How gerrymandering kept Democrats from winning even more seats Tuesday

From WashPo:
How gerrymandering kept Democrats from winning even more seats Tuesday

Excerpt;

What the Constitution doesn't say is that the popular-vote should be fair and impartial. It couldn't because otherwise the southern states would never have signed it. Those states knew full well that the larger-part of immigrants entering the US were going on to the northern states. Thus giving those states more voting-power in either the presidential of state-elections for the HofR.

So, the Electoral College was cooked-up to assure that in any state the winner-take-all rule could assure that the voting percentage favored the majority party. How does that happen?

Proponents of the Electoral College say that the system served its purpose despite the fact that the candidate who won the popular vote didn't always win the election. The Electoral College is a block, or weighted, voting system that is designed to give more power to the states with more votes; but allows for small states to swing an election.

Under this system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population. While winning the popular-vote may not ensure a candidate's victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win its Electoral College votes. The goal of any candidate thus becomes putting together the right combination of states that will give him or her 270 electoral votes.

That aint a True Democracy - and exists no where else in the developed world. It's a way to fix elections favoring one of only two-parties in a two-party electoral system.

Only the Total Popular-vote must determine the outcome without the shenanigans of either the Electoral College at the national-level or gerrymandering at the state level ... !

 

I hate to break the news to you, but Democtats also won more seats in Democrat states like California.

You do realize all 50 states gerrymander... Don't you?

 

The Gerrymander Excuse Implodes
Democrats’ total vote share roughly matches their House majority.

Elections have a way of blowing up partisan conceits—see what happened to the Democratic Party’s Electoral College “lock” in 2016. This year Democrats busted one of their own cherished myths by proving that Republican gerrymanders weren’t preventing them from retaking the House of Representatives. There’s a lesson here for voters and judges....


For many commentators the post-2010 redistricting created a crisis of democracy by supposedly locking Democrats out of power. Days before the 2018 election the New York Times’ David Leonhardt cited Republican gerrymandering as evidence that the U.S. could “slide toward Hungarian autocracy.”


Well, so much for that. Democrats last week made their largest gain in House seats since 1974 and appear to be closing in on a 233-seat House majority with several races still not called. This means Democrats will hold about 53.6% of seats—a 7.1% edge. And, what do you know, Democratic House candidates nationwide have 52.8% of votes—7.3% more than Republicans, according to the latest Cook Political Report tally.....

Liberals are still complaining that redistricting may have limited Democratic gains this year in states like North Carolina and Ohio because Democrats’ statewide vote share is greater than their share of representatives. But in states like New Jersey (which will have one GOP Congressman out of 12) and California, Republicans are wildly underrepresented by that same standard. The biggest Democratic problem in the House is geography because far more of their voters are concentrated in cities. But that was less of a liability this year as the suburbs turned more Democratic.

None of this should be surprising. Even a cleverly partisan gerrymander contains the seeds of its own undoing as political coalitions change. A district’s partisanship shifts by election based on public mood, changing demographics and the issues debated...

The other gerrymandering story from last Tuesday is the success of campaigns in Colorado, Michigan and Missouri (one in Utah is too close to call) to take redistricting power away from the political branches with the aim of creating a less partisan process.

Voters have every right to do this, but “independent” line-drawing may be no less polarizing or unfair. These states may simply be turning political choices over to less accountable authorities with their own partisan biases. The New Jersey congressional and state legislative maps are no less favorable to Democrats because they were designed by a supposedly independent commission.

All of this reinforces the argument that judges should keep out of fights over partisan gerrymanders. They would inevitably favor one party over another and cause more Americans to question judicial independence.

That’s what happened this year in Pennsylvania, where the Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court rewrote the state GOP majority’s 2011 congressional map and helped Democrats flip four seats statewide. The U.S. Supreme Court can use the evidence of 2018 as reason to end its flirtation with ruling on partisan maps—and let the parties fight it out in elections as usual...

Full article here....https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gerrymander-excuse-implodes-1542412885

 

Gerrymandering is better left up to democrats?

