WashPo: GOP’s gerrymandered advantages

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-gops-gerrymandered-advantages/2012/11/13/4785e4d6-2d2f-11e2-a99d-5c4203af7b7a_story.html?hpid=z3

GOP’s gerrymandered advantages

When Republicans claim that this was a status quo election, they point to their continued hold on the House. The 2012 congressional vote, some have said, didn’t undo the party’s 2010 successes.

True enough, but that’s not because Americans didn’t vote to undo them. It’s because Republicans have so gerrymandered congressional districts in states where they controlled redistricting the past two years that they were able to elude a popular vote that went the Democrats’ way last week.

As The Post’s Aaron Blake reported, Democrats narrowly outpolled Republicans in the total number of votes cast for congressional candidates. The margin varies depending on whether you count the races in which candidates ran unopposed and those in which members of the same party faced off (as happened in several California districts). But any way you count it, the Democrats came out ahead — in everything but the number of House seats they won.

Consider Pennsylvania, where President Obama won 52 percent of the votes cast, and Democratic Sen. Bob Casey defeated his Republican rival, 53 percent to 45 percent. Yet Democrats won just five of that state’s 18 U.S. House seats. They carried both districts in the Philadelphia area — by 85 percent and 89 percent, respectively — and three other districts, by 77, 69 and 61 percent. Of the 13 districts where Republicans prevailed, GOP candidates won seven with less than 60 percent of the vote; in only one district did the Republican candidate’s total exceed 65 percent of the votes cast.

...

Hate gerrymandering, the Democrats have made a real mess of Maryland with it over the years too.

Saw this under the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-against-maryland-redistricting/2012/10/19/dc06c282-1967-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-redistricting-fight-officially-over/2012/11/09/9f6dc968-2aad-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html

Yep, I HATE gerrymandering, IMO it is the worst of politics and the best example of political parties attempting to stack the deck in their favor. We talk a lot about disenfranchisement, but IMO gerrymandering is a bigger sin.

The whole practice of gerrymandering makes my head hurt. It's as confusing as it is crooked.

Hate gerrymandering, the Democrats have made a real mess of Maryland with it over the years too.

Saw this under the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-against-maryland-redistricting/2012/10/19/dc06c282-1967-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-redistricting-fight-officially-over/2012/11/09/9f6dc968-2aad-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html

"You do it too, huh?"

I think it says something that democrats actually got more votes than republicans nationwide in the house races, but the GOP has like a 30 seat advantage. It says that a lot of states are seriously gerry mandered in favor of the GOP, and it also says that the country does not want, i.e. did not vote, for a majority of GOPers in the house.

"You do it too, huh?"

I think it says something that democrats actually got more votes than republicans nationwide in the house races, but the GOP has like a 30 seat advantage. It says that a lot of states are seriously gerry mandered in favor of the GOP, and it also says that the country does not want, i.e. did not vote, for a majority of GOPers in the house.

Nevermind.

I think I see where this thread is going....

"You do it too, huh?"

I think it says something that democrats actually got more votes than republicans nationwide in the house races, but the GOP has like a 30 seat advantage. It says that a lot of states are seriously gerry mandered in favor of the GOP, and it also says that the country does not want, i.e. did not vote, for a majority of GOPers in the house.

Everyone's hands are dirty. There's a reason why over 1 million people voted for Gary Johnson in 2012, not to mention Perot's and Nader's impressive performances in '92/'96 and '00, respectively.

"We the people" are growing tired of these political games played at our expense.

Nevermind.

I think I see where this thread is going....

It is what it is, I'm sorry. This thread is going to facts, hopefully. More people voted for democrats than republicans, but republicans have one of the biggest majorities in the history of the House? That doesn't strike you as ridiculous?

Of course everyone gerrymanders, but that is not what is so shocking. The democrats got more votes nationwide, but have 30 less seats. Its absurd.

This is one time that a proposition in California actually did some good (and made sense).

In 2008, Prop 11 removed the responsibility for drawing the state's congressional districts from the state legislature and gave the responsibility instead to a 14 member Citizens Commission.

These districts were required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act; be contiguous; be compact, etc...

More states need to follow that route.

Nevermind.

I think I see where this thread is going....

The same place every political thread where people point out a serious problem goes?

It appears to me Democrats really run up the score in urban districs, where as R's don't quite get the same big margins (80% and up) in safe R districts.

