuff in the American Midwest. The Spanish empire started falling, however, and in 1822, Mexico gained independence. Mexico had more land that it did today, controlling California, Texas, and much more. Texas wanted to break off though, and was unofficially a country for 10 years (sorta the same thing with California, but different). Texas spoke Spanish since they were under Spanish control, but then joined the USA. This led to the Mexican-American war, where America one. Texas then started being flooded with Americans and Southerners. The original Texans still exist there, however, and you can still see them there. I hope that cleared things up
I would like to stop learning about gerrymandering and instead start learning about what would it mean for a district to be "fair" and just. And what would it take to get there
Well this didn't really explain anything about what gerrymandering is. You kind of assume we already know. My question is how are these maps legal at all? Why can't we just count every vote. How is it legal not to just count every vote. If 10% of the votes are for democrats or 60% then that % of seats goes to them. Period end of story.
Fortunately, the Texas congressional map getting overturned after 2022 would be fine in my opinion because the map would still help Democrats during a red wave year. It just needs to be fixed before the 2024 election takes place and it won't get worse.
With respect, not even flipping close. Texas has a map which could be 25R - 13 D. New York has a flipping 23 -4 map. Even compared to NY's 60 percent of the vote for Biden, their map gives them 85% of seats in a neutral year. Texas, which voted for Trump by +6, has a delegation under their current lines likely giving them 65% of seats. So, statistically, using percentage of seats won and 2020 vote totals, NY is still worse. Sorry 538, no, nothing tops NY's gerrymander. You can't ignore that. Sorry.
You people have done everything, from instituting poll taxes to gerrymandering districts along racial lines to gutting the Voting Rights Act, in an effort to get your way, no matter what. And when it didn’t work, the craziest among you attacked the goddamned Capitol trying to overturn a presidential election, while the rest of you endorsed/covered up/ignored it, and you excommunicated the only genuinely patriotic members of Congress in your party who wanted to investigate. _SO YOU’D BETTER BELIEVE I’M FUCKING IGNORING NEW YORK’S GERRYMANDER!!_
NY is absolutely NOT 23-4. For one it's only got 26 seats, that would be 27. 20 sears lean dem (and only 13 are solidly dem!) while 2 are a tossup. 4 solid reds. Texas has 24 reds, but 23 of them are solid reds- so they're much more likely to get them in a bad election year. Also FYI Texas has a larger population (1.5x), which means that they get 39 seats as opposed to NY's 26, so by the metric he's using (seats gained) even with equal maps Texas would be higher.
@@natnew32 Oh 22 - 4 is so much better. My bad. And use your common sense. 538 considers a seat which is anywhere from d + 5 to d + 15 as competitive. Know how many seats of d or r + 9 (using 2020 + 4d president as proxy) have flipped the last few years? Not many. Arguing a d +6 or 7 seat of which there are a few in NY State are competitive is splitting hairs. Ya know how I know. Because in a red state such as Ohio where the Republican legislature tried to justify a map doing so the state supreme court said they were. So no, that is not a valid argument. Texas's maps are an egregious gerrymander but NY is worse for 1) percentage difference in 2020 vote vs. house seat allocation, 2) the fact TX has no Indy redistricting commission and NY does and 3) Texas Republicans are not even arguing their map is not a gerrymander. New York Democrats are. Lol
@@gabrieliacoboni6951 Why? I thought y’all liked it when swarthy libruls like me ⚰️🪦. (Ngl I’ve been having a bad day. For the last two-and-a-half years.)
@@blacklisted351 Oh really? In which election?! 2000? 2004? 2008? 2012? 2016? 2020? Nope! Bush won twice, McCain won once, so did Romney and Trump got it twice so wrong it has not been won by a democrat this century…
@@Zachariah_ Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you meant in the past 100 years... Although the 2018 senate election was fairly close and even the 2020 presidential election was closer than Ohio and iowa
I personally thought New York had the worst gerrymander in the country. Republicans go from having nine seats to only four potentially. Not to mention Illinois was pretty rough too
Texas doesn't look as bad as it actually was. It was already hard gerrymandered in 2010 so 2020 isn't much different. By comparison NY wasn't gerrymandered in 2010 (at least not by democrats) so it being gerrymandered now is pretty significant.
Couple question that need to be answered: - What’s your source for the 4,000,000 population increase - What’s your source for the 95% being People of Color - How is People of Color defined and how are Latinos defined?
Because you should never say never. After all, he came quite close in 2018. That being said the environment is not going to be anywhere near as favorable this year, but even then his candidacy still helps Texas Democrats build their infrastructure and ground game for future elections.
