Enough with Gerrymandering!

[SeattlePioneer]

This is a classic "goo goo" issue --- good government.

 

Goo goo issues are usually treated rather derisively by politicians, who are practical people interested in keeping costs down, job security and in general keeping people happy.

 

Right now both parties benefit from gerrymandered districts in various ways at various times.

 

Most Congressman are in safe districts. That means they have a degree of job security. If they wish, they have more freedom to vote on issues the way they wish, rather than being driven by needing to appease every interest group in order to squeeze out the last vote in a competitive race, which might occur at EVERY ELECTION!

 

Also, Congressmen in safe districts don't need to spend as much time begging for campaign funding.

 

Furthermore, since most voters are in safe districts, they are represented by a Congressman who is likely to be someone of the party representing a large majority of the people in the district.

 

Do we REALLY want to sharply increase the volatility of Congressional elections and cause Congressman to need to raise a lot more campaign funding at every election?

[moosetracker]

Yah, moosetracker, yeh do realize we elect the entire House every two years, right? So what happened in 2010 really isn't relevant for this discussion. Da problem is the House doesn't accurately represent da actual voting choices this year.

 

Very true, Beavah.. 6 years for Senate, 2 years for house.. I know this, if I stop to think, yet when I don't it's hard to fathom all that work to get elected and it only last 2 years.. Also It seems like some don't run every year.. Like the minority House Leader Nancy Pelosi was working on everyone elses campaign but didn't seem to need to worry about her own, and a comment that the majority House Leader John Boehner did want to find a deal to the fiscal cliff as he was facing a difficult re-election in two years (like he didn't run last week.).

 

Still, I think it will shift back gradually.. Especially if the Republicans keep on obstructing.. I think this time the President is going to make it public knowledge who is doing what.. That is why he held his little meeting today, dragging in a group of average citizens to stand behind him as he gave it..

 

As he has said, our jobs as citizens is not only to vote every 2 to 4 years, but to stay involved and help him push the issues.. I just need some direction as to how to push, I will be happy to help out. I don't know if writting to my Democratic House Rep or Senator will help at all, I don't have a Republican Representative to yell at.

[Brewmeister]

When da Democrat gets the majority of the votes and a substantial majority of the Electoral College, how is it that da House of Representatives stays Republican?

 

You all are trying to find patterns that don't exist and explanations for an unexplainable electorate.

 

Look at my crazy state of Wisconsin for an example of this.

 

Earlier this year if you recall, our controversial Republican governor won a recall election by a greater margin, over the same candidate he had faced a year earlier, despite what appeared to be a huge uprising on the other side of the aisle.

 

Additionally, in last week's election, the electorate returned control of the entire legislature to the Republicans.

 

In the U.S. House, currently we have 5 Republican representatives and 3 Democrats.

 

In 2010, the state tossed out our well-known Russ Feingold, after 17 years, for conservative Republican businessman Ron Johnson.

 

Yet in 2012, we chose ultra-liberal Tammy Baldwin over Tommy Thompson, who was a former, multi-term, popular governor of the state. So we now have D senator, one R.

 

And, Wisconsin preferred Obama by something like 14 percent in 2008 and 7 percent this time around (off the top of my head).

 

You can't explain the senate split or the difference between the executive selections (gubernatorial vs. presidential) to party-line politics.

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Brewmeister, did I see you at the Eagle Scout forum in Madison this weekend?

[Beavah]

Nah, Brewmeister, yeh missed da point again. My fault for bein' confusing.

 

If yeh ignore the Electoral College and all other races, and yeh just look at the total of votes case for HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES elections across da country, the POPULAR VOTE for HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES went to the Democrats. In fact, it was pretty close to the same amount that da popular vote went for Obama, so your split-ticket voters split roughly evenly as you'd expect.

 

And yet they only have 44% representation in da House.

 

Take away message: In House elections, representation should closely match da popular vote. That's da Constitutional purpose of the House, to represent da people directly. The fact that da representation in the House is reversed from da popular vote by 7% or so means that GERRYMANDERING IS UNDERMINING DA CONSTITUTION.

 

For an old-school conservative like myself, I find that troubling. Yah, yah, I know da modern Republican Party is all about cheating and playin' games in order to "win." Me, I believe in honor and da Constitution. Da House should represent da people, not be jiggered so that weird nutjob outliers on either side can be selected.

 

So let's fix it, eh? This should be somethin' that all conservatives would agree on, and many decent folk on da liberal side as well.

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad]

Dusting off the political science degree, a little data:

 

 

 

Since 1855 (approximately when the country settled on the Democrats and Republicans) there have been 77 Congressional terms. Democrats have controlled the house 43 terms and Republicans 36 terms. To Beav's theory, The president and the House have been from different parties 32 terms or about 40 percent of the time.

 

Here's where it gets interesting:

 

Looking at the data overall, there are three fairly distinct eras -- 1855 to 1897, 1897 to 1969, and 1969 to the present -- when the opposition party controlled the house to greater or lesser degrees.

 

-- In the 21 Congressional terms between 1855 (Pierce) and 1898 (Cleveland's 2nd administration), the House and White House were controlled by different parties half the time (10 terms).