Gerrymandering goes both ways regardless, its the only way you are able to create "minority" districts, which tend to favor D's

It is what it is, I'm sorry. This thread is going to facts, hopefully. More people voted for democrats than republicans, but republicans have one of the biggest majorities in the history of the House? That doesn't strike you as ridiculous?

Of course everyone gerrymanders, but that is not what is so shocking. The democrats got more votes nationwide, but have 30 less seats. Its absurd.

Here's the problem with the "presidential votes equal congressional votes" thinking, not all people vote party-line. In Kentucky it is not unusual to elect a Blue Dog Dem while staying consistently Red in Presidentials. I'm sure others have similar dichotomies.

This is one time that a proposition in California actually did some good (and made sense).

In 2008, Prop 11 removed the responsibility for drawing the state's congressional districts from the state legislature and gave the responsibility instead to a 14 member Citizens Commission.

These districts were required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act; be contiguous; be compact, etc...

More states need to follow that route.

Florida voters passed something that I suspect is a much weaker version, but still aimed in the same direction.

(And it rather surprised me that they passed it, too.)

Which didn't prevent us from getting things like this:

I agree that gerrymandering is a completely and totally bipartisan activity. Earlier in the year I remember hearing a story regarding a lawsuit or perhaps legislation brought by some group against gerrymandering, possibly in FL if I remember correctly. Anywho, even though they were in the minority there, the Dems argued against the anti-gerrymandering bill/lawsuit for obvious reasons, i.e. they were expecting to one day benefit from it. California got this one right.

It is what it is, I'm sorry. This thread is going to facts, hopefully. More people voted for democrats than republicans, but republicans have one of the biggest majorities in the history of the House? That doesn't strike you as ridiculous?

Of course everyone gerrymanders, but that is not what is so shocking. The democrats got more votes nationwide, but have 30 less seats. Its absurd.

My problem is if we're going to use this thread as just another excuse to bash the GOP, without looking at Gerrymandering itself, and ignore instances where it's done and done frequently by the Democrats.

I don't support Gerrymandering by either side, but my own personal experiance with it is via Democrats.

In any case I don't think much of it's going to change though, unfortunately, as long as it's successful and courts/voters let them do it.

It appears to me Democrats really run up the score in urban districs, where as R's don't quite get the same big margins (80% and up) in safe R districts.

Gerrymandering goes both ways regardless, its the only way you are able to create "minority" districts, which tend to favor D's

I think the point of this thread is that R's are currently enjoying an advantage in gerrymandering, likely due to GOP gains in 2010 elections.

Proportional representation. :halo:

Proportional representation. :halo:

You mean like we have in the house?

I agree we need to eliminate some of the small state senators to reflect the small pop :)

A republic, if you can keep it

You mean like we have in the house?

No, that's not what we have in the House.

As the OP actually points out.

But then, you knew that, didnt you?

I agree we need to eliminate some of the small state senators to reflect the small pop :)

You "agree" that you're in favor of anything that you figure will help the Republican Party.

A republic, if you can keep it

A slogan, if you want to avoid the discussion.

It appears to me Democrats really run up the score in urban districs, where as R's don't quite get the same big margins (80% and up) in safe R districts.

Gerrymandering goes both ways regardless, its the only way you are able to create "minority" districts, which tend to favor D's

Not exactly sure what you mean by this. Urban areas create natural minority districts without the need to gerrymander. In fact gerrymandering is often used to dilute minority representation by partitioning them out with suburban areas, or by creating a single all-minority district so that all the surrounding districts have relatively little minority population.

Obviously both major parties are guilty of this practice when they have a chance. But TSF's point is valid, the vote totals weaken the Republican argument that they have greater support at the local level. This is not the way it's supposed to work. In fact it's the Senate, where Wyoming's two members have equal weight with those from NY or Cali, where things should favor the Republican Party.

It appears to me Democrats really run up the score in urban districs, where as R's don't quite get the same big margins (80% and up) in safe R districts.

Gerrymandering goes both ways regardless, its the only way you are able to create "minority" districts, which tend to favor D's

Minority districts don't favor the Democratic Party. They favor minority candidates often at the expense of the Democratic Party overall. Instead of getting a chance to elect multiple Democratic Representatives across several districts, gerrymandering has been concentrating minorities into single districts, often resulting in the election of just one minority Democratic representative surrounded by several white Republican representatives.