I know there’s no such thing as a perfect map but these maps are so extreme. New York and Illinois’ maps are gerrymandered too but those states are solid democratic states that vote 60-70% democratic. Texas is no longer a solid republican state but this map makes it look like it is. Same story in Florida and North Carolina. Swing states that try to portray themselves as solid gop states
MD and MA have a higher efficiency gap than Texas and Illinois is 13.2 which is fairly close to Texas and more impressive given that Republicans are a solid majority outside greater Chicago and the area around East St. Louis. The North Carolina map drawn by the state's Democrat majority Court has a Democrat efficiency gap even though Republicans control the legislature, I do not see that standing. My favorite is California, which had an efficiency gap over 6 even though it was drawn by a supposedly non-partisan process. New York's is over 8. It would be higher, but the legislature also had to protect people from attacks from the left which probably preserved a seat for the Republicans.
@@danz1182 no the efficiency gap for California in the old map was D+6.1 and in the new map it is D+5.3 which is a big improvement, also California lost a seat and it was a democratic seat loss not a republican seat loss.
Ummmm, Republicans in CA should have 17 seats 30%, this cycle would drop them down to 8 seats. That’s a 9 seat gerrymander, just as worse as Ohio NC and Florida combined if they get the maps they made. We haven’t even talked about Illinois and New York!
Try drawing a California map with 17 Republican seats. It's not actually possible. You could probably draw 17 competitive and 0 Republican seats, but the nature of single-member districts amplify any underlying partisan advantage.
@@jefflistman4178 I'm not going to say CA is perfectly fair or anything, but they gerrymander much much less than most states. The legislature doesn't make the maps.
@@jeremyjackson7429 Congratulations, you just gave an example that completely undermines your own point. The POTUS electoral college is intentionally designed to over count lower population states. Oh, and the winner take all thing is also quite dumb.
Srsly look up the least gerrymandered states its us, idaho, washington, arizona, colorado, and also michigan. We can't really gerrymander as our commission has room for dems, GOP, third party, and independents. @@henrivanchayala1039
@@fivethirtyeight So it is! I detected a markedly different tone in that video, but at least it has been noticed! It should be obvious that the motivations in all these states are the same, and should surprise nobody.
I'm glad that Texas District 29 is on the verge of flipping for the first time in many years(Pasadena Texas the largest sub city of Houston). We are tired of the Democrat party. #AnyoneButRobertOrourke
@@iSuom Sorry, I can't find "New York may have the worst Gerrymander in the Country". Can you please link it? I'm not looking for educational videos, I'm looking for political statement videos like the one I commented on.
@@theuglykwan There is a ban on it in NYS Constitution, but dems still did it. In CA, maps are to drawn by an independent commission but dems still gerrymandered it. Laws have no effect on dems
@@jaytilala7388 yeah independent means in the us very litle ..... like how the supreme court &the Fed is supposed to be independent ....... but is in best case stacked 4-5
@@paulallen579 New York’s is around 9%. The worst part is that Democrats are supposed to be against extreme gerrymanders but are doing it themselves. It’s hypocritical. Also, the New York voters voted for an independent commission and got stuck with this result.
@@thomasgiovanniello1303 I can understand why though since if they didn’t do extreme gerrymandering, like during the last decade when the GOP took the House through gerrymandering, there would possibly be minority rule in the House again. Best would be to completely ban partisan gerrymandering but unfortunately the GOP doesn’t want that so the HR1 didn’t pass.
If the gerrymander was strong and effective in fulfilling the goals of solidifying a Republican advantage, that makes it the best gerrymander and not the worst. The worst gerrymander would be one that doesn’t stack up the odds at all
Texas was a smart gerrymander. Instead of trying to get more seats like the dems in Nevada, they solidified their incumbents. Instead of trying to expand their majority, they made their current one safe. Given the current trends in Texas, that’s the smartest route.
Look at IL 13th district or NY 10th district and you will know. ( note: Texas is also a gerrymandered state(look at TX 35th district), just not as worse as IL/NY does. )
They specifically delayed the redistricting hearings so they wouldn't have to have a hearing on the shitty maps they drew and insisted on putting them into position prior to the primary happening tomorrow. Pure malice.
They prefer the term "cunning." Its business as usual here.
My Dallas district was already D+28 - so it didn't change much.
And it wouldn’t have mattered anyways because way less people are voting democrat 🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕
Malice? Politics, that's what that is.
@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts political malice..
@@deplorablefederalist7908 why are there more emojis than actual text
I testified against gerrymandering here in Texas in both the Texas House and Senate. Neither bodies listened to a damn word.
GOOD
They literally will have a law passing this year that refuses to give democrats seats in Committees. It’s crazy how rigged the state is.
The only thing you can do is get more democrats to vote in Texas and not stay home. It is trending blue but conservatives still have a high single digit advantage.
How is senate gerrymandered lol
That’s happening in blue state too, so why would they?
The "bless their hearts" at 1:39 is pure genius, and is a perfect nod to the richness of language in the South. Well done.
Golldogit, I was gonna say that.
I don't see how using that phrase in the exact sarcastic context it's always used in is genius lol
I don't think a day goes by that I don't lament the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.
Why do we need a ‘voting rights act’ if everyone can already vote? 🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴
@@deplorablefederalist7908 interesting question. Are you sure everyone has equal and easy access to vote? Are precincts equitably available to all voters? Are required IDs and registration processes equally and easily available to all voters?
