Nate Silver/New York Times
There are competing explanations as to why radicalized congressional Republicans refuse to compromise, even after failed election cycles, but Nate Silver points to one of the more compelling rationales.
In 1992, there were 103 members of the House of Representatives elected from what might be called swing districts: those in which the margin in the presidential race was within five percentage points of the national result. But based on an analysis of this year's presidential returns, I estimate that there are only 35 such Congressional districts remaining, barely a third of the total 20 years ago.
Instead, the number of landslide districts -- those in which the presidential vote margin deviated by at least 20 percentage points from the national result -- has roughly doubled. In 1992, there were 123 such districts (65 of them strongly Democratic and 58 strongly Republican). Today, there are 242 of them (of these, 117 favor Democrats and 125 Republicans).
It creates a dynamic in which GOP lawmakers, even those who might want to play a constructive role in governing, don't feel like they have much of a choice -- if they're reasonable and responsible, they'll face a primary and lose.
Indeed, members have seen this happen plenty of times. My personal favorite Bob Inglis, a conservative House Republican from South Carolina who got crushed in a GOP primary for being insufficiently radical. Inglis expressed a willingness to work with Democrats on energy policy and he said his main focus as a lawmaker was to find "solutions" to problems -- shortly before losing by a ridiculous 42-point margin in a district he'd represented for more than a decade.
The way the lines are drawn, members just don't have much of a choice if they hope to avoid Inglis' fate. As Nate added, "Most members of the House now come from hyperpartisan districts where they face essentially no threat of losing their seat to the other party. Instead, primary challenges, especially for Republicans, may be the more serious risk."
For GOP lawmakers, the way to stay in office is to keep the far-right base happy. And the way to keep the far-right base happy is to avoid compromise and adopt an unyielding stance on every issue.
Nate added, "There have been other periods in American history when polarization was high -- particularly, from about 1880 through 1920. But it is not clear that there have been other periods when individual members of the House had so little to deter them from highly partisan behavior."
The entire American policymaking process has been built around the notion that officials would have to compromise -- committees would have to compromise with one another, which would lead to compromises on the floor, which would lead to compromises with the other chamber, which would lead to compromises with the White House. It's built into the cake -- vote coalitions and deal making are features, not bugs, and there's nothing especially wrong with a system that operates this way.
But when lawmakers lose their incentive to play by the traditional rules, knowing that the best way to stay in office is to toe an aggressive ideological line, the result isn't pretty.
Silver's conclusion, about the practical effects of the situation, and why hyperpartisan districts doesn't really do the GOP any favors, rings true: "The district boundaries that give Republicans such strength in the House may also impede the party's ability to compromise, reducing their ability to appeal to the broader-based coalitions of voters so as to maximize their chances of winning Senate and presidential races. If so, however, that could mean divided government more often than not in the years ahead, with Republicans usually controlling the House while Democrats usually hold the Senate, the presidency, or both. As partisanship continues to increase, a divided government may increasingly mean a dysfunctional one."
Who's up for redistricting reform?
Leave a Comment:
And a lot of those districts are due to gerrymandering.
Well I was going to edit that to be a question but ran out of time.
"How many of those districts are due to gerrymandering?" is what I meant to ask.
How many? Try "all."
And thank your fellow "disappointed progressives" who couldn't bring themselves out to vote for "tarnished" candidates in 2010 since they hadn't been given their ponies they all voted for in 2008. That is the single greatest mistake the progressive movement ever made.
These "People"- and I use the term loosely- confuse winning an election to represent their constituents, to winning a lottery that guarantees a cushy job (3 days a week, with many governments tits upon which to suckle) for life.
Looks like Iowa gets this right.
Nationwide adoption?
It seems to me that the politicians running the Democratic party are really, really down with this trend. If they weren't they would be working hard to get their message out in the predominantly Republican districts. They would be party building in Republican suburbs suffering under one party cronyism. Judging from what I have seen here in Missouri, the Democratic Party isn't at all interested in reaching out. They would rather spend their time and treasure protecting their remaining incumbents.
I guess what I am trying to say is that this is a trend we could buck if we just tried.
