WashPo: GOP’s gerrymandered advantages

[alexey]

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.

[Larry]

Proportional representation.

[twa]

Proportional representation.

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

[Larry]

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.

[JimboDaMan]

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.

[DjTj]

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/sto...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/d...eorgia-/nSy3T/

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

[Kilmer17]

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

Wow. That's a stunning statistic.

[twa]

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

Larry
http://westlawinsider.com/today-in-l...-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

[Popeman38]

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.

[twa]

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

Wow. That's a stunning statistic.

and wrong

the little trick of adding Deep in frt of South

[DCSaints_fan]

Its partially a fault of our system. If we had proportional representation like Germany, this doesn't happen.

Gerrymandering had some effect but its not the problem - the real problem is the Democrats base is heavily urban. And from a standpoint of geographic/regional representation, it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily draw a dividing line at Main Street unless their population is so great that it would demand multiple representatives.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

I'm not suggesting that the national vote should cause an equal representation in the house. So that the dems should have a slight lead. What I'm saying is that the GOP has one of the biggest majorities in the history of America despite the fact that less people voted for the GOP than voted for democrats. Those two things together indicate something is very wrong.

[gbear]

TWA,
The issue is the "more populated" minority areas are drawn around such that they have a super super majority for 1 seat and minimized impact on other seats. I over simplify slightly to say if I have a state with 5 seats and a 40% minority population, what happens if I take one of the seats and put in a district with 20% of the population but 50% of the minority voters. The if I draw the map just so, I can arrange the other 4 splits to be 75% majority and 25% minority. I have then watered down the influence of the 40% minority population resulting in the 40% vote only getting 1 of the 5 seats.

This is what is happening with the cities and suburbs. The cities are super majority wins, but the influence of the voters is contained. Their influence is then watered down enough to not tip the scales in any other election districts which take just enough of the urban territory/population to qualify as equal population wise without tipping the election for the House seat. Maryland did this too for the Dems, and I voted against it. It is rampant in our system, and it disenfranchises voters whose party doesn't control the Governor's seat.

[twa]

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.

I get to vote for other states and districts candidates????....oh goody

gbear...districts here go thru the Justice dept and court....I live in a alt world