8 ms·

Where is gerrymandering so bad that Democrats have to win 3-1? This doesn't represent the experience of the median voter.

slg 4y ago
Not exactly gerrymandering, but there is a systemic bias against Democrats due to the structure of our government. The most obvious example, Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections.
- corrral 4y ago
  Those stats might hold regardless, but to be fair one would expect different voting patterns under the current system, versus a direct popular-vote election, so it's not accurate to say that anyone "won" the popular vote in any US Presidential election, since that wasn't the contest and the fact that it wasn't affected how voters and candidates behaved. It's like challenging someone to a foot race, losing, and then deciding afterward that you won on "style points" or something. That wasn't the contest, and the other participant might have done things differently under different rules. The system as it stands makes voting pointless for people who are in districts that reliably go for the "other team". If they could at least influence the Presidential election, more of those voters might show up at the polls. GOTV and other campaign efforts take this into account, which magnifies the effect.
  - slg 4y ago
    Fine, you want another example of systemic bias in our government? The 50 Democratic senators represent 41.5 million more people than the 50 Republican senators.
    - dntrkv 4y ago
      I don't really have an issue with the way the senate is setup, since that was intentional. My issue is with the house, where we are supposed to have equal representation, but don't.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > I don’t really have an issue with the way the senate is setup, since that was intentional. Why is bad intent less bad than bad accident. > My issue is with the house, where we are supposed to have equal representation, but don’t. House representation was supposed to be approximately equal limited by granularity and it remains approximately equal limited by granularity.
        slg 4y ago
        >House representation was supposed to be approximately equal limited by granularity and it remains approximately equal limited by granularity. But the "limited by granularity" part is growing more and more limited. The size of the House originally grew as the size of the population grew. Once we capped the size of the House, we lost relative granularity allowing this problem worsen as the gap between the smallest and largest congressional districts increased.
      - adamc 4y ago
        It was intentional and a big part of it was to protect slave-owners. Evil intent does not get a pass.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      Also: don't forget that the District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress. DC has a larger population than Wyoming or Vermont, and will probably overtake Alaska by the next Census based on its current trajectory.
      - nonameiguess 4y ago
        Not just DC. American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas Islands, US Virgin Islands, and Guam are all American citizens but can't vote for president at all, don't get a Senator, and collectively only get a few representatives, most of whom are ceremonial and don't get to vote.
    - refurb 4y ago
      That’s not a systemic bias against Democrats, that’s an intention design so that small states and large states have more balance of power.
      - i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
        idk why you're getting downvoted. This was literally a compromise made by the founders to protect smaller states from larger states
        corrral 4y ago
        The downvotes are probably because intentional bias is still bias.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - devmor 4y ago
        Which is literally a bias against democracy. States are not fixed entities. It's people that should be represented, not an arbitrary geographic boundary. That intentional design makes it so depending on where you physically live, your vote is worth many times less or more than someone else's. That makes no sense.
        refurb 4y ago
        Please bone up on government design. Democracy sucks, it’s majority rule. We’re a republic that is intentionally designed to provide balance rather than “51% voted to spend 99% of the budget on the cities so I guess rural folks can pound sand”. Note that pretty much every country has something similar - some body that acts on a check of pure democratic representation.
        devmor 4y ago
        Ah, yes, instead we should have 35% voted to end civil rights for an entire group but they live in more land, so 65% can pound sand. Much better.
    - claystu 4y ago
      That's not a systematic bias. The senate was DESIGNED from the beginning to be immune to population differences: each state gets two senators, regardless of population. It was one of the compromises that convinced the small states to join the union in the first place.
      - corrral 4y ago
        Intentional, designed-in bias is still bias. Right?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- jofer 4y ago
  > The most obvious example, Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections. Isn't that the other way around? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... (i.e. Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 8 presidential elections, but have only won the office in 5 of those). Also, I had forgotten this (and it was huge at the time, and I voted in those elections, so I should remember), but Bill Clinton didn't win the majority popular vote either. The democrats had a larger popular vote that the republicans, for sure, but not over 50% due to third party / independent candidates. Contrast that with the last 6 elections where the democratic party has had more than 50% of the popular vote each time. Ah... And W's second term the republicans had more than 50% of the popular vote...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- TimedToasts 4y ago