It's similar here, in south-west Virginia. Some effort (and money) is expended to capture votes in state-wide contests (Senate and Presidential), but not for district races, either on the federal or state level. Especially not on the state level, in fact. Which is too bad, since it's the state legislatures which do all kinds of nasty things, under the radar.
Instead of making sorties into the enemy territory and trying to expand, we're firmly attached to the siege mentality, holding what we have. That's exactly why Silver's prediction, that (on a federal level) we're more and more likely to end up with more moderate (Dem) Senate and White House, while ceding the House to the rabid fringe, sounds depressingly right to me.
Interestingly enough here in MA I saw a huge get out the vote effort for Scott Brown with the Brown/Warren race. That race was a lot closer than what it should have been all things given. It's as though there was a Republican awakening within the state of Massachusetts that had been a long time coming with the death of Kennedy. And my assumption is that with the removal of Kerry, Brown will again see a surge in Republican support (including Republican funds). We are a supposedly blue state and yet Republicans had no problem dumping millions of dollars into this race to propel Brown to victory the first time around and this last race was just terrible in terms of outside influence and the bombardment of ads (not to mention the ludicrously racist nature of Brown's campaign). I felt like, at times, Warren was fighting her own campaign and wasn't even getting main establishment support. Yet I knew for certain who backed Brown with all the damn phone calls I got and public appearances that were made to support Brown.
The thing I've always found obnoxious is that there isn't really anything like a red state or a blue state. These were once academic labels designed to help political science nerds track political and/or social policy changes that have now became tools for the Republican Party to manipulate against the voter. Hence the whole "real America" versus "fake America" bullcrap. But what I've never understood is why Democrats don't ever push back to this framing of the discussion. When we become complicit in the labeling of "blue state" and "red state" it basically sends up a white flag to the voters that if you live here in MA and you're blue you don't have to turn out to vote cause the Democrat's going to win. And if you live in MO and you're blue well don't bother turning out there because the Republican is going to win. And thus, invariably, it ends up favoring Republicans. This is the same stupidity- in my opinion- as when Republicans and supposed independents complain that "both sides do it." As I always end up summarizing: "both sides do it, so therefore vote Republican."
Who's up for redistricting reform?
Good question. A lot of people, but not Republicans since they'd lose seats and probably not SCOUTUS, so it remains an academic questions
Not to mention they have the majority of seats in both Congress and the 24 state legislatures they control, to stop anything.
TCinLA, 5.1,
They have found the perfect recipe or roadmap to disaster. Now we are at the mercy of the "Flat Earth" people, and will be for years to come.
It happened in my once Democratic commonwealth: PA. And, best of all, it can't be fixed. Isn't that amazing! We turned our backs on them and look what they pulled off! A right wing coup d'etat.
does this mean there needs to be more liberals in republican districts to make them more moderate? because i think most dems like myself don't want to live in a place like houston, tx or lexington, ky
No, you don't have to move to Houston or Lexington, but you could insist the party put money and staff in both cities to help the liberals already there.
In my state the media (television, radio, and print) is owned and managed by right wingers. They set the tone for the political conversation. They never say anything bad about a Republican. The only liberal media voices are confined to a few struggling blogs. Given the conservative stranglehold on the local media, it is amazing any Democrat is ever elected.
Maybe we could help those local blogs become centers of liberal journalism. Maybe we could do something similar with other forms of social media. That would mean spending some money. The local Democrats hold their money close to the chest to pay a handful of entrenched (wornout) consultants and to buy ads on those conservative stations. Nothing seems available for outreach.
Houston, along with Dallas, runs close behind Austin for the "blue jewels" of Texas. The suburbs are another matter, particularly Sugar Land.
William Roy Stutts,
Neither do I but they've spread this coup to many other states, such as the commonwealth of PA. You cannot turn your back on them. They are ruthless and determined to take over every state possible, and turn it into Texas.
They are like termites, devouring everything in their path.
If you don't interact with the wingnut idiots you don't know the real threat facing this country. There is only one way and it's going to be painful, but there can be no further compromising toward the right in this country. Their way has already done enough damage. There can be no further compromises.
Just one more thought about "Secure" districts. There is no room for growth. As the GOP consolidates and centralizes it's base they aren't spreading out or winning converts. Eventually they will either have to adapt or politically starve to death.
