May I remind everyone the reason why republicans won the House in 2012? Gerrymandering of course!

[Dad2three]

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

I'm not following you. What exactly is your plan to ethnically cleanse the Red States so that they become as uniformly white as Scandinavia? What are you going to do with all of those black and Hispanic citizens as you seek to fix America?

Got the usual race baiters coming out. Shocking

 

[Dad2three]

There are more blacks in Congress representing black districts than ever in history.

That is because democratic gerrymandering is good. GOP gerrymandering is the only kind that is bad.

BTW, the OP is 100% wrong. It has nothing to do with gerrymandering. It has to do with democratic overperformance in urban areas. It doesn't matter if you win by 100 votes or 100,000 votes and the extra tens of thousand of democratic votes in San Fransisco doesn't mean squat to a House race in Alabama even if it were a billion votes. What this does reveal however is the democratic party's desperation to nationalize all races because they cannot stand that the people in NYC don't get to control who represents southerners in Congress.

GOP REDMAP Memo Admits Gerrymandering To Thank For Congressional Election Success



The report -- drafted as a summary of the importance of the RSLC's Redistricting Majority Project (REDMAP) -- serves as a breakdown of the broader GOP plan to take control of state legislatures, giving Republicans free rein to mount an aggressive gerrymandering campaign that allowed the party to keep a House majority, despite getting fewer votes in those races overall.

"The rationale was straightforward," reads the memo. "Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade."

GOP REDMAP Memo Admits Gerrymandering To Thank For Congressional Election Success

How about answering a question yourself, instead of being an inane quote-bot.

Fucking hack.

You're just mad he's right.

Right about what?

Like the OP says, GOP won ONLY because of gerrymandering. Though they claim otherwise!

 

[Dad2three]

What's the excuse going to be when the GOP takes the Senate? Those states arent important anyway?

Off year election and the opposing party wins? Shocking. Oh wait, it's the norm

 

[Rikurzhen]

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

I'm not following you. What exactly is your plan to ethnically cleanse the Red States so that they become as uniformly white as Scandinavia? What are you going to do with all of those black and Hispanic citizens as you seek to fix America?

Got the usual race baiters coming out. Shocking

I'm still curious about your plan to ethnically cleanse the Red States so as to remake them into states with populations which mirror that of Scandinavian countries. How are you going to do that, I mean exactly how. Details please.

 

[peach174]

"In 2012 U.S. House of Representative election, 1.4 million more voters voted for Democrats than for Republicans - but the Republicans control the house 234 to 210. In North Carolina, the overall vote for the House was 51% Democratic to 49% Republicans, but Republicans won 9 to 4."

What is gerrymandering - Quora

It had nothing to do with gerrymandering.
It had everything to do with the census in 2010.
The principal purpose of the census is to divide the house seats by population. In addition, collected data is used in aggregate for statistical purposes.

For the last several census it has been for the Dems and they were the ones who got the right to redistrict.
In 2010 it went to the Repubs and the Dem's had a fit over it and they still are having fits over it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I'm curious, Dad...what will your excuse be if Democrats lose badly two weeks from now?

1. Gerrmandering
2. Sheeple
3. Bush ChimpyMcHiter
4. Racism, sexism homophobia and bad breath.

5'. Stinky feet

 

[AvgGuyIA]

What's the excuse going to be when the GOP takes the Senate? Those states arent important anyway?

Off year election and the opposing party wins? Shocking. Oh wait, it's the norm

Prepare your ass for another shellacking!

 

[Dad2three]

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

I'm not following you. What exactly is your plan to ethnically cleanse the Red States so that they become as uniformly white as Scandinavia? What are you going to do with all of those black and Hispanic citizens as you seek to fix America?

Got the usual race baiters coming out. Shocking

I'm still curious about your plan to ethnically cleanse the Red States so as to remake them into states with populations which mirror that of Scandinavian countries. How are you going to do that, I mean exactly how. Details please.

Only in a right wingers 'mind', shocking

 

[Dad2three]

What's the excuse going to be when the GOP takes the Senate? Those states arent important anyway?

