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

[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.

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.

A great many people BELIEVE in the tooth fairy as well. But the Supreme Court has not ruled on that belief yet.

 

[Mustang]

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.

A great many people BELIEVE in the tooth fairy as well. But the Supreme Court has not ruled on that belief yet.

I've heard a lot of people express irrational beliefs (beliefs without any adequate evidence to support those beliefs). I can summarily dismiss those views even when they get a fair amount of attention. Talk radio is famous for giving (or attempting to give) credence to some pretty far out ideas in that regard because freedom of speech allows them to say what they want, and they're admittedly entertainers, not journalists who are held to a higher standard of integrity and credibility. I get that. The national radio show, "Coast to Coast" is the most glaring example of that with their interviews of people who have 'evidence' about aliens from outer space visiting Earth and all kinds of claims about supernatural phenomenon.

However, there are SOME ideas, even if not true, have enough evidence or enough credible doubt to keep me from summarily dismissing those ideas. I'm sad to say that the idea that the 2000 election was fixed (or ultimately determined by some kind of fraudulent process) is one of those ideas.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

A great many people BELIEVE in the tooth fairy as well. But the Supreme Court has not ruled on that belief yet.

I've heard a lot of people express irrational beliefs (beliefs without any adequate evidence to support those beliefs). I can summarily dismiss those views even when they get a fair amount of attention. Talk radio is famous for giving (or attempting to give) credence to some pretty far out ideas in that regard because freedom of speech allows them to say what they want, and they're admittedly entertainers, not journalists who are held to a higher standard of integrity and credibility. I get that. The national radio show, "Coast to Coast" is the most glaring example of that with their interviews of people who have 'evidence' about aliens from outer space visiting Earth and all kinds of claims about supernatural phenomenon.

However, there are SOME ideas, even if not true, have enough evidence or enough credible doubt to keep me from summarily dismissing those ideas. I'm sad to say that the idea that the 2000 election was fixed (or ultimately determined by some kind of fraudulent process) is one of those ideas.

The conspiracy theories that were so abundant after that election have long since been debunked, Mustang. The truth is...the only way that Al Gore wins that election is if you selectively counted ballots in a certain way in certain districts and not done the same thing elsewhere...a process that never would have held up in court. If the main stream media hadn't declared the Florida race OVER before the polls even closed in the largely conservative leaning Panhandle it wouldn't have been as close as it was! Al Gore didn't win that race because he was Al Gore...not because Jeb Bush was the Governor of Florida. The next thing you'll tell me is that Gore didn't take Tennessee (his home State!) because THAT election was fixed as well!

 

[boilermaker55]

Wrong, he lost because of SCOTUS

"
In one of the closest contests in U.S. history, the 2000 presidential election between Democratic Vice-President Al Gore and Republican governor of Texas George W. Bush (hereafter referred to as Bush Jr. to distinguish him from his father who was also a president), the final outcome hinged on how the vote went in Florida. Independent investigations in that state revealed serious irregularities directed mostly against ethnic minorities and low-income residents who usually voted heavily Democratic. Some 36,000 newly registered voters were turned away because their names had never been added to the voter rolls by Florida’s secretary of state Kathleen Harris. By virtue of the office she held, Harris presided over the state’s election process while herself being an active member of the Bush Jr. state-wide campaign committee. Other voters were turned away because they were declared--almost always incorrectly--“convicted felons.” In several Democratic precincts, state officials closed the polls early, leaving lines of would-be voters stranded.
Under orders from Governor Jeb Bush (Bush Jr.’s brother), state troopers near polling sites delayed people for hours while searching their cars. Some precincts required two photo IDs which many citizens do not have. The requirement under Florida law was only one photo ID. Passed just before the election, this law itself posed a special difficulty for low-income or elderly voters who did not have drivers licenses or other photo IDs. Uncounted ballot boxes went missing or were found in unexplained places or were never collected from certain African-American precincts. During the recount, GOP agitators shipped in from Washington D.C. by the Republican national leadership stormed the Dale County Canvassing Board, punched and kicked one of the officials, shouted and banged on their office doors, and generally created a climate of intimidation that caused the board to abandon its recount and accept the dubious pro-Bush tally.1"

Libs/Dems/Commies always has some excuse for losing. No matter how lame ass they can be.