-- In the 36 terms from 1897 (McKinley) through 1969 (Johnson) there were different parties in control only 7 terms, or 20% or the time.

-- And here's where it really gets interesting: In the 24 Congressional terms since 1969 15 terms have had the House and White house under different parties -- 62.5%

 

It is also interesting that the party in control of the House of Representatives is generally very stable. With only a few exceptions, the control of the house has changed for the long term only four times:

 

From 1855 to 1875 Republicans controlled 9 of 10 terms

From 1875 to 1895 Democrats controlled 8 of 10 terms

From 1895 to 1933 Republicans controlled 16 of 19 terms

From 1933 to 1995 Democrats controlled 29 of 31 terms

And recently, from 1995 to present Republicans 7 of 9 terms.

 

Of course you guys know the presidency bounces back and forth much more with only a few time with one party in the White House for several consecutive election cycles -- obviously FDR/Truman was the longest at 20 years, but the Republicans had two long stretches during Reconstruction (Grant/Hayes/Garfield/Arthur) and the Guilded Age (McKinley/TR/Taft) at 16 years each.

 

So what?

 

We were all taught the the House of Representative was supposed to be the "People's House" and much more responsive to the people (and presumably mercurial). If that's true, it may be in comparison to the Senate, certainly not the presidency.

 

What I don't have is any evidence that gerrymandering is a greater issue now than it the past. If someone can show that the incidence of gerrymandering has increased significantly beginning in 1969 and there is a correlation between gerrymandering and the increase in different parties in the House and White house over since then, THEN you may have something. But since gerrymandering's namesake, Mass. Gov. Elbridge Gerry, was doin' his thing about 200 years age, let's assume the political influence is at least as old as the Republic and not a modern phenomenom.

 

Still, gerrymandering may be a piece of the puzzle -- I don't know -- but there are many other factors too:

 

-- Quality/popularity of individual candidates

-- Good, old-fashioned campaigning -- James Carville proved this in 1992.

-- Incumbency

-- Local politics

-- Money

 

I really think incumbency is the greater factor. I think the data on the stability of control of the House points to that.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[skeptic]

California has a lot of issues, as most know. But, one good thing that has come out of our propositions is term limits and a relatively unbiased district boundary process. Also, as someone pointed out, the two highest vote recipients in spring primaries run, even if from the same party. Also, the governor and lieutenant governor are elected separately which allows opposite parties at times.

 

In regard to choosing the president, I would like to either see popular vote be the only factor, or if the electoral college is to stay in place, then ALL states would have their votes earned by popular vote percentage, rather than all or nothing. It would make a huge difference in the final result.

[Brewmeister]

Sorry, Beav, got confused with "da Democrat" verbiage...

 

I believe you are wrong on gerrymandering and you are over thinking the reasons for the apparent disparity. All you have to do is look at the red/blue national election map by COUNTY.

 

That map easily proves how the House of Representatives could easily be one way and the Senate the other, despite the TOTAL popular vote for the House. No gerrymandering required, it's just how we break down geographically.

[SSScout]

 

I refer youse guys to my previous link showing the Maryland 3rd Congressional District, which to my mind resembles the remains of a toad who tried to travel from the north to the south sides of the Baltimore Beltway. At rush hour. in the rainy night.

 

This insult to geographers links pieces and parts of five of Marylands 28 counties, requires the farmers of western Montgomery county share representation with the out of work steel workers of Dundalk, the commuters north of Balmer, the yachtsmen of Napolis, and the folks of the inner city. Not that these citizens are not worthy people, but would it not be better for the urban folks to have their concerns represented by someone who does not have to simultaneously be concerned with the agriculturalists 70 miles away? And the shape of this District strains the credulity of why it was created this way. It surrounds, literally, another distrrict. It has connections between areas that are sidewalk size.

So a group petitioned to have it on the ballot, to refer it back to the planners. And the plan , as published, was approved by the voters of the state. I guess enough folks like it that way.

 

 

[Beavah]

I really think incumbency is the greater factor. I think the data on the stability of control of the House points to that.

 

Certainly, incumbency plays a strong role in House elections, but it's irrelevant in this analysis. 51% of the nation voted for Democrats FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. In their local House election, regardless of incumbency, they pulled the lever for the Democrat. Yet the elected House is only 44% Democrat. That's what yeh have to explain, eh? Da 7% difference between votes and outcome IN HOUSE ELECTIONS.

 

Could it be explained by...

 

-- Quality/popularity of individual candidates

No, because quality candidates would yield both a majority of the popular vote and a majority of folks elected.

 

-- Good, old-fashioned campaigning -- James Carville proved this in 1992.

 

No, because good campaigning would yield both a majority of the popular vote and a majority of folks elected.

 

-- Incumbency

 

No, unless a set of da incumbents are able to manipulate the election process so that they can retain their position despite failing to receive a majority of da popular vote. In other words, fraud or gerrymandering.

 

-- Local politics

No, unless large fractions of da votes in lots of places went to third-party candidates. There's no evidence of that.

 

-- Money

No, unless da money was used to finance election tampering or fraud.