The most likely outcome based on demographic projections and population movement is that there will eventually be some point where moderates are just for sake of survival forced to split from the crazy people and either kick them out or form another version of the GOP. It will have to happen just a matter of when.
Republicans won't starve to death. They will survive on wingnut welfare.
To me the amazing thing is the right wingers don't seem to realize that their representatives aren't really delivering for them. They deliver for the Koch brothers and the Walton family, but the rank and file conservative isn't seeing his life improve. In fact things are getting worse for most of them. If the media was doing its job Red State suburban and rural America might discover if they simply looked, that Walmart and Walmart style politics is not good for the local economy or the local society.
@Ron
You are kind of making my point. There is a limit to the value of influence money can buy (look at the last election) and eventually people will be forced to deal with what goes on around them. Right now the radical right is largely composed of old angry white men and as that demographic shrinks it will be replaced by people who are less entrenched in those ideas. As with all things political in this country the pendulum will swing back it's just a matter of time.
The more compelling question is what will the radical right do when that reaches the tipping point.
Unfortunately, when the rank and file right looks around and sees that their life has not improved, they blame President Obama (because Rush and Company tell them that's who's to blame).
You can't tell someone the truth if they refuse to listen.
Dragoon,
I wasted most of my life sitting around and waiting for rank and file conservatives to realize their "job creator" overlords aren't doing them any favors. Democrats can't stand around waiting on demographic trends. The Democratic party needs to work year in and year out convincing our neighbors they aren't being served by the other guys. That is a hard job because the other guys don't take any election cycle off and they literally own the media.
I don't think anyone is saying the only thing progressives need to to do is stand around and wait for the Great White Die-off, but it is happening and can be used to our advantage.
Ron, I love your analysis of how "the rank and file conservative isn't seeing his life improve. In fact things are getting worse for most of them."
Will you apply your keen insight to Black Democrats in America?
There is a cultural shift in America that is mainstreaming the interaction between Black America and the rest of the country, largely played out on the television screen, that will continue to have positive effects going forward. But this IN SPITE OF the efforts of the Sharpton's, the Holder's and others (even the President) who push racial division.
My point is that the exercise of political power by the far left has failed to bring about positive change for the groups they are claiming to champion.
Consider America today and what it will look like in say 40 years when today's children are the primary voting block. Their parents (today's 20somethings) are already more embracing of liberal ideas and are more egalitarian in general. I doubt very seriously that we would be able to recognize the place judged by today's standards. It's like contrasting 2012 with 1952 or 1912 and saying that things were better then. The GOP tried to do that and it didn't work.
I am not suggesting that progressives rest on their laurels and do nothing. I am just pointing out that radicals eventually paint themselves into a corner and get stuck.
Sane people know what crazy looks like and eventually they get tired of putting up with it
Take your UFO and pilot it back to Whacko World, idiot. Nothing of what you said has any slight basis in truth. But why does it surprise us that nothing you think is true is actually, factually true? But thanks much for demonstrating the kind of idiocy we're talking about here, moron.
You're not doing your side any favors, TCinLA. If you're going to make an argument, it helps to actually provide an argument.
When has this ever happened?
OK couple of things here. Far left as a term refers to someone who is to the left of liberal. You just used liberal in your above sentence so you are either admitting that these people aren't far left (and you don't know what these terms mean) or you're stating that these people aren't liberal and that they are far left. Which one is it? Secondly Obama would not classify as far left or liberal. He'd classify as centrist in American politics which on the American political scale would put him slightly to the left of conservative. Thirdly exactly how do you come to the conclusion that you're making? Black unemployment- while historically high- has came down rapidly since the 1960's. Sharpton was one of the main political movers of the Civil Rights movement. Black life expectancy has gone up and black poverty overall has gone down (although at a muuuuuch slower pace than that of the rest of the nation). There is always more that can be done, but we aren't operating in absolutes here. You cannot frame the conversation as either blacks must be at 100% equal treatment in order for me to say that the left hasn't done 0 to help.
