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.

(Think Progress)   Judge to FL Republicans: The election maps you drew were blatantly illegal. FL GOP: Oops our bad. But really too late change them now before the 2014 election, so we get to use them, right? Judge: Or.. we can just postpone the election   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 84
    More: Followup, Florida Republicans, President Obama, Mitt Romney, U.S. House  
•       •       •

3924 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Aug 2014 at 11:10 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-03 09:20:24 PM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-08-03 09:25:41 PM  
Last month, a Florida trial court held that the state's gerrymandered congressional maps - maps that enabled Republicans to capture 17 of the state's 27 U.S. House seats despite President Obama's victory over Mitt Romney on the very same day

Why do liberals think that house seats will break down along the same percentages as presidential elections? It was the exact opposite for most of the 60's, 70's and 80's. A presidential election is truly national, but house elections are local. You can vote for a Democratic president and still run a straight Republican ticket for everything else.
 
2014-08-03 09:29:58 PM  
In his original order, Lewis determined that two districts were drawn in order to transform a bloc of four districts "from being four Democratic performing or leaning seats in early maps . . . to two Democratic and two Republican performing seats in the enacted map

Taking bets now on what the trolls will use to try to deflect from this.

Even money on "Dems do it when they are in power".

3-2 on "activist Judge" rants.
 
2014-08-03 09:37:26 PM  
Judicial branch first.  Elections second.

/SCOTUS said so bad in 2000 in Bush v Gore
 
2014-08-03 09:38:03 PM  
badly that is
 
2014-08-03 09:39:59 PM  

quatchi: Even money on "Dems do it when they are in power".


Dems do it when they're in power and there are no state laws against it and even then not unless they control the judiciary.

The crazy horse party has chosen a.... different path.
 
2014-08-03 09:43:14 PM  

Lsherm: A presidential election is truly national


This would be true if it were decided by a simple nation-wide majority vote. Currently presidential elections in this country are decided in about a dozen or so counties around the nation.
 
2014-08-03 09:47:57 PM  

fusillade762: [lh5.googleusercontent.com image 288x288]


We need an Orwellian grumpy cat. For "doubleplusgood."
 
2014-08-03 09:50:00 PM  

Lsherm: Last month, a Florida trial court held that the state's gerrymandered congressional maps - maps that enabled Republicans to capture 17 of the state's 27 U.S. House seats despite President Obama's victory over Mitt Romney on the very same day

Why do liberals think that house seats will break down along the same percentages as presidential elections? It was the exact opposite for most of the 60's, 70's and 80's. A presidential election is truly national, but house elections are local. You can vote for a Democratic president and still run a straight Republican ticket for everything else.


Gerrymander. Look it up.
 
2014-08-03 09:51:42 PM  

fusillade762: Lsherm: A presidential election is truly national

This would be true if it were decided by a simple nation-wide majority vote. Currently presidential elections in this country are decided in about a dozen or so counties around the nation.


Well that's a glitch introduced because of the electoral college. But even if we had a straight up direct election you could make the same argument that presidential elections are decided by a very small minority of the population (unless there's a landslide). There's always a cutoff somewhere.
 
2014-08-03 09:52:48 PM  

DrBenway: fusillade762: [lh5.googleusercontent.com image 288x288]

We need an Orwellian grumpy cat. For "doubleplusgood."


memecrunch.com
 
2014-08-03 09:56:32 PM  

Lsherm: fusillade762: Lsherm: A presidential election is truly national

This would be true if it were decided by a simple nation-wide majority vote. Currently presidential elections in this country are decided in about a dozen or so counties around the nation.

Well that's a glitch introduced because of the electoral college. But even if we had a straight up direct election you could make the same argument that presidential elections are decided by a very small minority of the population (unless there's a landslide). There's always a cutoff somewhere.


I have to say I agree with your "17 of 27" comment, though. I don't think that's a good indicator. Especially when you consider Obama only beat Romney by 0.9% of the vote in Florida.
 
2014-08-03 09:57:20 PM  

doglover: Gerrymander. Look it up.


I'm familiar with the term. Gerrymandering can affect expected house seats for a particular party, but states voting for a different party for president than they have for house representatives is fairly common. Ohio bounces back and forth between national candidate parties but it's been a solidly Republican state even before the 2010 census.
 
