Historically, the party out of power wins the midterm elections as a means of rebuking and restraining the excesses of the party in power. Trump has no intention of letting that happen and no shame in doing whatever he can to prevent it. Fortunately for him, neither the Texas lege nor Governor Greg Abbott have any concern about disenfranchising citizens of the Republic who might vote otherwise by gerrymandering congressional districts to flip five districts to assure that they are as red as can be.

In response, California plans to put a question to its voters whether to do the same so that five congressional districts that are now red are turned blue. Both states are quite open about their purpose and, while California might better reflect the position of its citizens based upon the mechanism being used while Texas shows no interest whatsoever in what its citizens want, both are using redistricting in the most cynical, undemocratic way imaginable.

And the Supreme Court doesn’t have any problem with it, one man, one vote be damned.

Both parties have gerrymandered, although the current talking point by the Republicans that the Democrats have already gerrymandered as much as could be is nonsense. Indeed, the fact that California can do what it’s trying to do belies the claim. But already, there aren’t many congressional districts in play anyway.

In many states, legislators and governors became more aggressive about redistricting after the 2020 census. Last year, only 8 percent of congressional races were competitive, according to a Times analysis, down from 34 percent in 1996.

In a nation where the political division hovers at about 50%, this is alarming. The voters who ultimately decide who wins and loses are, at least theoretically, the independent and undecided voters, as the base for each party is going to vote for the party either way. The nature of these swing voters is that they swing, and if a party or official isn’t doing what they approve of, they may well swing the other way from election to election. That’s the way a democracy should work.

But what happens when and if the citizens of a state that have been cynically gerrymandered beyond recognition decide they aren’t thrilled about the status quo?

The negative consequences of gerrymandering are broader than partisan unfairness. The more the outcome of a general election is predetermined, the more the real choice among candidates shifts to the primary. That puts the base of each party in control, rewarding candidates who play to extremes rather than to the views a majority of Americans hold. Gerrymandering disempowers voters, and it feeds grandstanding rather than bipartisan deal-making. It promises more of the dysfunction that has made Congress deeply unpopular.

In other words, the power to elect shifts from the general election to the primary, where the candidate who appeals most to the base, the hardest core cohort of the party, will wind up the candidate for the general election. And because of gerrymandering, the outcome of the general election is foretold. This means that the candidates will be perpetually at the extremes, whether right or left, rather than moderate and independent of the party. In the case of current Republicans, independent of Trump.

In a New York Times editorial, California’s response to Texas’ extreme gerrymandering is wrong, and yet necessary.

The choice facing Democratic lawmakers is tougher. This editorial board has consistently supported drawing nonpartisan districts and criticized members of both parties who gerrymandered. Our broader view remains unchanged. Still, we understand why Mr. Newsom is pursuing his plan. It would make possible a redistricting map that would very likely hand five more seats to Democrats but, crucially, only if Texas went ahead with its own plan. If Texas stands down, California will, too.

It would be naïve for Democrats to stand by while Republicans squeeze every drop of partisan advantage to retain power. It would be especially damaging for Democrats to do so before the 2026 midterms, which offer the opportunity to check Mr. Trump’s challenge to America’s constitutional order.

This view is simultaneously understandable and yet problematic. The likelihood that Trump, and therefore Texas, will back off is nonexistent. Trump has no shame, and Abbott and Texas Republicans aren’t going to court Trump’s anger and retaliation by failing to do his bidding, even if it means screwing their own citizens in the process. But like the cold war nuclear arms race, this action/reaction gerrymandering means that votes will be rendered irrelevant as gerrymandering spirals out of control.

There is, however, an alternative that  could break this downward spiral. If American patriots, who believe in democracy and the right to have a meaningful vote, refuse to be stripped of their power at the polls by having their districts gerrymandered beyond recognition in order to guarantee the outcome to a political party, and refuse to vote for the candidate the extreme wings of their party dictate, but for a candidate who will serve their interests rather than be a good soldier in the president’s army, this cynical ploy can be broken.

Not that long ago, there was the “Solid South,” a Democratic fortress across the southern states that looked impossible to break into. Yet here we are, the south gone red. It can happen. It can be done. All we need are people who believe enough in democracy and America to not allow themselves to be cogs in a political party’s machine. And are willing to tell Gerry to get lost.