@@ajs11201…..voter ID is done very easily online, or by the mail; but voter ID is apparently racist. If someone can’t physically get to the poll location, then they can easily cast a vote by mail with no signature verification….it doesn’t get much easier than that, does it? Hell, if their ballot is late, the post office will still accept it and it gets counted.
@@hoppingrabbit9849 Thank you for sharing your opinion. By the way, yes, it is that hard when DMV offices are closed for miles around you. It's also hard to vote when your voting precincts are closed. Funny how all those closed DMV offices and voting precincts are clustered in neighborhoods that favor Democrats.
@@ajs11201 yes
To everyone crying about IL and NY: Illinois' efficiency gap is 13.2 and NY's is only 8.6. They're gerrymanders no doubt, but they also both vote for Democrats by way bigger margins than Texas votes for Republicans.
The amount of districts they give to their own party is not representative of the population though, and thats the same problem in Texas.
Although in IL and NY, you would expect compactly drawn districts to benefit republicans since Democrats are highly concentrated in the Northeast of IL and the south of NY. All the rest would naturally be red. While in Texas, Democrat districts are spread between 5 major cities and naturally forming districts would take some of those cities into suburban and rural districts meaning gerrymandering is way more natural in Texas. The districts in Texas aren’t that much more egregious; they just have a better opportunity. All 3 do everything to make the most skewed map possible in their state.
@@joespice785 for sure I'm just saying NY is by no measure worse than TX.
@@optimalcharb one problem with gerrymandering is that no one can decide what is a "fair" way to do it. Texas is more compact, it's true. But it's less proportional and less competitive than NY (haven't compared it directly to IL). There is no perfect map.
TECAS AINT GOING NOWHERE
I've been playing around with the 538 Redistricing tool in Rshiny, and based on the current map proposals, it's looking like we can expect a distribution around 144 solidly dem/51 competitive dem/39 toss up/32 competitive republican/169 solidly republican. Comparing it to the previous map, Dems are losing 4 solidly blue districts to gain 18(!) competitive districts, while Republicans are bolstering 13 of their districts to be solidly red, but in the process losing 20 of their competitive districts. It speaks to the offensive and defensive strategies the two are taking, and leaves Dems with 195 seats to the GOPs 203, a significant tightening of the gap from the current 181 Blue to 208 Red. The 8 seat GOP advantage seems very low to me.
Of the 39 remaining tossup seats in this scenario, GOP will need to win about 14 of them for a majority (assuming all others go according to expectations, which seems unlikely) while the Dems would need to win 22 under the same assumptions. That may seem like quite the advantage for the GOP, but compare that scenario with the current situation according to the same tool, where GOP only needs 11 swing seats to the Dems 37, and it looks like it'll be a lot easier for the Dems to control the House of Representative than it has been over the past 10 years.
Nobody, including myself, checked any of this math so take this with a grain of salt, but it feels like there's a pendulum shift swinging back to about even between the two parties. I'd be curious to see a video discussing the potential ramifications of these approximations.
This isn't good tho. Most of the democrat gains from redistricting come from gerrymandering as well. Democrats are following the Republican lead on the subject. This redistricting cycle creates even fewer swing districts which produce more moderate candidates. We can expect the American politics polarisation to increase even further sadly...
And now I understand why the Texas primaries were so early!
I think there was also gerrymandering to benefit Trump Republicans against surviving traditional Republicans as well…
This should be impossible in any democracy. Each vote should count and each vote should count equally.
I see the main problem in the USA and UK as the first-past-the-post election systems.
My country moved from first-past-the-post to proportional representation in 1917. The US system is a century out of date.
In a national election, the election should be national, be it for representatives, presdent or any other nationally elected office. It should not be by state or by district.
The inherent problem is this biases population centers with urban culture over rural areas with a different culture.
You trade one problem for another.
@@PaxAmericana76 are you seriously trying to justify a rural minority having disproportionate power? That's just feudalism with extra steps...
But, if you are really that worries about lack of representation for small rural minorities, there's a solution for you in a mixed member proportional system.
Having statewide offices is fine. The issue is district lines. If we had statewide elections where the seats are allocated to match a % of vote share in a state, then you can stop gerrymandering while maintaining federalism
If you're referring to the electoral college, then it's actually genius. We know that direct democracy doesn't work, which is why we have a representative democracy in the first place. The electoral college is there to balance the votes and give regions with less people (but a different culture) more voice. If there was a direct democracy, California would have a 68.5 times the number of votes in Wyoming. Why should one state be so overpowered, especially when people in the same state will tend to have similar views?? US is bigger than just California and handful other states. Thanks to the electoral college, California only has 18 times the advantage over Wyoming instead of 68.5! That's a huge difference, and it matters. We all know the only reason you want the electoral college abolished is because it would give you and Democrats advantage. The way it is now, is more balanced
@@lucidnonsense942 what do you mean? Without the electoral college, California and similar big states would carry the elections and no one else would have a voice! The US is a vast country and every state is like its own dominion. Why should all the peoples in cities, congregated in a handful of most populous states, control all the elections?! That's exactly why founding fathers established the electoral college, and it worked for us. That's what keeps our government more balanced than Canada, for example, and thus there are more negotiations and middle grounds, which benefits the country as a whole. The electoral college can be compared to bicameral congress. Both are there to provide balance, and it's actually a genius solution. You would abolish the electoral college any day, just because it would give the Democrats an advantage. You don't care about checks and balances, nor about the fact that direct democracy without a buffer is doomed to fail...
