North Carolina electoral map ruled unconstitutionally gerrymandered

[Kaleredar]

Why does the right hate democracy so much?

Republicans just can't figure out a way to get people to vote for them, so they have to stop other people from voting "incorrectly," of course!

[Anevers]

Republicans just can't figure out a way to get people to vote for them, so they have to stop other people from voting "incorrectly," of course!

They could start with what has worked in the past...they should adopt the party platform they had in 1956.

1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;

2. Protect Social Security;

3. Provide asylum for refugees;

4. Extend minimum wage;

5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;

6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;

7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.

[Stormspark]

They could start with what has worked in the past...they should adopt the party platform they had in 1956.

But that would help people that aren't rich. People that aren't rich are supposed to go die in the street and stop taking the rich people's money.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Texas is pretty horrible too.

[breadisfunny]

They could start with what has worked in the past...they should adopt the party platform they had in 1956.

ssh thats communism as per joe mccarthy.

[Sargerasraider]

Republicans just can't figure out a way to get people to vote for them, so they have to stop other people from voting "incorrectly," of course!

They won the congressional popular vote in 2016...

[Grapemask]

They won the congressional popular vote in 2016...

To be fair, the popular vote would probably change dramatically if gerrymandering was off the table. Same reasoning applies to why the results of the General Election would probably change dramatically if we ditched the electoral college; millions of Americans would roll out if they knew their vote would make a difference.

It's an understandable reaction at the moment. Democrats see nearly a 10% voter suppresion through minority-centered laws alone, and about 15% overall reduction in voting power through gerrymandering (this being a source I mostly dislike on its face, but it points to a lot of other studies in its links). Democrats have won the popular vote time and time again overall, but often end up losing seats - so to say that Republicans won the congressional popular vote in 2016 may be more an observation that left-leaning voters are starting to give up.

[Lenonis]

They won the congressional popular vote in 2016...

Correction -- they won the house popular vote. The dems got more overall votes for the Senate. And if you add the two the Dems come out on top.

Senate votes:


Dem: 51,496,682
GOP: 40,402,790

House votes:
Dem: 61,776,554
GOP: 63,173,815

I assume I don't need to do the math to show you the total is in favor of the Dems.

[alexw]

They won the congressional popular vote in 2016...

Errr lol, what do you think happens when you gerrymander the system? Might it perchance have an effect on how many seats democrats contest and so affect the congressional vote totals?

If you want to know which party is more popular then look at senate and presidential voter totals because they can't be gerrymandered. If you do that then its extremely obvious the democrats are far far more popular than republicans. Republicans only win due to intrinsic bias in the system and because they've also done a whole boat load of systemic rigging of the system on top of that.

[Sargerasraider]

Correction -- they won the house popular vote. The dems got more overall votes for the Senate. And if you add the two the Dems come out on top.

When there are Senate elections in Democrat strongholds like CA, NY, IL and few in Republican strongholds (e.g. no election in TX), it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there will be more votes for Democrats in the Senate. Hell, there was no Republican candidate at all in the CA general Senate election. There's 11 million votes right there.

Errr lol, what do you think happens when you gerrymander the system? Might it perchance have an effect on how many seats democrats contest and so affect the congressional vote totals?

If you want to know which party is more popular then look at senate and presidential voter totals because they can't be gerrymandered. If you do that then its extremely obvious the democrats are far far more popular than republicans. Republicans only win due to intrinsic bias in the system and because they've also done a whole boat load of systemic rigging of the system on top of that.

You know what gerrymandering is, right? More people overall voted for Republican house candidates than Democrat house candidates nationwide. If you're going to make the argument that overall vote totals don't matter in this case, then I hope you never have made, or make in the future an argument that Hillary winning the popular vote has any relevance.

Democrats have won the popular vote time and time again overall, but often end up losing seats - so to say that Republicans won the congressional popular vote in 2016 may be more an observation that left-leaning voters are starting to give up.

