The Great Gerrymander of 2012

[Agnosticsherbet]

The Great Gerrymander of 2012
HAVING the first modern democracy comes with bugs. Normally we would expect more seats in Congress to go to the political party that receives more votes, but the last election confounded expectations. Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for the House of Representatives, yet Republicans won control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin. This is only the second such reversal since World War II.

Using statistical tools that are common in fields like my own, neuroscience, I have found strong evidence that this historic aberration arises from partisan disenfranchisement. Although gerrymandering is usually thought of as a bipartisan offense, the rather asymmetrical results may surprise you.

Through artful drawing of district boundaries, it is possible to put large groups of voters on the losing side of every election. The Republican State Leadership Committee, a Washington-based political group dedicated to electing state officeholders, recently issued a progress report on Redmap, its multiyear plan to influence redistricting. The $30 million strategy consists of two steps for tilting the playing field: take over state legislatures before the decennial Census, then redraw state and Congressional districts to lock in partisan advantages. The plan was highly successful.

This article is a great explanation of why we face such a difficult road to getting meaningful legislation passed by Congress.

A world where Democrats earn 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, and Republicans gain historic control of the House shows how deep the hole we created in 2010 when Republicans gained control of the Gerrymander leavers.

This article should be saved and shown to anyone who complains that Democrats can't get things done.

Vote, damn it!

[spanone]

1. gerrymandering dismantles democracy.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. When a representative is allowed to choose his voters rather than wait for the voters to choose

him, that dismantles democracy.

[daleanime]

3. Then make sure we have something to vote for....

and not just against.

[maxrandb]

4. I'm going to break a rule

and say; "give us something to vote for" is what folks in Germany said to Hitler's opposition.

I hope we get our shit together before 2020...because by then...all you're going to be able to do is PRAY TO GOD PEOPLE VOTE "AGAINST" SOMETHING

[daleanime]

6. And how do you think we got to this point?

And how to hell are we suppose to get out of it? I ask this in all sincerity.

[maxrandb]

20. I think we got to this point

because too many people let the pursuit perfection become the enemy of the good.

Elections are a Zero-Sum Game. If you have a choice between someone who will move the country 2-steps in your direction, and someone who will move it back 100 years...and you stay home because you wanted 10 steps in your direction, the person who wants to take you back 100 years wins.

Think about how silly this would be.

- I like Bernie Sanders. I hope Bernie wins the nomination. If however, Bernie loses to Hilary and Cruz is the Repub nominee...I'm not staying home and letting Cruz win the Presidency. I would hope that Clinton supporters would do the same.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. FDR would be TOO conservative for many DUer's today, and he's known as one of the greatest progressive Presidents in history.

If you know that one party is completely and totally insane, then you ARE voting for something. You're voting to make sure they don't have complete and total control of your life and your country.

Give me a sane Democrat over a crazy Repub every day

[daleanime]

21. It's sane to say that taking millions of dollars.....

does not affect your actions?

And still waiting for your suggestion of an exit plan.

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Ok, what Republicans are doing is just fine with you.

Got it.

[daleanime]

13. Do you really think that the republicans would be where they are....

falling off a cliff, if democrats had provided real opposition? Is 'not as bad as' truly good enough for you?

[Agnosticsherbet]

16. I think if citizens looked at the choices and made a pragmatic decision about who would provide

the best government in the situation, we would not be here.

Sitting back and doing nothing until the perfect candidate comes along doesn't work. That is a choice to allow the other side to do whatever they want.

In 2010, people sat out waiting for those perfect candidates and Republicans achieved historic control of Congress and control of the legislative agenda. The result is clear.

You want to vote for something. Vote to change control of Congress to better representatives.

[daleanime]

18. Oh, my....

so where did we go wrong in your opinion?

[Agnosticsherbet]

22. The House and Senate work by majority rule. People did not vote and gave he majority to Republicans.

A single Senator or Congressman can be great, but they are worthless unless their party has a majority in the House or the Senate. The majority Party determines the legislative agenda. For any bill that raises funds or creates a program that requires funds, it must be initiated in the House.

The Senate has the power to approve or disapprove the next President's cabinet picks. If Democrats win the white house and Republicans hold the Senate, the first six months will be consumed trying to get the Presidents Cabinet members approved. If we win a majority in the Senate, then the elected Democratic President can use political capital to do things other than negotiate with Congress over who he gets to advise him.

(Back in 2010, Warren was chosen by President Obama to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB). She never did get that post.)

You can vote for the perfect candidate for the House or Senate, or say fuck all if they aren't perfect. Unless that candidate is backed by a majority they can do nothing.

You want something to vote for. Vote to give the Senator or Congressman who is looking out for your interests a majority to back him or her up. For instance, Warren is a great Senator, but she will do little or nothing without a Democratic majority in the Senate. Now I can't vote for Warren, because she isn't from California, but I sure as hell will vote for a Democratic Senator and hope Democrats in all states will vote for which ever Democrat is up for election, even if that Democrat isn't an ideal candidate. Majority rules.

That is called pragmatism and could also be called working or the greater good.

[whatthehey]

11. Fair redistricting isn't worth voting for? Representative democracy isn't?

[daleanime]

15. Representative democracy?

How long has it been since that died? Tell me that's what we have, please convince me, I would like to sleep better.

[whatthehey]

17. We'd have a better chance at it if 1.4 million more votes meant more seats, no?

[daleanime]

19. No....

no more then choosing between two brands from the same manufacturer means you have an open market place.

[1939]

5. In some cases, gerrymandering comes naturally

1. If you try to have the district lines follow other political boundaries and not break up cities and towns, you have natural gerrymandering because Democratic voters tend to be more urban than rural.

2. If you try to create districts where minorities have a better chance to be elected, you concentrate minorities who are usually voting Democratic in districts leaving other districts more red.

3. Minority politicians want to have minorities packed into their district to have a lock on re-election even at the expense of the overall success of the party.

4. The existence of the separate states are a constitutional form of gerrymandering.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. Giving Republicans the power to do that did nothing good.

It handed them the reigns of power over all legislation.

Without the ability to pass legislation, almost nothing can be done.

[brooklynite]

7. Who at DU ever says a word about taking back Governorships and State Legislatures?

Too many people fixate on Federal races, and the Presidency in particular, and ignore the need to invest as much time and money at the State level.

[Wounded Bear]

10. All politics is local...

Gotta work at the state and local level, too, to get the R's out.

[whatthehey]

12. Incidentally gerrymandering was 204 years old yesterday

Elbridge Gerry's very first salamander shaped district in Boston was created 2/11/1812

[Agnosticsherbet]

14. And it hasn't grown any better since then.