  If the Presidential vote was decided on popular totals then this stat would mean something. Everyone knows the rules going in.
  - lostdog 4y ago
    The crown was passed down by primogeniture. Everyone knew the rules going in, so it was fair and democratic.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Exactly. Everyone must know and accept that some people's votes are worth more than others. Whether it is for a senator in Iowa, or for the electoral college that selects the president, the people in some areas of the country are allotted more power than those in others. It has always been that way and so shall it remain. Anyone not happy with the power allotted their vote is free to up stakes and move somewhere where votes are worth more, from California to Iowa or New York to New Hampshire.
  - giaour 4y ago
    Before 2000, it was an interesting thought experiment but dismissed as highly unlikely that a president could technically win office without winning the popular vote. Republicans (but also some purist democrats) were apoplectic when Bill Clinton took office with an electoral majority and a mere popular plurality in 1992. The ground shifted has shifted around the rules many times in the past, but the current rural vs urban divide of the two parties combined with the majority of Americans living in urban and suburban areas has led to some really distorted and unintended outcomes of the rules.
  - chimprich 4y ago
    > Everyone knows the rules going in. Does knowing that a system is undemocratic make it more democratic in some way?
- setr 4y ago
  That statistic seems pointless? Republicans won 3/8 of the last elections (bush x2 , trump x1) with 2 losing the national vote. So 6/8 rounds came through properly. More importantly, there’s apparently only been 5 presidents elected where popular vote != electoral vote[0]. Based on this metric… everything seems to be working mostly fine, with no apparent bias? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presid...
  - etchalon 4y ago
    The issue is the trend is accelerating. It used be rare. It is no longer rare.
    - prepend 4y ago
      It’s not accelerating, you’re just biasing your sample based on what’s happened recently. These are different things. It’s pretty hard to declare a trend with such small numbers.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    That is not my definition of mostly fine.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  National Popular vote for President is about the most worthless static one can cite to bluster their position for political balance National Popular vote should not be used for any reason for any purpose, unless you want to completely change the American system of government ending federalism completely, which I have no desire for, I like federalism
  - slg 4y ago
    >National Popular vote should not be used for any reason for any purpose, unless you want to completely change the American system of government Well, yes, that is exactly what many people want, a government that is more representative of the will of the people. We don't have to throw out federalism to get there, but a system that was not intentionally designed to support minority rule would be nice.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      The system was intentionally designed to reserve power to the people AND the states, just not the people. Aka Federalism If you remove the power of the states, leaning only on "the will of the people" you are getting rid of federalism,
  - purephase 4y ago
    It's easy to like it when it provides you the outcome that you're favourable towards. For people, the majority in this case (as evidence by the popular vote count), who do not agree with these outcomes, federalism is a fucking mess. In no way it makes sense that the Senate should wield the power it has when South Dakota has the same weight as California. It's ludicrous.
  - giaour 4y ago
    Yes, we'll need to completely change everything about our government, just like we did when we mandated elections for senators in 1913. /s
  - Der_Einzige 4y ago
    Getting rid of the electoral college is not the same as killing federalism. It's not even close. What planet are you living on? Seems not to be earth...
- IndySun 4y ago
  >Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections. You mean Democrats.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - IndySun 4y ago
    Ah, I misread. In common parlance, my bad. I publicly take it back.
- SirensOfTitan 4y ago
  Democrats in general have some unhealthy obsession with the presidency that leaves important downstream races from local municipal government to gubernatorial races ignored. Republicans have been doing the grueling work for decades to dominate local politics and it shows. Roe v Wade is so devastating of a defeat largely because democrats who support it don’t care enough about state and local government.
api 4y ago
Gerrymandering needs to be tackled possibly at the level of a constitutional amendment, but like the filibuster it's a nonsense loophole power that neither side wants to give up.
- mbreese 4y ago
  There is no way to tackle gerrymandering that doesn't ultimately end geographic representation. If you try to balance a map for every potential group, the end game is proportional representation. I think that's the bridge that people would be afraid to cross.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    One thing I have been thinking more on lately is just that. Why are we so attached to geographic representation, why does a congressional district, or even a state need to be a continuous polygon on a map. Why cant we break representation to be based on something else. I dont know what, and the simple answer it well geography is the easiest way but easy it often not the best
