3 ms·

They feel pretty confident, because they gerrymandered the hell out of the country's electoral map in the 2010 redistricting. That's how they currently have a m

They feel pretty confident, because they gerrymandered the hell out of the country's electoral map in the 2010 redistricting. That's how they currently have a majority in the House: there is a significant overall preference among the voters for Democrats, but the electoral map has been drawn so as to concentrate Republican voters and break up blocs of Democratic voters, ensuring that they will have enough "safe" districts to retain control of the House at least until the 2020 redistricting.

clarkm 13y ago
If you don't want to look like a conspiracy theorist, you should probably stop making such hyperbolic claims about gerrymandering. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/redistricting-didnt-win-republicans-the-house/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/r...
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  There's nothing "hyperbolic" about it. The party that's in power during redistricting always does this. It so happens that this time around it was the Republicans, and they've set up the districts so that they feel safe in pursuing an unpopular agenda. The actual hyperbolic conspiracy-theory angle on redistricting is that the long-term plan, funded by the Kochs and others, was to ensure that only the most extreme Republicans are safe, and that moderate Republicans will be in danger of primary challenges from extremists.
  - mayneack 13y ago
    Political scientists have long said that there's not a lot of evidence for a change in macro outcomes due to gerrymandering. In most scenarios, if anything, gerrymandering makes sitting politicians on both sides more safe. It's really hard to actually tip the balance such that one side gets significantly more seats because if you spread your supporters out efficiently (51% your party) and then cluster the other party, you get a bunch of weakly held seats. However, if you want safe seats, you get fewer of them.
  - NoPiece 13y ago
    Esch state draws its own districts, so there were 50 different "party in power" scenarios in 2010. Democrats in California gerrymandered themselves into a super majority. In Texas Republicans drew themselves some very safe districts. But there is no national gerrymandering or "party in power".

clarkm 13y ago

If you don't want to look like a conspiracy theorist, you should probably stop making such hyperbolic claims about gerrymandering. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/redistricting-didnt-win-republicans-the-house/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/r...

ubernostrum 13y ago
There's nothing "hyperbolic" about it. The party that's in power during redistricting always does this. It so happens that this time around it was the Republicans, and they've set up the districts so that they feel safe in pursuing an unpopular agenda. The actual hyperbolic conspiracy-theory angle on redistricting is that the long-term plan, funded by the Kochs and others, was to ensure that only the most extreme Republicans are safe, and that moderate Republicans will be in danger of primary challenges from extremists.
- mayneack 13y ago
  Political scientists have long said that there's not a lot of evidence for a change in macro outcomes due to gerrymandering. In most scenarios, if anything, gerrymandering makes sitting politicians on both sides more safe. It's really hard to actually tip the balance such that one side gets significantly more seats because if you spread your supporters out efficiently (51% your party) and then cluster the other party, you get a bunch of weakly held seats. However, if you want safe seats, you get fewer of them.
- NoPiece 13y ago
  Esch state draws its own districts, so there were 50 different "party in power" scenarios in 2010. Democrats in California gerrymandered themselves into a super majority. In Texas Republicans drew themselves some very safe districts. But there is no national gerrymandering or "party in power".