2014-08-03 10:09:20 PM  

fusillade762: DrBenway: fusillade762: [lh5.googleusercontent.com image 288x288]

We need an Orwellian grumpy cat. For "doubleplusgood."

[memecrunch.com image 480x360]


Two boots, actually.  One "D" and one "R".
`
 
2014-08-03 10:11:31 PM  

Lsherm: it's been a solidly Republican state even before the 2010 census


http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/research/biop-2-the-five-ohios.dot

That looks solid the same way jello looks solid.
 
2014-08-03 10:19:04 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Lsherm: it's been a solidly Republican state even before the 2010 census

http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/research/biop-2-the-five-ohios.dot

That looks solid the same way jello looks solid.


If you look at their middle graph and realize only blue areas are reliably democratic, with everything else either republican, mostly republican, or slightly republican, then it's a pretty solid republican state. It has pockets of democratic strongholds in the north.

Also, the aggregate graph doesn't include House races, so it's somewhat pointless in the context of this conversation.
 
2014-08-03 11:02:34 PM  

Lsherm: Marcus Aurelius: Lsherm: it's been a solidly Republican state even before the 2010 census

http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/research/biop-2-the-five-ohios.dot

That looks solid the same way jello looks solid.

If you look at their middle graph and realize only blue areas are reliably democratic, with everything else either republican, mostly republican, or slightly republican, then it's a pretty solid republican state. It has pockets of democratic strongholds in the north.

Also, the aggregate graph doesn't include House races, so it's somewhat pointless in the context of this conversation.


Come 2016, things will really get interesting.  But the midterms look solid R to me (as in Recumbent).
 
2014-08-03 11:08:22 PM  

Lsherm: doglover: Gerrymander. Look it up.

I'm familiar with the term. Gerrymandering can affect expected house seats for a particular party, but states voting for a different party for president than they have for house representatives is fairly common. Ohio bounces back and forth between national candidate parties but it's been a solidly Republican state even before the 2010 census.


This could be a case, just like in several states that Republicans rigged, that the majority of the votes cast in congressional races were for Democrats and still the Republicans won most of the seats. The best example of this is Pennsylvania.

It's also true for the entire nation, but for whatever reason no one cares and the Republicans doubled down on their confidence and declared that they had some sort of a mandate.
 
2014-08-03 11:22:59 PM  

Lsherm: I'm familiar with the term.


Then what are you defending here?
 
2014-08-03 11:24:35 PM  

quatchi: Even money on "Dems do it when they are in power".


They do.

The judiciary actually starting to call 'em on their bullshiat is new.  Honestly, even with the occasional bout of ridiculous bullshiat like citizens' united, overall I'm not entirely displeased that the judicial branch has started taking a more active role in policy again instead of letting the others do what they want.

I'm somewhat less pleased that this is mostly because the legislative branches of both the feds and most of the states have farked the dog so hard that they literally  cannot do a lot of things and the other branches have had to pick up the neglected powers just to keep the figurative lights on.
 
2014-08-03 11:25:10 PM  

doglover: Lsherm: I'm familiar with the term.

Then what are you defending here?


The fact that gerrymandering has no bearing on who a state votes for in a presidential election, which was the example I gave way back in the "boobies" as Fark likes to say.
 
2014-08-03 11:28:08 PM  

Lsherm: Marcus Aurelius: Lsherm: it's been a solidly Republican state even before the 2010 census

http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/research/biop-2-the-five-ohios.dot

That looks solid the same way jello looks solid.

If you look at their middle graph and realize only blue areas are reliably democratic, with everything else either republican, mostly republican, or slightly republican, then it's a pretty solid republican state. It has pockets of democratic strongholds in the north.

Also, the aggregate graph doesn't include House races, so it's somewhat pointless in the context of this conversation.


So basically Ohio is solidly Republican except for all the parts that aren't. Got it.
 
2014-08-03 11:28:16 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Judicial branch first.  Elections second.

/SCOTUS said so bad in 2000 in Bush v Gore


There sure is a bunch of money being spent on Judicial election campaigns the past few months.  So yeah, I think they are trying to buy the judicial branch first before trying to buy the regular elections.
 
2014-08-03 11:29:15 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: Marcus Aurelius: Lsherm: it's been a solidly Republican state even before the 2010 census

http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/research/biop-2-the-five-ohios.dot

That looks solid the same way jello looks solid.