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      A geographically connected population is going to have a lot in common, and it makes sense that they would share a representative. Two neighboring farmers in Alamaba are going to have a lot more in common with each other than with someone living in LA. For political representation purposes, it makes sense for those two farmers to share a representative. You're correct that this isn't necessarily optimal, but I don't think it's that bad either. It's a pretty good heuristic in making sure that: 1) everyone has a representative. 2) each representative is representing a group of people who can reasonably be represented (because they have shared interests/goals/concerns).
      - smileysteve 4y ago
        Alabama is an interesting look, because of metro Atlanta, metro Birmingham, Huntsville in the North - and then the blue belt that is the Piedmont.
thebooktocome 4y ago
Some of the maps proposed by the Ohio GOP this year (and rejected as unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court) are close to this. I believe I read an estimate that the dems would need to average 70-30 statewide to control half the seats.
- mbreese 4y ago
  Note: All of those unconstitutional rejections by the Ohio Supreme Court are moot. The committee ran out the clock and even though the maps were ruled unconstitutional, they are the ones that will be used. The law that forced the committee to be formed left no way for the courts to force a valid map to be used. So, even though there was a very successful anti-gerrymandering campaign in Ohio a few years ago, it ultimately didn't matter. How that came to be is another story entirely.
- heymijo 4y ago
  In Ohio we passed a state law demanding fair districts. The GOP led Ohio congress and governor repeatedly submitted districts that the courts struck down. It went to a federal court who ruled the districts not fair but will let them stand for the 2022 elections. The GOP ignored the rule of law, ignored the courts, and ran out the clock. They will cement their hold on the state in 2022.
  - api 4y ago
    The far right has been fighting a locality-by-locality state-by-state war of attrition for a long time. There's far too much focus on national elections when local and state elections can sometimes influence your life a lot more.
Symbiote 4y ago
I don't know the numbers, but this article was linked from the Guardin's coverage of the decision: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2021/nov/12/gerrymander-redistricting-map-republicans-democrats-visual https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2021/nov/...
pilotneko 4y ago
Well, Tennessee literally just split the 5th Congressional District, represented by U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Nashville, among three different outlying districts. Literally makes it 3X harder for a Democrat to represent Nashville. https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/01/12/republican-redistricting-plan-would-split-nashville-into-3-districts/9120745002/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/01/12/republican-...
ehsankia 4y ago
Forget 3-1, what about 65-1? Legislation needs to pass both Senate and the House, and in the senate, someone from a state like Wyoming has 65x more voting power than someone living in California.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  That is intentional. The same mechanisms exist in the EU to protect smaller states, for example.
  - bluesnowmonkey 4y ago
    States don’t need to be protected. States are not people. Government is of the people, by the people, for the people. Not of the states, by the states, for the states.
    - prepend 4y ago
      Do small countries in Europe not need to be protected? I think the issue is that small states and countries would not join if they would be subject to whatever large states decided. So the option would be to have a country without Vermont and stuff or to have them in the current config. Because that’s the math that was done 250 years ago that resulted in NY and VA choosing to accept it, and also smaller states.
  - oezi 4y ago
    And it is has led Europe to serious problems when there are two countries (Hungary and Poland come to mind) which protect each other from anything inconvenient.
scythe 4y ago
I can't endorse his specific numerical claim, but if you look at the FiveThirtyEight projections for Georgia, a state that voted for Biden in 2020 and elected two Democratic Senators in statewide elections, also with Democrat Stacey Abrams coming within 2% of the governor's seat in 2018, you see four blue districts, one toss-up, and nine safe Republican seats: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps... I think any reasonable person would find it unfair that a 2% difference in the popular vote (for governor, before the major Trump controversies) leads to doubling the number of Congressional seats.
yowzadave 4y ago
3-1 is an exaggeration, but e.g. in Wisconsin 2018, Democrats won 54% of the popular vote and ended up with only 36% of the state assembly seats: https://www.reddit.com/r/VoteBlue/comments/fwa7sa/regarding_wisconsin_this_is_how_gerrymandered_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/VoteBlue/comments/fwa7sa/regarding_...
- mjochim 4y ago
  If the numbers 54 and 36 is correct, then one could be inclined to a simplified calculation and say that 1.5% of popular vote (54/36) equals 1.0% of seats. In that case, 75% of popular vote would equal 50% of seats. Or in other words: 3-1. (and 50% of seats are not even a majority) Another model would require 15% more to go from 36% to 51% of seats. In this case, 69% of popular vote (54+15) would be required for a majority of seats, or in other words: 2-1. Which effectively is just as egregious as 3-1.
  - seanp2k2 4y ago
    Between gerrymandering and electoral college it’s pretty bad, see https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-new-national-congressional-map-is-biased-toward-republicans/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-new-national-congre... recently