By protecting minority districts, proposed new congressional maps for Florida help Republicans maintain their hold on the state's U.S. House delegation, even as Democrats have an edge in party registration.

It wasn't what Democratic supporters of the 2010 Fair Districts amendments envisioned, but redistricting has pivoted primarily on the legal requirement that preserves House seats held by minorities.

Reps. Corrine Brown and Alcee Hastings, both African-American Democrats, retained their high percentage of black constituents under the principle of "retrogression" -- meaning their share of minority population cannot be reduced by redistricting.

Because African-American voters are overwhelmingly Democratic, the party's vote is artificially concentrated inside existing minority districts, and any newly designated ones. That's good news for Brown, Hastings and a prospective Latino lawmaker in a new Central Florida district, but it effectively "bleaches" neighboring districts of minority and Democratic votes.

The net outcome is a domino effect -- ensuring that a larger number of districts skew toward Republicans, even though Democrats have a 544,389 (12 percent) edge in party registration statewide.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/minority-rule-fair-districts-dont-help-democrats-much

There is only one white Democratic Congressman left in the South.

U.S. Rep. John Barrow, the last white Democrat in the House from the Deep South, won re-election Tuesday in one of the more closely watched congressional elections in the nation.

Barrow will represent the Augusta-based 12th District, which was redrawn to favor Republican candidates such as Anderson, a state lawmaker and hay farmer from Grovetown.

“We have known all along that there were going to be a lot of crossover votes because of Congressman Barrow’s independent record in Congress,” said Richard Carbo, a spokesman for the Barrow campaign. “We are just very confident that the voters of this district have decided to choose someone who is willing to work with members of both sides of the aisle to accomplish some of the biggest tasks ahead of Congress.”

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/democrat-barrow-holds-off-challenge-other-georgia-/nSy3T/

Here's the problem with the "presidential votes equal congressional votes" thinking, not all people vote party-line. In Kentucky it is not unusual to elect a Blue Dog Dem while staying consistently Red in Presidentials. I'm sure others have similar dichotomies.

There were more votes nationwide for democratic congressmen than for GOP congressmen. I'm not talking about the presidential voting. I'm talking about nationwide House of Rep voting. More votes for democrats.

That isn't 100% determinative either, obviously. But you have one of the largest majorities in the history of Congress for the GOP despite the fact that the GOP got less votes than the dems.

---------- Post added November-14th-2012 at 10:58 AM ----------

My problem is if we're going to use this thread as just another excuse to bash the GOP, without looking at Gerrymandering itself, and ignore instances where it's done and done frequently by the Democrats.

I don't support Gerrymandering by either side, but my own personal experiance with it is via Democrats.

In any case I don't think much of it's going to change though, unfortunately, as long as it's successful and courts/voters let them do it.

Well, your personal experience is not reflective of the nation. That's what the numbers state. The GOP with its 30+ governors have managed to rig a huge majority despite the fact that Americans on the whole don't vote them into office.

"There is only one white Democratic Congressman left in the South. "

Wow. That's a stunning statistic.

The vote total only means more populated areas support Dems, nothing new there

Larry

http://westlawinsider.com/today-in-legal-history/today-in-1964-supreme-court-rules-that-congressional-districts-must-be-proportional/

TODAY IN 1964: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS MUST BE PROPORTIONAL

we are not of course proportional nation wide because we are a collection of states

There were more votes nationwide for democratic congressmen than for GOP congressmen. I'm not talking about the presidential voting. I'm talking about nationwide House of Rep voting. More votes for democrats.

That isn't 100% determinative either, obviously. But you have one of the largest majorities in the history of Congress for the GOP despite the fact that the GOP got less votes than the dems.

My question would be how many of those votes came in MASSIVE Dem strongholds like NY, Cali, Mass (and in reality, the entire NE corridor), major urban areas (be realistic, almost all major cities lean HEAVILY towards the left). It wouldn't strike me as all that odd that Dems would hold a 5% vote advantage nationwide based solely on the urban, NE corridor, Cali, and Pacific NW. Doesn't change the fact that the rural areas are going to elect Reps by an overwhelming majority. It just isn't goint to happen, just like Romney had 0% cahnace of winning NY or Cali based entirely on NYC/Albany/Buffalo and SD/LA/SF/Oak/Sac. Upstate NY and rural Cali? Probably carried by Romney.