GOP a minority party and got fewer votes but control congress: We know why

[evanrick]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2096978.html

Its no surprise that GOP house members got less votes than Democrats. Why should they have more house seats?

This is unconstitutional and there needs to be federal reform now to stop disenfranchising democratic voters who have been shut out by the corruption of the GOP in republican controlled states.

[Orlandude]

On a brighter note...the LGBT community cast 76% of their vote to President Obama.

Source: Gallup

[JayHawk]

It is true if the way it worked were totaling national vote then republicans would have a grip on nothing. There were a ton of republican super majorities that were crushed last Tuesday and a quite a few democratic super majorities created while even more democratic gain in state houses. All they can do is gain state power and gerrymander the districts back into a fair alignment.

[star-warrior]

Gerrymandering.

It was even worse in Ryan's “safety” race for his seat in the US House of Representatives. The seven-term congressman kept his seat, thanks to partisan redistricting that grabbed off a chunk of Republican Waukesha County and attached it to Ryan’s southeastern Wisconsin’s district.

More....

[Rolyo85]

For a lot of self-loathers an anti-gay vote is a rebellion against a sexuality they don't want

[Just_Believe18]

Republicans always do a better job than Democrats when it comes to Gerrymandering and protecting their districts. For example, the 2010 mid-term elections gave them the leverage they needed from the census to do this.

[maxpowr9]

2010 elections is what fucked over Democrats due to the census and therefore redistricting. It's why when Puerto Rico's statehood bill lands on the Congressional floor, there will be a GOP tide against it due to forced redistricting with the Democrats taking over in some states. Politics is at its core, a hardcore game.

[frankfrank]

2010 elections is what fucked over Democrats due to the census and therefore redistricting. It's why when Puerto Rico's statehood bill lands on the Congressional floor, there will be a GOP tide against it due to forced redistricting with the Democrats taking over in some states. Politics is at its core, a hardcore game.

Big time. Somebody on MSNBC last night (Rachel, I think) showed Pennsylvania's map for Con\gress (or maybe it was for their state assembly), which was redistricted by Republicans, and they carved up much of the Philadelphia area in little pieces that extend into Republican areas, so nearly every state congressional district causes the state to be little more than an ocean of red.

IN ALL FAIRNESS, Democrats, when in power, do the same damned thing.

Presumably the districts which ARE Democratic are ones which will vote 80% to 90% Democratic. I didn't look at the map entirely closely, but I assume that North Philly is entirely contained into a small number of state districts. I didn't see any trace of blue around Chester, either, so obvviously another area that got split into multiple areas to dilute the Democrats.

I STILL SAY THAT NO ZIP CODE SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED, BY FEDERAL LAW, TO RESIDE IN MORE THAN ONE FEDERAL CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT in any state. I am even more convinced, now that I just researched what kinds of populations exist in the most heavily populated Zip Codes, that this districting plan would indeed be viable. Because a U. S. population of 315 (?) million is allocated among 435 House districts, each Congressional District will tend to have more than one half million people in it, except for the two or three cases where the entire state has a population smaller than that.

With no Zip Code having no more than a fraction of "more than one half million" people, there is no circumstance which would ever cause any Zip Code to need two Districts because of too many people. This was the largest population I could find in any Zip Code:

Zip Code 60629 Chicago, Illinois 114301 Residents

I haven't looked at the Zip Code map yet, but I'm guessing this is the Zip Code in the "Gold Coast" area just north of the Loop along the Lake, which has an insanely dense population of high-rise condos and apartments, etc.

Only one Zip Code in PUERTO RICO was somewhar larger than this.

Democrats, given the chance, do EXACTLY the same thing. This entirely violates the will of the people.

[JB3]

Repeat after me: Seats in the House are allocated by Census results, not by how many people vote on election day.

That is why. It is irrelevant that democrats received more votes (and only 1% more at that), because that has nothing to do with how seats are allocated. If it did, we would have single party rule forever.

[JB3]

Republicans always do a better job than Democrats when it comes to Gerrymandering and protecting their districts. For example, the 2010 mid-term elections gave them the leverage they needed from the census to do this.

