Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Mitch McConnell is already back to obstruction at all costs
See that's why I was upset about how the governor's races turned out.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Well, if it gives you any comfort, Reichert, Gerlach, and Matheson are of a very different sort from Bachmann. The three of them are of the wrong party given their districts' leans. (Though Reichert just got more favorable turf this time around so he won't be as much of an example.)
On the other hand, Bachmann's issue is that she's the "right" party given her district's lean but she's way far on the end of that side.
Didn't say the Democrats didn't do it. I just think the claim that there was resounding support for a Republican majority in the house falls a little flat when the gap in the votes is that high.
And I'd like to see Huntsman/Christie, but that has about as much chance of happening as, well, Huntsman/anyone.
Santorum's been gearing up for a primary. I'll find the article I read, but it seems like he's going to do it.
edited 8th Nov '12 8:40:32 PM by Completion
In California, Gerrymandering is a bipartisan sport.
...I'm being serious.
There are roughly 200 years worth of evidence to show that both parties gerrymander the House districts...
The only difference between most other decades and this one is that the Republicans were especially blatant about it this past time around. That'll bite them in the ass in 2020(assuming Democrats take the state legislatures in those states), but it's nothing "new"...
I didn't say you said that. I said you implied it.
edited 8th Nov '12 9:05:20 PM by Swish
I don't like Christie that much because he's a bit of a jerk.
> > Got to be honest... I find the implication that Democrat controlled States were not gerrymandered to be amusing...
> Do you have anything to suggest that they actually were? Because otherwise you're just blowing false equivalence smoke.
The only example where the Dems got to go absolutely nuts with gerrymandering is Illinois. And even there, its incumbent delegation is 8 D 11 R, and that became 12 D 6 R after the 2012 elections. And that state went for Obama 57-41, so it actually now more accurately reflects its partisan lean. Okay, fine, lop off a D.
You could argue that Massachusetts has too Dem of a delegation, so maybe lop off three seats of its full-slate nine.
New York's delegation will be 21 D 6 R. Maybe if you really care, lop off a D or two, but remember it did go O 63 R 36.
New Jersey's current delegation will be a 6-6 tie. Yet NJ went 58-41 for Obama...so we should be adding another D to that, perhaps.
Maryland went for Obama 61-37, and will have a 7 D 1 R delegation. You could argue for lopping off two Ds in the new delegation, as this definitely was a D-favoring gerrymander.
In Arkansas, Dems controlled the redistricting trifecta but somehow produced a gerrymander favoring the Repubs. Yes, you read me right. Dems held all four seats a few cycles ago; they currently hold just 1 (3 R), and come January, they'll hold 0 (4 R). I don't know what idiocy possessed them, but this actually ought to be +1 D.
A few Dem gains in the 2012 elections were in California, but it was actually "un-gerrymandered", arguably—the district lines were completely redrawn and re-numbered by an independent redistricting commission. The previous map was an incumbent-protection map which...well, favored incumbents, which actually has been more R-leaning. The current delegation is 34 D 19 R and I feel too lazy to add up the new delegation but it's similar but with a few fewer Rs. Lop off a few Ds if you want, let's say three.
Also lop off a couple Ds from the Connecticut delegation if you want; that state has 5 D 0 R but went 58-41 for Obama. And lop one off for Oregon's 4 D 1 R.
Finally, lop off one D each for Hawaii, Maine, and New Hampshire.
So in total that's -14 D.
All this is not enough to compare to these results:
- Florida (O 50 R 49) - 10 D 17 R (should have +4 D)
- Ohio (O 50 R 48) - 4 D 12 R (should have +4 D)
- Wisconsin (O 53 R 46) - 3 D 5 R (should have +1 D)
- Michigan (O 54 R 46) - 6 D 8 R, soon to be 5 D 9 R (should have +2 D at least)
- Virginia (O 51 R 48) - 3 D 8 R (should have +3 D)
- Indiana (O 44 R 54) - 2 D 7 R (should have +2 D)
- North Carolina (O 48 R 51) - 4 D 13 R (should have +4 D)
- Kansas (O 38 R 60) - 0 D 4 R (should have +1 D)
- Nebraska (O 38 R 61) - 0 D 3 R (should have +1 D)
- Oklahoma (O 33 R 67) - 0 D 5 R (should have +2 D)
- Texas (O 41 R 57) - 12 D 24 R (should have +3 D)
That's +27 D, for a net gain of 27 - 14 = +13 D. Now, a House with 229 Republicans is still under Republican control, but that is much more reasonable, especially given how the western state lines are effectively gerrymandered to favor Republicans (as I think was actually intentional way back when they joined the Union, but which persists because these largely rural areas tend to be more Republican-leaning).
Now you could take issue with the fact that I was just matching delegations to the closest approximation of their presidential results, rather than taking into account things like keeping districts reasonably compact or something. It might very well be that Dems in Oklahoma are so scattered that it would be hard to draw +2 D for OK, for example. And note that when an independent redistricting authority redrew the California lines, it basically unraveled an incumbent protection map and actually favored the Dems more than the Pres numbers would suggest.
But...still.
edited 8th Nov '12 9:17:28 PM by GlennMagusHarvey
In my family, and this is a tradition that goes back, there's a rule for dividing slices of cake among children. Whoever slices the cake is the last person to choose his or her slice. The resulting slices of cake are meticulously even in size
Here's an idea: the party that's out of power gets to divide the districts. HOWEVER, they have to divide the state up into TWICE as many districts as are necessary. The party that's in power gets to merge pairs of districts, as they choose, so as to come to the right number.
I bet that will produce the fairest districts ever. They'll be measuring it down to the inches.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Actually, most of Illinois' Gerrymandering is to keep like minorities together so that they get representation. It is really insane though especially in and around Chicago. My district looks like a backwards c.
Districts aren't by size, they're by population. That's why a lot of times cities are their own districts separate from the surrounding areas.
edited 8th Nov '12 9:17:05 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Well hey, apart from abortion I find myself sympathetic to the Greens ona lot of issues too.
Even with her habit of getting arrested every other week, I gave Stein strong consideration.
Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?