 

That map easily proves how the House of Representatives could easily be one way and the Senate the other, despite the TOTAL popular vote for the House. No gerrymandering required, it's just how we break down geographically.

 

No, because we don't vote for House of Representatives proportionate to amount of land owned. What you suggest would only work if population were spread evenly. Da fact is that most counties in da nation are lightly populated, so seeing a lot of red counties is irrelevant. We vote for House of representatives based on population.

 

What it might mean, though, is that my solution won't work. Just drawin' soap bubble minimum surfaces along county lines might not be enough, because yeh have very dense urban counties? That's a reasonable point. Hard to say. I still think it would be a substantial improvement.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Beavah]

Yah, so clearly this needs an example, because people just aren't gettin' da concept. Let's take a look at Pennsylvania, one of da worst offenders.

 

Usin' da vote totals from FoxNews at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-house-races/all, looking at elections for House of Representatives, we have:

 

Votes for Democrats: 2,722,560

Votes for Republicans: 2,651,901

 

So in Pennsylvania, a majority of da population voted for a Democrat for the House of Representatives. That was quite comparable to the votes for President (2,907,448 to 2,619,583), only more people voted for President.

 

You'd expect that at least half of da Pennsylvania delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives would be Democrats then, wouldn't yeh?

 

Nope. Pennsylvania is sending 12 Republicans and 5 Democrats to the House.

 

Popular vote: 50.7% Democrat

Actual representation: 29.4% Democrat

 

No matter whether you're a Democrat or Republican, yeh can see this is an issue of fundamental Constitutional intent and fairness. When 51% of da population of a state votes in one direction, they should not end up with only 29% of da representation. That's unconscionable.

 

When yeh look at da actual reason for it, yeh discover that it's just because da districts around Philly and Pittsburgh are jiggered so as to put all da urban and suburban likely Democrat voters together, so that they elect only one representative with 90% of the vote, leavin' da other districts to select Republicans with 55% of the vote.

 

This is da same sort of thing which allows Michelle Bachmann and other noxious outlier representatives to be elected.

 

Beavah

 

[Brewmeister]

Michelle Bachmann and other noxious outlier representatives to be elected.

 

So on one hand it's the establishment that is doing gerrymandering...

 

But on the other hand said gerrymandering results in "noxious outliers" being elected.

 

You contradict yourself in your own examples.

 

[Beavah]

You contradict yourself in your own examples.

 

Nope.

 

Think through it, Brewmeister.

 

If yeh have a gerrymandered urban district where yeh have 80% of da population leaning Democrat, then da race is goin' to be decided in da primary. But da primary doesn't have any Republicans voting, eh? So it's easier for outlier Democrats to get da votes. Moderates and swing voters can't team up with da Republicans to select someone more reasonable.

 

Same thing in a district like Bachmann's, eh?

 

That's da main effect. Did yeh watch how Romney ran to the right durin' da primaries? Because if half da American voters aren't there, the more extreme group can have 51% of da vote instead of 26% of it.

 

It gets worse if 49% of da population is electin' 71% of da representation, of course. Essentially, their vote is countin' double, eh? So if da geographics put 'em together, then yeh can easily get a nutter elected. Republican nutter if da Republicans did da gerrymandering; Democrat nutter if da Democrats did it.

 

It's just simple math. It's got nuthin' to do with party or ideology. We've allowed a system that's unfair and tends to be biased toward fringe candidates.

 

Beavah

 

 

[T2Eagle]

I agree with Beav that this challenges good representational democracy regardless of which party you support, and is an evil committed by both parties when ever they get a chance. Additionally, better technology and demographic changes semm to be exacerbating the problem.

 

So, without regard to this past election, would someone like to defend gerrymandering? Like Sentinel, I live in Ohio, and the ballot measure that we had was designed to specifically combat this practice, but it not only lost, it was trounced, 70 -- 30! And I don't understand that outcome at all. In case anyone just woke up after a fortunate three month nap, it's pretty well undertood that here in Ohio we are evenly divided in our political beliefs, and yet we seem to overwhelmingly agree that gerrymandering is good. The measure was a cumbersome thing on the ballot itself -- you had to scroll through 3 or 4 pages of text to go from the question to get to vote your answer, but I just don't understand why such a large majority of voters would affirmatively reject such a straight forward piece of good governance.

 

Is anyone one else on the board from Ohio? How did you vote? Why?

[Beavah]

Yah, wow!

 

Ohio

 

47.2% of House ballots cast for Democrats

 

Only 18.8% of da House delegation elected to represent Ohio are Democrats.

 

Now, to be fair, if da districts were perfectly mixed, yeh could imagine Ohio getting ZERO Democrats elected, eh? Earning 47.2% of da vote in each district and therefore losing every one. So it's a bit different than in Pennsylvania or Michigan where a majority of da public votes Democrat and they still end up with a large majority Republican delegation. That isn't possible without jiggering things.

 

This "possibility of getting ZERO" thing may explain da aversion to solutions, though. Perfect district mixing is da equivalent to winner-take-all, and folks generally don't want that. What we want is somethin' that takes a good stab at both local and proportionate representation.

 

Beavah