The graphics in last night's opening segment on gerrymandering were so clear and illustrative I wanted to give you a second look. What these show is the total number of votes for Democratic and Republican House candidates in each state. Or, as Rachel put it, more people in Michigan voted for a Democrat than voted for a Republican. But the point of gerrymandering is that more people voting for a Democratic representative does not mean more Democratic representatives were elected to represent those voters. In fact, the opposite. And in cases where more voters chose Republicans, the apportionment of representatives for those voters is disproportionate.
H/t Mother Jones, where they got this rolling and have tons more. After the jump, the graphics for Wisconsin, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio...
Leave a Comment:
This is proof Republicans want to destabilize democracy. Here is proof the GOP is evil and are in all this only for themselves. Lastly this shows many people will vote against their better interest and point their fingers at Democrats while screaming witch, when they are the ones whom are guilty of the very things they say others are doing.
Well everyone needs to vote in 2014 we can start eliminating some of them They did the redistricting to make sure they control the house there should try and change it. We need to have the democrats to get out and vote it will be astart, I still think we needd to get the big money out of the process, people that live the states should be able to run there own elections without all the ouside coming in we need to get big money out of the elections .
The surpreme made this possible
HI, Rachel! I watch your show regularly and appreciate your insight and knowledge about politics and how you cut through all the hype and garbage the GOP/Tea Party spew out. I have your book, DRIFT; it is a real eye opener! All middle class people should read it! With all the so-called "right-to-work" laws, the redistricting, voter suppression, Voter ID, the attack on the unions, the war on women, this sounds like all-out war on our democracy! How are the GOP/Tea Party getting by with this? Under the 14th Amendment, it says: Rights GUARNTEED! Under Liberty of Contract, is listed regulating labor laws: hours, minimum hours, payment of wages Workers Compensation laws, Collective Bargaining Rights. This is on Page1591. Why isn't someone bringing this up in US Congress or the Michigan State legislature? Doesn't the US Constitution override a state constitution? On that same page, under the Rights Guaranteed Caption: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship and Due Process and Equal Protection. I'd like to know how these Hitler-type fanatics are circumventing the laws in our Constitution! Are they able to do this because with all the money of the Koch Brothers, Shelden Eddelson, and others, they are buying our government? It sounds to me like the GOP/Tea Party are using Hitler's playbook when he overtook Germany and set himself up as dictator. What's going on now is VERY SCARY!!!!! When we start losing our rights, our freedoms, our privileges, that sends up a BIG red flag! And the voter ID thing, Hitler made all citizens carry identification papers on them; Voter ID, same thing. Hitler also confiscated all the firearms from the citizens. Even if they did manage to rise up and revolt, they had no weapons to go forward with it. More and more, this is beginning to appear like a MASTER PLAN of the wealthy in their quest to completely take over our country and they're using Hitler's method to accomplish it. I hope President Obama and the Democrats are aware of this and take counter measures against it.
Re redistricting; Could it be done in some manner on the Federal level for Federal elections only. If the states wanted a different redistricting for state elections, well, have at it . . .
Possible?
I made this comment on another thread last night but I didn't get a response so I'm going to try again here. I saw the segment on gerrymandering last night. I now understand how Republican dominated state legislatures game the system to insure congressional seats for their party. It seems so obvious I can't believe I didn't see it before. Here is my problem, I'm hoping that one of you or, God forbid, Dr. Maddow herself can help me with. I live in Illinois 4th Congressional District. Its borders(you can check them on wikipedia) scream gerrymandering. When redistricting occured the state legislature was, and still is, dominated by Democrats. I realize I am a Republican and biased, but I just figured that the Dems would stoop to the Repubs level and redistrict to favor their party. The problem is no matter how you draw up the borders for the involved areas Democrats are going to be in the majority. The districts are predominately in Chicago. There are no Republicans to isolate. So why do the borders look so wacky? I'm so confused. It was so much easier when Dr. Maddow explained it to me!
