As we discussed here and here, redistricting in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio led to less representation for Democrats on the state and federal level, even when Democrats got more votes overall in those statewide elections.
Mother Jones summarized what that ultimately meant in a nifty chart for state delegations to the House of Representatives. Here’s our comparable chart showing how many votes it takes to elect a Democrat member of the state house, for every one vote it takes to elect a Republican state legislator.
Leave a Comment:
This is really starling; however, you folks will be able to add one more state to your list before long; that would be North Carolina only in that state a very rich dude named James Arthur Pope took over the state legislative districts, one by one, with cold hard cash to the same end. Both houses of the state government and the governor's office as well. They are now working on our Federal representation.
This gerrymandering stuck us with a GOP legislative body in the formerly blue state of PA. Now we have a deep red state. a T-Party governor, and the embarrassing Pat Toomey.
Why can't we have a non-partisan board do all the district maps, with the mandate that all the districts must be as square shaped as possible?
Really bad idea on several counts. First, the shape of the district may have nothing to do with the common interests of the people residing in that area. It's more likely to hinder, rather than facilitate, fairness and competition for that seat.
Second, "nonpartisan" commissions rarely are. A representative commission should reflect the political registrations and voting patterns within a state. California's CCRC has five Dems and five Republicans--which makes no sense, given that California is pretty solidly blue. Having equal numbers of very partisan people serving on the commission doesn't make it nonpartisan, nor does it guarantee the creation of districts that serve the broad interests of citizens.
Third, there's nothing wrong with the party in power exercising its advantage--to a point. People who were interested enough to vote put that party in a position to control redistricting. If the people (especially those with an opposing political view) are upset about that, they need to organize and--most importantly--VOTE.
None of the states in Ms. Sohoni's post are inherently or reliably Republican over the long term. In each case, disappointed, dispirited, and apathetic Democratic voters didn't care enough to go to the polls in 2010. This was the result. The Democrats in those states SHOULD pay a price for their lack of effort. Let's hope they 1) understand the consequences of their actions (or, in this case, inaction), and 2) care enough in the future to work hard enough to elect Democrats who will correct the situation.
Act tactically in near term:
Turning gerrymandering against the Republicans:
Winning the House for the Dems is the long term strategic goal. But getting rid of the extremists in the Republican party so that we get an opposition we can work and live with is a good tactical goal.
I am a steadfast Democrat liberal... I have voted for the Democratic ticket ever since I started to vote in 1970...
However, in last year's primaries, President Obama was running unopposed, so my primary vote didn't matter... So, I put it where it would matter... I declared myself Republican, and voted for Rick Santorum... I figured he would be easier for the president to beat than Romney...
If your district leans toward Democrat, you should vote for the Democrat of your choice... If it leans Republican, you should vote for the most moderate Republican... But, when it comes to the primaries, it makes more sense to try to get the bat-crap crazy TEA Party candidate nominated, because the nation would never elect him/her in the general election...
All the money in the world wouldn't have made Michele Bachmann President...
David, but what about the ones firmly ensconced in our GOP House? Like Michele (Look how big and blue my eyes are) Bachmann? It seems important to me to vote a straight Democrat ticket.
So at what point are we going to "get over it" about this?
You're beating a dead horse.
I think getting rid of the hostage taking foaming in the mouth hardline Republicans should be our immediate goal.
Democrats in these heavily gerrymandered districts, should switch their party registrations and vote against these wingnuts in the Republican primaries. They are worried about being primaried from the right right? Let us primary them from the left. We should resist the temptation to force unviable candidates like Akin or Mourdock on them. It is too risky. Simply help the moderate Republicans to get their party back from these nut cases. That should be enough. It is a good tactical goal. If we do it in some selected 40 or so House seats, that should be enough.
There was no legle challenge to the redistricting in Wisconsin and Ohio?
