2020 Senate Elections

[Ag with kids 581]

8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And yet, here you are. The book of Matthew reminds us that no man can serve two masters. You have stated, repeatedly, that the party interest is deserving of representation coming at the expense of community interest representation. Cornyn, in that he represents national party and national party financial interest exclusively in the legislative process is just a pure form of the outcome you've defended in discussions of gerrymandering.  

You have stated, repeatedly, that the party interest is deserving of representation coming at the expense of community interest representation. Cornyn, in that he represents national party and national party financial interest exclusively in the legislative process is just a pure form of the outcome you've defended in discussions of gerrymandering. 

Sigh….

I didn’t want to do this, but I’ve had few beers so I’ll go against my best judgement and get into the stink that is the politics board here.

I support POLICY representation throughout the state.  For lack of a better system, the parties end up being the closest thing to get to a proxy for those policies.

Texas is majority conservative.  This is based on the proxy of the Republicans holding every statewide office and both Senators being Republican.

So, I think, based on the above, that the majority of the state representatives in Texas, both in Congress and in the State legislature, should be represented by a majority of conservatives.  Again - the best proxy we have for that is party (sure, the argument that parties suck is fine, but in this case we don’t really have much else to use).  So, in this case Republican.

Cornyn votes much more for conservative policies than his opponent would.  So, a majority conservative state would likely elect him, barring some issue unrelated to policies (see Rob Moore in Alabama in 2018).

So, again…it’s not “party” that I support it’s “policy”, but “party” is in the vast majority of cases the best way to get those “policies”.

NOTE:  My view is the same regardless of the state.  I think California should be represented by majority liberal representatives (Democrats as proxy) based on their statewide elections.

As to communities of interest, I don’t think that was ever really fully fleshed out in our earlier discussion with regards to drawing districts.  For instance, Dallas County.  There’s probably 50 “communities of interest” just in that county, many of which are right next to each other - take Oak Cliff and South Oak Cliff for example.  But, many of those communities have certain things in common, such as being majority liberal or conservative.  Other than having 50 representatives, lumping the conservative areas together and the liberal areas together (to get the Dem/GOP party proxy) is about the best way to deal with it…

 

Now…maybe we need to have LOTS of more districts and representatives.  That might help to break up the parties as being the major proxy.  But, until then…here we are.

(As to the book of Matthew, while I did grow up Lutheran, I'm not Christian now.  I'm a deist.)

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

5 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

 

I support POLICY representation throughout the state.  For lack of a better system, the parties end up being the closest thing to get to a proxy for those policies.

 

Yeah like I said:

7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Have I, or are you being unrealistic about what your defense of partisan representation actually means? Having read your position a number of times I think the latter. 

It's kind of like when I argue with socialists about the reality on the ground in communist countries and what communism does. They invariably pull out some variation of the old chestnut that communism hasn't failed because it has never really been tried. Which is of course wrong, it has been tried and it leads to a specific set of outcomes. 

Partisan gerrymandering leads to a specific, predictable set of outcomes and behaviors, all negative. It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that you choose not to accept that the outcome your position is inevitable, or don't accept that it's negative, or both. 

 

[Ag with kids 581]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

Yeah like I said:

 

You think it's because I care about the party.  I don't.  I care about the policy.

I would be perfectly happy with a different system that didn't have the parties.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,151]

39 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that we develop drugs for the world bc there’s a pot at the end of the rainbow and companies are incentivized to do so. What if we do away with that ability- and our R&D drops to the level of Europe or Canada?  They can do what they do bc we are doing the heavy lifting of innovating. What I’m saying is that reworking our heath system could kill that innovation. Should we do that anyway?  Maybe!  But there’s going to be costs and trade offs. 
Same with immigration. 
same with defense

same with a shitload of other stuff- we are paying a huge burden that other countries are not, and if we don’t, what happens?  I don’t know and neither do you. I’m admiring it though and you aren’t. You are hand waiving it away. I’m not even saying we shouldn’t do whatever you want to do- I’m just saying there absolutely will be costs people haven’t factored in. That’s it. 
I’m not making policy arguments. I’m saying it’s an absurdly complex eco system and if you think making changes in one spot won’t lead to downstream issues elsewhere you aren’t being honest with yourself. That’s it. 