 

Very few countries use a popular vote to determine head of state. The electoral college isn't unique because people vote in electorates and the votes of those electorates are tallied up to pick the winner, almost all nations do some variation of this.

The only thing that's unique is the seperation of powers in the US, such that legislators can't vote for confidence in an executive and appoint him from within the legislature.

The electoral college is an attempt to reconcile the British Westminster system with the separation of powers.

 

Another whiny bitch fest from a political hack. Go look at New York and California maps and come back and tell me that they are not gerrymandered. Only a political whore with no credibility whatsoever believes that Republicans are the only ones that gerrymander. EVERYONE gerrymanders.

 

They were noting on Maddow just some days past how gerrymandering meant that the actual voting necessary to gain all the seats the Dems did meant that the most recent Dem victories were greater than either of the last two Midterm turnovers in terms of actual votes cast. The blue tsunami was very real and it means the Republicans would do well to look for another man in 2020, though the reason it came about in the first place probably precludes that

The Courts are going to decide this very soon, and I don't see how the present system will survive.

And if it does please note that DEMOCRATS will be in charge of redistricting next census. I wonder if the Republicans will so love the practice then.

 

Once again.....gerrymandering isn't new it literally goes back to the 1700s in New York and Boston.

Every single state has gerrymandering from California to Texas to Wisconsin to Illinois. The party out of power NEVER likes it but as soon as they get back in power they do exactly the same thing they were just decrying cause they are politicians and as such they are hypocrites. The only way to solve this is with math and it is an extremely easiy solved problem.

 

Let's compare apples with apples.

The European Union has NO ELECTORAL COLLEGE. The head of the party majority in the legislature is the Executive Head of Government. That person is elected directly by voters.

Throughout the EU, which is a body similar to the US in that there are individual states with representatives in a parliament (located in Strasbourg, France).

The Electoral College is a direct manipulation of the national vote because its first rule is "winner take all" in any election, that is, "all" meaning the totality of the Electoral College votes. Which are themselves disproportional to the number of voters in the state.

This mishmash can hardly be called a True Democracy, especially given the fact that (for the legislature) that vote is manipulated by gerrymandering.

Enough is enough. We don't need an Electoral College but since it is founded in the 12th Amendment (1812) it is very difficult to get rid of it. And, a national law that assures that (1) the Electoral College is constituted by a number of members (NoM) in direct relation to the state's bonafide population and (2) the NoM simply reports the voting outcome to Congress.

That is hardly "unique" to US. Even if the EU employs a national parliament to determine the Head of State (from the majority party in the Legislature), there are tribunals that assure that legislative body head (or "Prime Minister") is not "all powerful".

Which works even in EU countries that have no Consitution per se. For instance, the UK.

 

The EU is really more of a supranational confederation than your typical government. They are at least a special case.

All ex-British nations which have a majoritatian system elect representatives within their local electorates who then vote for the Prime Minister.

The UK
Australia
Canada
Etc

The system approximates the electoral college in that the representatives are like delegates in the US system. But the US can't have the House elect a President because this would violate the separation of powers. There is no executive within Parliament in the US.

As an example, in 1990 Bob Hawke was elected with less than 50% of the vote versus his opponent who managed roughly 51%.

Indeed, you could argue that the US system is more directly popular as this is done on a state level rather than in much smaller electoral districts.

________________________

I don't have any issue with your views on the EC, to each their own, it's this weird notion that indirect election of the HOS is a uniquely American situation when it is clearly not.

This is not like gun policy of universal healthcare or imperial measurements where it's the US versus everyone else. Most liberal nations have indirectly appointed heads of state. That's just how the vast majority of countries work.

The other thing I take issue with is the idea that democracy is only valid when it is as centralised as possible. People voting within their local communities is not "real" democracy. On this question I'd direct you to progressive historian Merrill Jenson's book The Articles of Confederation for an apt discussion of how the agrarian localised democracy of 1777-1787 more closely approximated the Progressive ideal than the national constitution which followed.

 

You are glossing over the factual evidence.