So I'll ask you- given the above criteria in mind- to give specific examples of what you're talking about. Obamacare has been for the benefit of blacks (as well as everyone else), the removal of DADT has been for the benefit of blacks (as well as other races), the step down of the justice department for enforcing marijuana prosecutions has been to the benefit of blacks (as well as other races, but in particular blacks because they are disproportionately targeted with anti-marijuana enforcement policies), and black unemployment has gone down under this presidency (although we have not reached pre-collapse levels for any group just yet in terms of unemployment). Oh not to mention SCHIP which helped millions of black children in America (as well as other races) and not to mention the expansion of worker's rights laws which also help black people. So please cite to me specific examples of how the "far left" have failed black people.
Also I should mention you are aware that progressivism is the effort to push black integration on television, in schools, and everything else, yeah? So how does that fit into your world view???
It's quite interesting how the so-called negative effects of lopsided "safe" districts, in the analysis of Nate, Rachel, and most of the readers of this blog, only occur on the Republican side. What? You think there are no Democrats who aren't highly partisan? How about your friend DisgustedWithItAll above who -- in an article yearning about the good ol' days of working together -- avows there must be "no further compromises" with the wingnut idiot right.
Another Dem, William Roy Stutts (above), says he just wouldn't want to live in an area with too many Republicans around. But of course, he COULD move to Houston -- all he has to do is move into one of the three Democratically-controlled Congressional districts there. How about Sheila Jackson Lee for your representative? She is elected from one of the most lopsided districts in the entire state of Texas and thinks the TEA Party is just a modern-day incarnation of the KKK.
How about it Mr. Stutts?
Once again we get another fine example of how conservatives view the world around them, everything black and white. Here is a clue, liberals will compromise in order to get some or most of what they want, conservatives want it all their way or no way, pretty much like 4 year olds and just like a 4 year old, they will throw temper tantrums that hurt themselves if they don't get their way.
"whomitmay" provides, once again, another fine example of how liberals misinterpret the statements of conservatives. I make reference to race-baiting and the fostering of racial division on the LEFT, and I am then accused of seeing everything "black and white."
By the way, although I am a middle-aged white guy, I have several adopted children who are black and I have a sister-in-law who is black.
UFO Pilot, #9.2
Gee, should we give you a medal? You are still on the wrong track politically, I don't care how many children you have adopted or what the hell colour they are. Some of us on the left....no, most of us on the left don't care about that.
It is the right wing which is causing these divisions.
I obviously don't care what color anyone is. I only mention it because I had been mischaracterized as seeing things "black and white," as if that were typical of conservatives. I was simply pointing out how racial division emanates from the Left.
I'm not a particular fan of the TEA Party, but I have listened to what they have said and I have listened to what others on the Left have said about them. Those on the Left, Chris Matthews, Ed Shultz, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee just to name a few, have gone to great lengths to paint the TEA Party as racists, then feel justified in heaping all kinds of epithets and criticism on its members. The TEA Party is much more benign than the caustic rhetoric directed at it from the Left. So how is it the RIGHT WING is the one "causing these divisions"?
If your idea of "left wing" includes the people you mentioned above, then that's your problem right there. Matthews et al aren't left wing, they're at most centrists who are able to see when something is wrong and needs fixing.
As opposed to those who wish to go back to the faux "good ole days". Hint: they weren't and I know, I was there.
My mention of the "good ole days" was not to MY wishes. It was to one of the points of the author of the article (Steve Benen) who lamented how legislators no longer need play by "traditional rules" -- tradition, according to the author, being when the "policy making process" was built around "compromise".
It's a lot of hooey to me, but it's the language the author uses to springboard off into his criticism of right-wing fanaticism -- again, as if it only goes one way.
UFO guy, to use your logic from above in putting forth an argument, you can't simply say someone is race baiting (like The President) without putting forth some facts and examples. Oh I forgot who I was talking to forgive me for using the word fact.
My statement was the even the President pushed "racial division." For example, going to a specifically Latino audience to cast political opponents as "enemies" that are to be "punished" bu voting against them. Political opponents were those who didn't agree with the Latino position on immigration.
Also, in the wake of the Henry Louis Gates arrest for disorderly conduct, Obama was quick to insert himself, not only to render judgement that it was the Cambridge police had acted "stupidly" (saying nothing about Gates' behavior), but to dredge up "the long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos" being disproportionately targeted by police.