Remember Albert the Bore Gore lost because of HANGING CHADS?

they have lost all pride and honor when it come to bowing down for their party

party over country is their motto

 

[Oldstyle]

Wrong, he lost because of SCOTUS

Libs/Dems/Commies always has some excuse for losing. No matter how lame ass they can be.

Remember Albert the Bore Gore lost because of HANGING CHADS?

they have lost all pride and honor when it come to bowing down for their party

party over country is their motto

Damn, dude...when the people in your own home State don't vote for you...don't you think that's a pretty clear sign that the people who should know you the best don't think you're the man for the job?

 

[Oldstyle]

There should be a new election law put into place...if you don't carry your own home State then you can't be President.

 

[boilermaker55]

Do you seriously believe this?
Then you better look at many presidents. Not just one.
Do I think so, NO!

Wrong, he lost because of SCOTUS

Libs/Dems/Commies always has some excuse for losing. No matter how lame ass they can be.

Remember Albert the Bore Gore lost because of HANGING CHADS?

they have lost all pride and honor when it come to bowing down for their party

party over country is their motto

Damn, dude...when the people in your own home State don't vote for you...don't you think that's a pretty clear sign that the people who should know you the best don't think you're the man for the job?

 

[Nyvin]

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!

If the intention of the electoral college is to get candidates to campaign in low population areas it fails miserably. The electoral college forces candidates to campaign in close race states like Florida and Ohio, while largely ignoring smaller places like Vermont or South Dakota. Also 85% of the US population lives in Urban areas, a small and shrinking 15% live in Rural areas....rural parts of the country are not going to be significant one way or another.

And if it were a division like 20 million to 2 million that wouldn't be all that bad (at least it's 10%), but if you compare California to Wyoming the ratio is actually like 38 million to 600,000. That's more like 1.6%. Really it's quite ridiculous that places like Wyoming or Alaska get as many Senators as California...

 

[Nyvin]

There should be a new election law put into place...if you don't carry your own home State then you can't be President.

And what exactly would this accomplish....? (Btw - Romney lost "both" his home states, also his VP lost his)

Come to think of it...how the hell would you enforce this??? If both candidates lose their home state then what?? Lol.

 

[Oldstyle]

The dancing men signifies that was a "tongue in cheek" comment by myself, Boiler.

I don't foresee a law like that ever being passed but I'm still not sure that it isn't a good idea. When the people who know you the best don't support you as a candidate then should the rest of us feel good about you?

 

[Oldstyle]

Obviously sarcasm isn't something you folks are getting this afternoon...

 

[TooTall]

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!

If the intention of the electoral college is to get candidates to campaign in low population areas it fails miserably. The electoral college forces candidates to campaign in close race states like Florida and Ohio, while largely ignoring smaller places like Vermont or South Dakota. Also 85% of the US population lives in Urban areas, a small and shrinking 15% live in Rural areas....rural parts of the country are not going to be significant one way or another.

And if it were a division like 20 million to 2 million that wouldn't be all that bad (at least it's 10%), but if you compare California to Wyoming the ratio is actually like 38 million to 600,000. That's more like 1.6%. Really it's quite ridiculous that places like Wyoming or Alaska get as many Senators as California...

The number of Representatives in the House is based on population. Perhaps you should get the Congress to vote on a Constitutional Amendment to correct what you consider ridiculous. It would be good for a laugh.