America, leading the world in weiner pill development since 1996.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

5 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

You think it's because I care about the party.  I don't.  I care about the policy.

I would be perfectly happy with a different system that didn't have the parties.

I’m sorry I’m still processing the most naive thing ever posted on the internet. 

[Ag with kids 581]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m sorry I’m still processing the most naive thing ever posted on the internet. 

And...this is the reason why I got out of the cesspool.

Have fun swimming here.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

“Parties are a proxy for policy,” Amazing.

This is like that time somebody on Shaggy seriously suggested that Texas hire a Madden champ for OC. It’s an idea you always imagine somebody might think about but nobody would actually suggest out loud. 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Huckleberry 32,703]

I mean he's absolutely correct. The GOP is a proxy for limited government, anti-authoritarianism, balanced budgets, intelligent immigration, and moral behavior. 

[Huckleberry 32,703]

13 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

And...this is the reason why I got out of the cesspool.

Have fun swimming here.

Yes, we're well aware that you and many others are incapable of defending your political positions so you just run away. 

[Ag with kids 581]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I mean he's absolutely correct. The GOP is a proxy for limited government, anti-authoritarianism, balanced budgets, intelligent immigration, and moral behavior. 

I didn't say they were a GREAT proxy.  Again...I don't care about the party.

But, GOP politicians will generally vote for more conservative policies than Democratic politicians will.

And Democratic politicians will generally vote for more liberal policies than GOP politicians will.

So, that's what we have today.

I don't think California would like some kind of a redistricting plan that ended up with them having more conservative representatives any more than Texas would like the opposite.

[Ag with kids 581]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, we're well aware that you and many others are incapable of defending your political positions so you just run away. 

Whatever.  I've posted my position MULTIPLE fucking times on here (and Shaggy, and HF).  You don't like it.  Ok.  And?

Explain your position on this, making sure to include how you would solve the issue of communities of interest (and explain what those are fully).

[Huckleberry 32,703]

2 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I didn't say they were a GREAT proxy.  Again...I don't care about the party.

But, GOP politicians will generally vote for more conservative policies than Democratic politicians will.

And Democratic politicians will generally vote for more liberal policies than GOP politicians will.

So, that's what we have today.

I don't think California would like some kind of a redistricting plan that ended up with them having more conservative representatives any more than Texas would like the opposite.

This is a lot of words that don't actually mean anything.

"generally vote for more conservative policies"

"generally vote for more liberal policies"

While the ideas might have some merit, when it comes to political parties (which is the point of this discussion) the above statements are completely meaningless. Political parties change policy positions with the winds, the only thing they care about is getting elected. Policy is a minor secondary concern for political parties. The GOP has taken historically "conservative" policy positions and promptly given zero shits about them. Same with the Democratic Party and liberal positions.

The entire point is that local concerns are MUCH more likely to have a consistent policy need that should be represented in the halls of government. Political parties are not only not good proxies for policy, they're basically not proxies for it at all.

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that we develop drugs for the world bc there’s a pot at the end of the rainbow and companies are incentivized to do so. What if we do away with that ability- and our R&D drops to the level of Europe or Canada?  They can do what they do bc we are doing the heavy lifting of innovating. What I’m saying is that reworking our heath system could kill that innovation. Should we do that anyway?  Maybe!  But there’s going to be costs and trade offs. 
Same with immigration. 
same with defense

same with a shitload of other stuff- we are paying a huge burden that other countries are not, and if we don’t, what happens?  I don’t know and neither do you. I’m admiring it though and you aren’t. You are hand waiving it away. I’m not even saying we shouldn’t do whatever you want to do- I’m just saying there absolutely will be costs people haven’t factored in. That’s it. 
I’m not making policy arguments. I’m saying it’s an absurdly complex eco system and if you think making changes in one spot won’t lead to downstream issues elsewhere you aren’t being honest with yourself. That’s it. 