One of the most common tactics of the racial dividers is to beat white people over the head about the "long history" of minority mistreatment, thus perpetuating old stereotypes that tend to box people into different castes -- oppressor and victim(s).
Then you have Attorney General Holder squashing a voting rights citation against the Black Panthers because, after all (according to the logic), voting rights laws were only intended to apply to the white majority.
Another fine example of a Fox news watcher full of fake outrage. Typical that he wants to erase every racial division created before Obama was elected because once a black man was elected president that cured the US of racial division. Guess he also wants to pretend Nixon never had a southern strategy and Reagan wasn't talking about blacks in the Ghetto when he said black welfare queens were driving around the inner cities with brand new Caddies while collecting aid, he was talking about white women living in the ghetto right ufo.
No one stated this or argued this at any point in time on the thread. This is the strawman fallacy.
First none of the examples you gave were evidence of race baiting or fostering of racial division. Second you are deliberately misconstruing the usage of the term "black and white here" to take on racial connotations when you very well know that, that was not the usage of the language (nor indeed do people colloquially use the phrase "black and white" to suggest racial division). The fact that you took this terminology to mean something outside of the mainstream suggests that you are reaching for straws to play the false victimization card. It is also a hilarious strawman.
Playing the "I have a black friend" or in this case "I have a black relative" card is inherently racist, btw
This paragraph is contradictory. How can you be ever so concerned about racial division while simultaneously not being concerned about race? Either you are concerned about race and thus are upset about racial division or you are not concerned about race and therefore none of it bothers you. This is a Colbert style fallacy (although when he does it, it's meant to be funny). You're essentially trying to argue the "I don't see race- I assume I'm white because people tell me I am and I don't get pulled over as frequently by the police." It's just a hilarious way of stating that you are uncomfortable with racial issues without outright stating that you are. Everyone can see through it and thus people correctly call you on it for what it is: bull@!$%#.
And every single time there has been empirical evidence to support the accusation. That's what you conveniently leave out of the equation here. You make this statement as though the accusations are baseless, but they aren't baseless. When someone says we don't want the urban-read black- voters to turn out and that person self-identifies as a member of the Tea Party then that person is expressing a racist sentiment. Thus the Tea Party is associated with that racist sentiment because that person is a member. It's especially bad when that person is an elected official who was elected as a Tea Party Republican. Or how about when people show up to Tea Party rallies bearing signs that show a white person giving money to a black person? Or signs that say blacks need to go back to work? The accusation of racism did not pop out of nowhere. Now if you want to say that it's not fair to grossly generalize the entire group with the accusation of racism then I agree- the few should not represent the many. But if you're trying to say that these instances never occurred or that the accusations of racism based on these incidents is wrong then you are grossly going against reality.
By continuing to support policies like the war on drugs that disproportionately affects black people even though blacks aren't more likely to do drugs than the rest of the population. By removing policies meant to help black people get into college and by arguing in favor of things like employer discrimination based on race. By arguing that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed in part or in whole. By arguing that black people are thugs and that it should be OK to shoot them. By creating racist signs and photos and statements about President Obama- like photos of him dressed as a pimp, or photos of watermelons out on the White House lawn, or comparing him to that of a chimpanzee, or creating photos of him as a witch doctor, or creating a conspiracy on the notion that because he's black he must be from Kenya, Muslim, and anti-American. Again you can take umbrage at the idea that the whole is persecuted on the basis of the minority, but you cannot take umbrage over the idea that the minority has engaged in this behavior.
You do not watch The Rachel Maddow Show routinely- I can already tell by your making this comment. The hue under which the author speaks is that of several studies that TRMS has shared over the years definitively showing that the right side of the political spectrum has moved more towards absolutism and further to the right in terms of the American political spectrum scale. You yourself are engaging in absolutism in your arguments which I have already pointed out. The Democratic Party has not gotten consistently radical while the Republican Party has gotten consistently reactionary. The Democratic Party has not made a significant move from where it was at in the 90's which is to say the Democratic Party is primarily moderate, liberal leaning. Whereas the Republican Party has moved from conservative to neo-conservative to where it is now which is economic libertarian and social reactionary. That's almost as far right as you can get on the American political spectrum without going confederate, fascist, or neo-Nazi. And no I'm not saying that as an insult to the right wing. I'm saying they've pushed the envelope about as far as that envelope can go before it comes true madness. That is to which the author was speaking. You've deliberately produced a strawman here on the basis of your own inability to research further articles that this show has produced.
