HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » There is a rigged electio...

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 08:33 AM

There is a rigged election: It's the House of Representatives and Rethug Gerrymandering

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/22/yes-theres-a-rigged-election-the-one-that-ensures-a-republican-house-majority/

snip:

Democrats appear headed for their biggest presidential election in years. Nate Silver has Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton as an 86 percent favorite to move back to the White House. Some polls have given her leads in reliably red states like Arizona and Georgia. Iowa and Nevada are slipping away from Republican nominee Donald Trump; Texas is tightening; Virginia is gone.

Polling averages by Silver and RealClearPolitics suggest that the Republican nominee’s fight is fading in the key battleground states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

It takes quite a Democratic wave to tilt this many states even powder blue. But most nonpartisan analysts suggest this will not be enough to tilt the House of Representatives. The GOP holds a 30-seat majority in the House. The University of Virginia’s respected Crystal Ball says that as of today, less that three weeks from the election, only 37 competitive districts remain. Of those, 17 are toss-ups, 10 favor the Democrats and 10 lean Republican.

The rethugs will block all major policy plans by HRC, just as they did to President Obama. The Reich Wing rigged the system back in 2010.

12 replies, 1029 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply There is a rigged election: It's the House of Representatives and Rethug Gerrymandering (Original post)
kairos12 Oct 2016 OP
no_hypocrisy Oct 2016 #1
MH1 Oct 2016 #2
Willie Pep Oct 2016 #3
MH1 Oct 2016 #4
Willie Pep Oct 2016 #7
GWC58 Oct 2016 #11
Blue Idaho Oct 2016 #5
Lord Magus Oct 2016 #9
Blue Idaho Oct 2016 #12
JTFrog Oct 2016 #6
kairos12 Oct 2016 #8
moose65 Oct 2016 #10

Response to kairos12 (Original post)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 08:38 AM

1. Four to eight more years of stalled progress.

And of course, the republican line at election time will be that Hillary "did nothing while the country suffered".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kairos12 (Original post)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 08:54 AM

2. State house seats are arguably the most important elections.

But unfortunately, Democratic turnout tends to be very low in years where there isn't a presidential election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 09:25 AM

3. Yep. You are 100 percent right.

That is why it is so important to GOTV during non-presidential elections and also to get Democratic voters involved in state and local races. I think this should be the top agenda for the Party going forward.

Why do you think Democratic turnout is so low in non-presidential elections? Republicans seem to get out and vote in every election. It is very frustrating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Willie Pep (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 09:36 AM

4. I think it's partly demographics. Dem voters tend to be less rich, and

have less control over their time while having potentially more demands on it. So there is a baked-in higher obstacle for them to vote.

Then, there is the authoritarian personality theory. According to this theory, republicans are more likely to have authoritarian personalities. That kind of person is more of a "rule follower". So once they assimilate that voting every year is a rule, they will put forth some effort to do it. Add that to the lower obstacles, and a republican is more likely to make it to the polls to vote.

A 3rd factor could be the money behind the campaign. Since republicans tend to be supported more by rich corporations and private profiteers, there is more money funneled to them for GOTV, advertising, and voter targeting.

Going back to the demographics / obstacles point - I'm going to bet that in the same job at the same employer, it is more likely that a black person will be questioned for getting in late due to stopping to vote, than a white person. And even if it isn't real, given all the other subtle and not-subtle racism in our society, I'm betting a black person is more worried about that, than a white person in the same job and (otherwise) same status in the same company. And African Americans are more likely to be Dems.

There are probably some other reasons, but that's a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 10:16 AM

7. Thanks. I think those are all good reasons.

We should really make election day a holiday to make it easier for people to vote. I don't think that will be enough to increase turnout but it would probably help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Willie Pep (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 11:57 AM

11. Yep!

That's why I vote every election, presidential and mid terms, & always a straight Democratic ticket. It really would be beneficial if we voted every two years. I mean who could forget 2010. We need to vote as we did in 2006. It was at that time we ousted the, at that time unknown pervert, Speaker Hastert. That was a very "feel good" election. And boy was I proud of the job Nancy did as Speaker of the House. She was one of the best Speakers, EVER!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kairos12 (Original post)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 09:45 AM

5. We can thank Carl Rove for that.

His republican "permanent majority" tactics created a blot on the landscape. We need to work like hell this year to put as many Democrats in office as possible to try to right the wrongs from that rediculous era.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Idaho (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 10:38 AM

9. We need a SCOTUS majority that will declare gerrymanderin unconstitutional. -nt-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #9)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 12:33 PM

12. Absolutely! nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kairos12 (Original post)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 09:49 AM

6. They aren't going to have the majority to block shit.

 

We are gonna win the house and senate.

People are tired of this fucking shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 10:24 AM

8. I hope you are right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kairos12 (Original post)

Sat Oct 22, 2016, 11:40 AM

10. One thing I would like to see:

I'd like to see the Democrats embrace the idea of increasing the size of the House. It's supposed to be "the people's House" and be more responsive to the population than the Senate, but it has completely gotten off the rails. The average Congressional district has a population of over 700,000 people, and that's too big for one person to serve. The size hasn't increased since 1913, after New Mexico and Arizona became states (except for a temporary increase when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted). Think about that for a minute - the last time the size of the House was adjusted, women weren't even allowed to vote in all of the states! Up to and including the 1910 census, it was routine to increase the size of the House - it wasn't even a controversial thing at all.

Now, though, it is really out-of-whack. California is severely underrepresented in the House. CA is about 76 times larger than Wyoming, but only has 53 times as many representatives. It also affects the Presidential election, since the number of electoral votes is based on the number of Congressional districts in each state. After the 2020 census, there will probably be several states that will lose House districts in spite of their populations increasing - they won't increase as fast as other states, so they will lose. It's completely undemocratic.

I don't know what the answer is, or what the "ideal" size of a House district should be. We should at least try to correct the most egregious errors - DC should be treated the same as a state when it comes to redistricting, and it should receive the same number of House seats that it would have if it were a state (currently 1, but that should be allowed to change if the population increases). The people of DC should have a full voting member in the House. Aside from that, we should add seats - but how many? 100? 150? In 1910 the average district had just over 200,000 people. If we went back to that, we'd have over 1600 House members! That's probably too many, but how about 475? 525? 575? With 575 members, the average size of the districts would be about 560,000 people. Sounds good to me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread