The Washington Post has this interesting analysis of whether gerrymandering is the reason why Republicans won more seats in the U.S. House in November 2012, even though Democratic candidates for U.S. House received more popular votes across the entire nation. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
NONSTOP ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders since DAY 1 —
in England in the 1200s
in VA in 1618 (plantation *districts* along the James River)
— into the 1776 State regimes
— into the 1789 U.S.A. regime — H. Reps, Senate, Electoral College.
Too many math M-O-R-O-N-S to count.
The same sort of EVIL morons who loved so-called divine right of kings in the last 6,000 plus years.
—-
END the EVIL.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Good article. The Democrats would find it useful for folks to think gerrymandering was invented last year and they suffered for it as more Democratic votes were cast nationally than Republican. Yes it’s more complicated than that. It’s more awful.
The article talks about incumbency and wasted votes. Single-member districts give us wasted votes, those extra votes plurality winners get, votes for candidates who come in second, and what the article didn’t bring up, all those unenthusiastic, regretable votes for candidates that are the result of a real favored candidacy not being in the race thanks to winner-take-all. Also the votes not cast because this whole arrangement is sickening.
Incumbency is the driver of gerrymandering. Washington state is a good example of this having a commission that gets undeserved credit for caring about thing other than major party political concerns. The sole goal was to give the incumbents cushy districts and leaving the non-incumbent districts to have auctual contests. Rep. Dicks retirement announcement came after the district was made to offer little hope for a republican. Were it not a presidential year with pot and marriage on the ballot, the 10th and 1st districts might have been closer. “Open” districts should be near universal.
It’s outrageous Dems would scream bad politics unless their ready to deal with winner take all or incumbency. Cut into that, and you slay much of gerrymandering.
I watch carpenters frame a new house. They use saws to cut wood to length. The use levels to assure plumb and level. They use nails to secure the pieces of wood together,
I have no statistics to prove they took these actions with the intent of building a wood frame house. And yet there it stands. Without statistics to prove their actions would result in a house being constructed, why did they bother? And how is it that the house was the final result if the statistics don’t support prove, after the fact, that doing those things builds a house? Over and over again? Why do carpenters persist in this folly?
The relative ease with which incumbents win reelection, which the authors concede, is no proof that gerrymandering is not effective. One example of why, in my opinion, this article makes some very specious arguments.
For any math MORONS on this list —
ALL PACK and CRACK gerrymander systems (now super easy to do with modern computer gerrymander district programs — i.e. dump in the census data and prior election results data and INSTANT gerrymander districts) —
A plurality of the votes x a bare majority of the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent [OR LESS] ANTI-Democracy indirect minority rule — i.e. in the CRACK districts.
Both gerrymander houses of the Congress [MUCH worse in the semi-permanent Senate], ALL houses of ALL 50 State legislatues and many local regimes in whole or part.
Thus — brain dead rigged elections in about 97 percent of the gerrymander areas.
Since Elephants are fleeing Donkey urban areas (for 50 plus years) — Chicago,Detroit, etc. — it is easy to PACK more and more Donkeys into fewer and fewer Donkey ghetto districts.
Copy, print and stick on a wall near you.
—-
In multi-party Brit related regimes [U.K., Canada, India, etc.] the minority rule percentage is now about 20 percent – i.e. major UNSTABLE regimes.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.