Off year election and the opposing party wins? Shocking. Oh wait, it's the norm

Prepare your ass for another shellacking!

Tell that to Prez Romney and his 'landslide'

 

[Dad2three]

"In 2012 U.S. House of Representative election, 1.4 million more voters voted for Democrats than for Republicans - but the Republicans control the house 234 to 210. In North Carolina, the overall vote for the House was 51% Democratic to 49% Republicans, but Republicans won 9 to 4."

What is gerrymandering - Quora

It had nothing to do with gerrymandering.
It had everything to do with the census in 2010.
The principal purpose of the census is to divide the house seats by population. In addition, collected data is used in aggregate for statistical purposes.

For the last several census it has been for the Dems and they were the ones who got the right to redistrict.
In 2010 it went to the Repubs and the Dem's had a fit over it and they still are having fits over it.

So the GOP lied? Again?


GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority
GOP Memo Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

 

[Mustang]

"In 2012 U.S. House of Representative election, 1.4 million more voters voted for Democrats than for Republicans - but the Republicans control the house 234 to 210. In North Carolina, the overall vote for the House was 51% Democratic to 49% Republicans, but Republicans won 9 to 4."

What is gerrymandering - Quora

Yeah, there's something seriously wrong with a political system when the political party who field candidates who get a majority of the votes to the tune of 1.4 million more votes than the opposition party end up being the minority party. It looks like the kind of thing you would expect to happen in a banana republic or in Putin's Russia. The fact that this happened just 12 years after another American electoral debacle in America in 2000 is telling. After all, there's something fundamentally disturbing with the process for electing the leader of our country when the system for electing our president ends up putting a man in office who garnered 540,000 fewer votes than his opponent who is deemed to have "lost" the election.

People can argue all day long about the electoral college system versus the popular vote, but there shouldn't be a glaring disparity between who the people vote for and who ultimately is sworn in to office because it makes a mockery of the so-called 'will of the people,' and it only serves to make people feel as if their cynicism about politics and the political process is completely warranted.

 

[peach174]

"In 2012 U.S. House of Representative election, 1.4 million more voters voted for Democrats than for Republicans - but the Republicans control the house 234 to 210. In North Carolina, the overall vote for the House was 51% Democratic to 49% Republicans, but Republicans won 9 to 4."

What is gerrymandering - Quora

It had nothing to do with gerrymandering.
It had everything to do with the census in 2010.
The principal purpose of the census is to divide the house seats by population. In addition, collected data is used in aggregate for statistical purposes.

For the last several census it has been for the Dems and they were the ones who got the right to redistrict.
In 2010 it went to the Repubs and the Dem's had a fit over it and they still are having fits over it.

So the GOP lied? Again?


GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority
GOP Memo Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

Or the person who wrote the memo did not know what they were talking about.
A recent memo by the Republican State Leadership Committee is not the GOP
Republican State Leadership Committee

This group, founded in 2002, focuses on electing conservative Republicans to state offices, from lieutenant governor to state legislators. In the current campaign cycle, it has focused its efforts on state legislative races in an effort to give Republicans greater control of the congressional redistricting process after the 2010 census.

Do you know that Democrats have the same thing.
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.
Both groups focus on getting their parties elected.

 

[blackhawk]

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

"In 2012 U.S. House of Representative election, 1.4 million more voters voted for Democrats than for Republicans - but the Republicans control the house 234 to 210. In North Carolina, the overall vote for the House was 51% Democratic to 49% Republicans, but Republicans won 9 to 4."

What is gerrymandering - Quora

IF the definition of gerrymandering has been changed to " took advantage of shitty and stupid Democratic policies" I agree.

 

[Oldstyle]

"In 2012 U.S. House of Representative election, 1.4 million more voters voted for Democrats than for Republicans - but the Republicans control the house 234 to 210. In North Carolina, the overall vote for the House was 51% Democratic to 49% Republicans, but Republicans won 9 to 4."