slg 4y ago

Not exactly gerrymandering, but there is a systemic bias against Democrats due to the structure of our government. The most obvious example, Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections.

corrral 4y ago
Those stats might hold regardless, but to be fair one would expect different voting patterns under the current system, versus a direct popular-vote election, so it's not accurate to say that anyone "won" the popular vote in any US Presidential election, since that wasn't the contest and the fact that it wasn't affected how voters and candidates behaved. It's like challenging someone to a foot race, losing, and then deciding afterward that you won on "style points" or something. That wasn't the contest, and the other participant might have done things differently under different rules. The system as it stands makes voting pointless for people who are in districts that reliably go for the "other team". If they could at least influence the Presidential election, more of those voters might show up at the polls. GOTV and other campaign efforts take this into account, which magnifies the effect.
- slg 4y ago
  Fine, you want another example of systemic bias in our government? The 50 Democratic senators represent 41.5 million more people than the 50 Republican senators.
  - dntrkv 4y ago
    I don't really have an issue with the way the senate is setup, since that was intentional. My issue is with the house, where we are supposed to have equal representation, but don't.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > I don’t really have an issue with the way the senate is setup, since that was intentional. Why is bad intent less bad than bad accident. > My issue is with the house, where we are supposed to have equal representation, but don’t. House representation was supposed to be approximately equal limited by granularity and it remains approximately equal limited by granularity.
      - slg 4y ago
        >House representation was supposed to be approximately equal limited by granularity and it remains approximately equal limited by granularity. But the "limited by granularity" part is growing more and more limited. The size of the House originally grew as the size of the population grew. Once we capped the size of the House, we lost relative granularity allowing this problem worsen as the gap between the smallest and largest congressional districts increased.
    - adamc 4y ago
      It was intentional and a big part of it was to protect slave-owners. Evil intent does not get a pass.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    Also: don't forget that the District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress. DC has a larger population than Wyoming or Vermont, and will probably overtake Alaska by the next Census based on its current trajectory.
    - nonameiguess 4y ago
      Not just DC. American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas Islands, US Virgin Islands, and Guam are all American citizens but can't vote for president at all, don't get a Senator, and collectively only get a few representatives, most of whom are ceremonial and don't get to vote.
  - refurb 4y ago
    That’s not a systemic bias against Democrats, that’s an intention design so that small states and large states have more balance of power.
    - i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
      idk why you're getting downvoted. This was literally a compromise made by the founders to protect smaller states from larger states
      - corrral 4y ago
        The downvotes are probably because intentional bias is still bias.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - devmor 4y ago
      Which is literally a bias against democracy. States are not fixed entities. It's people that should be represented, not an arbitrary geographic boundary. That intentional design makes it so depending on where you physically live, your vote is worth many times less or more than someone else's. That makes no sense.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Please bone up on government design. Democracy sucks, it’s majority rule. We’re a republic that is intentionally designed to provide balance rather than “51% voted to spend 99% of the budget on the cities so I guess rural folks can pound sand”. Note that pretty much every country has something similar - some body that acts on a check of pure democratic representation.
        devmor 4y ago
        Ah, yes, instead we should have 35% voted to end civil rights for an entire group but they live in more land, so 65% can pound sand. Much better.
  - claystu 4y ago
    That's not a systematic bias. The senate was DESIGNED from the beginning to be immune to population differences: each state gets two senators, regardless of population. It was one of the compromises that convinced the small states to join the union in the first place.
    - corrral 4y ago
      Intentional, designed-in bias is still bias. Right?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
jofer 4y ago
> The most obvious example, Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections. Isn't that the other way around? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... (i.e. Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 8 presidential elections, but have only won the office in 5 of those). Also, I had forgotten this (and it was huge at the time, and I voted in those elections, so I should remember), but Bill Clinton didn't win the majority popular vote either. The democrats had a larger popular vote that the republicans, for sure, but not over 50% due to third party / independent candidates. Contrast that with the last 6 elections where the democratic party has had more than 50% of the popular vote each time. Ah... And W's second term the republicans had more than 50% of the popular vote...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
TimedToasts 4y ago
If the Presidential vote was decided on popular totals then this stat would mean something. Everyone knows the rules going in.
- lostdog 4y ago
  The crown was passed down by primogeniture. Everyone knew the rules going in, so it was fair and democratic.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Exactly. Everyone must know and accept that some people's votes are worth more than others. Whether it is for a senator in Iowa, or for the electoral college that selects the president, the people in some areas of the country are allotted more power than those in others. It has always been that way and so shall it remain. Anyone not happy with the power allotted their vote is free to up stakes and move somewhere where votes are worth more, from California to Iowa or New York to New Hampshire.
- giaour 4y ago
  Before 2000, it was an interesting thought experiment but dismissed as highly unlikely that a president could technically win office without winning the popular vote. Republicans (but also some purist democrats) were apoplectic when Bill Clinton took office with an electoral majority and a mere popular plurality in 1992. The ground shifted has shifted around the rules many times in the past, but the current rural vs urban divide of the two parties combined with the majority of Americans living in urban and suburban areas has led to some really distorted and unintended outcomes of the rules.
- chimprich 4y ago
  > Everyone knows the rules going in. Does knowing that a system is undemocratic make it more democratic in some way?
setr 4y ago
That statistic seems pointless? Republicans won 3/8 of the last elections (bush x2 , trump x1) with 2 losing the national vote. So 6/8 rounds came through properly. More importantly, there’s apparently only been 5 presidents elected where popular vote != electoral vote[0]. Based on this metric… everything seems to be working mostly fine, with no apparent bias? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presid...
- etchalon 4y ago
  The issue is the trend is accelerating. It used be rare. It is no longer rare.
  - prepend 4y ago
    It’s not accelerating, you’re just biasing your sample based on what’s happened recently. These are different things. It’s pretty hard to declare a trend with such small numbers.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  That is not my definition of mostly fine.
phpisthebest 4y ago
National Popular vote for President is about the most worthless static one can cite to bluster their position for political balance National Popular vote should not be used for any reason for any purpose, unless you want to completely change the American system of government ending federalism completely, which I have no desire for, I like federalism
- slg 4y ago
  >National Popular vote should not be used for any reason for any purpose, unless you want to completely change the American system of government Well, yes, that is exactly what many people want, a government that is more representative of the will of the people. We don't have to throw out federalism to get there, but a system that was not intentionally designed to support minority rule would be nice.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    The system was intentionally designed to reserve power to the people AND the states, just not the people. Aka Federalism If you remove the power of the states, leaning only on "the will of the people" you are getting rid of federalism,
- purephase 4y ago
  It's easy to like it when it provides you the outcome that you're favourable towards. For people, the majority in this case (as evidence by the popular vote count), who do not agree with these outcomes, federalism is a fucking mess. In no way it makes sense that the Senate should wield the power it has when South Dakota has the same weight as California. It's ludicrous.
- giaour 4y ago
  Yes, we'll need to completely change everything about our government, just like we did when we mandated elections for senators in 1913. /s
- Der_Einzige 4y ago
  Getting rid of the electoral college is not the same as killing federalism. It's not even close. What planet are you living on? Seems not to be earth...
IndySun 4y ago
>Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections. You mean Democrats.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- IndySun 4y ago
  Ah, I misread. In common parlance, my bad. I publicly take it back.
SirensOfTitan 4y ago
Democrats in general have some unhealthy obsession with the presidency that leaves important downstream races from local municipal government to gubernatorial races ignored. Republicans have been doing the grueling work for decades to dominate local politics and it shows. Roe v Wade is so devastating of a defeat largely because democrats who support it don’t care enough about state and local government.