I will kindly point you to the map of Illinois following Mike Madigan's gerrymandering for proof that both parties do it. The Illinois map is easily one of the most ridiculous and transparent cases of gerrymandering in recent history. It led to one of the most bipartisan members of congress losing her seat, because her district was gerrymandered to favor the opposite party.

Both parties do it, and its time states started figuring out a way to remove humans from the equation.

[Sausy]

I will kindly point you to the map of Illinois following Mike Madigan's gerrymandering for proof that both parties do it. The Illinois map is easily one of the most ridiculous and transparent cases of gerrymandering in recent history. It led to one of the most bipartisan members of congress losing her seat, because her district was gerrymandered to favor the opposite party.

Both parties do it, and its time states started figuring out a way to remove humans from the equation.

Totally agree. Parties in control of the state legislatures should not use the census as a method of assuring their own control of their districts by reassembling them to enhance the power of their constituencies. Stinks when anyone uses that kind of corrupt process and any reapportionment of state districts according to population changes should be handled by nonpartisan state boards. "To the victor belongs the spoils" method of governing has no place in a representative constitutional democracy.

[Just_Believe18]

I will kindly point you to the map of Illinois following Mike Madigan's gerrymandering for proof that both parties do it. The Illinois map is easily one of the most ridiculous and transparent cases of gerrymandering in recent history. It led to one of the most bipartisan members of congress losing her seat, because her district was gerrymandered to favor the opposite party.

Both parties do it, and its time states started figuring out a way to remove humans from the equation.

I'm not denying that both parties do it. However, when you look at the re-districting from the 2010 Census after the mid-term elections, it is widely accepted that the Republican party better defended their seats than the Democrats did.

[JB3]

I'm not denying that both parties do it. However, when you look at the re-districting from the 2010 Census after the mid-term elections, it is widely accepted that the Republican party better defended their seats than the Democrats did.

Except they didn't really. The GOP lost seats in the House. If redistricting had benefited the Republicans more, they would not have lost seats like they did.

[rareboy]

That's interesting... it's still worrying 24% voted the other lol...

You and me both.

[JB3]

Alaska and Wyoming need to have independent redistricting committees.

All states need it. No partisan anywhere should have any control over redistricting.

[Jack Springer]

I'm not denying that both parties do it. However, when you look at the re-districting from the 2010 Census after the mid-term elections, it is widely accepted that the Republican party better defended their seats than the Democrats did.

I think the states had more republican legislatures in 2010. In the years that democrats control the state legislatures -- the democrats control drawing the congressional districts.

What's so hard to understand about that?

[palemale]

I would like to see the Voting Rights Act amended to require legislatures to create the most compact and contiguous districts possible, to to give as much deference to political boundaries as possible, i.e. not splitting cities, towns, counties, neighborhoods into multiple congressional or state legislative districts, if possible. I've lived in the same neighborhood for 20 years and flipped back and forth between two congressional districts three times (this is my third redistricting in this neighborhood.

I remember, about 20 years ago I think, where someone remarked about a district in North Carolina that hugged an interstate highway clear across the state, that if someone drove down that highway with both doors open they would knock every voter in the district over.

[frankfrank]

Except they didn't really. The GOP lost seats in the House. If redistricting had benefited the Republicans more, they would not have lost seats like they did.

In the Democratic tsunami of 2012 (which is illustrated better by results in the Senate, where all races are statewide at-large races, with redistricting and Gerrymandering therefore impossible), the Democrats actually gained seats. (With twice as many Democratic seats at risk as Republican seats, from the total of 33 Senatorial elections, the Senate was the Republicans' hope to make gains on but instead, against these awful odds, the Democrats gained seats.)

The Republicans lost seats in the House, yes...BUT BARELY. How much of an overall shift from R to D (after any offsets by any seats that shifted from D to R)? It wasn't more than 6 or 7 seats, was it? (At least one election, the one in Arizona to replace Gabrielle Giffords, is a dead-heat and hasn't been decided yet.) The Republican margin in the House is still substantial.

