Democracy in pieces: Did the Texas gerrymander just break the districting game?

Or was it already broken all along? A Socratic gastropub journey through America's most unsolvable political puzzle

(Author's note: This post is presented in the form of a dialogue between myself (Lee Drutman) and Glaucon. Yes, I stole this whole Socratic dialogue thing right from the pages of Plato's Republic. I checked with my lawyer, and the copyright has expired, so we're good.)

---

Setting: Happy hour at the Socrates Gastropub & Dialectical Drinkery. Lee and Glaucon (a young earnest liberal) claim a corner table propped up by a dog-eared copy of The Republic (Book VII). Pythagorean theorems sprawl across exposed brick between concert posters and philosophical graffiti. On a nearby table, a half-completed jigsaw puzzle labeled "Democracy in Pieces" sits abandoned, district-shaped pieces scattered across the surface. They order Philosopher King Pale Ales from the chalkboard menu of Epistemological IPA specials—the happy hour prices almost making up for the puns.

---

GLAUCON: Lee, I've been reading about Texas Republicans redrawing the state's congressional maps, mid-decade. They're going to add 5 more Republican seats because Trump told them to? What country are we even living in?

LEE: Yeah, pretty outrageous.

GLAUCON: How is this even legal?  can they really just redraw whenever they want?

LEE: There's no law against mid-decade redistricting. 

GLAUCON: This is just awful, awful. I'm against gerrymandering, but if Republicans are going to hold onto the House, I guess Democrats need to do it back to them.

(Glaucon's phone buzzes. He silences it, annoyed)

LEE: Well, we've both been reading the same stories about how Gavin Newsom says he's going to fight back.

GLAUCON: I mean, Democrats kind of have to, right?

LEE: Maybe, but I'm not sure they can. The California delegation is already 43-9 Democrats. Now, I guess it would be possible for Democrats to boost their delegation even more, but I’m not sure how much more. Also, California draws its maps with a citizens independent commission, which voters approved by ballot initiative back in 2010. So, a mid-decade redistrict to go around an independent commission. Seems like a lot of both legal and political hurdles there. I don't know what Newsom is thinking, other than he wants to be president and he thinks this is good for his national profile.

GLAUCON: Okay, what about New York, that's a big blue state? Didn’t the Governor there, Hochul, say she was going to fight back?

LEE: Sure, New York. Current delegation: 19-7 Democrats, in a state Harris won 56-44. Could Democrats squeeze out a few more seats? Maybe? But if you recall, they actually tried this with their post-2020 redistrict map that was even more pro-Democrats. But the state courts knocked it down as a gerrymander, and Democrats got stuck with a worse map. 

GLAUCON: OK, but what about Illinois? JB Pritzker? He looks like a fighter.

LEE: Again, not much opportunity for a gain. Dems already have a 14-3 advantage in the state congressional delegation — in a state Harris won 55-45. There are limits to how far you can torture the maps, especially since Democrats are overwhelmingly concentrated around Chicago.

GLAUCON: So you're telling me Democrats are powerless? This can't be right! 

LEE: Well, not entirely powerless. But they've already mostly maximized their advantages. Their pieces are... let's say, most in place.

(The table wobbles slightly. Glaucon readjusts the book propping up the table leg)

GLAUCON: Not sure that will hold, but it works for now.

LEE: We could move to a different table, but we’re too lazy. Back to the conversation. 

GLAUCON: I'm also reading about Ohio and Florida, and Missouri. Trump is apparently pushing those states to mid-decade redistrict, too?

LEE: Let's start with Ohio. Currently the Ohio House delegation is 10 Republicans and 5 Democrats. But, for legal reasons, the current map needs to be redrawn ahead of 2026. The end result will probably be that Republicans wind up getting to redraw the map in their favor, and pick up another 2 seats. 

Interestingly, last year, Ohioans rejected a statewide ballot initiative to create an Independent Redistricting Commission, by a 54-46 margin. The reason it lost, however, was that many voters were completely confused. The Republican Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, put in place misleading ballot summary language that suggested the measure was pro-gerrymandering. Republicans misleadingly told voters that opposing the commission was opposing gerrymandering.

