Plan B Forum

The American people voted to put the entire government -- President, Senate, and House of Representatives -- in the hands of the Democrats.

Americans cast 1 million more votes for Democrats than for Republicans in the House.

It is only because of the Republicans' ridiculous gerrymandering, gerrymandering which was absolutely essential to the Republicans' technical but unreal "victory" in the House:

Despite sweeping wins for Democrats in US Senate races and a broad Electoral College victory for President Barack Obama, it was clear early in the night that Republicans would hold on to the House. As Slate's Dave Weigel noted, "ridiculous gerrymanders saved the House Republican majority." In many states the president won convincingly, Democrats elected a minority of the House delegation. Here are the numbers for states that Obama won or came close and where Republicans drew the congressional map:

■North Carolina, which Obama lost by around 2 percentage points: 9-4 GOP
■Florida, which Obama won by around half a percentage point: 17-10 GOP
■Ohio, which Obama won by nearly 2 percentage points: 12-4 GOP
■Virginia, which Obama won by around 3 percentage points: 8-3 GOP
■Pennsylvania, which Obama won by more than 5 percentage points: 13-5 GOP
■Wisconsin, which Obama won by 6 percentage points: 5-3 GOP
■Michigan, which Obama won by 8 percentage points: 9-5 GOP

It goes to show that when you get to choose the ground on which electoral battles are fought, you're very likely to win them.

The leaders of the Republican party should be ashamed of themselves. But, of course, they have no capacity for shame ....

Yes but I thought that voting for President was rather a different thing than voting for a Representative?

I know many people who over the years have happily (and some not so) split their vote - choosing as President a person from a party that they would never support in Senate or House races. It is not valid to compare votes for Obama to votes for would-be Rep. Joe Blow (R) vs. would-be Rep. Josephine Sucks (D).

Had I voted in Ohio in November I would probably have voted for Obama (against my will) and yet straight Republican in other state/local races absent any compelling reason not to support the chaps and chapettes who had hats in the ring.

These majority arguments are often rather facile - observe how many people did not vote for Abraham Lincoln at all. But of course, he was a Republican so probably cheated.

It remains facile to call "gerrymandering" against Republicans when Democrats do exactly the same thing whenever the opportunity affords.

Meade

You're missing the point, General: Because of gerrymandering, the Republicans kept technical control of the House despite losing the popular vote for the House. Again, the American people cast 1 million more votes for Democrats than for Republicans in the House.

And the problem exists in individual States as well as in the country at large:

In North Carolina, Republican candidates garnered a total of 2.14 million votes in the 13 districts, winning nine. Democrats gained a total of 2.22 million votes, winning three districts and leading in a fourth.

In Pennsylvania, Republicans won 13 of the 18 districts even as they lost the aggregate vote by 2.7 million to 2.6 million.

In Pennsylvania, the Democrats won 51% of the votes for Representatives. By rights, the Democrats should have ended up with at least 9 of Pennsylvania's 18 Representatives. But they ended up with only 5. They won 51% of the votes, but they ended up with only 28% of Pennsylvania's Representatives.

Likewise, in North Carolina, the Democrats won 51% of the votes for Representatives. By rights, the Democrats should have ended up with 7 of North Carolina's 13 Representatives. But they ended up with only 4. They won 51% of the votes, but they ended up with only 31% of North Carolina's Representatives.

Those skewed outcomes do not result from people's splitting their votes between Obama for President and Republicans for Representatives. Indeed, that appears not to be a significant factor at all:

But in states that weren't very gerrymandered, like Iowa and Colorado and New Hampshire, you ddin't [sic] see a huge divergence between the presidential vote and the House votes.

Those outrageously skewed outcomes result from gerrymandering. In Pennsylvania, for example:

Democrats have been packed into three uncompetitive seats around Philadelphia, an uncompetitive seat in the Lehigh Valley, and a safe seat in Pittsburgh. The state's suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas have been rigged to be just outside the range where Democrats might win them.