I don’t want to see Texas go blue, but you play by the rules. This isn’t right.
If you're that kind of Republican, you should be alarmed at the radical personality cult your party has turned into. I'm a Holocaust historian, and I've seen this movie before. The conservatives assured Hindenburg that they could control Hitler, and we know how that worked out. Not saying Trump is Hitler, but all civilian dictators from Lenin to Mussolini to Erdogan to Putin use the same playbook.
@@gspaulsson The Democrat party has cultish sections too. I’m not a republican and I don’t register for any party. I just know California is a mess and I like what I see out of texas.
Hugely telling that they had to gerrymander that hard just to hold the line. The blue/neutral half in Texas got way bluer in order to protect those Republican seats. I doubt they can keep it up through another census.
Indeed! If the current trends hold, at some point Texas is going to "suddenly" not be a red state anymore, and if the Democrats were to get a majority in the state government, and then gerrymander the state the other way, it could lock in a Democratic majority in the House for a decade. The trend-lines don't look good for the Republicans, even though the current state of things is very much in their favor.
@@jeremyjackson7429 I quite agree, and I think that the state-level gerrymandering is what adds another layer of insulation for the GOP from political reality in many states that are in the swingy-range (+/- 5 pts., say). In my mind, the best two changes would be laws that required districts to be drawn so that the voting results were reflected very closely in the partisan lean of the districts, or (even better) a change that eliminated single-representative districts in favor of proportional systems. That way, the results would actually mirror what happened in the voting.
@@lucasjames7524 that's not how house districts are supposed to work. It's It's common misconception that us house districts are supposed to be drawn in a way that reflects the state results. You are supposed to draw districts based on localities and based on geography. In other words, crack a liberal city into 4 districts and lumping them in with suburban or exurban places around the city for more blue districts, even to get a 'fair representstion', isn't actually correct and is therefore a gerrymander to get a result. A city should be lumped with itself if large enough because well...it's a city. City voters are alike so they should get their own district.
Also, this Texas map is not the worst map there is, that's actually a hilarious statement considering the Illinois, New York, North Carolina, and California maps.
North Carolina is a complete shambles. They cracked a liberal city into 2 liberal districts, blatant violation. Better than 11-3 GOP gerrymander, but certainly still a gerrymander even after the liberals in the state AGREED to the 9-4-1 map or whatever it was. They just know they probably going to lose the state Supreme Court seat so they decided to take it all the way.
Yeah, and those "guaranteed seats" means you get farther right evangelicals that don't feel beholden to their voters - and they prop up the whole state government. So you get all the crazy stuff from Abbott on a regular basis because he knows he can't be defeated -- and the legislature is hand-picked so that they support it.
@@redwolfexr I think you made an error. Abbot isn't affected by state maps. He is the governor so the election is state wide, not by house seats. Also, he hasn't done that much crazy stuff so I don't see the rationale here. What the house maps do tho is potentially send safe R and safe D folks to the US Congress and that becomes a mess. When we have more moderates in congress, they're forced to actually be moderate because that's their district.
Everything is shittier in Texas.
I'm so tired of the increased partisanship from both sides. In Buddhism, the Buddha will teach us to go the middle way.
@@kevinbarnes218 Buddhist countries have been historically weak which is why Hindus, atheists, and Muslims have driven Buddhism to near extinction compared to previous centuries
I love Texas and red
Especially the Democrats.
It's still not as bad as California. About 48% of Texans vote Democrat. The best case scenario for Dems in Texas is about 40% Washington representation. While that's bad, In California, which claims to have an independent commission mind you, 35% of California votes Republican. For Republicans, their best case scenario in California is to have 17% Washington representation. In Massachusetts, they don't even have 1 seat. Mississippi doesn't even do that.
Yup, its massive. Gerrymandering isnt the issue, else an independant commision wouldnt be able to screw it up so bad. Somehow making it more fair makes it worse.
Your own website claims that while Illinois lost one seat, the Democrats are likely to pick up two. And while New York lost one seat, the Democrats gained 3. It also seems that many of the highly competitive districts have open seats. The real story of redistricting is that both parties seek to protect incumbents.
Nathaniel, I hope you love your job, for you are great at it. Your work on the fivethirtyeight polling and redistricting trackers is unparalleled. Thank you so much!
If a congressional map is forced to be redrawn, the most recent election using the illegal map should be forced to into a special election for those seats immediately. Which wouldn't fix the gerrymandered map use in the first place but would at least have some rectification.
