Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   How the GOP plans to rule as a minority party: Gerrymandering, Electors by congressional district, repeal the 17th amendment   ( dailykos.com) divider line
    More: Scary, minority party, gerrymandering, direct election, Health Care, International, constitutional amendments, Community Spotlight, secretary of states, amendments  
•       •       •

3170 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Nov 2012 at 12:05 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-11-16 09:04:41 AM  
Just the 17th?
 
2012-11-16 09:55:01 AM  
That's nice. Except if you project that plan out after you factor in their shrinking demographic, growing opponent demographic, and regressing political stances you begin to lose all toss up races, suburban districts, and statewide congressional districts.
 
2012-11-16 10:45:07 AM  
So maybe Rove wasn't so delusional when he used to crow about a 'permanent Republican majority'....
 
2012-11-16 10:55:03 AM  
I think gerrymandering is more and more coming to the forefront of the electorate's mind. All you had to see was how overwhelmingly the Dems won this presidential election and Senate, yet the Republican House miraculously kept the majority. WTF, man.

Unfortunately the next decade is going to hurt. Where I live in NC, my representative, David Price, won in 2010 by I think 10 points, 55/45. This year he won 73% of the vote, mostly due to redistricting. That's some bullsh*t right there.

Attitudes and demographics are shifting though. The GOP can't continue this forever, and they don't control all the legislatures.
 
2012-11-16 10:57:03 AM  
averageangry.com
 
2012-11-16 11:11:08 AM  
I would say they wouldn't dare try to pull something like that on the populace - where the opposition wins a majority of votes, but they award 2/3 the vote to their own party - but then, they're Republicans. Completely shameless. Would not surprise me to the electoral college change happen in Ohio by 2016, not one bit.
 
2012-11-16 11:55:51 AM  

tallguywithglasseson: I would say they wouldn't dare try to pull something like that on the populace - where the opposition wins a majority of votes, but they award 2/3 the vote to their own party - but then, they're Republicans. Completely shameless. Would not surprise me to the electoral college change happen in Ohio by 2016, not one bit.


That is the problem with any sort of voting that tries to "group" populations together and then assign their collective "thought" as a group of votes. I mean, you're argument about Ohio.... if they did change their rules to be like NE & ME... well, you can't be "oh well" about those states because they usually are not in play, but, be "but, but, Ohio!" because that would mean the Democrats will lose probably 10-12 EV because of how they would divide up the districts. I mean, you could make the same argument "Well, if we grouped together Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky, they romney would have won that as one 'block', so, that is unfair".

The thing about the Electoral College is, at least the "arbitrary" groupings of people (ie, the states) were made over 100 years ago, so, to that extent, they are not being actively influenced to try to make groupings that get one side elected over the other.

If you go to "nationwide" (or, even in just what are now "swing states") to "Electoral College" voting by "arbitrary" groupings that are heavily controlled by current day politics... well, I think the consequences of that are pretty obvious.

Going to "congressional district" Electoral College voting is bad, not because it would screw the democrats right now (which it would), but, because it would be unfair to whichever party didn't have control over creating the "groupings" every 10 years.

Which is why many people just want to have a straight PV for president nationwide. Because, you can't make current day changes to how the Electoral College system works that likely are not dominated by political aspirations.
 
2012-11-16 12:04:50 PM  

dletter: The thing about the Electoral College is, at least the "arbitrary" groupings of people (ie, the states) were made over 100 years ago, so, to that extent, they are not being actively influenced to try to make groupings that get one side elected over the other.


Right, state boundaries are tough to gerrymander at this point.

dletter: Which is why many people just want to have a straight PV for president nationwide


I would be fine with that, though it might make election night go on until the next day, or days after in close races.

Just think, Republican presidential candidates campaigning in California! Democrats in Texas! Most arguments for the EC are pretty bad, or just plain wrong.
 
2012-11-16 12:09:27 PM  
So more of the same.
 
2012-11-16 12:13:08 PM  

dletter: Going to "congressional district" Electoral College voting is bad, not because it would screw the democrats right now (which it would), but, because it would be unfair to whichever party didn't have control over creating the "groupings" every 10 years.


That, and its a backdoor way of making the Presidential election a direct election without having to
amend the constitution.
 
2012-11-16 12:15:22 PM  
Dollars to donuts this will only happen in blue or swing states with Republican legislatures and governors, while solid red states will remain winner-take-all.
 
2012-11-16 12:16:32 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: dletter: Going to "congressional district" Electoral College voting is bad, not because it would screw the democrats right now (which it would), but, because it would be unfair to whichever party didn't have control over creating the "groupings" every 10 years.

