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.)

Please do not link to stories claiming gerrymandering without showing maps. Whatever map is the closest to a bunch of little squares is the fairest.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=map+of+texas+state+congressional+d...

Compare that to other states: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=map+of+new+york+state+congressiona...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=map+of+newcalifornia+state+congres...