The bolo is amazing.
Oh but the gerrymandering in Oregon and Colorado is fine!! 😂
If gerrymandering actually affects voting outcomes, then the solution is to change the voting system. Please see the video series "politics in the animal kingdom" by CCP Grey for further information on alternatives. I am personally a fan of ranked choice voting.
Given that people of different races don't vote the same, isn't every partisan gerrymander effectively a racial gerrymander as well (assuming you're in a diverse state). That seems like a correlation they try to point out purely as a way of trying to deem it illegal, and not because it's any worse of different than any other gerrymander. You can probably say most gerrymandering is age-discriminatory as well, if you were looking for bad faith arguments.
Loving Nathaniel on a set with the tv cameras!
Please make the refresh rate on the cameras and lights / screens line up so there isn’t the flickering tho. 😘
So excited to be in a post-pandemic world
But not here in New York though, right? That map is perfectly reasonable Lolol
he doesn't care because democratic gerrymanders are okay and even to be celerbrated.
@@dannyhightower911 he talked about a lot of gerrymandered states like Illinois, Maryland, and New York which u would’ve seen if u payed attention instead of commenting
@@abufarsakh9919 I actually saw those videos, thanks for making incorrect assumptions LOL. But the way he talks about them are way different, he doesn't get outraged about how they're so bad gerrymanders, he just reports them matter of factly or neutrally like they're no big deal, who cares.
@@dannyhightower911 Exactly.
mmmm, nice whataboutism. Good job protecting your feelings.
Occasionally, Texas makes me feel a little better about living in Florida. It does seem like a 1-2 race to the bottom, though.
Texas and Florida are by far the two best states in America and it's not even close.
@@DougieG7130 That's some great sarcasm. I laughed very hard.
hey now, there's always Mississippi, you'll never be the worst
@@DougieG7130 no they are not
@@DougieG7130 why do you say Texas is so good?
Ohio, Tennessee Mass and Illinois represent the minority parties worse. Not exusing Texas.
Yes buy in states like Tennessee, Mass, and Illinois, it doesn’t matter nearly as much as Ohio and Texas while the three take out 1 or 2 seats from the opposing party each, Texas and Ohio take alot of seats through gerrymandering
@@raulmedinahernandez1503 "doesn't mean nearly as much" is not an excuse because it's still gerrymeandered. And if it doesn't matter that much in Illinois, then why would the Illinois map look like it does in the first place? I don't see your argument... is the Democratic party in Illinois just playing with the map? Idk those carefully carved out districts that are sometimes joined by a thin area with no residents look fully intentional to me..
Well it's complicated. In Massachusetts there isn't really a reasonable map that would result in Republicans standing a chance in any seat due to the partisan makeup being fairly evenly distributed across the state.
@@karolakkolo123 what I’m saying it’s that it’s more important to focus on the more racially gerrymandered states like Texas or Alabama, Texas is far more gerrymandered than Massachusetts. I do agree gerrymandering should go but it’s more important to focus on Texas.
@@blastermanr6359 exactly, the most red district doesn’t go near the bluer areas which means that it doesn’t really matter
Does this happen every 10 years? Do seats always trend away from the ideal gerrymander?
Gerrymandering happens with every seat redrawing process, which occurs after every census, which is indeed every 10 years. As demographics shift, the gerrymander is less optimal over time until the next redrawing. So, yes!
They can do it more often in some states.
I live in Texas 10.
Congratulations, you still have no fracking clue where I live.
Maryland? New York? Illinois? All three of those are horribly Gerrymandered!
People say that it doesn't matter that much in these states because they have a solid Democratic margin in the first place. But I call BS. If they were confident that they'll hold the state no matter what, why would their maps look like they do in the first place? Those horribly stretched and almost disjointed districts in Illinois look fully intentional to me...
Nathaniel in costume?! That's what I'm talking about!
Gerrymandering isnt the issue in the United States. The district system itself is the issue. The gerrymandering in the USA generally outbalances the other states who have "fair" districting. When looking at the Proportional Representation of the seats in Congress and in states it shows that states which have independant redistricting boards often don't get it much better than Gerrymandered states. Which is very odd. Texas for example for the last few election cycles is off by between 1-5 seats vs a state like california with around the same amount. Hell, for 2018 Midterms, California's Republicans based on proportional representation could have gotten 17 Seats, yet in reality they only got 7 Seats. Texas on the other hand in 2018 gave Democrats 13 seats instead of the proportion which was more like 17 Seats. Only off by 4 Seats.
WIth a narrow focus on the issues in the USA with regards to representation, you wont ever solve the problem and it will just devolve into partisanship. Gerrymandering isn't the problem, the underlying system by which Gerrymandering becomes a solution for some is.
Thanks for reporting!
There’s gerrymandering and then there’s whatever the hell this is
Nathaniel's best video yet. Loved the style.
Why does it always have to be racial?