GLAUCON: Whoa. That's insane. Not at all on the level! 

LEE: Indeed. And then there's Florida.

GLAUCON: Yes, another big state. Is DeSantis the governor there still?

LEE: Indeed. And he has argued that because there has been so much internal migration within the state over the last few years, and because Florida was allegedly "severely undercounted" in the 2020 Census, districts there are now "malapportioned." Therefore a mid-decade redistricting is necessary. Florida already has a pretty pro-GOP map at 20-8, but maybe they could squeeze one or two more Republican seats out.

GLAUCON: That sounds like a pile of donkey poo to me.

LEE: And then, there's a few other states where Republicans might be able to redistrict themselves into another seat. Missouri could go from 6-2 to 7-1. North Carolina could go maybe from 10-4 to 11-3.

GLAUCON: (counting fingers) Okay, So, 5 in Texas, 2 in Ohio, 1 in Florida, 1 in Missouri, 1 in North Carolina. Is that right? That's 10 seats! 

LEE: (turning his laptop around) I've been tracking all this, plus a few other states where Democrats will probably not do anything but in theory could. My guess is Republicans will net 9 seats out of this redistricting.

(Shows Glaucon the screen)

GLAUCON: By Heracles Club! That's control of the House? (pause) Can’t the Democrats just fight harder! 

LEE: Well, Democrats have already pretty much maxed out in the states they control. And in a few states, they've tied their hands with independent redistricting commissions

GLAUCON: So, we're the suckers?

(His phone buzzes again. He ignores it)

LEE: Well, I already explained, Democrats already …

GLAUCON: Yeah, yeah, we pushed the limits already… So maybe we're not such suckers?

LEE: Maybe. Interestingly, in the 2024 House elections, Republicans actually got fewer seats than they should have if we are going by pure proportionality. Republicans won the popular vote by 2 percentage points. Proportionally they should have won more seats.

GLAUCON: Huh. What? I thought the maps were always biased in favor of Republicans.

LEE: Well, Democrats over-performed in the competitive districts, so they actually distributed their votes more efficiently. 

GLAUCON: Hold on, can we just do a basic districting 101? I think I understand it, but I could use a primer. 

LEE: OK, look over at that shelf of games. You see, between  Polis (deluxe edition) and Ludus latrunculorum, you see that game, Buckets?

GLAUCON: (goes over to the shelf to pull it out). Ah yes, that forgettable 1950s reboot of the classic Ancient Greek children's game, Amphoreis

LEE: Right, exactly. Now read the instructions to me.

GLAUCON: Sure. "There are 9 buckets, and two players. Each bucket can hold 21 tokens. Each player gets 90 tokens. There are also 9 "mystery" tokens, one in each bucket (the color of these tokens will only be revealed at the conclusion of the game).

The goal of the game is to win more buckets than your opponent. You win a bucket by having more tokens in the bucket than the other person. So, for example, if you pick red, and your opponent picks blue, and a bucket has 12 red tokens and 9 blue tokens, you win that bucket.

One player goes first. That player gets to allocate all of her 90 tokens across the 9 buckets."

LEE: And … tell me… what is the winning strategy?

GLAUCON: Well, that's easy. You pick six buckets, and place 15 of your tokens in each. Now you've just won six buckets, guaranteed. You'll win the game 6-3.

LEE: Player 1 could even win seven buckets, by putting 13 tokens in six of the buckets, and 12 in one.

Or she could get really nasty, and try to win eight buckets, by putting 11 tokens in 6 buckets, and 12 in two buckets.

Here, I’ve written out a strategy guide for how to win.

GLAUCON: This game of "buckets" sure seems like a pretty stupid game.

LEE: It is a very stupid game. Of course, it is but a thinly veiled and only slightly over-simplified metaphor for the absurdity of single-winner districts. 

GLAUCON: Ah, I see! And since each district is a separate election, winning is not about getting the most votes overall, but about distributing your votes more "efficiently" to win the most districts.