That’s bullshit. You’re also ignoring the fact that money drives research, which is why cures for things that won’t make money get ignored by big pharma. I can easily argue that our current model is also stifling innovation in many ways. But perhaps we should be making decisions on general health and not profit. There’s a novel idea. 
 

we choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard. But fuck expanding healthcare. Too difficult! Don’t even bother trying! For a man who talks about personal accountability and folks taking a B+ given to them instead of working for that A, you sure do seem content to sit on a fucking F and be cool with it. 

[kevwun 15,653]

They also do things like generally ignore medical advice from experts during a pandemic that leads to 195k Americans dying.  But hey, how bout that fucking tax cut?

Edited September 11, 2020 by kevwun

[Wulaw Horn 18,981]

9 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The ACA was a great first step to solving our coverage problems but politics got too involved. Prior to 2008, requiring people to be accountable for their health costs, would have been a GOP ideal. But since Obama wanted it, it was the worst plan in the history of mankind. The ACA was far from perfect but you can't always have a revolution. Instead start with a evolution.

We need to find a method to make coverage affordable. Then either require coverage or tell people they're on their own. Basically make it realistic that people can purchase coverage and if they choose not to, they have to suffer the consequences. Pay cash, gofundme, whatever. 

When you mention rationing, every healthcare system in the world rations. No one has unlimited healthcare on-demand. That ideal is impossible to achieve.

That last paragraph you said is key. My contention is that’s what the typical American wants, at least for themselves and their loved ones. And it’s just literally impossible for a society to do. We need to face that understanding collectively and be ok with that. 
I hated the death panel argument against the ACA made by the GOP. It’s the same disingenuous bullshit argued against the contract for America GOP where if you raise school lunch funds by 1.8% instead of 2.5% you are in favor of starving children. There’s a limit to what we can provide. The ACA tried to take a step toward adressing that. The party out of power made cheap political points. Same as it has ever been. 
When the American people understand your Last paragraph we might be able to start to get a handle on fixing the thing to be more workable for all 

and for those who want a heart valve at 95- cool- use your own money. 

[Wulaw Horn 18,981]

9 hours ago, troph said:

it's impossible to achieve and isn't even the best outcome.  people die, best way to die is outside of the hospital without a lot of intense intervention.  I'll ration my end of life care on my own.  when it's time to go, it's time to go.  and knowing that, I'm living it up now.  that's the best healthcare for our elders.  live a good life, the one you want, then hug your loved ones goodbye, say your parting words of wisdom, close your eyes and go to sleep.  we have death all wrong.  we wait and wait then have panic and regrets, we aren't ready and then we hold on for dear life and it's a total cluster.

I agree with you completely. And if everyone felt this way we’d save a bajillion dollars collectively. How many do you think agree with this (for themselves and loved ones) and will maintain this courage of conviction when it’s their time coming?  Hint- it’s not a lot. 

[Ag with kids 581]

23 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is a lot of words that don't actually mean anything.

"generally vote for more conservative policies"

"generally vote for more liberal policies"

While the ideas might have some merit, when it comes to political parties (which is the point of this discussion) the above statements are completely meaningless. Political parties change policy positions with the winds, the only thing they care about is getting elected. Policy is a minor secondary concern for political parties. The GOP has taken historically "conservative" policy positions and promptly given zero shits about them. Same with the Democratic Party and liberal positions.

The entire point is that local concerns are MUCH more likely to have a consistent policy need that should be represented in the halls of government. Political parties are not only not good proxies for policy, they're basically not proxies for it at all.

I want to live in the utopian world you want.

But, I don't.  And neither do you.

[Wulaw Horn 18,981]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

America, leading the world in weiner pill development since 1996.

It’s not just wiener pills. That’s completely disingenuous. What our pharmacy and doctors do in innovation is amazing and rivaled by nobody else in the world. 