If you look at their middle graph and realize only blue areas are reliably democratic, with everything else either republican, mostly republican, or slightly republican, then it's a pretty solid republican state. It has pockets of democratic strongholds in the north.

Also, the aggregate graph doesn't include House races, so it's somewhat pointless in the context of this conversation.

So basically Ohio is solidly Republican except for all the parts that aren't. Got it.


See :Skewing
 
2014-08-03 11:29:21 PM  
Does this ruling constitute "judicial activism"?
 
2014-08-03 11:33:17 PM  

Lsherm: doglover: Lsherm: I'm familiar with the term.

Then what are you defending here?

The fact that gerrymandering has no bearing on who a state votes for in a presidential election, which was the example I gave way back in the "boobies" as Fark likes to say.


Maine and Nebraska.
 
2014-08-03 11:34:39 PM  

Lsherm: doglover: Lsherm: I'm familiar with the term.

Then what are you defending here?

The fact that gerrymandering has no bearing on who a state votes for in a presidential election, which was the example I gave way back in the "boobies" as Fark likes to say.


Yeah, it's a bad metric.

 I'm not familiar with the extent of the Gerrymandering in Florida, but 17/27 doesn't sound particularly extensive.  Call me when someone addresses Virginia/North Carolina/Pennsylvania.
 
2014-08-03 11:34:55 PM  

Lsherm: The fact that gerrymandering has no bearing on who a state votes for in a presidential election


Doesn't mean Florida wasn't gerrymandered, or that gerrymandering shouldn't be undone as quickly and painfully to the offenders as possible.
 
2014-08-03 11:39:48 PM  

quatchi: In his original order, Lewis determined that two districts were drawn in order to transform a bloc of four districts "from being four Democratic performing or leaning seats in early maps . . . to two Democratic and two Republican performing seats in the enacted map

Taking bets now on what the trolls will use to try to deflect from this.

Even money on "Dems do it when they are in power".

3-2 on "activist Judge" rants.


If the outcome goes from 4-0 Dem's to a 2-2 tie the math alone suggests that there is a big Republican minority in these districts.

Anybody have maps, stats, etc?
 
2014-08-03 11:41:47 PM  

Lsherm: doglover: Lsherm: I'm familiar with the term.

Then what are you defending here?

The fact that gerrymandering has no bearing on who a state votes for in a presidential election, which was the example I gave way back in the "boobies" as Fark likes to say.


It was a somewhat silly point for TFA to make.

In 2012, Democratic reps got more votes than Republican reps.  I don't remember the percentages.  But Republicans have a decently large majority in the house.  Clearly, on a national scale, the way districts are drawn is leaning right.  Certainly there are states going in the other direction, but overall, that's where the disparity is.

So that's an issue, if you think that sort of thing is an issue.  Agreed about the difference between local and national elections.

/Arkansas had a solidly blue state congress for a very long time while voting red in presidential elections, for example.
 
2014-08-03 11:42:40 PM  

Lsherm: doglover: Lsherm: I'm familiar with the term.

Then what are you defending here?

The fact that gerrymandering has no bearing on who a state votes for in a presidential election, which was the example I gave way back in the "boobies" as Fark likes to say.


Your statement is a red herring.

Gerrymandering has consequences that almost solely benefit the GOP. Namely, it gets Republicans in office based on where arbitrary lines are drawn.

Except, the lines aren't arbitrary. They're carefully constructed to make sure that Republicans win closer contents, and Democrats win landslides by virtue of corralling all Democratic voters into as few districts as possible. With more Democrats voting for an already assured Democratic candidate, there's less Democratic voters to vote in other races, hence why Republicans get into office in battleground states.

We aren't as stupid as you think we are, LSherm.
 
2014-08-04 12:00:54 AM  

Dafatone: Arkansas had a solidly blue state congress for a very long time while voting red in presidential elections, for example.


Same with New Mexico.  We haven't had a GOP majority in our legislature since the Hoover administration, if I remember my state history correctly, but we went for dubya in 2004 and now we have a (terrible) Republican governor.
 
2014-08-04 12:15:29 AM  

Lsherm: Why do liberals think that house seats will break down along the same percentages as presidential elections? It was the exact opposite for most of the 60's, 70's and 80's. A presidential election is truly national, but house elections are local. You can vote for a Democratic president and still run a straight Republican ticket for everything else.