LEE: Exactly. You got it!

GLAUCON: I can't believe the folks at Milton Bradley greenlighted this. Who bought this game anyway?

LEE: The American people. For a long time.

GLAUCON: Oh, I see what you did there. Kudos. I'll get the next round. (Waiter approaches)

GLAUCON: What's the Phenomenology Pilsner like?

WAITER: Hard to describe in words. You'll have to experience the thing-in-itself.

GLAUCON: Perfect. Two of those.

WAITER: By the way, if you can finish that Democracy in Pieces puzzle over there, your tab is free. No one's managed it yet.

LEE: Is that because the pieces don't actually fit together?

WAITER: (shrugs) That's what everyone says. 

GLAUCON: Oh, and one order of your fried crispy cicada pupae?

WAITER: Ah yes, Aristotle’s favorite. They just emerged from their 17 years underground yesterday. Very fresh. 

(Waiter leaves)

LEE: But back to that silly game of Buckets. Let me ask you. What would a "fair" distribution of tokens look like?

GLAUCON: Well, hmmmm… I’m actually not sure. 

LEE: Would it be fair for all nine buckets (districts) to have 10 red tokens, 10 blue tokens, and one mystery token? That is, to have all nine districts perfectly competitive?

GLAUCON: Maybe, then I guess it's all up to chance then. Depends on the mystery tokens, doesn't it?

LEE: Or, in our increasingly strained metaphor, the 5% unpredictable swing voters who pay the least attention to politics.

GLAUCON: Yes, that seems not ideal.

LEE: Would it be fairer to guarantee four red buckets, four blue buckets, and one mystery bucket? This means there will be no disproportional 7-2 landslide. But… then we wind up with 8 "safe" buckets (districts), where the election is a foregone conclusion.

GLAUCON: Yeah, not ideal either, hmmm… I always thought we had such a great system of democracy here in the contemporary modern United States of America.

LEE: And our oversimplified example doesn't even get into questions about community integrity and compactness or the aesthetics of districts, or minority representation.

GLAUCON: Whoa, I can see how this gets very complicated.

LEE: Let me show you something. (pulls out phone, navigates to https://districtr.org) Modern redistricting software can generate tens of thousands of possible district maps with a single click. Each one with predicted partisan outcomes. (mutters) Of course, if we just used larger districts with... (trails off, shakes head)

GLAUCON: But, wait a second here. I don't get it. I always thought: what could be simpler? One representative per district. Straightforward. And now it's like, what's even the meaning of a district anymore if you can just draw the lines anywhere, anytime?

LEE: Well, there are some limits, but you're right. What seems simple on the surface is actually wildly complicated, because our tradition of using single-member districts gives map-makers near-infinite possibilities.

GLAUCON: (frustrated) But, we know gerrymandering is bad! So why can't we just define what it is and say it's bad and it should be illegal? I'm having a hard time fitting all these pieces together.

LEE: Political scientists have been trying to do that for years. There's no perfect measure of fairness that everyone can agree on. It's quite a puzzle, actually.

GLAUCON: But, I thought we just wanted fair maps? Isn't that what everyone says. We should just have "fair maps"?

LEE: Well, what's fair?

GLAUCON: I… don't know anymore…

(The new round of beers arrive)

GLAUCON: (looking into beer soulfully). Maybe the answer is at the bottom of this glass?

LEE: (glances at his laptop screen) Actually...

GLAUCON: What's that you keep looking at?

LEE: I wrote a report a few years ago looking at the history of gerrymandering in the United States, with an emphasis on whether or not redistricting commissions could make things fairer. (Drutman pulls out copy of "What We Know about Redistricting and Redistricting Reform")

GLAUCON: Yeah, your famous 2022 report in which you explain why redistricting reform is not all it's cracked up to be, and independent redistricting commissions are no real solution to the deeper issue of single-member districts, which have all kinds of problematic properties. I guess I should probably read it, if I really want to understand this whole gerrymandering thing.

