National Conference on State Legislatures
Click for full map.
In Morning Maddow today, Tricia points to new Republican hopes for restrictions on abortion, in Arkansas and Wisconsin. Those headlines are the direct result of what happened in the states' legislative races, where Republicans now control both chambers. It may be that our national experiment with bipartisan government is over, or at least on hold, with one party having full control in a minimum of 37 states. That includes 24 states under GOP control and 13 states under Democrats.
We got here partly because of gerrymandering. Republicans got to draw most state legislative maps after 2010, including the twisted one now in place in Pennsylvania. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
In Pennsylvania, Republicans took hold of 13 of 18 congressional seats while being outpaced by 75,000 total votes. Mr. Obama won 53 percent of the state's vote, but Democratic candidates won 28 percent of the seats. . . .
The same kind of results were repeated in the Obama states of Ohio (where Democrats won 25 percent of seats), Michigan (36 percent) and Wisconsin (38 percent), where the GOP also controlled redistricting. But in states where Democrats controlled the maps (such as Illinois and Massachusetts), Democrats didn't win congressional seats at the same rates as in GOP-run states, nor did they run up the score in states where maps are drawn by nonpartisan commissions or courts, such as New Jersey or Colorado.
Democrats benefit less from gerrymandering because their voters live in densely populated cities (see Mother Jones' charts on this), so they're much harder to divide into favorable districts. Now we get to see what Democrats will try to do in the fewer states they control (like Maryland and California) and what Republicans will try to do in theirs. This morning in Maine, where voters gave Democrats control of the legislature, incoming Democratic leaders are reconsidering Republican policies like tax cuts that drained the treasury and cuts to Medicaid. In Wisconsin, an Obama state with a Republican government, lawmakers are talking about forcing women to view ultrasounds. Elections have consequences, sometimes far down the road.
Leave a Comment:
I've always felt that Congressional District Seats both State and Federal, should never be drawn up by the political party that it's in power. But from a nonpartisan commission or court, one who has no benefit from how the districts are aligned. Rigging Seats to serve on party over the other, isn't presenting the people of those districts, it's representing the party that wants to stay in power, by any means.
Here in California, where we did exactly that, we got a 2/3 Democratic majority in both houses of the legislature, meaning we can straighten out our finances without having to pay attention to the damn Republicans, who are now Officially Irrelevant in California. We also turned over four congressional seats. So this sort of sane redistricting can lead to sane government. Which is why the red states will never allow it. The Republicans are fine with being a totalitarian minority government imposing what they know is the Right Thing on the majority.
TC- that is an appealing argument. One that Morsi found convincing. Seize total power. In my state, the GOP has been practically irrelevant for generations except as the source of a protest vote when special interests go too far in extracting favors from solid blue legislators- many of whom are closet republicans. And that really gets at the charade of choice in our country.
An unknown state Senator said in 2004 that there are no red states or blue states.
There aren't, but only if there aren't any parties enforcing strict adherence to particular agendas. For example, what does this Red/Blue Map look like on support for Social Security, something once regarded by a large proportion of americans as an ultra socialist left wing idea?
Is Obama moving the country more towards representation oriented towards issues rather than representation whose main concern is achieving dominance over the opposing party? No. Let's be clear about this. The founding fathers hated political parties. There are plenty of ways to move our system away towards blocks of representatives oriented towards issues. For example, doing away with districts and implementing proportional representation.
If 10% of a State's voters preferred a particular House Candidate, then isn't it representative if that person be one of the ten congresspersons?
It seems to me that our state governments need to experiment more with such proportional representation and ranked choice voting schemes. When we come up with something workable, then we should move the federal system over to it.
What government looks like under single party rule is not pretty, no matter which side you are on.
It looks a lot prettier when the dimwits of the Right are the ones on the outs. I don't notice Democratic legislatures legislating morality and forcing our views on anyone (other than fiscal sanity, something Republicans have to be re-educated about, even forcibly if necessary).
A party that gerrymanders solely to gain power, not to represent the people, will only use that non-representative power to control people, not to govern them. Republicans scare the crap out of me; who wants a dictatorship or a religious state? I don't, and I'll do everything in my power as a citizen to stop them.
"A party that gerrymanders solely to gain power, not to represent the people, will only use that non-representative power to control people, not to govern them."
Exactly and what has the GOTP been trying to control for the last 2 years - women's choice! So as one citizen to another we need to get our comfortable shoes on because we're going to need them with this crowd......