To my knowledge, 2012 is the only recent time that the winner of the House popular vote did not get the majority. If you're referring to the presidential race, you can't hold an election by one metric, then claim that another metric which was not the goal is the true meaningful result. It would be like claiming the baseball team that had the most runs in a series was the true winner, or the football team that gained the most yards. Maybe those actually would be better measures of a team, but the rules state that something else determines the winner. A candidate would run a race differently if national popular vote mattered (also as one example, Republicans had zero reason in CA to go to the polls as there was no Republican candidate in any meaningful state election which clearly could have dramatically suppressed their turnout).

[alexw]

When there are Senate elections in Democrat strongholds like CA, NY, IL and few in Republican strongholds (e.g. no election in TX), it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there will be more votes for Democrats in the Senate. Hell, there was no Republican candidate at all in the CA general Senate election. There's 11 million votes right there.



You know what gerrymandering is, right? More people overall voted for Republican house candidates than Democrat house candidates nationwide. If you're going to make the argument that overall vote totals don't matter in this case, then I hope you never have made, or make in the future an argument that Hillary winning the popular vote has any relevance.



To my knowledge, 2012 is the only recent time that the winner of the House popular vote did not get the majority. If you're referring to the presidential race, you can't hold an election by one metric, then claim that another metric which was not the goal is the true meaningful result. It would be like claiming the baseball team that had the most runs in a series was the true winner, or the football team that gained the most yards. Maybe those actually would be better measures of a team, but the rules state that something else determines the winner. A candidate would run a race differently if national popular vote mattered (also as one example, Republicans had zero reason in CA to go to the polls as there was no Republican candidate in any meaningful state election which clearly could have dramatically suppressed their turnout).

Yes I know what gerrymandering is. But you apparently don't. At least not properly. If you have a state with say 10 reps and you gerrymander it so that 2 are guaranteed democrat wins, 2 are toss-ups and 6 are guaranteed republican wins, then its pretty damned likely that the democrats won't contest those 6 (while republicans won't contest the 2 that are democratic). The end result being you've pushed down the democratic congressional vote. And surprise surprise that is what has happened.

If you want to know the parties true support then look at the presidential and especially the senate vote totals as they are always all contested, and they can't be affected by gerrymandering in this way. If you do that then its exceedingly obvious that the democratic party has far far higher support among the general population than the republicans do. Of course that doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to create but it is nonetheless the true.

Now I can't wait until gerrymandering is overturned and you get wiped out.

[Sargerasraider]

Yes I know what gerrymandering is. But you apparently don't. At least not properly. If you have a state with say 10 reps and you gerrymander it so that 2 are guaranteed democrat wins, 2 are toss-ups and 6 are guaranteed republican wins, then its pretty damned likely that the democrats won't contest those 6 (while republicans won't contest the 2 that are democratic). The end result being you've pushed down the democratic congressional vote. And surprise surprise that is what has happened.

If you want to know the parties true support then look at the presidential and especially the senate vote totals as they are always all contested, and they can't be affected by gerrymandering in this way. If you do that then its exceedingly obvious that the democratic party has far far higher support among the general population than the republicans do. Of course that doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to create but it is nonetheless the true.

Now I can't wait until gerrymandering is overturned and you get wiped out.

Just to get you on the record then: clearly you also must think that the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election also has the same meaninglessness (for exactly the same reasons)? Why would anyone go contest a state that they are virtually guaranteed to lose? If you do think that this is a valid metric, then I would like you to explain especially why a Republican would have gone to the polls in 2016 in California with two Democrats running in the Senate election and no chance of winning the presidential electoral tally.

As I noted with Senate totals before, 1/3 of the seats are up each cycle. If elections are contested in "blue" states, then obviously the Senate tallies will be higher in those states. You can't (as a previous poster did) say: "the Democrats had 11million more votes in the Senate" without seeing who was up for election and who was not. The Democrats won CA 11mil - zero as there was -no- Republican candidate. Also the fact that not all states are truly contested in US presidential elections is one of the main reasons some do not like the electoral college. Most states will never see a candidate because they are not in play.

[Lenonis]

*snip*

It's pretty well established at this point by a variety of means that there are more democrats than republicans and the only reason the republican representation is so high is that democrats have concentrated themselves into cities.