LEE: Absolutely you should. But, just to quickly illustrate the trade-off between fairness and competitiveness, let's have a closer look at that new Texas map. Here's an article in the New York Times (pulls out phone, shares gift article with Glaucon). Here's the chart I want you to focus on…

GLAUCON: Sure — I see, what's so special about that? Looks like now instead of 2 competitive districts, there are zero competitive districts. Now I get why you wanted me to play Buckets…

LEE: But look closer, what do you notice about the Republican districts?

GLAUCON: A lot of them moved closer to the +20 Trump line. So, it's like Republicans distributed their tokens even more efficiently.

LEE: Right, they did. Now they have more of those  roughly 60-40 districts. Which they will almost certainly win. But now maybe some of those districts might be a little more in reach for Democrats than they would have been, and if it's a really good year for Democrats, maybe Democrats could win even more districts than under the old maps.

GLAUCON: Oh I see, this is what people call the "dummymander"!

LEE: Right, in some ways gerrymandering could make the average district a little more competitive.

GLAUCON: But not really?

LEE: No. Not really. 

GLAUCON: And the chances that Democrats win any of these districts?

LEE: Pretty small. Like we said… Buckets is a pretty dumb game if you get to go first and place all the tokens.

GLAUCON: Okay, but there must be something we can do! I mean, what Texas is doing just has to be illegal! Like they can't get away with this, can they?

LEE: Well, lawyers will certainly sue. But my guess is they won't be able to stop it.

GLAUCON: But why not?

LEE: Well, again, like we discussed, what counts as a fair map is highly subjective, and you may have noticed that the courts these days are highly political, and these suits are almost all in the state courts, which are even more political.

GLAUCON: But, I mean, can't we just put politics aside and do the right thing?

LEE: Well, what is the right thing? What is fair? (Notices Glaucon has drained his mug to the bottom). Did you find it at the bottom of the mug?

GLAUCON: Nope. All that I see is the Noumenal Nothing.

LEE: Look, lawyers and courts have been arguing this for decades. Just about every map gets litigated these days. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole on this, there's a great website, All About Redistricting. Look, I pulled up litigation around the 2020 Congressional maps — I count 87 lawsuits!

GLAUCON: (growing angry) So, what? It's effectively judges deciding which party controls Congress?

LEE: Pretty much.

GLAUCON: Well, that seems dumb. 

LEE: It is?

GLAUCON: But I guess we have no other choice, right? I mean, we have to fight. I mean, aren’t there other Democratic states? Minnesota? Washington? Oregon? 

LEE: Maybe. But then what? 

GLAUCON: Then Democrats could win, and then…

LEE: And then?

GLAUCON: (pauses) Save… democracy? (realizing the absurdity of the answer, he calls the waiter over) Waiter, could we get another round? How is your Sisyphus Session Ale?

WAITER: Oh, very good. But you’ll never be able to finish it. 

GLAUCON: Sounds like quite a bargain. I’ll take one. 

(Waiter leaves)

GLAUCON: Okay, so you're telling me Democrats have pretty much run out of cartographic capacity. The litigation is just a lawyer enrichment game. Redistricting commissions don't have much of an impact, except that they handcuff Democrats from fighting back. (pauses) And we're supposed to do what? Just send more money to the Democratic Party?  Which just sent me 439 texts about how guilty I should feel for not donating money to fight back against the Texas gerrymander. That’s why my phone keeps buzzing, by the way. I gave $5 once and now I’m paying for it every day.

LEE: You know the difference between a cicada's buzz and a fundraiser's?

GLAUCON: What?

LEE: Cicadas buzz once every 17 years. Fundraisers can't make it 17 minutes.

GLAUCON: Good one. (pause, thinks up his own joke) These cicadas remind me of another Milton Bradley disaster.

LEE: Worse than Buckets?

GLAUCON: Plague of Locusts.  At least in Buckets someone wins. In Locusts, everyone just destroys everything then starves.

LEE: Except whoever's sending the 'THE LOCUSTS ARE WINNING - DONATE NOW!!!' texts.

GLAUCON:  Well, what should I do?