What is gerrymandering - Quora

Yeah, there's something seriously wrong with a political system when the political party who field candidates who get a majority of the votes to the tune of 1.4 million more votes than the opposition party end up being the minority party. It looks like the kind of thing you would expect to happen in a banana republic or in Putin's Russia. The fact that this happened just 12 years after another American electoral debacle in America in 2000 is telling. After all, there's something fundamentally disturbing with the process for electing the leader of our country when the system for electing our president ends up putting a man in office who garnered 540,000 fewer votes than his opponent who is deemed to have "lost" the election.

People can argue all day long about the electoral college system versus the popular vote, but there shouldn't be a glaring disparity between who the people vote for and who ultimately is sworn in to office because it makes a mockery of the so-called 'will of the people,' and it only serves to make people feel as if their cynicism about politics and the political process is completely warranted.

I'm always amused by the shortsightedness of people who want to scrap the political system that has given the US one of the most stable political environments the world has ever seen...simply because THEIR side lost an election under that system. Does the expression "Throw the baby out with the bath water" mean anything to you, Mustang?

 

[Mustang]

"In 2012 U.S. House of Representative election, 1.4 million more voters voted for Democrats than for Republicans - but the Republicans control the house 234 to 210. In North Carolina, the overall vote for the House was 51% Democratic to 49% Republicans, but Republicans won 9 to 4."

What is gerrymandering - Quora

Yeah, there's something seriously wrong with a political system when the political party who field candidates who get a majority of the votes to the tune of 1.4 million more votes than the opposition party end up being the minority party. It looks like the kind of thing you would expect to happen in a banana republic or in Putin's Russia. The fact that this happened just 12 years after another American electoral debacle in America in 2000 is telling. After all, there's something fundamentally disturbing with the process for electing the leader of our country when the system for electing our president ends up putting a man in office who garnered 540,000 fewer votes than his opponent who is deemed to have "lost" the election.

People can argue all day long about the electoral college system versus the popular vote, but there shouldn't be a glaring disparity between who the people vote for and who ultimately is sworn in to office because it makes a mockery of the so-called 'will of the people,' and it only serves to make people feel as if their cynicism about politics and the political process is completely warranted.

I'm always amused by the shortsightedness of people who want to scrap the political system that has given the US one of the most stable political environments the world has ever seen...simply because THEIR side lost an election under that system. Does the expression "Throw the baby out with the bath water" mean anything to you, Mustang?

I didn't say anything about scrapping the system, but clearly reform is badly needed.

What was particularly galling to me at the time was the rampant celebration by conservatives at the time at an election that was obviously tainted by not only the loss of the popular vote, but also by the fact that the decisive votes, both popular and electoral, were made in the state of Bush's brother, who was then governor of the state.

But what followed next, I found dumbfounding: I seem to remember that someone within the Bush administration (it might have been Cheney) actually had the nerve to declare a mandate.

Be that as it may, even though I generally dislike it when people say, "What if it was THIS way, THEN imagine the reaction of X group." However, since conservatives are generally the loudest and most vociferous part of the political dialogue at any given moment due to their high profile media platforms (like talk radio), imagine the uproar that would have ensued if Bush had garnered half a million more votes, and Gore was declared the winner! The caterwauling would STILL be going on today.

Regardless, political stability (as in no rioting in the streets) is no defense of an election system which routinely seems to find ways to put people into office and into majority power positions if the votes of the people show that their collective will does not support those choices. All I can say at this point is this: If that keeps happening, the most stable political environment in the world will not remain that way for long.

 

[Oldstyle]

"In 2012 U.S. House of Representative election, 1.4 million more voters voted for Democrats than for Republicans - but the Republicans control the house 234 to 210. In North Carolina, the overall vote for the House was 51% Democratic to 49% Republicans, but Republicans won 9 to 4."