That, and its a backdoor way of making the Presidential election a direct election without having to
amend the constitution.


No, it isn't. A direct election would have produced an Obama victory. An election per district would not have.
 
2012-11-16 12:17:52 PM  
Why stop there, why not go back to just "white landowning males" being allowed to vote?
 
2012-11-16 12:21:27 PM  
The current GOP is the greatest threat to our democracy since the civil war.
 
2012-11-16 12:23:03 PM  

WTF Indeed: That's nice. Except if you project that plan out after you factor in their shrinking demographic, growing opponent demographic, and regressing political stances you begin to lose all toss up races, suburban districts, and statewide congressional districts.


Actually, based on the Voting Rights Act, the shrinking demographic would help. Non-hispanic whites will be a minority in certain states, but they will have areas where they are minority-majority, which the courts is the requirement for having their own district carved out.
 
2012-11-16 12:27:07 PM  
The older I get the more I believe our system of government is fundamentally flawed.

We really need a parliament. Not only would it be directly proportional to actual votes, but governments can be overturned if necessary. We are just too paralyzed right now and the ability if 3rd parties to participate actually exists in a parliamentary system..
 
2012-11-16 12:27:23 PM  

LazarusLong42: DjangoStonereaver: dletter: Going to "congressional district" Electoral College voting is bad, not because it would screw the democrats right now (which it would), but, because it would be unfair to whichever party didn't have control over creating the "groupings" every 10 years.

That, and its a backdoor way of making the Presidential election a direct election without having to
amend the constitution.

No, it isn't. A direct election would have produced an Obama victory. An election per district would not have.


This.

The current electoral college system groups together person into arbitrary "winner takes all" groups to be sure to come up with the winner, but, they are not "modifiable" to the people who sit in regional political offices at the time.

Popular Vote is just "whoever the most people want" across the country wins.

Making the electoral college work by groups that are directly created by political forces in office at a specified time, just sets up gerrymandering the groups to produce winners you want over the next 10 years.
 
2012-11-16 12:30:00 PM  
Here's an even better idea, Daily Kos: Your party won, so shut down the whine/conspiracy factory.

The fact Republicans still exist seems to hurt a lot but try to concentrate on getting your people to govern.
 
2012-11-16 12:32:01 PM  
Why do these people have no sense of the future? They keep trying to set up "advantages" that will come back to bite them far worse than they will their opponents.
 
2012-11-16 12:40:02 PM  

LazarusLong42: No, it isn't. A direct election would have produced an Obama victory. An election per district would not have.


An election per district, if it had been known before the campaign started (say in 2010), would probably have produced an Obama victory. Obama's campaign would have been very different, but Mitt's would probably have been exactly as disorganized as it was.

That said, if Republicans want to start losing state legislatures, let them try to pull some of this shiat.

You'd need 38 state legislatures to go along with it and Republicans only have 28 (they increased by 1 in 2012). Unless they plan to win big in 2014, they're not going to get this thing to pass.
 
2012-11-16 12:40:47 PM  

Citrate1007: The current GOP is the greatest threat to our democracy since the civil war.


And considering they represent the sons and daughters of the confederacy, this should come as a surprise to no one.
 
2012-11-16 12:42:47 PM  

dletter: tallguywithglasseson:
Going to "congressional district" Electoral College voting is bad, not because it would screw the democrats right now (which it would), but, because it would be unfair to whichever party didn't have control over creating the "groupings" every 10 years.


It's unfair in that it doesn't represent the will of the people. I'd prefer we switch to direct voting, but if we keep the EC, we should either keep it the way it is or strive to make representation as fair as possible.
If states are going to split the vote it shouldn't go by district because that could be wildly unrepresentative of the people's will. Say you're in a Republican-controlled state with two large cities and lots of small towns. You could gerrymander it so the two cities, which represent 3/4 of your population, each get an electoral vote, and the six other districts, which only have 1/4 of the population between them, get six electoral votes. So, in 2012, Romney would have won the EV race in that state 6-2, though he was drubbed in the state's popular vote. It's just not fair.

What we SHOULD do is put an end to the nonsense of gerrymandering for the benefit of whichever party is in control every ten years and have state commissions or the like fairly draw up districts.
 
2012-11-16 12:45:11 PM  

andrewagill: LazarusLong42: No, it isn't. A direct election would have produced an Obama victory. An election per district would not have.

An election per district, if it had been known before the campaign started (say in 2010), would probably have produced an Obama victory. Obama's campaign would have been very different, but Mitt's would probably have been exactly as disorganized as it was.

That said, if Republicans want to start losing state legislatures, let them try to pull some of this shiat.