In Ohio, for another example:

Democrats have been packed into four deep blue districts. Republicans have given themselves the other 12. They controlled the process in North Carolina and Michigan, and gave themselves similar maps.

I recognize that the Democrats like to do the same thing. And so do linked articles:

To be perfectly fair, Democrats played the same game in Illinois and Maryland, squeezing out suburban Republicans by packing just enough of Cook County and Montgomery County, respectively, into their districts.

The Dems would have done the same thing, of course, had they won control of these crucial states in 2010.

But it has been Republican gerrymandering that has caused the party that lost the vote to hold the technical majority in the House. And not just this time:

It’s the first time since 1996 that one party won more House seats while winning fewer votes, according to data compiled by the House Clerk’s office.

And who "won" the 1996 House election? You guessed it: the Republicans.

So then Andrew I see you agree with me. Thanks. The number of votes for President has nothing to do with votes for representatives. Both sides try their best to gerrymander. And keeping out democrats is roughly equivalent to turning on a bug zapper. I kind of like neither side having a clear path to dictatorship

Meade

False equivalence. Merely a way of turning one's brain off and ignoring the problem.

The numbers alone show that there is a large difference in degree between the two.



yrs,
rubato

Your system is insane.

(I may have mentioned this before.)

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Yes but I thought that voting for President was rather a different thing than voting for a Representative?

I know many people who over the years have happily (and some not so) split their vote - choosing as President a person from a party that they would never support in Senate or House races. It is not valid to compare votes for Obama to votes for would-be Rep. Joe Blow (R) vs. would-be Rep. Josephine Sucks (D).

Had I voted in Ohio in November I would probably have voted for Obama (against my will) and yet straight Republican in other state/local races absent any compelling reason not to support the chaps and chapettes who had hats in the ring.

These majority arguments are often rather facile - observe how many people did not vote for Abraham Lincoln at all. But of course, he was a Republican so probably cheated.

It remains facile to call "gerrymandering" against Republicans when Democrats do exactly the same thing whenever the opportunity affords.

Meade

I work with someone who voted Republican for everything EXCEPT the President. He CAMPAIGNED for Scott Brown for Senate!

We really need an unbiased system for drawing up districts. Letting the political parties control the process too easily leads to abuse.

Well, General, I can't tell whether you are still missing the point or deliberately evading it. Here it is again:

By its egregious gerrymandering, the Republican party stole House seats which rightly belong to the Democratic party.

In Pennsylvania, the Democrats won the popular vote for Representatives. Were it not for Republican gerrymandering, the Democrats would hold at least 9 of Pennsylvania's 18 seats the House. But because the Republicans stole at least 4 of Pennsylvania's seats in the House, the Democrats ended up with only 5.

Were it not for gerrymandering by the Republicans -- the party that lost the popular election for Representatives in Pennsylvania -- the Republicans would hold, at most, 9 of Pennsylvania's 18 seats in the House. But because the Republicans stole at least 4 of Pennsylvania's seats in the House, the Republicans ended up with 13.

In North Carolina, the Democrats won the popular vote for Representatives. Were it not for Republican gerrymandering, the Democrats would hold 7 of North Carolina's 13 seats in the House. But because the Republicans stole 3 of North Carolina's seats in the House, the Democrats ended up with only 4.

Were it not for gerrymandering by the Republicans -- the party that lost the popular election for Representatives in North Carolina -- the Republicans would hold only 6 of North Carolina's 13 seats in the House. But because the Republicans stole 3 of North Carolina's 13 seats in the House, the Republicans ended up with 9.

Is that clear enough for you?

MajGenl.Meade wrote:The number of votes for President has nothing to do with votes for representatives.

Wrong:

--> In the most gerrymandered States, there were huge divergences between the percentage of the votes that went to Obama and the percentage of House seats "won" by the Republicans.