Illinois' 4th Congressional district is drawn to elect an African-American. In other words it's not a Dem/Rep thing but a racial thing.
Although in a broad theoretical sense we don't want race to factor so heavily into politics, the political realities lead me to actually agree with the heavily gerrymandered district 4 -- because this is the most practical way to join together the two large sections of African-American voters it encompasses.
I think Luis Gutierrez would take issue with your analysis. I gave it a little more thought and here's what I came up with. The two big blobs in the north and south are actually inhabited by Hispanics. I'm in one of those corridors that are necessary to connect the hispanic areas without impinging on Illinois 7th Congressional District. That way Luis Guittierrez gets to keep his seat and Danny Davis (he's the black guy) gets to hold onto his. The gerrymandering is intended to benefit a particular boriqua, Mr. Dream Act without stepping on Danny Davis' toes. Doesn't seem much more representative than those jerky Republicans to me, but what do I know.
Sorry. I mixed up the two. Yes, it's to connect the two HISPANIC areas.
Luv ya but I think you missed the point. The borders weren't set to guarantee representation for African Americans or Hispanics. They are the way they are to benefit a couple of guys who worked there way up through the local political system. Who is or isn't proportionally represented was never the issue.
You Dems who are wetting your pants over Rachel's report need to apply a little more critical thinking. You'll notice she provides a long lecture focusing ONLY on these few states where Republicans are benefitting from the redistricting process. But to cover herself journalistically, she throws in a sentence toward the end to acknowledge this is a tactic USED BY BOTH SIDES when given the opportunity. Yet all of your outrage and swooning at the loss of democracy is directed (just as Rachel intends) at the Republicans! You've been manipulated by selective reporting!
Also, did you catch where a 241,000+ vote margin in favor of the Democrats (Michigan House votes) was called winning "BY QUITE A LOT" -- then later Rachel looked at a 241,000+ vote margin for the Republicans (Ohio House votes) and stated "Republicans have the edge, NARROWLY SPEAKING." Twice she referred to the Ohio margin as NARROW for the Republicans, yet the identical margin for Democrats was winning by QUITE A LOT. You've been manipulated by biased reporting!
Here's a case study for Rachel to report on: Texas. OK, so Texas is now a Red State, but it has not always been so. Democrats controlled in Texas nearly throughout the entire last century. The unbroken string of Texas Republican governors began in 1995. The Texas state Senate was controlled by Democrats until 1997, the State House controlled by D's until 2003, and the U.S. House delegation from Texas favored D's until 2005.
So what happened early in the 1990's when Democrats controlled all facets of the redistricting process? For context, consider that Texas had been consistently voting Republican throughout the 1980's in the Presidential races -- 1980: 57% - 43% Republican; 1984: 64% - 36% Republican; 1988: 56% - 44% Republican. Those are all comfortable margins. Yet the redistricting plan crafted by the Democrats in 1990-1991 was designed to elect 22 Democrats and only 8 Republicans. (The actual vote yielded 9 Republicans because of a loss by a Dem. incumbent who was embroiled in a corruption probe.)
This is exactly what Rachel has sounded the alarm about -- a state voting solidly for a Presidential candidate of ONE PARTY but the state legislature and governor of the OTHER PARTY skewing the district maps to favor that other party by a wide margin.
My guess is that if you Democrats had even been aware of what was happening in Texas in 1990-1991 you would not have been getting sick to your stomach but probably cheering on "your side." And Rachel, if she had been around, wouldn't have bothered to make a story out of it to incite you against the Democrats. Am I right?
Your lack of critical thinking is allowing you to be manipulated.
The context of her story was not solely US Representative seats. It was also set in the framework of several states that are proposing allocating electoral college votes by congressional district thus impacting a presidential election and making it less representative of the popular vote in the process.
Redistricting is one thing to protect incumbents. That has happened on both sides and for a long time. The NEWS is that Republicans are trying to link that plainly partisan process in some states to the presidential election. That is new!