The Electoral College is manifestly wrong in representing the result of the popular-vote? Has been and always will be.

Gerrymandering is a uniquely American manner in which to manipulate the popular-vote and is UNIQUE TO THE US.

Wakey, wakey ...

 

So what exactly do you think is unique?

That the head of state is not directly elected? Wrong.

That the head of state is appointed by electors within districts rather than nationwide? Wrong.

That the electors are not legislators? Yes. This is unique. So what? Would it be better to you that the House of Representatives voted for the President like practically all other liberal democracies?

I don't think so.

_________________________

The factual evidence is that practically no nations elect their HOS by NPV.

 

The fact that the Electoral College DOES NOT REFLECT THE SUM OF THE POPULAR-VOTE.

The EC mechanism simply indicates the majority-vote of the "winner" - meaning whoever gets the most votes obtains also THE ENTIRE VOTING BLOC OF THE STATE'S ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Thus, the vote is being manipulated, which is how five times in American history the EC has caused the election of the LOSER OF THE POPULAR VOTE.

Donald Dork is the latest "winner" of this kind.

Duhhhhhhhhhh ...

_________________________

 

As I've said multiple times, this is not unique. Most countries' systems do not reflect the popular vote. Including all ex-British countries. For instance, in the 1990 Australian election Bob Hawke lost the popular vote but won the Prime Ministership since a majority of representatives voted for him.

You are simply wrong on the facts.

 

The factual evidence is that the Republicans will not be satisfied until only billionaires have the franchise, and American politics most generally resembles the governments of Renaissance Italy

 

I am not wrong regarding the facts in the US.

Five times in history the Popular-vote was defied by the Electoral College that voted the presidency to the loser! Five times. Get it? Five times!

It is a election device two-thousand years old from a time that America did not even have trains with which to bring the Electoral College to Washington.

The very fact that it warps the popular-vote* is sufficient evidence that if employed then the country is NOT A TRUE DEMOCRACY ... !

And who gives a damn about what happened in Australia!

*In which country do you find a college of electors from which the elected official winning the plurality of the individual state vote then walks away with the totality of the vote from that state? Where?

 

As I said, in most of the Western world.

 

American voters are seizing back control from politicians who connive to reverse the democratic process by choosing their voters.

Of course, both parties' politicians are hellbent on playing with loaded dice, but Americans, by referenda and by recourse to the courts, are as determined to restore democratic representation.

Politicians who benefit from the partisan manipulation of districts are desperate to perpetuate their contrived advantage.

The American People whom they ostensibly represent are insisting they prefer democracy.

In demanding a level playing field, they are seizing the high ground.

 

To assure out political representatives anywhere (local, state, national) we must rid ourselves of any political contribution to a party or candidate that is more than, say, $10K a year, and it must come from a bonafide citizen. Bona-fide meaning some means of attributing identity to the donor.

For instance, where I live here in France, a contribution is limited to a fixed amount and the bona-fide comes from a National Identity Card. Which is another merit-worthy "good-idea" that we should adopt.

And then, an error made in the 12th Amendment that created the Electoral College must be addressed. As you must know, putting down an Amendment requires the approval of a majority of states. So, the EC must be made to report ONLY THE RESULT OF THE POPULAR-VOTE!

We cannot seize back control of the "politicians" until the above happens and Gerrymandering is outlawed in the land. Until both corrections are made, the US remains a Untrue Democracy ...

 

Also, US politicians have legislated themselves the right to receive financial support from hidden sources (Dark Money). Anonymous contributions must be outlawed.

​

 

Ha Ha. Obama lost more in the mid term and still won the next election.

 

In 8 years, the districts change through many people moving and what was drawn up in 2010 is completely changed in that time frame, that's why they are redrawn ever 10 years.

 

There wasn't a census in between. There's a census in 2020 and all we have to do is keep our gains, which, given Trump , will not be hard

 

Never count your chickens before they hatch.

 

You are correct.

The GOP may yet be able to continue to gerrymander in a number of states.

MAGA--"Make America Gerrymander Again".