api 4y ago

Gerrymandering needs to be tackled possibly at the level of a constitutional amendment, but like the filibuster it's a nonsense loophole power that neither side wants to give up.

mbreese 4y ago
There is no way to tackle gerrymandering that doesn't ultimately end geographic representation. If you try to balance a map for every potential group, the end game is proportional representation. I think that's the bridge that people would be afraid to cross.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  One thing I have been thinking more on lately is just that. Why are we so attached to geographic representation, why does a congressional district, or even a state need to be a continuous polygon on a map. Why cant we break representation to be based on something else. I dont know what, and the simple answer it well geography is the easiest way but easy it often not the best
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    A geographically connected population is going to have a lot in common, and it makes sense that they would share a representative. Two neighboring farmers in Alamaba are going to have a lot more in common with each other than with someone living in LA. For political representation purposes, it makes sense for those two farmers to share a representative. You're correct that this isn't necessarily optimal, but I don't think it's that bad either. It's a pretty good heuristic in making sure that: 1) everyone has a representative. 2) each representative is representing a group of people who can reasonably be represented (because they have shared interests/goals/concerns).
    - smileysteve 4y ago
      Alabama is an interesting look, because of metro Atlanta, metro Birmingham, Huntsville in the North - and then the blue belt that is the Piedmont.