Obvious partisan machinations like these should add support for the National Popular Vote movement. If the party in control in each state is tempted every 2, 4, or 10 years (post-census) to consider rewriting election laws and redistrict with an eye to the likely politically beneficial effects for their party in the next presidential election, then the National Popular Vote system, in which all voters across the country are guaranteed to be politically relevant and treated equally, looks better and better.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Funny how you lefties and Rachel FAIL to mention the democratic controlled states redistricting to favor democrats. Just look what Illinois did, district boundaries are all over the place, splitting neighborhoods and even the same street. The Dems redistricting was based on the precincts which had the most dem votes and nothing else so they lumped these precincts together to form 'new districts'. Quite a few state and fed legislators who actually worked both sides of the aisle were bounced out.These new redistrictings are done by both parties so don't get your undies in a bunch.
North Carolina has just done the same thing. They broke up Asheville and added in a very conservative rural county held together with a strip of a third county... a total mess.
There is obviously more going on behind those numbers than some GOP plan to subvert the "democracy."
All five of those states have elected republican governors.
So much for majority rule. . . . . . . .cheaters win. . . .democracy loses.
So I saw this segment last night too. And then I read this morning that the Republicans have already gone over the "image cliff" based on new polling. It gets me thinking that the efforts to control districts by creating them to be homogeneous (politically speaking) while being divergent in overall population (read number of votes) has paid off in seats but punished in perception. Republicans are beholden for their seats to ever increasingly conservative districts...so they do not compromise and all republicans look bad for it.
Seems like the knife cuts both ways and payback comes when the population becomes aware that the government is being stolen by partisan political maneuvering that rewards the minority with a majority of seats. It doesn’t really pass the smell test on the idea of representative democracy, does it?
Keep shouting from the rooftops!
Again, it is not only the Republicans who do this. The "image" is largely being driven by media interpretation -- as Rachel Maddow has done and as many have dutifully followed by not being able to look past the bias.
Because of the Voting Rights Act, there is a favored district status that protects racial and ethnic minorities in districts that are some of the most overwhelmingly non-competitive as you'll find anywhere. So what about these "ever increasingly LIBERAL districts"? No need for compromise for those hard-lefties elected from these districts (like Maxine Waters or Linda Sanchez in California, etc. etc. across the country).
@Donna B - the 14th ammendment does not say you MUST join a union or pay union dues in order to work does it ? And there is no war on women, never has been. And voter id is a good thing even minorities are for it.
@UFO Pilot - i agree
@Rachel - are you prepared to pay more taxes on your book royalties ?
Republicans once again have shown that winning is far more important than democracy, the U.S. Constitution, any sense of fairness, or equality. Obviously the will of the people is not being represented.
How many times do we need to be shown the truth before we have our own Arab spring?
To Glenn M. and others.
You are right. Another aspect to her story was that some were advocating allocating electoral votes by Congressional district. I'll agree with Rachel that this is a VERY bad idea. There is already enough hanky-panky going on with redistricting without adding the additional political ramifications of Presidential electors selected by those same district lines.
By the way, there were efforts in red states like Texas to break up the winner-take-all electoral vote system. I don't recall such efforts being denounced by Rachel where it would favor Democrats.
But consider what Rachel is then defending by her logic. She doesn't think it fair (as in the Ohio case) that votes can lean narrowly one way or another while the state's Congressional delegation is overwhelmingly for one party over the other. But is this not exactly the way the electoral system works? No matter how close a contest, one candidate gets ALL of the state's votes for President.
I favor the current electoral system over a national popular election for president (can you imagine what it would take to do a recount in a close election and the opportunities for fraud this would present?) but I would not mind shaking things up a little. Whatever is done would have to apply to all states so it would likely come only by Constitutional amendment. It would not do to have only large Democrat-leaning states (or only Republican-leaning states) splitting up their votes.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.
The closest popular-vote election in American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?
