A lot can happen in two weeks.

When I wrote Aug. 2 about undercutting the ongoing gerrymandering debate by changing the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in a century, there was little indication Democratic members of the Texas State Legislature would flee to Illinois and New York in order to deprive their Republican colleagues of the quorum needed to conduct a special session expected to include a mid-cycle redrawing of Congressional maps.

That development kept the story not he front burner for several weeks, which is perhaps why my inbox logs another missive every few days from readers with ideas for how to improve the electoral environment.

CW, from Channahon: “I understand why the Senate was created as it is, to give each state an equal say in the creation of our new country and new form of government. But the House is supposed to be the People’s House, and should represent all people equally across the whole country. House district sizes should be set by the population of the least populated state, so each state gets at least one representative, and larger states get as many districts of that same size as needed to cover their populations.”

GB, Joliet: “How about having a ‘DOGE’ like group direct AI to write a program that could be used in any state or all states to redistrict that state based only on population and area?”

JA, no town given, invoked cumulative voting, “A system in which voters make their choices based not on geography but on the issues that they value and the stances of each candidate on those issues, assigning their multiple votes as they wish. The outcome is more representative of voters’ interests and values and avoids the problem of gerrymandering.”

BO, formerly of Chicago: “Gerrymandering may insulate some incumbents from a serious challenge from the other party, it also means that the main thing those incumbents are worried about are challengers from the most extreme voices in their own party. … So if you’re a Republican, all you’re worried about is what somebody to your right is saying about you, because you know you’re not going to lose a general election. Same is true for a lot of Democrats. So our debates move away from the middle, where most Americans are, towards the far ends of the spectrum. And that polarizes us further.”

OK, that last one actually is a clip from then-President Barack Obama’s February 2016 Statehouse address, but it’s important context.

While I fully believe in the establishment parties’ appetite for exploiting advantages in any system, I also favor wholesale commitment to attempting reforms. The current tensions appear unsustainable.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.