What is gerrymandering - Quora

Yeah, there's something seriously wrong with a political system when the political party who field candidates who get a majority of the votes to the tune of 1.4 million more votes than the opposition party end up being the minority party. It looks like the kind of thing you would expect to happen in a banana republic or in Putin's Russia. The fact that this happened just 12 years after another American electoral debacle in America in 2000 is telling. After all, there's something fundamentally disturbing with the process for electing the leader of our country when the system for electing our president ends up putting a man in office who garnered 540,000 fewer votes than his opponent who is deemed to have "lost" the election.

People can argue all day long about the electoral college system versus the popular vote, but there shouldn't be a glaring disparity between who the people vote for and who ultimately is sworn in to office because it makes a mockery of the so-called 'will of the people,' and it only serves to make people feel as if their cynicism about politics and the political process is completely warranted.

I'm always amused by the shortsightedness of people who want to scrap the political system that has given the US one of the most stable political environments the world has ever seen...simply because THEIR side lost an election under that system. Does the expression "Throw the baby out with the bath water" mean anything to you, Mustang?

I didn't say anything about scrapping the system, but clearly reform is badly needed.

What was particularly galling to me at the time was the rampant celebration by conservatives at the time at an election that was obviously tainted by not only the loss of the popular vote, but also by the fact that the decisive votes, both popular and electoral, were made in the state of Bush's brother, who was then governor of the state.

But what followed next, I found dumbfounding: I seem to remember that someone within the Bush administration (it might have been Cheney) actually had the nerve to declare a mandate.

Be that as it may, even though I generally dislike it when people say, "What if it was THIS way, THEN imagine the reaction of X group." However, since conservatives are generally the loudest and most vociferous part of the political dialogue at any given moment due to their high profile media platforms (like talk radio), imagine the uproar that would have ensued if Bush had garnered half a million more votes, and Gore was declared the winner! The caterwauling would STILL be going on today.

Regardless, political stability (as in no rioting in the streets) is no defense of an election system which routinely seems to find ways to put people into office and into majority power positions if the votes of the people show that their collective will does not support those choices. All I can say at this point is this: If that keeps happening, the most stable political environment in the world will not remain that way for long.

Are you guys STILL trying to push that narrative that Florida was somehow "fixed" because Jeb Bush was Governor, Mustang? I mean seriously?

 

[Oldstyle]

What "reforms" would you like to see? Think long and hard about what you ask for, my friend. Changing the existing system because you didn't get the results you wanted from an election or even several elections could end up being extremely shortsighted in the long run. So you didn't like the result that the Electoral College gave you in THAT election! Does that mean that we should get rid of the system that has given us hundreds of years of orderly transition of power in this country? Once again...I caution you to tread lightly.

 

[Mustang]

"In 2012 U.S. House of Representative election, 1.4 million more voters voted for Democrats than for Republicans - but the Republicans control the house 234 to 210. In North Carolina, the overall vote for the House was 51% Democratic to 49% Republicans, but Republicans won 9 to 4."

What is gerrymandering - Quora

Yeah, there's something seriously wrong with a political system when the political party who field candidates who get a majority of the votes to the tune of 1.4 million more votes than the opposition party end up being the minority party. It looks like the kind of thing you would expect to happen in a banana republic or in Putin's Russia. The fact that this happened just 12 years after another American electoral debacle in America in 2000 is telling. After all, there's something fundamentally disturbing with the process for electing the leader of our country when the system for electing our president ends up putting a man in office who garnered 540,000 fewer votes than his opponent who is deemed to have "lost" the election.

People can argue all day long about the electoral college system versus the popular vote, but there shouldn't be a glaring disparity between who the people vote for and who ultimately is sworn in to office because it makes a mockery of the so-called 'will of the people,' and it only serves to make people feel as if their cynicism about politics and the political process is completely warranted.

I'm always amused by the shortsightedness of people who want to scrap the political system that has given the US one of the most stable political environments the world has ever seen...simply because THEIR side lost an election under that system. Does the expression "Throw the baby out with the bath water" mean anything to you, Mustang?

I didn't say anything about scrapping the system, but clearly reform is badly needed.

What was particularly galling to me at the time was the rampant celebration by conservatives at the time at an election that was obviously tainted by not only the loss of the popular vote, but also by the fact that the decisive votes, both popular and electoral, were made in the state of Bush's brother, who was then governor of the state.