thebooktocome 4y ago

Some of the maps proposed by the Ohio GOP this year (and rejected as unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court) are close to this. I believe I read an estimate that the dems would need to average 70-30 statewide to control half the seats.

mbreese 4y ago
Note: All of those unconstitutional rejections by the Ohio Supreme Court are moot. The committee ran out the clock and even though the maps were ruled unconstitutional, they are the ones that will be used. The law that forced the committee to be formed left no way for the courts to force a valid map to be used. So, even though there was a very successful anti-gerrymandering campaign in Ohio a few years ago, it ultimately didn't matter. How that came to be is another story entirely.
heymijo 4y ago
In Ohio we passed a state law demanding fair districts. The GOP led Ohio congress and governor repeatedly submitted districts that the courts struck down. It went to a federal court who ruled the districts not fair but will let them stand for the 2022 elections. The GOP ignored the rule of law, ignored the courts, and ran out the clock. They will cement their hold on the state in 2022.
- api 4y ago
  The far right has been fighting a locality-by-locality state-by-state war of attrition for a long time. There's far too much focus on national elections when local and state elections can sometimes influence your life a lot more.

Symbiote 4y ago

I don't know the numbers, but this article was linked from the Guardin's coverage of the decision: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2021/nov/12/gerrymander-redistricting-map-republicans-democrats-visual https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2021/nov/...

pilotneko 4y ago

Well, Tennessee literally just split the 5th Congressional District, represented by U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Nashville, among three different outlying districts. Literally makes it 3X harder for a Democrat to represent Nashville. https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/01/12/republican-redistricting-plan-would-split-nashville-into-3-districts/9120745002/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/01/12/republican-...

ehsankia 4y ago

Forget 3-1, what about 65-1? Legislation needs to pass both Senate and the House, and in the senate, someone from a state like Wyoming has 65x more voting power than someone living in California.

dahfizz 4y ago
That is intentional. The same mechanisms exist in the EU to protect smaller states, for example.
- bluesnowmonkey 4y ago
  States don’t need to be protected. States are not people. Government is of the people, by the people, for the people. Not of the states, by the states, for the states.
  - prepend 4y ago
    Do small countries in Europe not need to be protected? I think the issue is that small states and countries would not join if they would be subject to whatever large states decided. So the option would be to have a country without Vermont and stuff or to have them in the current config. Because that’s the math that was done 250 years ago that resulted in NY and VA choosing to accept it, and also smaller states.
- oezi 4y ago
  And it is has led Europe to serious problems when there are two countries (Hungary and Poland come to mind) which protect each other from anything inconvenient.

scythe 4y ago

I can't endorse his specific numerical claim, but if you look at the FiveThirtyEight projections for Georgia, a state that voted for Biden in 2020 and elected two Democratic Senators in statewide elections, also with Democrat Stacey Abrams coming within 2% of the governor's seat in 2018, you see four blue districts, one toss-up, and nine safe Republican seats: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps... I think any reasonable person would find it unfair that a 2% difference in the popular vote (for governor, before the major Trump controversies) leads to doubling the number of Congressional seats.

yowzadave 4y ago

3-1 is an exaggeration, but e.g. in Wisconsin 2018, Democrats won 54% of the popular vote and ended up with only 36% of the state assembly seats: https://www.reddit.com/r/VoteBlue/comments/fwa7sa/regarding_wisconsin_this_is_how_gerrymandered_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/VoteBlue/comments/fwa7sa/regarding_...

mjochim 4y ago
If the numbers 54 and 36 is correct, then one could be inclined to a simplified calculation and say that 1.5% of popular vote (54/36) equals 1.0% of seats. In that case, 75% of popular vote would equal 50% of seats. Or in other words: 3-1. (and 50% of seats are not even a majority) Another model would require 15% more to go from 36% to 51% of seats. In this case, 69% of popular vote (54+15) would be required for a majority of seats, or in other words: 2-1. Which effectively is just as egregious as 3-1.
- seanp2k2 4y ago
  Between gerrymandering and electoral college it’s pretty bad, see https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-new-national-congressional-map-is-biased-toward-republicans/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-new-national-congre... recently