If Districts were always drawn fairly, chances are that the Republicans would have lost the House, but rampant Gerrymandering prevented it. Redistricting is always a state-by-state matter, and it is usually done with final approval of the legislatures, which in many states turned sharply Republican after the 2010 election. I am talking about STATE Representatives and Senators, the ones who sit in Santa Fe and Montgomery and Salt Lake City and Harrisburg, not the ones who sit in Washington.

In all fairness, as I mentioned in another thread (or was it in this one?), if the Democrats are in power, they do the same damned thing. However, the Republicans seem to be more "effective" at shaping the craziest Districts.

I also cited some of the crazy (federal) Congressional Districts in western and central Illinois, and JB3 (perhaps having seen my post in that thread) talked above about the crazy Illinois map. Most likely the redistricting was done Democrat-style, though (for shame, for shame) I don't even know much about the process in MY OWN STATE.

[Kulindahr]

2010 elections is what fucked over Democrats due to the census and therefore redistricting. It's why when Puerto Rico's statehood bill lands on the Congressional floor, there will be a GOP tide against it due to forced redistricting with the Democrats taking over in some states. Politics is at its core, a hardcore game.

The irony there is that opposing the entry of a new state is very anti-republican.

[Kulindahr]

Except they didn't really. The GOP lost seats in the House. If redistricting had benefited the Republicans more, they would not have lost seats like they did.

Not necessarily -- if the redistricting had been done in a mathematically balanced way, they probably wouldn't even have retained control of the House. It all depends on which way voters were moving.

[Kulindahr]

^
So does that leave the possibility the Democrats could hit 200 in the House?

[JB3]

In the Democratic tsunami of 2012 (which is illustrated better by results in the Senate, where all races are statewide at-large races, with redistricting and Gerrymandering therefore impossible), the Democrats actually gained seats. (With twice as many Democratic seats at risk as Republican seats, from the total of 33 Senatorial elections, the Senate was the Republicans' hope to make gains on but instead, against these awful odds, the Democrats gained seats.)

The Republicans lost seats in the House, yes...BUT BARELY. How much of an overall shift from R to D (after any offsets by any seats that shifted from D to R)? It wasn't more than 6 or 7 seats, was it? (At least one election, the one in Arizona to replace Gabrielle Giffords, is a dead-heat and hasn't been decided yet.) The Republican margin in the House is still substantial.

If Districts were always drawn fairly, chances are that the Republicans would have lost the House, but rampant Gerrymandering prevented it. Redistricting is always a state-by-state matter, and it is usually done with final approval of the legislatures, which in many states turned sharply Republican after the 2010 election. I am talking about STATE Representatives and Senators, the ones who sit in Santa Fe and Montgomery and Salt Lake City and Harrisburg, not the ones who sit in Washington.

In all fairness, as I mentioned in another thread (or was it in this one?), if the Democrats are in power, they do the same damned thing. However, the Republicans seem to be more "effective" at shaping the craziest Districts.

I also cited some of the crazy (federal) Congressional Districts in western and central Illinois, and JB3 (perhaps having seen my post in that thread) talked above about the crazy Illinois map. Most likely the redistricting was done Democrat-style, though (for shame, for shame) I don't even know much about the process in MY OWN STATE.

Google 'Mike Madigan redistricting'. If anyone wrote a book about how crooked and corrupt Illinois politics are, that jackass would be on the cover.

[frankfrank]

You don't have to tell ME about crooked Ill-Noise politics. I *LIVE* in the middle of it.

But wait, as far as "that jackass" being on the cover - ISN'T that animal related to the Democratic donkey? (I'm not really sure about the difference between a donkey and a jackass, and too lazy to look it up...)

[Ninja108]

Both parties do it. Even though it will never happen,redistricting should be done away with.

[Kulindahr]

Both parties do it. Even though it will never happen,redistricting should be done away with.

Huh? Then we could end up with one Congressman representing over a million people and another representing a quarter of that... in districts that are side by side in the same state.