--> In the States that were not so gerrymandered, those huge divergences did not occur.

Do you now perceive the relevant correlation?

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Both sides try their best to gerrymander.

But the results have not been the same:

--> In 1996, the Republicans gerrymandered House districts so that they got more seats in the House than did the Democrats, even though the Republicans lost the popular vote for Representatives.

--> In 2012, the Republicans gerrymandered House districts so that they got more seats in the House than did the Democrats, even though the Republicans lost the popular vote for Representatives.

To find an instance in which the Democrats lost the popular vote for Representatives but ended up with more seats in the House anyway, we must go all the way back to 1942. And that outcome does not appear to be the result of gerrymandering. Rather, the most likely explanation for that outcome is the fact that very few of the Americans who were serving in the military overseas voted:

The cumbersome institutional design (and admittedly short period of implementation) would result in minimal participation by servicemen in the 1942 elections. Only 137,686 applications for war ballots were received by the War Department, and only 28,051 soldiers submitted their war ballots in accord with their respective state laws. Given that there were between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 American servicemen abroad, this incredibly low level of soldier participation was considered unacceptable, especially at the highest levels of the federal government.

(Building Toward Major Policy Change: Congressional Action on Civil Rights, 1941–1950 (Law and History Review February 2012, Vol. 31, No. 1) (footnotes omitted).)

In other words:

Apparently, few soldiers were able to negotiate the complex steps required to cast a vote and in November 1942, the first mid-term election conducted during World War II, only one-half of one percent of the five million active-duty service personnel voted (Should Soldiers Have the Vote, 1943).

MajGenl.Meade wrote:And keeping out democrats is roughly equivalent to turning on a bug zapper.

If that is true, then keeping out Republicans is roughly equivalent to cleaning out the cats' litter box.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:I kind of like neither side having a clear path to dictatorship

The notion that putting our government in the hands of one party -- where the American people voted to put it -- would result in dictatorship is delusional paranoia. Our government has been in the hands of one party repeatedly in our history (at least in the 20th and 21st centuries, more often than not), and dictatorship has never resulted.

But what we have now -- due to the losing (Republican) party's relentless and viciously stupid obstructionism -- is dysfunctional government. It requires a bizarre view of things to think that government which actually works is somehow worse than government which cannot get anything done.

Andrew D wrote:

MajGenl.Meade wrote:And keeping out democrats is roughly equivalent to turning on a bug zapper.

If that is true, then keeping out Republicans is roughly equivalent to cleaning out the cats' litter box.

Grim Reaper wrote:We really need an unbiased system for drawing up districts. Letting the political parties control the process too easily leads to abuse.

BINGO! That should be the real conclusion to take away from this discussion.

Saying that it's all right if the Republicans gerrymander their way to a majority because the Democrats do it too when they get the chance, and it's all right if the Democrats do it because the Republicans do it too when they get the chance misses the point that it leads to fundamental unfairness. It's not enough simply to hope that each instance of unfairness will compensate for another instance of unfairness. It's wrong, and should be fixed.

Calif. took redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and gave it to a commission balanced between the two major parties with a few 'dts'* thrown in for good measure.

http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/commission.html

"
Background on Commission

In accordance with the Voters FIRST Act (Act), the California State Auditor randomly selected the first eight members of the first Citizens Redistricting Commission (Commission) on November 18, 2010. These first eight commissioners—three who are Democrats, three who are Republican, and two who are either Decline-to-State or are registered with another party—were part of the 36 eligible applicants that remained in the sub-pools after the legislative leaders, exercised their authority to make strikes and eliminated the names of 24 applicants from the pool of 60 of the most qualified applicants identified on September 23, 2010 by the Auditor’s Applicant Review Panel (Panel). The Panel reviewed and evaluated the applicants based on criteria set forth by the Act approved by voters in November 2008; including relevant analytical skills, the ability to be impartial; and a demonstrated appreciation for California’s diverse demographics and geography. "


yrs,
rubato

So the "all or nothing" way of electing the President via the electoral college (in NY and other states) is fair?