Repubs are all about control - control of any they consider "less than" themselves. This slow-but-sure take-over of women's options and their right to choose is the same technique applied by abusive spouses. Prove that one is more powerful (I can make you or I can prevent you...) - and prove it again and again - at some point the other is subservient and believes in the powerlessness they have assigned to her - she is dependent - then their control is complete.
The map looks like one could play the board game Risk on _- D's Vs. R's. Since America is an experiment, maybe it's time to allow the Red and Blue states to break from each other, sign peace treaties and govern their own territories. NE and IA could remain non-commital and become trading hubs between the R & B territories. It's possible the B's would lose NM & CO, but on the bright side, the B's would have less Mexican borderland to defend.The Federal government would be dissolved and territorial governments would rise in its place. It would be an interesting modern time experiment.
Hey Steve, we all know elections have consequences. Could somebody tell the National Democratic Party that saying applies to off year elections as well as Presidential elections. It is painfully obvious that they didn't get the message in 2009 and 2010.
Since they have decided to end democracy state by state my hope is the liberals and the independents will push back as they see their rights erode. Go ahead sit out the local and mid-term elections if you want radicals to take over your state and impose theology.
"Democrats benefit less from gerrymandering because their voters live in densely populated cities (see Mother Jones' charts on this), so they're much harder to divide into favorable districts."
Silly, do you think the Democrats controlled the House for 40 straight years because they ran better candidates all the time?
The fact that they named it after a guy who's been dead for nearly 200 hundred years should tell you something about any side attempting to claim bragging rights over virginity in this.
So ain't it time to put an end to it? Why not set up a panel to formulate rules that set up districts in more puritanical ways with zero consideration of political party?I'm game and I think most democrats are also.
Can we say that Obama's re-election actually broke the back of the GOP's southern strategy? They lost big time, while holding on to their 'red' state/all in for Southern ante-bellum and pre-civil rights values...
I think we need to increase the size of the house. It's size is not constitutional. It has been the same since 1910. Draw 330,000 seat districts and increase the size to 1000.
Unicameral, another day another new word.
4 states voted majority Democratic in the popular vote, but elected majority GOP reps due to how the districts were drawn. Another 8 had a 20 point spread between pop vote % and house rep %. I think its fair to say at this point that the concept of Congressional districts is a failure. More analysis here:
http://ballotlines.com/2012/11/26/redistricting-worst-offenders/
History says that the situation we see in the House from the last election is unsustainable. When your representatives are no longer representative of their constituent's will, they will eventually be turned out of office, and probably with a strong repudiation of their party at all levels up and down the ballot. The House can be as crazy as it likes, but as long as they are, it costs the repubs support everywhere. The Founding Fathers were not at all enamored of citizen legislators, as they saw what they considered to be very bad legislation coming out of states with citizen legislators. That's why the Senate was there in the first place, to keep the crazies from doing too much damage. Of course, they also believed that people like businessmen shouldn't be involved in politics. For them, the ideal legislator was a rich white guy who couldn't be influenced by money, such as rich landowners. They felt that such men would be educated and make better decisions than a less-educated man who depended on a paycheck or on the health of their business.
So I was at the barber, but first I must digress; I have old man's stiff grey hair and have told the fine folks at SuperCuts that I don't like my temples being "poofy". They noted that in the computer and so now I go in and the barberess cuts my hair very short and thereby getting rid of the "poof"... For about a week... I will now have very poofy hair for the next month or so till that area (the temples) grows long enough to lay down when combed.
Proof again that preexplaining,,, wait a minute,,,, which blog am I on???
Thanksgiving stuffing with ketchup and green chile dip mixed in,,,, mmmm.
My granddaughter is now a little over 2 years old and I don't want her to become sedentary (I'll will regret this strategy sooner than later) so I want her to start practicing on a balance bike (tricycles may actually be so dangerous that they shouldn't be sold?). Soo,, anyway I goes to Amazon and look at mostly ill-concieved new balance bikes and, (as I knew beforhand) decided to go to a thrift store, buy the smallest girl's bike, and take off the pedals, give to said granddaughter, etc. etc.
I found the perfect bike, (today being after the first and second most heavy shopping days of the year), for a dollar and a half... ???
Common Sense would dictate that bicycling would be the most popular sport ever.. There really isn't a better way to have fun getting routine exercise. Period.
Common Sense then dictates that dancing should/would the second most popular way of getting fun routine exercize..
So I would have lost on all my business bets...
And that's the way it is.