You'd need 38 state legislatures to go along with it and Republicans only have 28 (they increased by 1 in 2012). Unless they plan to win big in 2014, they're not going to get this thing to pass.


Isn't the problem that states can determine on their own how they award electoral votes? That is, they could well vote in the state legislature to go EV vote by district?
 
2012-11-16 12:49:36 PM  
I'd say, let 'em do it.

Most of the "voter fraud" legislation hurt the GOP rather than helped.
 
2012-11-16 12:52:39 PM  

jasimo: andrewagill: LazarusLong42: No, it isn't. A direct election would have produced an Obama victory. An election per district would not have.

An election per district, if it had been known before the campaign started (say in 2010), would probably have produced an Obama victory. Obama's campaign would have been very different, but Mitt's would probably have been exactly as disorganized as it was.

That said, if Republicans want to start losing state legislatures, let them try to pull some of this shiat.

You'd need 38 state legislatures to go along with it and Republicans only have 28 (they increased by 1 in 2012). Unless they plan to win big in 2014, they're not going to get this thing to pass.

Isn't the problem that states can determine on their own how they award electoral votes? That is, they could well vote in the state legislature to go EV vote by district?


Maybe he was talking about the 17th amendment? Yeah, individual states control the apportionment of electors.

If Republican state legislatures try to go that way, though, expect Democratic state legislatures to start signing on to the National Vote Compact faster.
 
2012-11-16 12:55:56 PM  

Cletus C.: Here's an even better idea, Daily Kos: Your party won, so shut down the whine/conspiracy factory.

The fact Republicans still exist seems to hurt a lot but try to concentrate on getting your people to govern.


How is "most states going to a Congressional District EV method" a "conspiracy theory"?

Two states already do it, and there is really nothing from stopping other states from doing it.

Getting data from here: http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/4161/, and assuming that we had nation wide EV by Congressional District (ie, 2 EV for state winner, all of the others determined by E.V.) you would have had these results:

2000:
Actual EV: Bush 271, Gore 266
"CD EV": Bush 302, Gore 236
PV: Gore +~500,000

2004:
Actual EV: Bush 286, Kerry 251
"CD EV": Bush 321, Kerry 217
PV: Bush +~3,000,000

2008:
Actual EV: Obama 365, McCain 173
"CD EV": Obama 299, McCain 239
PV: Obama +~10,000,000

I don't have any source yet for 2012.. if someone knows of one, let me know.
 
2012-11-16 12:59:48 PM  

jasimo: What we SHOULD do is put an end to the nonsense of gerrymandering for the benefit of whichever party is in control every ten years and have state commissions or the like fairly draw up districts.


Commissions controlled by who? Certainly whomever doesn't get what they want will just accuse the commission of being "biased".

I'd say use computer algorithms that can be agreed upon by all, but, as we saw with the Nate Silver stuff... good luck getting the GOP to agree to that.
 
2012-11-16 01:00:24 PM  

Cletus C.: Here's an even better idea, Daily Kos: Your party won, so shut down the whine/conspiracy factory.


I know, I mean, just because the GOP actually DID gerrymander their way to a minority house majority, and just because GOP state officials ARE talking about apportioning electors by congressional district, and just because repealing the 17th amendment is a tea party talking point of some currency, it doesn't mean that the GOP is going to actually try to do any of this stuff. Other than the stuff they've already done, that is. Oh, and the stuff they are actually trying to do.

K'mon, Kos Kiddos--Quit the conspiracy theorizing by pointing to actually accomplished goals of the plotters and their publicly stated future goals. That's just Krazy.


The fact Republicans still exist seems to hurt a lot but try to concentrate on getting your people to govern.

I know. We need some more of the kind of governing we saw with the House GOP's laser-like focus on jobs that we saw last congress.
 
2012-11-16 01:10:15 PM  
Here's how it's done by Democrats in Maryland:

upload.wikimedia.org

Ridiculous when either side does it.

How can anyone can do this with a straight face?
 
2012-11-16 01:18:58 PM  

Erebus1954: Here's how it's done by Democrats in Maryland:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 635x379]

Ridiculous when either side does it.

How can anyone can do this with a straight face?


Clearly both sides are bad. Therefore , this is nothing to worry about.

I mean, sure, the GOP has retained a large majority in the House despite garnering at least half a million fewer votes for their candidates than the Democrats. This clearly indicates that this sort of partisan hackery is completely equivalent and therefore evens out in the big picture.
 
2012-11-16 01:26:25 PM  

Skleenar: Erebus1954: Here's how it's done by Democrats in Maryland:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 635x379]

Ridiculous when either side does it.