First there isn't a monolithic Latino position on immigration. Second the president never referred to people as "enemies" or stated that Latinos should be "pushed" into voting any one way or the other. Obama did, however, hold rallies in front of specifically Latino audiences in which he discussed issues that typically poll highly as areas of concerns among Latinos. You want to know who else did this? Mitt Romeny. You want to know who else? John McCain. George Bush. Who else? Oh- that's right- every @!$%#ing president in modern US history. Hispanics make up a huge portion of the voting block so both the left and the right pander to whatever polling suggests Hispanics are most concerned about. You sit here pretending like you are concerned for fair representation and then you give an example acting as though President Obama is the only president in US history to reach out to minorities for votes. You do realize that this is completely hypocritical, yeah? Not to mention that if what you say is true- that Republicans never reach out to minority voters- that you'd be implicitly stating that Republicans are racist.
Hey man- don't be so partisan there!
A. It is a fact that Hispanics and African-Americans have been mistreated at disproportional rates by law enforcement than that of white people.
B. You are, again, hypocritically complaining that you don't like partisan representation and yet here you are clearly giving partisan representation. Here are examples of Bush speaking out about unfair treatment towards blacks and Hispanics.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-12-2005/moment-of-zen---president-george-w--bush-on-african-american-males-dying-sooner-
http://www.salon.com/2005/02/05/security_15/
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=20030224&id=P2ZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s_IDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5733,3458976
.....is it factually true that there has been a long history of minority mistreatment? If yes then no one can "beat you over the head" about this. If it is a fact it is a fact. You resenting being informed about something is not the same as "beating you over the head" with something. Nor is asking that you have sympathy for someone else. That's your own personal problem- it has nothing to do with the other person in question. Black people and Hispanics have and currently are often oppressed at the whim of the power structure- which is that of whites. Does this mean that it happens in 100% of all situations one can fantasize? No. In many cases blacks and Hispanics are treated fairly when it comes to education, hiring, and the like. But there are still enough instances and enough problems that blacks and Hispanics face that are disproportionate to that of their white peers that it warrants some attention. You are confusing people wanting to focus on these issue so that they can finally be fixed with the idea that people are trying to make you, a white person, feel guilty about something. Again the guilt thing is on you. What people are asking is that you address the problem so that it stops being a problem. Why you are upset by this is also on you.
No. This was an instance in which 2 black men went in front of a building and told people they couldn't vote. They were largely ignored and there isn't any documented evidence that anyone was actually turned away from voting. You are also convieniently forgetting that these 2 individuals were prosecuted, but for a minor crime more reflective of what we found out later to be true (as opposed to the initial false charges). See police officers investigate crimes and then they prosecute based on the information given. Most of the time an investigation starts out under the assumption of one thing and ends up being a prosecution of something else. There's also the reality that people can plea bargain or that prosecutors don't think they'll have enough evidence to go after higher charges so they go for lower ones. Your relaying this incident really just shows ignorance as to the judicial and law enforcement process.
You left out the part where they were telling people to not vote for Obama, seems the new black panthers were McCain supporters. Opps poor righties always with the fake outrage given to them by the people over at Fox news.
Seems to me, looking at the chart, that the Democratic districts have just as many (or nearly as many) landslide districts as the Republicans. Realizing, of course, this is a left leaning blog, the republican criticism is expected. But if the point is to argue that hyper partisanship is bad for governance, then the criticism should apply to both sides, it seems to me.
Other than the fact that the Democrats in Congress actually do serve the interests of their constituents, not the Koch Brothers and Walmart and the NRA, like the Republicans.
And, if Rachel or Nate Silver would look more closely at how districts are drawn, they would conclude that a larger percentage of districts which elect Democrats are more highly gerrymandered than there are Republican districts highly gerrymandered. This is because of the creation of MINORITY districts in urban areas -- for example Illinois CD4 (Chicago), Texas CD18 (Houston), North Carolina CD12 (Charlotte to Greensboro).