[Bookman 4,611]

I'm 44, have three degrees from UT, and I don't know if I've ever voted for "policy" in my life.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,151]

38 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

It’s not just wiener pills. That’s completely disingenuous. What our pharmacy and doctors do in innovation is amazing and rivaled by nobody else in the world. 

This is bullshit.  My aunt was in a car accident in Germany and required back surgery before she could come back home.  When she returned, her physician her looked over all the documentation and commented that the surgery she had over there in a state hospital was still in the experimental stages here and only a handful of procedures had been done in the US to that point.  Total cost in Germany; $450.

Other countries are doing plenty of good work in the medical field.  Our system is focused on the high-margin shit because well... profits.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,151]

54 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

There’s a limit to what we can provide.

Cool, now apply that to the military.

[Voldemort86 2,259]

Senate thread = hijacked

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

What the fuck is happening!?!?  Take it to a different thread you assholes!

[Wulaw Horn 18,981]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Cool, now apply that to the military.

Absolutely. It’s completely conceptually the same. It’s one of the few “America first” type things asking NATO to spend more, that the Cheeto in chief has done that doesn’t appear to be straight up grift and is actually designed to claw some benefit back to the American people. 
Knowing him there’s probably some grift somewhere I just haven’t figured out or

discovered yet. 

[Wulaw Horn 18,981]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

What the fuck is happening!?!?  Take it to a different thread you assholes!

Fair point. I’m sorry. I didn’t start the diversion but answers questions directed to me and got further and further afield of the topic. I’m out. 
back on topic- AZ, CO, ME, AL are all flipping for sure. Senate is blue with Biden victory. 
NC and GA will go whichever way the presidential goes on that state. Montana will flip if Trump runs less than 25 points ahead of Biden up there  

The Senate is guaranteed blue until at least 2024  

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 hour ago, Ag with kids said:

I didn't say they were a GREAT proxy.  Again...I don't care about the party.

But, GOP politicians will generally vote for more conservative policies than Democratic politicians will.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

What the fuck is happening!?!?  Take it to a different thread you assholes!

Perhaps this one: https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/8311-2020-policy-talk-healthcare/

[Ag with kids 581]

43 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I'm 44, have three degrees from UT, and I don't know if I've ever voted for "policy" in my life.

So, you've blindly pulled the R or D lever every year?  And not looked to see what policies the candidate(s) you're voting for support?

[Ag with kids 581]

14 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I hate simpleton charts like this...smdh

There's a reason why Benjamin Disraeli said what he said...😕

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, Ag with kids said:

I hate simpleton charts like this...smdh

There's a reason why Benjamin Disraeli said what he said...😕

I too hate things that disrupt the worldview I've created for myself.

 

[Fletch 5,799]

Why are y’all arguing with a fucking aggy? Anyways, finally got my MJ sign today. Anyone else?

[Dahobbs 17,447]

12 minutes ago, Fletch said:

Why are y’all arguing with a fucking aggy? Anyways, finally got my MJ sign today. Anyone else?

I sent $100 her way. Maybe she'll start running now that her campaign has some coffee money. 

[Ag with kids 581]

38 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I too hate things that disrupt the worldview I've created for myself.

 

The worldview that understands math and politics eludes you.  Sorry about that...

[BradInATX 9,208]

4 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

The worldview that understands math and politics eludes you.  Sorry about that...

I mean I do math for a living, very successfully, and as someone who is mostly fiscally conservative I realized about a decade ago that neither party is fiscally conservative. But if I'm voting on those fiscally conservative values, I'll vote for the one that has actually pretended to try to practice conservative financial practices. Certainly not the one that has created trillions and trillions of dollars in deficit spending to, most recently, enrich a bunch of corporations and fight two unwinnable wars in the middle east.

But if abortion and not having to bake cakes for the gays are that important to you then yeah, keep voting Republican.

Edited September 11, 2020 by BradInATX

[Ag with kids 581]

21 minutes ago, Fletch said:

Why are y’all arguing with a fucking aggy? Anyways, finally got my MJ sign today. Anyone else?

Ok @Bozo_Casanova...this is the real reason I don't get in your cesspool.  At least you give good arguments and intelligent discussion (although the responses earlier on this thread were lacking your normal civility)....