How can anyone can do this with a straight face?

Clearly both sides are bad. Therefore , this is nothing to worry about.

I mean, sure, the GOP has retained a large majority in the House despite garnering at least half a million fewer votes for their candidates than the Democrats. This clearly indicates that this sort of partisan hackery is completely equivalent and therefore evens out in the big picture.


Clearly they are all cheating bastards so let's fix it. I have no idea how. I don't think it evens out in the long run like bad calls in sports.
 
2012-11-16 01:28:02 PM  

Skleenar: Cletus C.: Here's an even better idea, Daily Kos: Your party won, so shut down the whine/conspiracy factory.

I know, I mean, just because the GOP actually DID gerrymander their way to a minority house majority, and just because GOP state officials ARE talking about apportioning electors by congressional district, and just because repealing the 17th amendment is a tea party talking point of some currency, it doesn't mean that the GOP is going to actually try to do any of this stuff. Other than the stuff they've already done, that is. Oh, and the stuff they are actually trying to do.

K'mon, Kos Kiddos--Quit the conspiracy theorizing by pointing to actually accomplished goals of the plotters and their publicly stated future goals. That's just Krazy.


The fact Republicans still exist seems to hurt a lot but try to concentrate on getting your people to govern.

I know. We need some more of the kind of governing we saw with the House GOP's laser-like focus on jobs that we saw last congress.


Every time there's a census the gerrymandering festival begins. Depending on state rules and party control of the process it goes one way or the other. Most often based on politics. This is not a new development.
 
2012-11-16 01:31:10 PM  

Erebus1954: Here's how it's done by Democrats in Maryland:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 635x379]

Ridiculous when either side does it.

How can anyone can do this with a straight face?


Actually that's an old map, the new District 3 is even worse.
 
2012-11-16 01:33:49 PM  

pag1107: Erebus1954: Here's how it's done by Democrats in Maryland:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 635x379]

Ridiculous when either side does it.

How can anyone can do this with a straight face?

Actually that's an old map, the new District 3 is even worse.


OMG, it is worse.
 
2012-11-16 01:39:32 PM  

thunderbird8804: Citrate1007: The current GOP is the greatest threat to our democracy since the civil war.

And considering they represent the sons and daughters of the confederacy, this should come as a surprise to no one.


That is where General Sherman failed; he allowed some survivors that would breed.
 
2012-11-16 01:50:19 PM  

Erebus1954: Clearly they are all cheating bastards so let's fix it. I have no idea how. I don't think it evens out in the long run like bad calls in sports


They are not "all" cheating bastards. There are some states where the redistricting process is more "fair" than in others.
2010 happened at a bad time for the Democrats, because that happened to be a Census year, thus a year that the newly energized and rabid Tea Party caucus took power in many GOP states. These new state legislators had a strongly partisan agenda, and they enacted it without regard to quaint notions like "fairness" or "representation". This is not to say that this hasn't happened under Democratic rule, too. Obviously it has. But what is different now is the scale of the mismatch between popular vote and representation and the doubling-down that is being proposed by state GOP's in order to gain maximum partisan advantage of the situation (i.e. apportioning electors by [gerrymandered] congressional districts).
 
2012-11-16 02:02:44 PM  

Skleenar:

They are not "all" cheating bastards. There are some states where the redistricting process is more "fair" than in others.
2010 happened at a bad time for the Democrats, because that happened to be a Census year, thus a year that the newly energized and rabid Tea Party caucus took power in many GOP states. These new state legislators had a strongly partisan agenda, and they enacted it without regard to quaint notions like "fairness" or "representation". This is not to say that this hasn't happened under Democratic rule, too. Obviously it has. But what is different now is the scale of the mismatch between popular vote and representation and the doubling-down that is being proposed by state GOP's in order to gain maximum partisan advantage of the situation (i.e. apportioning electors by [gerrymandered] congressional districts).


Okay, they aren't all cheating bastards. Hyperbole on my part.

It's terrible that the scale of the mismatch is that bad now. This is a serious abuse of the voters in my view.

Now how to fix...
 
2012-11-16 02:13:54 PM  
I would be more in favor of electoral votes by congressional district if gerrymandering was illegal and all districts where created using unbiased algebraic formulas.
 
2012-11-16 02:22:09 PM  
Really simple solution. Check out Iowa's congressional districts:

upload.wikimedia.org

Done mathematically, scientifically, and neither side is really crazy about them. In 2012, resulted in a 2D/2R congressional delegation. Sounds about right to me, no?
 
2012-11-16 02:23:00 PM  
Shot in the Foot 2: Electorate Boogaloo.

