The process of redistricting is important because it shapes the ability of a community to choose representatives. The existence of equal access to party-political exemplification is also crucial because it contributes to how voters decide the outcomes of their actions and how predictable those outcomes could be. This is why voter turnout in Texas is rather low and does not affect the minority party, averting them from running. Based on the constitutional laws, redistricting shall not be considered a crime because it affects the local voting system and helps the minority-party candidates gain their vote irrespective of the overall outcomes. The obligations that every party has in the face of redistricting show that elections do not favor specific challengers and offer every party member a chance to be elected and affect local change.
The problem with redistricting, though, may stem from the idea that the elected official may not be interested in supporting the needs of the local population. It sends us back to the fact that representative democracy is one of the strongest instruments on the government’s roster that is often benched for the sake of nationwide incentives that may not be in line with the agendas of certain states. The loyalty of the voter base is also tested under the influence of elections where the majority of citizens face mere extremities, and the community turns out to be polarized. This is why competitive districts are so important for the concept of democracy and the development of a better voting community (Bozeman et al. 41). The current competitiveness in District 23 in Texas is a rare occurrence, but such representation is essential if the government expects to put parties aside and focus on the state and federal basis of elections. Voter turnout in the State of Texas proves that there is enough room for representative democracy and a better approach to redistricting.
The “Don’t Mess with Texas” motto also highlights how redistricting might be utilized to redistribute political power. When there is a proper understanding of which party controls the local government and the Congress, it affects the range of issues that could either be tackled or ignored. Even though there is a threat of politicians pursuing their interests, it is not the case for the State of Texas because the approach of the local government to redistricting allows for the diversification of legislative bodies and communities. With an increased focus on minority communities, redistricting may be fairly utilized to increase the representation of unique candidates that reflect specific values and worldviews (Rossiter et al. 612). This approach to redistricting in Texas leaves all communities interested in elections and picking the right candidates for themselves.
This kind of individualistic culture forces the state to draw the line between the perceived good and bad redistricting processes, but there is no general understanding of what is a meaningful representation and how it could be achieved. For redistricting to “work” properly, it should consider economic, cultural, geographic, racial, and social variables. Otherwise, there will be misunderstandings between the parties and local communities that do not have similar legislative interests. To make the best use of redistricting, the State of Texas should reach public representation in the government and go beyond the mere Democrat-Republican dichotomy. Districts with different histories and sources of motivation should have access to diverse resources to remain interested in elections and prioritize by their aspirations.
Bozeman, James R., et al. “Redistricting without Gerrymandering, Utilizing the Convexity Ratio, and Other Applications to Business and Industry.” Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, vol. 34, no. 6, 2018, pp. 835-851.
Rossiter, Kalyn M., et al. “Congressional Redistricting: Keeping Communities Together?” The Professional Geographer, vol. 70, no. 4, 2018, pp. 609-623.