Please note: Gerrymandering is most effectively used in the United States to CREATE MINORITY DISTRICTS, which, given the present political proclivities of most members of those minority groups (primarily Black and Latino), will ensure the lopsided election of Democrats. In other words, redistricting reform which would eliminate deliberate gerrymandering would hit minority districts hardest.
So it's easy to stand back and take high-level theoretical pot-shots at the Republicans for gerrymandering districts to help themselves. Yet if you get into the nitty-gritty of what is really going on in redistricting and try to apply new standards uniformly, you would not be so quick to criticize.
UFO guy, the results from the popular vote in the last election would lead me to say "bring it on" when it comes to elimination of gerrymandering.
@John
I agree with you that gerrymandering period is a problem regardless of who it favors and I'm 100% with you that we should be against allll of it. With that said it's 180 Democrats to 220 Republicans. That's a difference of 40 seats. I wouldn't personally describe that as close. That's 9% of the House by which Republicans have a districted lead.
@UFO
A. explain how Silver didn't consider this and then B. provide any evidence to support your claim
What is a "minority district?" You mean a district in a place like Chicago that contains mostly racial minorities? You do realize that's because in cities like Chicago there are entire neighborhoods and city blocks in which only black people or almost all black people live, yeah? This seems like a very specious claim on your part. Let me ask: how many of the districts in Texas, Illinois, and North Carolina contain majority districts??
This isn't even remotely true. Gerrymandering was initially used to favor districts in which wealthy elites lived and it's been historically implemented to favor white voters versus that of minorities. This is because white voters have historically been the most consistent in predictability for who they turn out for- Democrats or Republicans. Scaling districts to favor minority voters would be a bad idea since routinely minorities only vote at around 25% (versus around 70% for their white peers). Not to mention the fact that if what you were saying were true you'd be admitting that Republicans either stole votes (since their districts were so disproportionately in favor of minorities who don't vote for them) or you'd be stating that Republicans willingly try to shift districts away from minorities when they gerrymander because it's not in their best interest. In which case you'd be contradicting your above post where you claim that Democrats are the ones implementing racist policies.
Heh. I'm a Republican! Only I have the true truth of the truthy truth!!! No one else's truth is as true as my truth!
I agree with those who are saying that the Democrats/progressives/liberals/sane people need to develop some strength in these so called red districts. Effort needs to be made and money spent to find really good Democratic candidates who have some real, positive policy ideas that will attract Republicans who are disillusioned with the Tea Party as well as turn out closet Democrats in these districts.
Just running some good Democrats with positive policy positions can help counter the right wing message machine.
We need to "un-gerrymander" all districts, R and D. We can pretty much forget about "minority" districts, because they're not really minorities anymore. I say that some smart person/people create a computer program that starts in (for instance) the northwest corner of every state and encompasses as much geographic area as required to contain the proper number of people. (state population divided by number of districts) Every state should use this program to create the district maps. This will come closer to achieving that quaint "one man, one vote" ideal oft praised. C'mon data geeks, get the ball rolling!
There are already computer algorithms which will divide up a state into districts without regard to minority status or political affiliation. Some of these do a better job than others in making reasonable-looking districts.
But try to get any Democrat with any real-world experience in redistricting to go along with the idea. You won't find one. I'll repeat: redistricting reform which would eliminate deliberate gerrymandering would hit minority districts hardest.
So, you're not from California, I take it?
California uses a redistricting panel to draw districts -- not a computer algorithm which ignores minority affiliation.
And again I state that you've just openly admitted that Republicans don't want minorities to vote. Classic!
Gerrymandering allows the parties to secure the districts while having the ability to ignore the will of the majority. It would be one thing if gerrymandering was causing the red districts to be more purely Republican, but instead it is causing these districts to be more extremist, ensuring that the country is further divided with less chance for compromise.
The problem is much deeper than gerrymandering. It starts with the fact that the House membership is frozen at 435 members. This results in a member from a large city like NY, Chicago, LA and so on representing far more constituents than a member from a smaller state. Each state is allotted its proportionate share based on population, but that does not mean each district is equal in the number of residents. A member from Illinois might represent 400,000 people while a small state representative has 150,000 constituents. The SCOTUS has said that the scheme is sufficient to adhere to voting laws. If we were to make each district in the country equal in population, then urban areas would have a far greater number of people in Congress. Large population states would double and triple the number of representatives in the House. The current scheme allows less populous states a disproportionate say in policy and spending than large states. But this scheme will not change because there are insufficient numbers of states to pass a new Constitutional amendment. Small states are not going to give up their power and get swamped by urban and suburban representatives from large states. BTW-when I say small and large states it means population and not territory.