Remember all those recent articles about 'sorting' of the electorate? Do you really think you can compare the candidates, the parties and the voters of the time before RINOs and DINOs to today's?? We had lots of liberal Republicans and lots of conservative Democrats back then. Where are they now? I see no liberal Republicans and few conservative Democrats anymore.

Today's Republicans are pretty much a monolithic bloc believing and voting for all the Republican shiat we talk about in here every day, and Democrats are a monolithic bloc in opposition. There aren't any grey areas, there's very little partisan consensus, and at least one of the two parties equates compromise with "weakness". If there's a lot of voters splitting tickets anymore, it wouldn't make any sense in the way it could have 30 or 40 years ago..
 
2014-08-04 12:16:00 AM  

mainstreet62: Lsherm: doglover: Lsherm: I'm familiar with the term.

Then what are you defending here?

The fact that gerrymandering has no bearing on who a state votes for in a presidential election, which was the example I gave way back in the "boobies" as Fark likes to say.

Your statement is a red herring.

Gerrymandering has consequences that almost solely benefit the GOP. Namely, it gets Republicans in office based on where arbitrary lines are drawn.

Except, the lines aren't arbitrary. They're carefully constructed to make sure that Republicans win closer contents, and Democrats win landslides by virtue of corralling all Democratic voters into as few districts as possible. With more Democrats voting for an already assured Democratic candidate, there's less Democratic voters to vote in other races, hence why Republicans get into office in battleground states.

We aren't as stupid as you think we are, LSherm.


You might be as stupid as I think if you keep missing my point, or fail to look at presidential election results for the past 60 years in states that voted for a presidential candidate that was of a different party than they voted for House representative elections.
 
2014-08-04 12:21:05 AM  

Lsherm: You might be as stupid as I think if you keep missing my point


Missing your point we are not. Questioning its relevance we are.

Maybe you can understand if we finally say it in Yoda-speak.

The existence of legal exchanges of property doesn't mean blatant theft isn't blatant theft. Gerrymandering isn't necessary for a presidential and local election to be different. In this case, though, it was there.
 
2014-08-04 12:21:23 AM  

phaseolus: few conservative Democrats


You are kidding, right?
 
2014-08-04 12:22:13 AM  

phaseolus: few conservative Democrats anymore


You're not looking very hard.
 
2014-08-04 12:36:11 AM  
www.mytinyphone.com
 
2014-08-04 12:36:32 AM  
Okay, fine, but a lot of 'blue dogs' are no longer in office
 
2014-08-04 12:51:37 AM  

phaseolus: Lsherm: Why do liberals think that house seats will break down along the same percentages as presidential elections? It was the exact opposite for most of the 60's, 70's and 80's. A presidential election is truly national, but house elections are local. You can vote for a Democratic president and still run a straight Republican ticket for everything else.

Remember all those recent articles about 'sorting' of the electorate? Do you really think you can compare the candidates, the parties and the voters of the time before RINOs and DINOs to today's?? We had lots of liberal Republicans and lots of conservative Democrats back then. Where are they now? I see no liberal Republicans and few conservative Democrats anymore.

Today's Republicans are pretty much a monolithic bloc believing and voting for all the Republican shiat we talk about in here every day, and Democrats are a monolithic bloc in opposition. There aren't any grey areas, there's very little partisan consensus, and at least one of the two parties equates compromise with "weakness". If there's a lot of voters splitting tickets anymore, it wouldn't make any sense in the way it could have 30 or 40 years ago..


I have to disagree with your premise that the Democratic Party is a monolithic block.  Pretty much all reasonable political positions exist within the Democratic Party right now (and a few less than reasonable ones, but they don't tend to win very often).

There are Democrats that are pro-life to pro-choice, pro-gay marriage to anti-gay marriage, pro-worker to pro-business.  There are Democratic hawks and Democratic doves.  There are environmental Democrats and pro-coal/pro-mining Democrats. There are status quo Democrats and reformer Democrats.  Right now, once you agree that government can be a force for good and that we should be trying to improve and advance America and her interests, you join the Democratic Party and join the policy discussion within the party.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Republicans don't care about running the government any more.  They don't do any work, and they try their best to obstruct the people who do want to do things at every turn.  You want to call them stupid, naive, incompetent or whatever, I don't care.  But don't pretend that all the Democrats are the same, because they're not.  They aren't all straight white men, they don't all have the same beliefs, and they don't all back the same policies.  Generally, they're just the people that think government can get something done.
 