But what followed next, I found dumbfounding: I seem to remember that someone within the Bush administration (it might have been Cheney) actually had the nerve to declare a mandate.

Be that as it may, even though I generally dislike it when people say, "What if it was THIS way, THEN imagine the reaction of X group." However, since conservatives are generally the loudest and most vociferous part of the political dialogue at any given moment due to their high profile media platforms (like talk radio), imagine the uproar that would have ensued if Bush had garnered half a million more votes, and Gore was declared the winner! The caterwauling would STILL be going on today.

Regardless, political stability (as in no rioting in the streets) is no defense of an election system which routinely seems to find ways to put people into office and into majority power positions if the votes of the people show that their collective will does not support those choices. All I can say at this point is this: If that keeps happening, the most stable political environment in the world will not remain that way for long.

Are you guys STILL trying to push that narrative that Florida was somehow "fixed" because Jeb Bush was Governor, Mustang? I mean seriously?

I don't know whether it was fixed or not. However, a great many people BELIEVE it was. THAT is the point.

 

[TooTall]

"In 2012 U.S. House of Representative election, 1.4 million more voters voted for Democrats than for Republicans - but the Republicans control the house 234 to 210. In North Carolina, the overall vote for the House was 51% Democratic to 49% Republicans, but Republicans won 9 to 4."

What is gerrymandering - Quora

Yeah, there's something seriously wrong with a political system when the political party who field candidates who get a majority of the votes to the tune of 1.4 million more votes than the opposition party end up being the minority party. It looks like the kind of thing you would expect to happen in a banana republic or in Putin's Russia. The fact that this happened just 12 years after another American electoral debacle in America in 2000 is telling. After all, there's something fundamentally disturbing with the process for electing the leader of our country when the system for electing our president ends up putting a man in office who garnered 540,000 fewer votes than his opponent who is deemed to have "lost" the election.

People can argue all day long about the electoral college system versus the popular vote, but there shouldn't be a glaring disparity between who the people vote for and who ultimately is sworn in to office because it makes a mockery of the so-called 'will of the people,' and it only serves to make people feel as if their cynicism about politics and the political process is completely warranted.

I'm always amused by the shortsightedness of people who want to scrap the political system that has given the US one of the most stable political environments the world has ever seen...simply because THEIR side lost an election under that system. Does the expression "Throw the baby out with the bath water" mean anything to you, Mustang?

I didn't say anything about scrapping the system, but clearly reform is badly needed.

What was particularly galling to me at the time was the rampant celebration by conservatives at the time at an election that was obviously tainted by not only the loss of the popular vote, but also by the fact that the decisive votes, both popular and electoral, were made in the state of Bush's brother, who was then governor of the state.

But what followed next, I found dumbfounding: I seem to remember that someone within the Bush administration (it might have been Cheney) actually had the nerve to declare a mandate.

Be that as it may, even though I generally dislike it when people say, "What if it was THIS way, THEN imagine the reaction of X group." However, since conservatives are generally the loudest and most vociferous part of the political dialogue at any given moment due to their high profile media platforms (like talk radio), imagine the uproar that would have ensued if Bush had garnered half a million more votes, and Gore was declared the winner! The caterwauling would STILL be going on today.

Regardless, political stability (as in no rioting in the streets) is no defense of an election system which routinely seems to find ways to put people into office and into majority power positions if the votes of the people show that their collective will does not support those choices. All I can say at this point is this: If that keeps happening, the most stable political environment in the world will not remain that way for long.

This has been discussed many times before and the problem with electing a President using only the popular vote would result in politicians campaigning in highly populated urban areas and not bothering with small town and country America. NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami etc. It would also take a Constitutional Amendment to change it and no way in hell are you going to get a 2/3 (or 3/4) majority of the states to approve it.

The next thing on the agenda is not allowing small states to have two Senators. Why should a state with 20 million people have the same representation in the Senate as a state with 2 milllion? Same answer, and it ain't gonna happen!