LEE: Well, remember that game of Buckets?

GLAUCON: How can I forget, you keep bringing it up?

LEE: Right. Now would it be fair if there were no buckets at all, and we just counted up tokens and allocated seats proportionally based on the number of tokens.

GLAUCON: Well, yeah, I mean, obviously. But then it wouldn't be much of a game, would it? It would just be … counting?

LEE: Pretty much.

GLAUCON: But, that means getting rid of districts? How could we do that?

LEE: Oh, pretty easy. Just have Congress change the law. Currently states are stuck with single-member districts that enable all this gerrymandering because a 1967 law, the Uniform Congressional Districting Act, tells them they have to. But congress could change that law, and require states to use larger multi-member districts with proportional representation.

GLAUCON: They could. But didn't they pass that 1967 law to prevent southern states from using multimember districts to disenfranchise black voters through bloc voting, which is a hyper-majoritarian type of voting that would entrench white power, whereas single-member districts created the possibility for majority-minority districts?

LEE: Wow, you really know your history! This is true. But the key is proportional representation to prevent bloc voting. So imagine instead of Texas being 38 single member districts, it's like, say, two seven-member districts and three eight-member districts, allocated proportionally, by party. Now, how are Republicans going to gerrymander it?

GLAUCON: Well, they still could a little, but yeah, it would be much harder, and for much less advantage.

LEE: Also, with larger districts like that, you'd have more parties, so it wouldn't be just Democrats and Republicans, so it would be even less predictable and even harder to gerrymander.

GLAUCON: Well, that seems … weirdly simpler. I came in thinking nothing could be simpler than single-member districts, and now I realize how much complexity and mischief it creates. Seems like I need to learn more about proportional representation!

LEE: Indeed. And I've got quite a few resources for you…

(Drutman pulls out a copy of his widely-acclaimed book Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America)

Plus, since we’re here inside of my substack, you could start with two recent pieces here:

• How did American democracy become a broken game without winners? And what should we do about it? Support for democracy in America has fallen to alarming lows, even as voters desperately seek change. Proportional representation could re-energize our democracy

• Doomier and Loopier: Why our two-party system will not – and cannot - self-correct on its own. We need major electoral reform and we need it now. A party system problem demands a party system solution.

And of course, you’ll definitely want to read the big piece I did with Jesse Wegman in the New York Times explaining proportional representation.

To whet your appetite, here’s a map from it of how the country would look under proportional representation. Look at Texas now! 

GLAUCON: Great, thanks for these. But I’ve still got one question…

LEE: Yeah?

GLAUCON: Well, I'm meeting up with my buddies after this, and they're hopping mad about the Texas thing, and they won't want to hear any of this weird electoral reform talk. They just want to win. And they watch all this partisan media, and I feel like they are just addicted to the outrage. It's almost like they'd rather keep losing, because they're addicted to being mad.

LEE: (Sighs) Yeah.

GLAUCON: And then you've got all those campaign people, and all the lawyers, and they benefit from this system right?

LEE: Sure do.

GLAUCON: So who's gonna change it?

LEE: Well, it starts with conversations like these.

GLAUCON: Yeah, I just hope it doesn’t take 17 years… (pauses) Hey!  I just had a thought... You know who must really hate this current mid-decade redistricting?

LEE: Besides everybody?

GLAUCON: The members of Congress who are about to get redistricted! 

LEE: Yes, they do absolutely hate being redistricted.

GLAUCON: And I bet when you start talking about reform, everybody probably thinks… Why would members of Congress ever change the system under which they got elected? But if the current system means they could be redistricted at any time, then maybe they’d realize what a terrible system it is? And if so, maybe they’d legislate a better one!

(table wobbles again)

LEE: This table is just awful. I knew we should have moved to a different table.

GLAUCON. I wonder if there is any way to fix it… Maybe if I just—

(He attempts to adjust the table. Beer spills)

(Long pause. They both stare at the puddle)

GLAUCON: That looks like...

LEE: TX-4.

GLAUCON: Yeah.

[END]