We are all Americans
1:30 if anything this just benefits incumbents in all of those districts from either party given that they are all safer
New York and Maryland have the worst garrymander
Two elections under that map, now. :-)
Critical details left out of the video like how many seats Texas has. What the R/D split is in Texas. What a fair split would be like
I love the bolo
So...the Alabama SCOTUS decision just came out. What are your thoughts?
Why not do it with an algorithm? It’s 2022. We can do better
How did all those Hispanics get into Texas?
If you don't want to count them I think we can make that happen.
However, if you count them they get to vote aswell.
*sighs* ok, here we go. Back before America even was a country, there was the Spanish Empire. The Spanish Empire controlled colonies throughout North and South America. Thats why there are so many Spanish speaking countries in what is now known as Latin America. The Spanish Empire also controlled modern day California, modern day Texas, and a bit more stuff in the American Midwest. The Spanish empire started falling, however, and in 1822, Mexico gained independence. Mexico had more land that it did today, controlling California, Texas, and much more. Texas wanted to break off though, and was unofficially a country for 10 years (sorta the same thing with California, but different). Texas spoke Spanish since they were under Spanish control, but then joined the USA. This led to the Mexican-American war, where America one. Texas then started being flooded with Americans and Southerners. The original Texans still exist there, however, and you can still see them there. I hope that cleared things up
They moved there?
Illinois is still the worst
What can you expect from the most corrupt state in the US
@@karolakkolo123 California and Illinois are definitely by far the worst.
Personally I think California is the worst gerrymander.
The US needs proportional/mixed representations to get rid of the 2 party system and gerrymandering
I would like to stop learning about gerrymandering and instead start learning about what would it mean for a district to be "fair" and just. And what would it take to get there
And this
ruclips.net/video/Mky11UJb9AY/видео.html
For a district to be fair, it has to simply be reflective of existing communities, and usually compact in shape as well.
A fair district can only exist if there are no districts. PR ftw
There is no such thing as a fair district. By fair district people jsut mean "Districts that benefit my party"
@@TheBlockerNator +/- 0 would be fair... for the 2 big ones, but then you have small parites who still are left out
At the least Austin gets two representatives finally… we had 1/2, shared with Sam antonio before.
Well this didn't really explain anything about what gerrymandering is. You kind of assume we already know. My question is how are these maps legal at all? Why can't we just count every vote. How is it legal not to just count every vote. If 10% of the votes are for democrats or 60% then that % of seats goes to them. Period end of story.
too bad latino is a culture not a race. whoever called this racist is the real racist.
Lol, what about New York? Illinois? Maryland? funny how you say that with a straight face
There already was a video about New York
Fortunately, the Texas congressional map getting overturned after 2022 would be fine in my opinion because the map would still help Democrats during a red wave year. It just needs to be fixed before the 2024 election takes place and it won't get worse.
What it is getting overturned? Is that what the courts say? I haven’t heard that it was? Or are you just guessing it will be overturned?
@@darkvader7699 I'm saying that if it can't be overturned until after the 2022 midterms, I'm okay with that.
I think that the crown of worse gerrymander is a tie between Illinois and New York
Illinois map looks horrible, ngl.
Illinois map is the worst gerrymander
With respect, not even flipping close. Texas has a map which could be 25R - 13 D. New York has a flipping 23 -4 map. Even compared to NY's 60 percent of the vote for Biden, their map gives them 85% of seats in a neutral year. Texas, which voted for Trump by +6, has a delegation under their current lines likely giving them 65% of seats. So, statistically, using percentage of seats won and 2020 vote totals, NY is still worse. Sorry 538, no, nothing tops NY's gerrymander. You can't ignore that. Sorry.
You people have done everything, from instituting poll taxes to gerrymandering districts along racial lines to gutting the Voting Rights Act, in an effort to get your way, no matter what. And when it didn’t work, the craziest among you attacked the goddamned Capitol trying to overturn a presidential election, while the rest of you endorsed/covered up/ignored it, and you excommunicated the only genuinely patriotic members of Congress in your party who wanted to investigate. _SO YOU’D BETTER BELIEVE I’M FUCKING IGNORING NEW YORK’S GERRYMANDER!!_
@@IdliAmin_TheLastKingofSambar Should probably get your anger management issue checked out. It'll help you live longer.
NY is absolutely NOT 23-4. For one it's only got 26 seats, that would be 27. 20 sears lean dem (and only 13 are solidly dem!) while 2 are a tossup. 4 solid reds. Texas has 24 reds, but 23 of them are solid reds- so they're much more likely to get them in a bad election year. Also FYI Texas has a larger population (1.5x), which means that they get 39 seats as opposed to NY's 26, so by the metric he's using (seats gained) even with equal maps Texas would be higher.
@@natnew32 Oh 22 - 4 is so much better. My bad. And use your common sense. 538 considers a seat which is anywhere from d + 5 to d + 15 as competitive. Know how many seats of d or r + 9 (using 2020 + 4d president as proxy) have flipped the last few years? Not many. Arguing a d +6 or 7 seat of which there are a few in NY State are competitive is splitting hairs.