NY historically goes democrat in Pres elections (I think Reagan was the abnormality), so no other person of any party gets a say/vote? Not even a percentage of the electoral votes?

How is that fair?

If one district has 10 voters and 9 out of 10 vote dem, the dem gets in for that district. Another has 10 voters and 7 out of 10 vote repub, then the repub gets in for that district. But overall the vote is 12 for the dem and only 8 for the repub. District lines are drawn and redrawn every census (maybe sooner) and the elected represent that district. Get and impartial panel (is that even possible) to redraw the lines 50-50 split. But then what about us who have no party affiliation?

Obama won by a significant margin of the popular vote as well as the electoral college vote.

This is the opposite of what happened in the elections of representatives.

yrs,
rubato

Yo, rube...

Still waiting for a response here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8122&p=102760&hilit ... er#p102760

And here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8097&p=102671&hilit ... ns#p102671

And oh yes, here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8111&p=102662&hilit ... ts#p102662

I wont hold my breath....

There is a tiny bit of validity in Andrew's posting, but it is a tiny bit indeed. It is like whining that your favorite baseball team scored more runs than anyone else during the season, but did not win the championship. The reason is, of course, that that is not how the championship is decided.

Pennsylvania is a wonderful example of the perversity of the system and the shortcoming in Andrew's argument. Obama won PHILADELPHIA by half a million votes, and won Pennsylvania by about half that. So aside from one tiny little corner of the state - one county out of 67 (I believe it is) - PENNSYLVANIA voted for Romney, but the masses of mindless government teat-suckers in Philadelphia delivered the state to Obama.

And the same thing happened nation wide. In the urban enclaves where the majority of the population is beholden to Gub'mint, and relatively few pay any Federal Income Taxes at all, Obama won massive majorities. And this perversity carried the biggest states and the election. We have all seen U.S. maps by county, in which the "red" counties make up about 90% of the country, and the blue counties just a few pockets, yet the blue candidate won, because the blue areas are densely populated with unproductive people who look to government for comfort.

We republicans would WELCOME a change to proportionate allocation of electoral votes in each state - a much more "democratic" arrangement than what we have now.

The bottom line is this: Obama was able to win this election by promising a gigantic and generous national government to the Masses who either don't care to be productive or who are simply not productive, and promising on the other hand that it would be paid for BY SOMEONE ELSE, i.e., "the top 2%." How deliciously telling that he often cites polls that "prove" people favor his plan to tax the top two percent. What a remarkable result: Most people want A large and generous government PAID FOR BY SOMEBODY ELSE!

This is not to say that everyone who voted for Obama was out to get something from government, but that large dependent group carried the election for him.

dgs49 wrote:Obama won PHILADELPHIA by half a million votes, and won Pennsylvania by about half that. So aside from one tiny little corner of the state - one county out of 67 (I believe it is) - PENNSYLVANIA voted for Romney

Obama carried 14 counties in Pennsylvania - Erie, Allegeny, Centre, Dauphin, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe, Northampton, Lehigh, Bucks, Montogomery, Delaware, and Philadephia. These counties carried 55% of the total votes cast in the state, and span all four corners as well as the middle of the state. Is it Obama's fault that Pennsylvania has some counties with only 5 or 6,000 inhabitants, and others that have a million or more?

In the urban enclaves ... Obama won massive majorities. And this perversity carried the biggest states and the election.

Not surprisingly, the fact that 75% of the U.S. population live in urban areas means that their votes will have a significant impact in any election.

We have all seen U.S. maps by county, in which the "red" counties make up about 90% of the country, and the blue counties just a few pockets, yet the blue candidate won, because the blue areas are densely populated

Amazingly, when elections are held, areas that are more heavily populated will generate more votes than areas where one could drive for miles without encoutering a bipedal animal.