[Fletch 5,799]

@Ag with kids just giving you some light shit, man. Have at it. I enjoy odd little back and fourths like y’all are having today 

 

@Dahobbs fucking seriously. Gave her $100 last month. Now fucking get out there!!! 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Fletch

[Ag with kids 581]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I mean I do math for a living, very successfully, and as someone who is mostly fiscally conservative I realized about a decade ago that neither party is fiscally conservative. But if I'm voting on those fiscally conservative values, I'll vote for the one that has actually pretended to try to practice conservative financial practices. Certainly not the one that has created trillions and trillions of dollars in deficit spending to, most recently, enrich a bunch of corporations and fight two unwinnable wars in the middle east.

But if abortion and not having to bake cakes for the gays are that important to you then yeah, keep voting Republican.

Cool.  I do math stuffs, too. BTW, who was the "one that has actually pretended to try to practice conservative financial practices" that you voted for?

BTW, when did I ever say anything about abortion or baking cakes?

[Ag with kids 581]

5 minutes ago, Fletch said:

@Ag with kids just giving you some light shit, man. Have at it. I enjoy odd little back and fourths like y’all are having today 

 

@Dahobbs fucking seriously. Gave her $100 last month. Now fucking get out there!!! 

It's cool...I get that I'm on y'alls site so I know I'll get a ration of that...

Of course, I got negged earlier for my joking Dilbert response to @Bozo_Casanova for some odd reason so maybe I'm a bit touchier than I used to be...

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

Cool.  I do math stuffs, too. BTW, who was the "one that has actually pretended to try to practice conservative financial practices" that you voted for?
BTW, when did I ever say anything about abortion or baking cakes?

If you actually think the Republican party stands for fiscal conservatism after 40 years of their actions showing differently, then you're a moron. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not, which means when you say you vote for "conservative policy" you're talking about social conservatism. Thus the cake and abortion comment.

[Ag with kids 581]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

1 hour ago, Ag with kids said:

Cool.  I do math stuffs, too. BTW, who was the "one that has actually pretended to try to practice conservative financial practices" that you voted for?
BTW, when did I ever say anything about abortion or baking cakes?

If you actually think the Republican party stands for fiscal conservatism after 40 years of their actions showing differently, then you're a moron. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not, which means when you say you vote for "conservative policy" you're talking about social conservatism. Thus the cake and abortion comment.

You're incorrect about my position.

 Can you answer my earlier question?

And can you tell me who you support that promotes the "fiscal conservativism" you like?

[Bookman 4,611]

8 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

So, you've blindly pulled the R or D lever every year?  And not looked to see what policies the candidate(s) you're voting for support?

No of course not. Until 2018, I've never voted for someone just because they're a Republican or Democrat. I'm mainly looking for character, intelligence, critical thinking skills, and ability to effectively govern.

 

[Bateshorn 9,905]

12 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

I didn't say they were a GREAT proxy.  Again...I don't care about the party.

But, GOP politicians will generally vote for more conservative policies than Democratic politicians will.

And Democratic politicians will generally vote for more liberal policies than GOP politicians will.

So, that's what we have today.

I don't think California would like some kind of a redistricting plan that ended up with them having more conservative representatives any more than Texas would like the opposite.

I’ll ask: what do you think is a conservative position?  In your words.

 

California has non partisan redistricting. It’s currently 45-7. If it had partisan redistricting, it would be 50-3 or 49-4, more like Maryland. 
 

Texas does not draw communities of interest, it draws partisan districts.  Mike McCaul represents everything from the suburbs of Austin to the suburbs of Houston.  He represents Katy AND Westlake.  In what world does that make any sense?

[troph 24,563]

13 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I agree with you completely. And if everyone felt this way we’d save a bajillion dollars collectively. How many do you think agree with this (for themselves and loved ones) and will maintain this courage of conviction when it’s their time coming?  Hint- it’s not a lot. 

it's a growing number of people.  those who focus on living now are more likely.  hospice care is growing in popularity.  I think the movement is building.  it may never be a majority but even still that doesn't mean we shouldn't take care of our people with base levels of care.