The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely, not less likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue.
The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.
Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
You've mentioned states that are ignored after the conventions. I'd venture to say that if national popular vote were enacted, no Presidential candidate would ever set foot in New Hampshire again.
There's a geographic factor in a national popular vote that will disfavor all parts of the country outside the heavily urban areas. This may also favor Democrats from a campaign standpoint. Remember those red state/blue state maps that look mostly red except for the states with the big urban centers?
New Hampshire has been the only closely divided battleground state among the 13 small states in the last seven presidential elections (1988 through 2012).
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
to mvymvy- you mentioned the 2000 election in one of your posts. In Chicago Gore won by something like 83% to 17%. I think he came out with a plurality of 1/2 a million votes. I'm pretty sure one of the Mayor's brothers was Gore's campaign chairman. I know this is going to sound nuts but I believe a Democratic Machine still exists and can still churn out the vote when it needs to. What I'm trying to get at is that there is a pretty small group that can potentially generate a lot of votes. If we are both right probably enough to have swung the election if it depended on the results of a popular vote. That means, in a close election, having the power to concentrate a relatively small proportion of votes could elect a President. It would have been the case in 2000. As a Republican living in Illinois I'm not too crazy about a few Pols in Chicago making all of the decisions. How do you think the country as a whole would feel?
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.
The closest popular-vote election in American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?
I think they should eliminate parties all together and go with popular votes from all citizens or popular representation from each district.
For those who like the graphs here, I have some companion data to share.
I have some detailed district by district graphs for the House as well so you can see how the Democratic votes are stock-piled in only a handful of districts:
http://ballotlines.com/2012/11/27/all-the-data-how-did-the-districts-vote/
Additionally, if we awarded our house districts based on popular votes in each state, here is how the race would have shaken out (slim Dem majority):
http://ballotlines.com/2012/11/16/no-contest-the-less-discussed-impact-of-house-re-districting-and-why-it-matters-for-future-elections/#more-41
And looking at the worse states, how the presidential vote compares to the House vote:
http://ballotlines.com/2012/11/26/redistricting-worst-offenders/
There is a lot of talk about how the GOP has to change to win future elections. But with the districts that are already drawn and a proposed change to electing a President by those corrupt House districts, they could win nationally with their minority of voters. And given the contempt for the voters and popular will shown in Michigan in the "right to work" fight, the complete and utter lack of a mandate isn't going to stop them.
I can't shake the feeling that their will be revolution and it will be initiated, not by disgruntled far right Republicans (despite secession petitions and calls for the good ol' days), but by moderate Democrats determined to take back democracy.
Thanks! Is there something we can do to reverse this? Please invite people who can initiate a counter attack to be on your show...
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Gerrymandering: The manipulation of an electoral area by altering its boundaries in order to gain an unfair political advantage in an election. The word was first used in 1812, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry redrew election districts in Massachusetts to favor his party. He redrew them in odd shapes that resembled a salamander. The portmanteau word first appeared in the Boston Gazette on Mar. 26, 1812, and was a combination of Gov. Gerry's name and the word salamander.
And yes, Sam, there is something we can do about this 200-year old practice. Over 13 states have been successful in adopting one of the following remedies:
1. The creation of independent redistricting commissions who redraw lines without partisan bias (California, Iowa, Washington state);
2. Voter ballot initiatives that prevent partisan statehouse line drawing (Florida);
3. Adoption of the National Popular Vote bill by each state. With a majority of statehouses (holding the magic 270 electoral vote number) the bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire United States, and would supersede new district allotment schemes now being proposed. (So far, state legislatures who have voted on this bill are half way to the magic 270 number.)
For more information on redistricting abuses and remedies, go to the Brennan Center at NYU, and the National Popular Vote web sites (just google their names).