/They'll try, but it will backfire.
//Look how well the GOP's latest Machiavellian schemes worked.
 
2012-11-16 02:33:32 PM  

LazarusLong42: jasimo: Isn't the problem that states can determine on their own how they award electoral votes? That is, they could well vote in the state legislature to go EV vote by district?

Maybe he was talking about the 17th amendment?


Correct. I was referring to two separate issues. Well, three separate issues actually.

Repealing direct election of senators would be very poorly received by voters (and by sitting senators, for that matter).

Hamhanded gerrymandering would result in voters (quite possibly from both parties) running politicians out of office.

And campaigns are run differently for different types of elections.
 
2012-11-16 02:40:03 PM  
So, they're trying to impose apartheid on the United States?
 
2012-11-16 02:43:03 PM  

DemonEater: Really simple solution. Check out Iowa's congressional districts:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 776x600]

Done mathematically, scientifically, and neither side is really crazy about them. In 2012, resulted in a 2D/2R congressional delegation. Sounds about right to me, no?


Not to be a naysayer, because I think this is a reasonable model for other states, but it sure helps make the map look "fair" when there isn't a huge variation in population density within the state.

Here's a relatively "fair" map that passed with large bipartisan majorities.




The great spread in population densities makes it tougher to eyeball out whether or not there was some sort of gamesmanship involved in the drawing of the boundaries, especially in the denser parts of the state.
 
2012-11-16 02:43:47 PM  
www.electoral-vote.com

htmlpwnd.
 
2012-11-16 03:00:06 PM  

Citrate1007: The current GOP is the greatest threat to our democracy since the civil war.


Hooray for a republic then?
 
2012-11-16 03:10:08 PM  

roddack: Citrate1007: The current GOP is the greatest threat to our democracy since the civil war.

Hooray for a republic then?


semantics........you get my point
 
2012-11-16 03:10:53 PM  

DemonEater: Really simple solution. Check out Iowa's congressional districts:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 776x600]

Done mathematically, scientifically, and neither side is really crazy about them. In 2012, resulted in a 2D/2R congressional delegation. Sounds about right to me, no?


Also you notice it is done completely along county lines. That at least lends itself to taking some level of totally "gerrymandering" out. I mean, you have crazy crap like CD's having two completely separate areas "connected" by literally just the land along a highway connecting them to create the CD. That is mindbogglingly transparent, but, unfortunately, the day to day person doesn't think or care about it.
 
2012-11-16 03:15:40 PM  

dletter: Also you notice it is done completely along county lines.


again, much easier to accomplish in a relatively equally dense state. Not so easy in a state with large cities surrounded by rural areas where county lines don't reflect this sort of disparity.
 
2012-11-16 03:16:47 PM  

dletter: DemonEater: Really simple solution. Check out Iowa's congressional districts:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 776x600]

Done mathematically, scientifically, and neither side is really crazy about them. In 2012, resulted in a 2D/2R congressional delegation. Sounds about right to me, no?

Also you notice it is done completely along county lines. That at least lends itself to taking some level of totally "gerrymandering" out. I mean, you have crazy crap like CD's having two completely separate areas "connected" by literally just the land along a highway connecting them to create the CD. That is mindbogglingly transparent, but, unfortunately, the day to day person doesn't think or care about it.


Of course, that is an "Iowa" thing as pointed out (state with just a few semi-larger cities, fairly spread out, so, you can make a "quadrant" approach like that). A state like Illinois for example.... Cook county by itself has probably 6-7 CD's, because it is such a huge county. So, you can't completely say " a county has to be completely in one CD", but, it would be good to say you cannot split up a county into two different CDs, unless you are doing so because the country is so large it needs to be split up to get close to equal populations in the districts.
 
2012-11-16 03:22:00 PM  

Skleenar: dletter: Also you notice it is done completely along county lines.

again, much easier to accomplish in a relatively equally dense state. Not so easy in a state with large cities surrounded by rural areas where county lines don't reflect this sort of disparity.


As you see, I kinda caught myself on that... but, you could still say that you have to respect the county lines at some level.

I mean, letting a party dictate the CD lines like that for the presidential election would be like us changing to Electoral College to "Instead of it beings 50 states+DC, we are now changing it to just be '51 regions of the country' that all have around the same population, and whomever is in control of the U.S. senate at the time of the census gets to draw all the lines of those regions. And now since all 50 regions have the same population, they will all have the same # of 'EV', so, you are really just trying to win 26 regions to be president. And of course, since we let it be gerrymandered, whoever controls the senate in the census years basically picks the Executive Branch party for the next 2 terms".
 
Displayed 50 of 69 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report