Gerrymandering is a result of this voting scheme which allows some states to dilute minority and urban votes through the redistricting process. When Republicans control a state that has a large city, the redistricting is purposely done to favor the Republican areas of the state at the expense of the Dem areas. When Dems control a state it is more difficult for them to gerrymander a disproportionate number of districts and what results is fewer districts that are swing districts. These swing districts are disappearing because some states like IL, NY, NJ and PA are losing seats in Congress because their populations have stopped growing. When these states redistrict, the rural areas lose their representative(s) because of the proportion of urban and rural areas in the state. This happened in Illinois because the suburbs of Chicago have become very Dem and the city and suburban areas have half of the population in Illinois. The number of swing districts in Illinois declined.
Well, Mike, you're not quite correct.
The average district size should be just over 700,000 persons. It is true that because states are apportioned WHOLE numbers of representatives, with everyone getting at least one, that not all districts across the US will be equal. For example, Wyoming's population is around 570,000 so its one representative is representing fewer constituents than the average. But what about Wyoming's neighbor to the north? Montana also only was apportioned ONE representative but has a population of 995,000 -- far more constituents than ANY district from a large state.
Look at the other states in the top 5 who, like Montana, are underrepresented:
Delaware -- 1 district at 900,000 pop.
South Dakota -- 1 district at 820,000 pop.
Idaho -- 2 districts at 787,000 each
Oregon -- 5 districts at 770,000 each.
By virtue of their size, the large states will always be in the middle and not on the extremes on either end when the apportioned representatives are divided into the state population.
If the "large states" are taken as those with a double-digit number of representatives, then the high and low are:
North Carolina -- 13 districts at 736,000 each and
Washington -- 10 districts at 675,000 each.
In summary, less populous states are NOT favored by the apportionment process. Rather, the constituents/representatives ratio is more subject to fluctuation than for the more populous states, putting them on the extremes OF BOTH ENDS, whether over or under-represented.
Google "apportionment paradox" and you will get a better understanding of the math involved depending on how district apportionment is done. In summary, by keeping the House at 435 the small states get an advantage over large states than if the House size was increased.
Mike, it was you who claimed "Large population states would double and triple the number of representatives in the House" if "each district in the country [was] equal in population." Can you give us some math on that?
Here's some math to get you started: Illinois had a 2010 Census apportionment population of 12,864,380. The national population being 309,183,463, that would mean Illinois should get 18.10 representatives (rounding to the nearest hundredth). Illinois received 18 representatives.
Please show us how Illinois or any other state would get "double or triple" the number of seats using strict proportions across all districts nationally.
The "Apportionment Paradox" is the tendency in SOME apportionment methods to cause an entity to lose a seat although the total number of districts increases. The rules of some apportionment methods have some seemingly unusual results, but only in the assignment of one or two seats.
I stand by my earlier statements that the apportionment process currently in use (the method of equal proportions) does not tend to favor small states. Small states are just as likely to be underrepresented as they are overrepresented and are more likely to be on the extreme ends of that range. Populous states are NOT as likely to have districts particularly underrepresented (or overrepresented).
Assume that each state gets 1 rep per 500,000 people. Iowa (pop. 3 million) currently has 4 since they lost a seat. Illinois has 18. The delegation from Iowa would go to 6 and Illinois (pop. 12 million) would have 24 for a gain of 6 seats. If this scenario is played out with every major populous state, NY, NJ, MA, FL, CA, TX, LA, CO, WI, MI, OH, PA, and every small state, the size of the House would be 618 members with most of the seats going to the most populous states. And that is just using a round number that I randomly picked. It is an exaggeration to say double and triple. But the big winners are urban areas which would significantly increase their representation in the House relative to rural areas. Even some of the cities in less populous states would pick up a representative rather than their votes being diluted with gerrymandering.