Arizona is similar to Wisconsin (As the show was saying last night) in having a model for the nation in a neutral 5-man commission (2 dems, 2 Repub 1 independent) to draw our boundaries. It is why Dems won 5 of the 9 seats in the US Congress (presidential race, low view of Congress, not so great Repub Candidates). SO....what does the Republican state legislature want to do......undo the popularly elected (it was done by initiative) commission so the Republicans can gerrymander themselves back into the majority. How about just coming up with some ideas that work instead of trying to rig the system ???/
As someone who works with mathematics and numbers quite a bit I feel that this reads out a huge problem with our whole political system. Higher proportional numbers for one electorial choice SHOULD represent higher elected representation in the final tally. There is subjective bias being written in there somewhere. In the spirit of what the U.S. Constitution had all along in the first place, I seen one hard core idea to fix the gerrymandering and election polling station issues that plagued the recent elections...an Amendment to the Constitution. In it there should be explicit unbiased rules on how voting districts MUST be drawn to properly represent the demographics of that localized population after new census data is tallied, as well as voting boards required to allow every legal voter in that voting district to get a fair voting opportunity. Any violation of such rules by someone holding "powers of office over such process" should be punishable by fine, imprisonment, and/or lose of one's elected or appointed office.
I think the Democrats just have to redouble their efforts in suburban and rural districts. Republican ideas are deeply flawed. Emphasize the failure of trickle down. Appeal to the moderate Republicans who are troubled by the wing nuts on the far right. In states that have been gerrymandered, Republican districts may not be as safe as they seem.
The rout in 2010 will go down in history as Obama's biggest failing and it's a biggie. He had help, of course, from the rest of the party, but as leader the onus rests with him. The list of errors is long, but first on it would have to be that they alienated the D base with policies that range from not closing guantanamo to obamacare. The base was ignored when it wasn't being told to stfu.
Today's GOP are farther right (more extreme, more Anti-American) than their former foster child, the Nazi Party was. They have become less a political party and more a criminal enterprize, in every sense, a RICO organization. The GOP employs all the Nazi tactics like their legislative obstructionism and new lows that the Nazis either didn't think of or felt beneath them. They created the rediculously named Federalist Society to subvert justice (engage in frauds like Citizens United) in America. They showed they could steal the national election at will to keep 911 traitors Bush and Cheney in the White House by switching 5,000,000+ Kerry votes thru the 40 state central tally computers. Gerrymandering is old and Dems have been guilty, but with the Dems it was more an isolated state party issue here you have a concerted national plot against democracy in light of the GOP efforts to deny the voting rights of minorities, young adults, and the elderly.
mpguy, just because they are old does not mean the nefarious influence of the Koch brothers will die with them. It started long before they were born. Money talks and here is what it says:
David and Charles Koch, friends and supporters of Romney/Ryan, are multi-billionaires willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars corrupting our political system on every level - even down to locally selecting and electing judges that will support their right-wing beliefs.
Their father Fred Koch made his fortune [$5 million] in the Soviet Union [1929-1932] helping the Stalinists develop their oil industry. His hatred of communism led him to support Mussolini’s fascists and support the John Birch Society: attacking labor, blacks, progressive clergy, educators and even President Dwight D. Eisenhower as pawns of a global communist conspiracy. He had special hatred for the civil rights movement. His sons’ “Americans for Prosperity” have carried on this tradition and supported numerous anti-integration efforts.
In 1980 David ran for President as a libertarian espousing the abolition of Social Security, the FBI, CIA, and all public schools. They are relentless in their quest for total deregulation; privatizing all social assets [i.e. water, electricity and all public utilities]; eliminating the workers right to bargain collectively against big business; and essentially supporting all programs that trample on the rights of the 99%.
And don’t forget Ilse Koch, the Bitch of Buchenwald, who worked for Hitler and made lamp shades from human skin with interesting tattoos, the ONLY female condemned at the Nuremberg Trials.
These are the people buying the election. They have already bought Wisconsin and Scott Walker.
This is the enemy withing, the enemy we should go to war against and defeat: The GOP and their dark money backers.