2014-08-04 12:54:26 AM  

puffy999: phaseolus: few conservative Democrats anymore

You're not looking very hard.


To be fair, maybe he speaks a dialect of English where few=only.
 
2014-08-04 12:58:49 AM  
There's some serious funny business going on in Florida right now, or at least there is with my extremely partisan Republican supervisor of elections. I just moved between counties on the last day to register ahead of the next primary so I hand delivered my registration form to the office, where they asked for my ID even though you don't need it to register.

They asked me whether I wanted to vote absentee and I said that I didn't. Well, guess what shows up in my mailbox three days after I switch my registration? An absentee ballot. Checked online and it says that I'm down for a recurring absentee request through the end of the year. I'm fully expecting there to be difficulty when I go to vote in person even though I can surrender my absentee ballot at the polling place.

Before he ran to replace the competent supervisor who retired, the current guy went on record with the press saying that "voting should be hard." If I had to guess, I'm not the only one who had funny business going on.
 
2014-08-04 01:03:29 AM  
Round them up.
 
2014-08-04 01:03:33 AM  

SphericalTime: phaseolus: Lsherm: Why do liberals think that house seats will break down along the same percentages as presidential elections? It was the exact opposite for most of the 60's, 70's and 80's. A presidential election is truly national, but house elections are local. You can vote for a Democratic president and still run a straight Republican ticket for everything else.

Remember all those recent articles about 'sorting' of the electorate? Do you really think you can compare the candidates, the parties and the voters of the time before RINOs and DINOs to today's?? We had lots of liberal Republicans and lots of conservative Democrats back then. Where are they now? I see no liberal Republicans and few conservative Democrats anymore.

Today's Republicans are pretty much a monolithic bloc believing and voting for all the Republican shiat we talk about in here every day, and Democrats are a monolithic bloc in opposition. There aren't any grey areas, there's very little partisan consensus, and at least one of the two parties equates compromise with "weakness". If there's a lot of voters splitting tickets anymore, it wouldn't make any sense in the way it could have 30 or 40 years ago..

I have to disagree with your premise that the Democratic Party is a monolithic block.  Pretty much all reasonable political positions exist within the Democratic Party right now (and a few less than reasonable ones, but they don't tend to win very often).

There are Democrats that are pro-life to pro-choice, pro-gay marriage to anti-gay marriage, pro-worker to pro-business.  There are Democratic hawks and Democratic doves.  There are environmental Democrats and pro-coal/pro-mining Democrats. There are status quo Democrats and reformer Democrats.  Right now, once you agree that government can be a force for good and that we should be trying to improve and advance America and her interests, you join the Democratic Party and join the policy discussion within the party.

I don't know if you've noti ...


Democrats: Come as you are.
Republicans: Come as we are. Better yet, don't come at all.
 
2014-08-04 01:25:00 AM  

cchris_39: If the outcome goes from 4-0 Dem's to a 2-2 tie the math alone suggests that there is a big Republican minority in these districts.


Mathematically you could pull that tie off with Democratic voters outnumbering Republicans almost 3-1, if you got to put the district lines anywhere you please. That's not actually practical (if it is, the district boundaries will qualify for an abstract art exhibition I think), but the results of gerrymandering and "the math alone suggests" aren't things that should appear together in the same statement.
 
2014-08-04 01:26:45 AM  

Lsherm: doglover: Gerrymander. Look it up.

I'm familiar with the term. Gerrymandering can affect expected house seats for a particular party, but states voting for a different party for president than they have for house representatives is fairly common. Ohio bounces back and forth between national candidate parties but it's been a solidly Republican state even before the 2010 census.


I suppose there are some people that may vote for a President from a different party than they do a House member, so let's look at the House breakdown:

Of the total votes cast the GOP gained about 52% of the total House votes, and the Democrats gained about 46%, third party candidates made up the rest.

With that breakdown, and 27 House seats up for grabs, it should have broken along the lines of 14 Republican seats and 13 Democratic seats, instead of the 17/10 split that we ended up with.