Trying to paint the GOP as having some sweeping popular mandate flies in the face of all the data out there.

[alexw]

Just to get you on the record then: clearly you also must think that the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election also has the same meaninglessness (for exactly the same reasons)? Why would anyone go contest a state that they are virtually guaranteed to lose? If you do think that this is a valid metric, then I would like you to explain especially why a Republican would have gone to the polls in 2016 in California with two Democrats running in the Senate election and no chance of winning the presidential electoral tally.

As I noted with Senate totals before, 1/3 of the seats are up each cycle. If elections are contested in "blue" states, then obviously the Senate tallies will be higher in those states. You can't (as a previous poster did) say: "the Democrats had 11million more votes in the Senate" without seeing who was up for election and who was not. The Democrats won CA 11mil - zero as there was -no- Republican candidate. Also the fact that not all states are truly contested in US presidential elections is one of the main reasons some do not like the electoral college. Most states will never see a candidate because they are not in play.

Whichever way you look at it the congressional ballot does not portray an accurate picture of political support for the two parties, and the presidential ballot is a hell of a lot more representative than it, because at least with the presidential vote there is always the opportunity to vote for the party you support, which is not true of the congressional one. Moreover its widely accepted by politicians and by pollsters that in raw numbers terms the democratic party is quite a bit more popular than the republican one. Even republican politicos accept that reality. Thus we have from gallup -

[Sargerasraider]

It's pretty well established at this point by a variety of means that there are more democrats than republicans and the only reason the republican representation is so high is that democrats have concentrated themselves into cities.

Trying to paint the GOP as having some sweeping popular mandate flies in the face of all the data out there.

Concentration of Democrats in cities does nothing to the overall House ballot totals.

Whichever way you look at it the congressional ballot does not portray an accurate picture of political support for the two parties, and the presidential ballot is a hell of a lot more representative than it, because at least with the presidential vote there is always the opportunity to vote for the party you support, which is not true of the congressional one. Moreover its widely accepted by politicians and by pollsters that in raw numbers terms the democratic party is quite a bit more popular than the republican one. Even republican politicos accept that reality. Thus we have from gallup

No, this generally tells me that Democrats have a problem with bothering to vote. Spare me the whining and crying about the difficulty in taking 30 minutes on one of several days (or if that's too hard to get an absentee ballot) to get to the polls to express one's opinion.

--
Again, let's take a step back and see where we are.

1) People cry "gerrymander, gerrymander"
2) It is pointed out that Republicans -still- would have control of the House if overall popular vote was the metric
3) The initial people state that there are problems with using the popular vote in this way. In a very cute way, these are some of the same people who believe that the popular vote in the 2016 general Presidential election has meaning, though they can't have it both ways. (Again as a direct corollary: you can't claim that the cumulative House ballot has no validity because gerrymandering may make some people less likely to vote, but on the other hand complain that the cumulative Presidential ballot does, when it is clear living in a noncompetitive state will make some people less likely to vote.)
4) They then decide on a wholly different metric - opinion polls.

[Elegiac]

Concentration of Democrats in cities does nothing to the overall House ballot totals.

Hint: If people's votes don't matter due to voter suppression then people will think their votes don't matter and not vote for certain elections. This is how we get uncontested House electorates.

[Lenonis]

Concentration of Democrats in cities does nothing to the overall House ballot totals.

Neither my point nor what you should have gotten out of that.

[Sargerasraider]

Hint: If people's votes don't matter due to voter suppression then people will think their votes don't matter and not vote for certain elections. This is how we get uncontested House electorates.

Spare me. The left's "voter suppression" is the same as the right's "millions of illegal votes."

[SirBeef]

Spare me. The left's "voter suppression" is the same as the right's "millions of illegal votes."

Except voter suppression is real and have had court rulings against such laws that suppress the vote and the other is statistically irrelevant.

[Elegiac]

Spare me. The left's "voter suppression" is the same as the right's "millions of illegal votes."

Voter ID and limiting polling hours are myths, apparently.