Ya know how I know. Because in a red state such as Ohio where the Republican legislature tried to justify a map doing so the state supreme court said they were. So no, that is not a valid argument. Texas's maps are an egregious gerrymander but NY is worse for 1) percentage difference in 2020 vote vs. house seat allocation, 2) the fact TX has no Indy redistricting commission and NY does and 3) Texas Republicans are not even arguing their map is not a gerrymander. New York Democrats are. Lol
@@gabrieliacoboni6951 Why? I thought y’all liked it when swarthy libruls like me ⚰️🪦. (Ngl I’ve been having a bad day. For the last two-and-a-half years.)
This video is ridiculous! 😂😂 I laughed so damn hard! Texas has never been even close to voting blue this century! 😂😂😂
I'm sure you're exaggerating, but Texas has voted blue "this century"
@@blacklisted351 Oh really? In which election?! 2000? 2004? 2008? 2012? 2016? 2020? Nope! Bush won twice, McCain won once, so did Romney and Trump got it twice so wrong it has not been won by a democrat this century…
@@Zachariah_ Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you meant in the past 100 years...
Although the 2018 senate election was fairly close and even the 2020 presidential election was closer than Ohio and iowa
@@blacklisted351 Yah but the Hispanic shift to the Republican Party is changing that and it’s no longer trending democrat…
@@Zachariah_ That is true. I believe the biggest shift in 2020 towards trump was texas along the border.
I personally thought New York had the worst gerrymander in the country. Republicans go from having nine seats to only four potentially. Not to mention Illinois was pretty rough too
Texas doesn't look as bad as it actually was. It was already hard gerrymandered in 2010 so 2020 isn't much different. By comparison NY wasn't gerrymandered in 2010 (at least not by democrats) so it being gerrymandered now is pretty significant.
Shhhh… we don’t talk about Democrat gerrymandering here.
@@NotANameist But he did do a video on New York. He is balanced criticizing both democrats and republicans.
Check out "Let's Talk Elections" channel if you enjoy these type of videos of redistricting!
Couple question that need to be answered:
- What’s your source for the 4,000,000 population increase
- What’s your source for the 95% being People of Color
- How is People of Color defined and how are Latinos defined?
Combination of census, historical trends, and modeling.
Just found out my district was gerrymandered from +.5 Republican to +6 Republican. It was so close to flipping.
Goes with their electric grid.
why is beto o rourke running for governor when he know he cant win anyway?
Because you should never say never. After all, he came quite close in 2018. That being said the environment is not going to be anywhere near as favorable this year, but even then his candidacy still helps Texas Democrats build their infrastructure and ground game for future elections.
OMG, Nathaniel! I can't possibly watch this video with you dressed that way.
Umm New York, Illinois, Washington, Oregon?
WATCH HIS OTHER VIDEOS
YES GO TEXAS! BLOW THEM OUTTA THE FRIKKIN WATER!!!!!
I know there’s no such thing as a perfect map but these maps are so extreme. New York and Illinois’ maps are gerrymandered too but those states are solid democratic states that vote 60-70% democratic. Texas is no longer a solid republican state but this map makes it look like it is. Same story in Florida and North Carolina. Swing states that try to portray themselves as solid gop states
MD and MA have a higher efficiency gap than Texas and Illinois is 13.2 which is fairly close to Texas and more impressive given that Republicans are a solid majority outside greater Chicago and the area around East St. Louis. The North Carolina map drawn by the state's Democrat majority Court has a Democrat efficiency gap even though Republicans control the legislature, I do not see that standing. My favorite is California, which had an efficiency gap over 6 even though it was drawn by a supposedly non-partisan process. New York's is over 8. It would be higher, but the legislature also had to protect people from attacks from the left which probably preserved a seat for the Republicans.
@@danz1182 no the efficiency gap for California in the old map was D+6.1 and in the new map it is D+5.3 which is a big improvement, also California lost a seat and it was a democratic seat loss not a republican seat loss.
HOW About Maryland and Illinois, please stop the bias
they did one on Illinois...
Ummmm, Republicans in CA should have 17 seats 30%, this cycle would drop them down to 8 seats. That’s a 9 seat gerrymander, just as worse as Ohio NC and Florida combined if they get the maps they made. We haven’t even talked about Illinois and New York!
I know this isn't what you meant, but 538 did make a video about New York.
Try drawing a California map with 17 Republican seats. It's not actually possible. You could probably draw 17 competitive and 0 Republican seats, but the nature of single-member districts amplify any underlying partisan advantage.
@@jefflistman4178 I'm not going to say CA is perfectly fair or anything, but they gerrymander much much less than most states. The legislature doesn't make the maps.
@@jeremyjackson7429 Congratulations, you just gave an example that completely undermines your own point. The POTUS electoral college is intentionally designed to over count lower population states. Oh, and the winner take all thing is also quite dumb.
Democrats do the same thing in NY as well 😅😅... Maryland as well.
watch his other videos. He doesn't have bias
texas is no way the worse gerrymander that goes to Illinois
define fair
Lol. Take a look at Illinois
What is parel vine ? Reply me
New York City has grouped Staten Island and Park Slope in the same district... Your bias is showing
Texas... the Little Russia.