That's where the gerrymandering came into play - the total representation is not proportional to the total votes cast in actual House elections.

Now, it will never be perfect, but it's off by enough that it's worth fixing.
 
2014-08-04 01:31:03 AM  
California was ungovernable for roughly 30 years for the same reason.  The districts were so jerrymandered between rural and urban areas that it was a roughly 50/50 GOP/Dem split, and the districts were so "safe" the only the most extreme of each party ever got elected -- usually on a platform of "no compromise."  That's how we ended up with a state that required 2/3's majority to raise taxes OR cut spending.  And the whole state just slowly went to hell as nobody could do either, with each side blaming each other on increasingly vitriolic and partisan media outlets.

The Constitution was changed so that a neutral citizen panel would draw district lines based across certain geographic, pretty sensible requirements.  Of course, it turned out that when this happened, most of the GOP seats disappeared, just like they very likely would if the US was redrawn in a neutral fashion right now.  The result was a huge sweep of Democrats into each house and the Governorship.  But a funny thing happened on the way to Sacramento: many of the Dems that were elected were more moderate because of it, and immediately split into conservative and liberal factions.  And a number of the GOP contingent no longer had to cater to the crazies as much, and could run on fiscally conservative but socially liberal platforms, and win.

The most successful state lobbyist right now is, believe it or not, the Chamber of Commerce.  And the new overwhelming Democratic legislature has not passed many of the crazy liberal spending bills that were predicted.  Yes, taxes were raised very slightly to get the state back into the black, but spending was also cut, much to the wailing and gnashing of entrenched interests like the teachers unions.  And while still certainly towards the more Democratic end of the spectrum -- we're not Arizona, thank god -- the state is finally governable and starting to do pretty okay.  Better than Kansas, at any rate.
 
2014-08-04 01:33:57 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Lsherm: doglover: Gerrymander. Look it up.

I'm familiar with the term. Gerrymandering can affect expected house seats for a particular party, but states voting for a different party for president than they have for house representatives is fairly common. Ohio bounces back and forth between national candidate parties but it's been a solidly Republican state even before the 2010 census.

I suppose there are some people that may vote for a President from a different party than they do a House member, so let's look at the House breakdown:

Of the total votes cast the GOP gained about 52% of the total House votes, and the Democrats gained about 46%, third party candidates made up the rest.

With that breakdown, and 27 House seats up for grabs, it should have broken along the lines of 14 Republican seats and 13 Democratic seats, instead of the 17/10 split that we ended up with.

That's where the gerrymandering came into play - the total representation is not proportional to the total votes cast in actual House elections.

Now, it will never be perfect, but it's off by enough that it's worth fixing.


But that's for House votes, not votes for the president. That was my point all along.
 
2014-08-04 01:35:37 AM  

doglover: Lsherm: You might be as stupid as I think if you keep missing my point

Missing your point we are not. Questioning its relevance we are.

Maybe you can understand if we finally say it in Yoda-speak.

The existence of legal exchanges of property doesn't mean blatant theft isn't blatant theft. Gerrymandering isn't necessary for a presidential and local election to be different. In this case, though, it was there.


I'll just accept that I'm correct.
 
2014-08-04 01:40:06 AM  

Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: Lsherm: doglover: Gerrymander. Look it up.

I'm familiar with the term. Gerrymandering can affect expected house seats for a particular party, but states voting for a different party for president than they have for house representatives is fairly common. Ohio bounces back and forth between national candidate parties but it's been a solidly Republican state even before the 2010 census.

I suppose there are some people that may vote for a President from a different party than they do a House member, so let's look at the House breakdown:

Of the total votes cast the GOP gained about 52% of the total House votes, and the Democrats gained about 46%, third party candidates made up the rest.

With that breakdown, and 27 House seats up for grabs, it should have broken along the lines of 14 Republican seats and 13 Democratic seats, instead of the 17/10 split that we ended up with.

That's where the gerrymandering came into play - the total representation is not proportional to the total votes cast in actual House elections.

Now, it will never be perfect, but it's off by enough that it's worth fixing.

But that's for House votes, not votes for the president. That was my point all along.


So the article made a good point using the wrong data.  The actual court case didn't involve the disparity between House votes and votes for Obama.
 
Displayed 50 of 84 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  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