Getty Images
When it comes to U.S. House races, there are still some unresolved contests, but the Republican majority will remain intact in the next Congress. The GOP-led chamber will find its majority smaller than it is now, but we're talking about a shift from a 240-190 advantage to about a 235-200 advantage.
But there is another way to look at the same data. What about the raw popular vote? The Washington Post's Aaron Blake noted that, in the overall picture, more voters backed Democratic House candidates.
According to numbers compiled by the Post's great Dan Keating, Democrats have won roughly 48.8 percent of the House vote, compared to 48.47 percent for Republicans.
Despite losing the popular vote, Republicans are set to have their second-biggest House majority in 60 years and their third-biggest since the Great Depression.
The numbers seem to back up what we've been talking about on this blog for a while: Redistricting drew such a GOP-friendly map that, in a neutral environment, Republicans have an inherent advantage.
Right. A narrow plurality of Americans may have preferred Democratic House candidates, but it didn't matter -- the district lines were too carefully drawn in the GOP's favor after the 2010 midterms. The result is a fairly unusual political landscape: according to one count, this is the first time since 1952 that a party won the congressional "popular vote" but remained in the House minority.
To be sure, I realize this is something of a gimmick. The raw vote totals are interesting but inconsequential, just as in the presidential race, which is decided by electoral votes.
This is political trivia that lacks practical value, but I wouldn't dismiss it entirely just yet.
As the debates over taxes, spending, debt-reduction, and plenty of other policy areas proceed, Republicans are certain to argue that "the American people" elected a GOP-led House to, at a minimum, prevent Democrats from pursuing their agenda. Boehner, Cantor & Co. will insist they're simply reflecting the electorate's will.
And they'll be wrong. Most Americans voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, Democratic Senate candidates, and even Democratic House candidates.
Leave a Comment:
I think the House is in exactly the position of a president who won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. Such a president would not be considered to have a mandate for much except cooperating. Of course, W didn't see it that way, and I don't expect these Republicans to, either.
Remedies do not require constitutional amendments. Article 1, section 4 of the constitution specifies that that although state legislators may make laws specifying the method of choosing representatives, Congress has final say and can specify regulations overriding these local methods.
Which means that Congress for example could specify that there be proportional representation for regions of states, or for the entire state. This would severely weaken or (in the case of no regions) eliminate the effect of gerrymandering. Proportional representation would mean that if a state has 5 representatives and one party wins 3/5 of the vote, that they be awarded 3 representatives. Some countries take the top most favored candidates from a party.
This also would mean that third parties would gain representatives from large states- an impossibility given the current district scheme.
Yea, and not to mention the whole idea of a representative democracy. Other than that, this makes a lot of sense.
This is typical political spin that hurts intelligent conversation. Most Americans didn't vote for a Democratic candidate in my district.
With this logic, we can say 9.5 million fewer voters voted for President Obama this election so he has less of a mandate than he did his first election. Would you buy that argument? No. Because like this one, it is not logical, relevant, or serious.
"Most Americans didn't vote for a Democratic candidate in my district"...yes but your district is nor representative of your neighborhood because of GERRYMANDERING .
Sorry, RobDon, but you are missing the point. Gerrymandering allowed Republican Congressmen to keep their seats EVEN though they would have lost had the Congressmen been chosen based on the popular vote in the state.
For instance, the State of Virginia voted Democratic this election, however, because of the "redistricting" that happened in this state in 2011, no Republican Congressman lost his seat.
How is that possible? Well, they did things like move a Democratic voting town like Reston into majority Democratic voting area (District 8 which is HEAVILY Democratic) so that it wouldn't "contaminate" the Republican votes in the district it was once in (District 10) and they did this ALL OVER the state. Had Reston stayed in District 10, that District may very well have gone Democratic!
You really want to see gerrymandering? Go look at a Virginia Congressional District map.
District gerrymandering is an age old problem that both parties have used to their advantage when their respective party has control after a census is taken. There is only one way around this...draw congressional districts along county line based on population. We are either All Americans or we aren't.
just saying...
The only way your point would be completely valid would be if all the states had a majority Democratic population. In a state where the majority of voters are Republicans, a majority Republican district is very common.
I am not doubting that politicians play politics with district lines, I'm saying that to try and make the point that everyone in Washington should now do what the Democrats want because Democrats won the "majority" of votes in local representative districts is stupid. Even if there were only one lone Republican district in the nation, that representative would still have the obligation and the right to fight for his/her district's views in Washington, surely you are not saying otherwise.
Yep, it's a gimmick. Gerrymandering is a first-rate gimmick. Enough of one that the Other Side will completely ignore it when they remind everyone of their still holding the House.
So what can we do for the next 8 years -- other than return more state houses to blue majorities?
It was a gimmick that showed that it was a terrible strategic move to allow the so-called tea party movement to steamroll uncontested in a census year. It's unlikely that this was a coincidence. If Hillary had been nominated and elected the tea partiers would have looked different and may have had a different name but they still would have been guided by the Ailes machine and fuelled by Koch money.
I'll take the claims more seriously when they include Illinois. Seems their gerrymandering is fine with democrats because it favors them.
Would you accept a non-partisan resolution? Perhaps getting rid of crazy lines drawn at the whim of the party in charge in exchange for a set of rules that are determined by a coalition of political experts and everyday citizens. Rules that are binding and remove any consideration of party status in the resulting districts?