[BradInATX 9,208]

9 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

You're incorrect about my position.

 Can you answer my earlier question?

And can you tell me who you support that promotes the "fiscal conservativism" you like?

 

I already told you, I don't believe that either party is fiscally conservative. Maybe on the local and (sometimes) state levels. And pre-Trump, my local voting was all over the board. I almost always vote fiscally conservative in Austin politics. But on the national level, neither party is. So you pick the lesser of two evils, which is very, very clearly the democrats. I mean, that's not a difficult proposition at all. Just look at what has actually happened in the real world, not politicians telling you what you want to hear. Democratic administrations have been far more fiscal conservative than Republican ones. It's not even a debate, much like the color of the sky is not a debate.

I guess you can choose to believe campaign rhetoric over 40+ years or proven results, if that's how you approach things. You do you.

Edited September 11, 2020 by BradInATX

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

I’ll ask: what do you think is a conservative position?  In your words.

 

California has non partisan redistricting. It’s currently 45-7. If it had partisan redistricting, it would be 50-3 or 49-4, more like Maryland. 
 

Texas does not draw communities of interest, it draws partisan districts.  Mike McCaul represents everything from the suburbs of Austin to the suburbs of Houston.  He represents Katy AND Westlake.  In what world does that make any sense?

My rep represents Stephenville and Hyde Park.

[The Royal We 3,065]

[StassneyHorn 6,540]

In the last two pages I’ve seen someone  refer to Europe and Canada as if Europe was one country and another disregard partisan gerrymandering cause it can’t affect statewide elections. 
 

Im going to find some senate polling and I better not see another dumb fucking post.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

My rep represents Stephenville and Hyde Park.

Yes, but you see @Ag with kids believes that since statewide races are won by Republicans, that means Hyde Park's very real local interests within the remit of congress including higher ed policy, federal grants for local infrastructure and transit, federal flood plain management and the deductability of school district property taxes don't matter, because of some mumbled words about conservative policy.

Hail Stephenville!

Edited September 11, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Ag with kids 581]

5 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

10 hours ago, Bookman said:

No of course not. Until 2018, I've never voted for someone just because they're a Republican or Democrat. I'm mainly looking for character, intelligence, critical thinking skills, and ability to effectively govern.

 

So, if they have "character, intelligence, critical thinking skills, and ability to effectively govern" and tell you that every policy they will vote for for is the opposite of what you support, you would vote for them?  Basically, you would get someone that would effectively implement policies you oppose, but do it nic

Edited September 11, 2020 by Ag with kids

[Ag with kids 581]

8 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

I’ll ask: what do you think is a conservative position?  In your words.

 

California has non partisan redistricting. It’s currently 45-7. If it had partisan redistricting, it would be 50-3 or 49-4, more like Maryland. 
 

Texas does not draw communities of interest, it draws partisan districts.  Mike McCaul represents everything from the suburbs of Austin to the suburbs of Houston.  He represents Katy AND Westlake.  In what world does that make any sense?

Communities of interest...Define that fully.

Start with Dallas County.  There's about 50 distinct communities of interest just in that county alone.  Oak Cliff and South Oak Cliff are right next to each other and are about as far opposite in "community of interest" as you can find.

I understand the concept.  I actually support the concept (regardless of what @Bozo_Casanova keeps saying about me).  But, we disagree on how to achieve it.  As I stated above, for lack of a better proxy, dividing it by parties is what I use...

For your example. look at how the parties voted for District 10 and compare it to the statewide election results.  One big thing they have in common is that they vote majority Republican (conservative) - the proxy.

https://www.270towin.com/2018-house-election/states/texas

I DO think the way that Texas draws districts is definitely not great.  But, a LARGE part of that is limited by the number of Representatives and another part is limited by law (X number of majority minority districts).

Explain how you would get all the 20K "communities of interest" in Texas represented.  Note...I am not opposed to having more Representatives.