 

[Oldstyle]

Wrong, he lost because of SCOTUS

"
In one of the closest contests in U.S. history, the 2000 presidential election between Democratic Vice-President Al Gore and Republican governor of Texas George W. Bush (hereafter referred to as Bush Jr. to distinguish him from his father who was also a president), the final outcome hinged on how the vote went in Florida. Independent investigations in that state revealed serious irregularities directed mostly against ethnic minorities and low-income residents who usually voted heavily Democratic. Some 36,000 newly registered voters were turned away because their names had never been added to the voter rolls by Florida’s secretary of state Kathleen Harris. By virtue of the office she held, Harris presided over the state’s election process while herself being an active member of the Bush Jr. state-wide campaign committee. Other voters were turned away because they were declared--almost always incorrectly--“convicted felons.” In several Democratic precincts, state officials closed the polls early, leaving lines of would-be voters stranded.
Under orders from Governor Jeb Bush (Bush Jr.’s brother), state troopers near polling sites delayed people for hours while searching their cars. Some precincts required two photo IDs which many citizens do not have. The requirement under Florida law was only one photo ID. Passed just before the election, this law itself posed a special difficulty for low-income or elderly voters who did not have drivers licenses or other photo IDs. Uncounted ballot boxes went missing or were found in unexplained places or were never collected from certain African-American precincts. During the recount, GOP agitators shipped in from Washington D.C. by the Republican national leadership stormed the Dale County Canvassing Board, punched and kicked one of the officials, shouted and banged on their office doors, and generally created a climate of intimidation that caused the board to abandon its recount and accept the dubious pro-Bush tally.1"

Libs/Dems/Commies always has some excuse for losing. No matter how lame ass they can be.

Remember Albert the Bore Gore lost because of HANGING CHADS?

they have lost all pride and honor when it come to bowing down for their party

party over country is their motto

Did you just quote Michael Parenti as a reliable source? Come on...get serious!

 

[Nyvin]

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!

If the intention of the electoral college is to get candidates to campaign in low population areas it fails miserably. The electoral college forces candidates to campaign in close race states like Florida and Ohio, while largely ignoring smaller places like Vermont or South Dakota. Also 85% of the US population lives in Urban areas, a small and shrinking 15% live in Rural areas....rural parts of the country are not going to be significant one way or another.

And if it were a division like 20 million to 2 million that wouldn't be all that bad (at least it's 10%), but if you compare California to Wyoming the ratio is actually like 38 million to 600,000. That's more like 1.6%. Really it's quite ridiculous that places like Wyoming or Alaska get as many Senators as California...

Th number of Representatives in the House is based on population. Perhaps you should get the Congress to vote on a Constitutional Amendment to correct what you consider ridiculous. It would be good for a laugh.

When did I mention anything about the House??

 

[TooTall]

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!

If the intention of the electoral college is to get candidates to campaign in low population areas it fails miserably. The electoral college forces candidates to campaign in close race states like Florida and Ohio, while largely ignoring smaller places like Vermont or South Dakota. Also 85% of the US population lives in Urban areas, a small and shrinking 15% live in Rural areas....rural parts of the country are not going to be significant one way or another.

And if it were a division like 20 million to 2 million that wouldn't be all that bad (at least it's 10%), but if you compare California to Wyoming the ratio is actually like 38 million to 600,000. That's more like 1.6%. Really it's quite ridiculous that places like Wyoming or Alaska get as many Senators as California...

Th number of Representatives in the House is based on population. Perhaps you should get the Congress to vote on a Constitutional Amendment to correct what you consider ridiculous. It would be good for a laugh.

When did I mention anything about the House??

You didn't, but quoting population ratios and apparently wanting the number of Senators to be so apportioned, I merely pointed out that the House balances the equation in Congress IMO.

 

[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.

A great many people BELIEVE in the tooth fairy as well. But the Supreme Court has not ruled on that belief yet.