Paul -- Yep. I'd be fine with that. And non-partisan voting commissioners, while we're at it. With the current SCOTUS, I'm not exactly sanguine.
I am not sure that the controlling party lost the popular vote in Illinois . Are you certain of that , or are you starting another conversation ?
We got rid of partisan redistricting in California, took it away from the legislature and put in an independent citizen commission.
The result?
A 2/3 Democratic majority in both house of the state legislature, giving us the chance to straighten things out financially without having to put up with all the Republican baloney for once. Get rid of Republicans, regain progress.
And three of those 5 House seats that flipped happened here, with the neutrally re-drawn districts.
So stick your head back up your ass Rusty.
we have a neutral board that decides the districts in iowa also ,and guess who keeps introducing the idea that we should politicize the whole process? , the gop of course
I read some where that one solution is to cap the size of districts , right now you can make them as big as you want
Paul, absolutely. They have developed algorithms that keep districts tight and smooth without regard to precinct voting patterns. A favorite trick in Illinois is to carve a little thin line a long distance, sometimes down the middle of a road only, in order to district a sitting GOP member into another sitting members district.
As the right wing continues to be obstructionists and their fellow republicans in state houses continue to attack women,minorities and science we will most likely see a shift anyway. It will be slow though so the only hope we have is to continue to vote. Vigilance is the key to democracy. Give up and quit voting and you lose your voice and your rights. See you at the polls--every election.
I hope it doesn't hurt the minority of voters feelings , in their posture of Party flavour of no , that the majority of voters has its own contrary ideas , including yes for America .
Redistricting is only the first step. Next repubs want to change how electoral votes in the state are counted with one electoral vote per each district which would have turned all the swing states to Romney in the last election. Repubs are still looking for 'legal' ways to cheat which ends with the minority dominating the majority...always in their favor.
I just wanted to to make it known that corporate America has been more profitable under Obama than under any president since Harding...and yet these greedy goobers complain about a slight tax increase or providing health care to their employees. hard to have any pity for these goobers at all. Now Papa John owner cannot buy another bedroom for his "castle"...yes he owns a castle with a moat and everything...talk about wanting to return to the oligarchy of kings and Dukes etc...rather than pay for health care for their employees...and what does America say to that?
The repubs are twisting the voting process to guarantee they cannot lose and we must stop them. Greed is destroying our democracy and one cannot regulate one's own greed...we need the people to do that through their elected representatives.
Just before FOX stopped broadcasting the election to local affiliates (11:00 pm, long long before the concession and victory speeches), their HUGE flashy graphic was about how REPUBLICANS RETAIN THE HOUSE!!! OMG!!
As if there was some universe where that wasn't going to happen. Igits.
It must be pretty embarrassing to think yourself a serious news professional, and yet FOX is the only gig that would hire you.
How 'bout a mass migration of Democrats into Republican districts...Kind of like the Peace Corps, bringing math and reason to the misinformed.
Actually, the solution is to have similarly shaped polygons of a specific minimum size be the basis of redistricting. In other words, say take a certain sized map and place a template over the map of polygons of a specific size, say 1cmsq and then over that place a larger similar polygon, say 10cm sq and then locate the 50,000 or whatever the number of people is so that the larger polygons are filled first, and the overage is to the outside of margins on all sides...this way, not redistricting will lead to false representations.
It has long been true that a majority of Americans hate Congress, but like their Congresscritter. That's why they keep voting for the incumbent. But the next mid-terms may hold a surprise for the incumbent GOP critters. If they continue to obstruct Obama, just for the sake of obstruction, they will be running with a brand next time. A few have tried to run for office in the past without mentioning their party affiliation, in order to slip under the radar. But I don't think the Dems will let that go the next time around, unless the GOP/Tea Party caucus is willing to compromise a bit. The next two months will be telling. Taxes will have to go up on some portion of the populace. The Dems favor just the top 2% for now. The GOP/Tea Party types are willing to hold the middle class hostage to protect those 2%ers, but for how long? My bet is not past Martin Luther King Day. If they go much past the Inauguration they will be risking votes in 2014. Voters have short memories, but I wouldn't count on them being that forgetful.
I'm sure the GOP would scream "states rights" if the federal gov't took over setting up districts. Just like they would if the feds set up a national voting system for federal elections. BUT, look at this way: the GOP's hanky-panky affects the entire country, not just their own state, so we all suffer, especially those of us in blue states who didn't vote for tea party clowns. So for the sake of the nation, we need an independent federal board in charge of both federal elections and districting.
My math head hurts.
How do you go from a 240 - 190 advantage to a 235 - 200 advantage? Did congress lose seats? Were five independents/third party candidates elected?
Please help my little pea brain make the numbers work.
240 + 190 = 430 not 440. There are currently five vacant voting seats in the House. You can probably find out the whys in this article without resorting to math:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress
I realized I had it backwards just a bit ago. Not even sure why I was thinking about it except that it wasn't work.
Thanks for the follow-up. :)
I don't care how it plays out. I've lost total confidence in both the House and the Senate not to mention the President. I have always said 'people are idiots" and the voted in membership of Congress proves me right....my American flag has been taken down and put away, I know longer have the same sense of Patriotism I had the day I joined the Service. I am so disappointed.
Clean up the gerrymandering and it should be easy to get rid of the rest of them.