Please do california gerrymandering please
California doesn't have gerrymandering we have an independent commission draw our maps
@@fuzzybunny2886 lol..keep believing that bullshit.. now we will have a senator that's from maryland...l
Srsly look up the least gerrymandered states its us, idaho, washington, arizona, colorado, and also michigan. We can't really gerrymander as our commission has room for dems, GOP, third party, and independents. @@henrivanchayala1039
Bruh have you seen Illinois and New York?
This channel has a huge bias for Democrats.
Yes, we made a our first video in this series about New York.
Meanwhile Illinois and New York...
Michigan, Wisconsin and Colorado have the best fair maps!
Iowa too.
And rigged elections sadly.
Wisconsin?
Can't wait to hear what he has to say about Illinois, New York or Pennsylvania. I won't hold my breath though waiting on those...
The first episode of this series was about New York……
@@fivethirtyeight So it is! I detected a markedly different tone in that video, but at least it has been noticed! It should be obvious that the motivations in all these states are the same, and should surprise nobody.
Pennsylvania isn't gerrymandered
@@AjaxLefeuf Huh? He clearly attacked New York’s antics in that video, what more do you want?
Who are dr. Denial john son ? Reply me
I like all the southern-isms you slipped in there
I'm glad that Texas District 29 is on the verge of flipping for the first time in many years(Pasadena Texas the largest sub city of Houston). We are tired of the Democrat party. #AnyoneButRobertOrourke
so you gonna vote for the espionage party
#AnyoneButTheEpionageParty
@@residentgomez there is no party by that name in the state of Texas, why arre you spreading misinformation involving US Elections?
you completely forgot about illinois
They didn't forget. 538 is biased for Democrats so they love those Gerrymanders.
@@joespice785 yeah
Can't wait for the New York version of this video...
Already happen 2 weeks ago
@@iSuom Sorry, I can't find "New York may have the worst Gerrymander in the Country". Can you please link it? I'm not looking for educational videos, I'm looking for political statement videos like the one I commented on.
KEEP TEXAS RED
I still maintain Illinois is the worst, followed by Florida. Before the New York one was overturned I would have put that one as second.
Good
Red wave
I am republican and I don't like gerrymandering either, but after what dems did in IL, MD and NY, I don't care anymore
You should still be against it. A federal ban to make it fair for everyone would be ideal.
@@theuglykwan question is just what is fair ..... i think the us (and most other nations) should decentralise
Yeah a reaction to the Republican gerrymandering
@@theuglykwan There is a ban on it in NYS Constitution, but dems still did it. In CA, maps are to drawn by an independent commission but dems still gerrymandered it. Laws have no effect on dems
@@jaytilala7388 yeah independent means in the us very litle ..... like how the supreme court &the Fed is supposed to be independent ....... but is in best case stacked 4-5
Don’t both sides do this though?
Yes, and it is a corrupt and anti-democratic practice no matter who does it.
yes, both sides do
The republicans in Texas are getting desperate, soon they’ll meet their own demise.
But freaking new york California and Illinois are all oooookay. 😡😡
California isn't gerrymandered
I think you mean "best gerrymander"
In pretty sure New York has that title.
New York has the worst.
Its efficiency gap is much lower, only 5% compared to Texas’s 15%. Texas’s gerrymander is projected to be way worse for democracy.
@@paulallen579 New York’s is around 9%. The worst part is that Democrats are supposed to be against extreme gerrymanders but are doing it themselves. It’s hypocritical. Also, the New York voters voted for an independent commission and got stuck with this result.
@@thomasgiovanniello1303 I can understand why though since if they didn’t do extreme gerrymandering, like during the last decade when the GOP took the House through gerrymandering, there would possibly be minority rule in the House again. Best would be to completely ban partisan gerrymandering but unfortunately the GOP doesn’t want that so the HR1 didn’t pass.
What is crowd founding .dr . denial johnson
cover oregons mess of a map, its like navada but worse
If the gerrymander was strong and effective in fulfilling the goals of solidifying a Republican advantage, that makes it the best gerrymander and not the worst. The worst gerrymander would be one that doesn’t stack up the odds at all
Texas was a smart gerrymander. Instead of trying to get more seats like the dems in Nevada, they solidified their incumbents. Instead of trying to expand their majority, they made their current one safe. Given the current trends in Texas, that’s the smartest route.
Yay democracy
Funny will you say the same about PA, VA, NY, CA, or NH? No? You won't.
None of those states are gerrymandered, except for new york
@@joshuaalfaro4781 I forgot to add IL and yes PA tried but their map got shot down.
Wtf what about Illinois and Nee York arguably way worst so biased
I think the worst is IL or NY, but definitely not TX .
Look at IL 13th district or NY 10th district and you will know. ( note: Texas is also a gerrymandered state(look at TX 35th district), just not as worse as IL/NY does. )