I've heard a lot of people express irrational beliefs (beliefs without any adequate evidence to support those beliefs). I can summarily dismiss those views even when they get a fair amount of attention. Talk radio is famous for giving (or attempting to give) credence to some pretty far out ideas in that regard because freedom of speech allows them to say what they want, and they're admittedly entertainers, not journalists who are held to a higher standard of integrity and credibility. I get that. The national radio show, "Coast to Coast" is the most glaring example of that with their interviews of people who have 'evidence' about aliens from outer space visiting Earth and all kinds of claims about supernatural phenomenon.

However, there are SOME ideas, even if not true, have enough evidence or enough credible doubt to keep me from summarily dismissing those ideas. I'm sad to say that the idea that the 2000 election was fixed (or ultimately determined by some kind of fraudulent process) is one of those ideas.

The conspiracy theories that were so abundant after that election have long since been debunked, Mustang. The truth is...the only way that Al Gore wins that election is if you selectively counted ballots in a certain way in certain districts and not done the same thing elsewhere...a process that never would have held up in court. If the main stream media hadn't declared the Florida race OVER before the polls even closed in the largely conservative leaning Panhandle it wouldn't have been as close as it was! Al Gore didn't win that race because he was Al Gore...not because Jeb Bush was the Governor of Florida. The next thing you'll tell me is that Gore didn't take Tennessee (his home State!) because THAT election was fixed as well!

There didn't need to be a conspiracy. All that had to happen was a little collusion between people who understood which outcome was preferred (to say the least) by the people in power who they just so happened to be beholding to for their appointments and their political future as far as employment within the framework of the GOP apparatus was concerned. This could also spill over into the private sector when it comes to staying in the good graces of very powerful and influential people who would have the power to either help you get a position or nix your chances with little more than a phone call. Therefore, they would clearly understand that it would be in their best short term interest to help that preferred outcome happen. And let's not forget that people rationalize their behavior in a myriad of ways. The could easily convince themselves that they were doing it for the good of the country while not having clue one as to which man would make the better president and be a better steward of the nation's future providence.

 

[Nyvin]

You didn't, but quoting population ratios and apparently wanting the number of Senators to be so apportioned, I merely pointed out that the House balances the equation in Congress IMO.

Well we already changed the way in which Senators are elected, from going through the state legislature to being popularly elected. The original intention of Senators was to act as "ambassadors" of the state government to the national government. That framework was largely tossed aside.

Nowadays Senators are to directly represent the people, and it's very...VERY screwy that the people of Wyoming are represented 64 times more per person than the people of California.

I would say a change is completely warranted. Maybe not directly proportional to population, but thresholds of 1 Senator up to a certain population, 2 in the next tier, 3 in the next, maybe a 4th tier for the top few states. Something of that nature.

 

[TooTall]

You didn't, but quoting population ratios and apparently wanting the number of Senators to be so apportioned, I merely pointed out that the House balances the equation in Congress IMO.

Well we already changed the way in which Senators are elected, from going through the state legislature to being popularly elected. The original intention of Senators was to act as "ambassadors" of the state government to the national government. That framework was largely tossed aside.

Nowadays Senators are to directly represent the people, and it's very...VERY screwy that the people of Wyoming are represented 64 times more per person than the people of California.

I would say a change is completely warranted. Maybe not directly proportional to population, but thresholds of 1 Senator up to a certain population, 2 in the next tier, 3 in the next, maybe a 4th tier for the top few states. Something of that nature.

It took the 17th Amendment to the Constitution to do that. Good luck on getting your plan even mentioned in the Senate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"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

The ONLY way Republicans could set boundaries in a State is if the State had elected them the Majority. SO you are admitting that in those States they had a majority BEFORE any boundaries were changed.

 

[Nyvin]

"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

The ONLY way Republicans could set boundaries in a State is if the State had elected them the Majority. SO you are admitting that in those States they had a majority BEFORE any boundaries were changed.

In a wave election of 2010...frankly the only election the GOP has won in the last 8 years