Redistricting after the 2010 elections made the figures in the chart possible, but there is another reason the Republicans won --- money. Typically, state and even federal candidates are not well known and so the media advertising is crucial. In 2010, the T.E.A. candidates were well funded and the Democratic candidates were not. In 2012, Democratic candidates benefitted from the Obama media and ground game, so more Democratic Congresspersons and candidates were elected. Raising money now for 2014 will make a difference in electing Democrats. You know, the Koch-Rove machine will be well-funded.
Another factor in Democrats winning back the House and increasing their margin in the Senate is the quality of the candidates. The T.E.A. party candidates elected in 2010 were not high quality and so some of them were vulnerable in 2012. It is not too early to recruit strong Democraticl candidates.
Many of the T.E.A. candidates can have their ratings turned negative if their records are exposed to the voters in their district. Social media is the only on-going viable way to get that message out. Obama won, in part, because he used the social media to get around the censorship and distortion of the 80% of the media owned by Murdoch and a few .1%ers. FoxNews is just one of those engaged in creating the "fair and balanced" hypocrisy. Democrats must be aggressive in confronting the FoxNews viewers and listeners. Each of the wedge issues must be engaged. On religious freedom, for example, the Fox approach is to side with the Catholic bishops, but what about the religious freedom of the rest of us? Turn the Limbaugh and Hannity lies and distortions against them by engaging the "true believers" and those open to change on a one-on-one basis.
There is no time like the present to begin. 2014 is just around the corner.
Chart gives new meaning to "it takes an arm and a leg to"...
I don't want to underplay the problem, but just how many Congressional districts did Republicans win by 55% or less? A win's a win, but it does matter by how much.
Those districts are the ones we need to concentrate on flipping in 2014.
I was just thinking that this is like a team losing the world series or the Stanley cup and scoring more total runs/goals than the winning team.
-- not that gerrymandering isn't a problem...
"I was just thinking that this is like a team losing the world series or the Stanley cup and scoring more total runs/goals than the winning team."
Tom . . . It happens all the time. Teams get blown out several times, but win enough close games to win a series.
For one of the more extreme examples, go to www.baseball-reference.com and look up the 1960 World Series between the Yankees and Pirates. If there were ever a case of what it might have looked like if a team were able to rearrange the runs in a WS to maximum advantage even while being heavily outscored, it was this series.
If you want to see the same thing in a Stanley Cup series that Detroit Red Wings fans still can't believe, check out the 1994 Conference Quarter Final series between the Wings and the San Jose Sharks at http://www.hockey-reference.com/playoffs/NHL_1994.html to see a team that was heavily outscored capturing a series four games to three.
You can forget Micheal Steele and Reince Priebus... The most valuable member of the Republican Party, in terms of getting members elected, is Jerry Mander...
The answer, obviously, is that Democrats need to win on the local level if redistricting in their favor in 2020 is to occur.....something they are apparently unable to do now, and in recent elections. Win or shut up.
Yeah but the point of this redistricting problem is, as things are now the Democrats don't need to just win - they need to crush their opponents.
It's not just 2020. This needs to start as early as 2014, with particular emphasis on the 2018 elections. That's when elections will occur for the office of Secretary of State and other offices that will determine who has control of the redistricting process. Offices with four-year terms that were contested in 2010 are up in 2014 and 2018.
Again, the chart by Mother Jones handpicks a few states which serve to illustrate its point -- but what IS the point?
Presumably, one might pick up on the fact that the process of drawing districts can be abused to disproportionately favor one party over the other. But only one of the above comments is directed toward the issue of fairness (although a "nonpartisan board" crafting districts "as square shaped as possible" is an unworkable solution).
The general response from the MaddowBlog readers regarding the redistricting process seems to be directed at ensuring DEMOCRATS find a way to get control of the process next time around so THEY can create their own unfair, unrepresentative districts -- whatever it takes to "crush their opponents."
And this from the same MaddowBlog readers who are so worried about the wingnuts on the Right?
Blah, blah, blah.
Gosh, be honest with yourselves...if it were the other way around (the Democrats doing the redistricting) with the headline instead: "Democrats reap the fruits of redistricting". Would you liberals have the same outrage reaction? I highly doubt it. You'd be celebrating.