Repug gerrymandering is worse than I thought

[edhopper]

A few visual clues.
[img][/img]
Around 50% of the vote and the majority of seats. In some states it's less than 50% but more seats.

Look at Ohio and NC. Districts that give Dems big margins so they won't be voting in more contested districts
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
In 1984 the Republicans got 50% of the vote statewide and won 10 of the 21 seats in Congress. In 2012 they got 52% but won 12 of the 16 seats.

And the division where Obama won in 2012.
[img][/img]

Due to their victories at the State level in 2010, it will take until 2020 and the next census to fix this, and because of the gerrymandering and the help from SCOTUS, who say we have no voting rights problem anymore, even then, getting back the states is an uphill battle.

I'm sorry, I hear all the talk about how we have to GOTV, and I am not saying we give up. But it is just depressing and maddening when I look at an election where the Dems have to get 60% of the vote to win. The injustice and unfairness of it infuriates me. in any other country, this would be called a coup. But absolutely nothing will be done to rectify this. I would love to hear a major Democrat point this out, not a progressive commentator, but an office holder with clout.
And yet I have read post on DU that say gerrymandering is not a problem.I think we must acknowledge that is is far from a level playing field. And no, I don't have an answer, but we must agree it is a major problem, if not the biggest one we face.

[former9thward]

1. To blame this on gerrymandering is a cop out.

Sure it goes on but in states like IL, CA and others the gerrymandering goes the other way. The fact is that Dems tend to live in urban areas and Repubs are more spread out. This mean that natural geography will give you Dem districts that are 70-80% Dem and more Rep districts are 55% Rep.

The other problem is the Voting Rights Act. The VRA demands majority-minority districts to ensure minority representation. It requires these districts be at least 70% or so minority in order to ensure a minority representative. So this means that Dems are packed together in a district to be 70% D 30% R and that leaves Repubs to be spread out in more districts where they are a 55% majority.

So lets do the math. Lets say you have 3000 people and are going to make 3 districts of 1000 each. There are 1600 Ds and 1400 Rs. The majority-minority district is 700 D and 300 R. The other two districts are 550 R and 450 D. So even though Dems have a 53% majority the districts are 2 R and 1 D. This is a simple example but it is what happens when they redistrict.

This why you don't hear from elected Dems about this. They benefit from these districts because it guarantees they will get re-elected without much of a challenge.

[edhopper]

3. I have heard this before

Dems win the majority of Congressional votes in 2012, but still in the minority.
State after State where Dems get the majority or close to 50% have big majority in Rep. Congresspeople.

Obama won in California by over 20%. Their delegation is 38Dems to 15 Reps. How do you equate that with places like PA or OH where he also won, yet they have a near monopoly in Congress.

Close your eyes to the problem all you want. But the facts are, this is why the GOP holds the House.

This is how it is in most States

[img][/img]

[spanone]

2. k&r...

[MineralMan]

4. We can still win, one district at a time.

Your map does not show election margins. In every one of those states, there are red districts than can be won by Democrats. We need to win those districts.

This is yet another downer election thread. Each district we win that is currently held by a Republican matters. Nobody in any state should give up the fight, just because of a colored map.

Better that you should post a thread identifying the districts with small margins that can be turned. Maybe you can go look that up and post a new thread showing the districts where Democrats should be focusing their efforts. That would be helpful. This thread is not helpful in any way.

Spreading discouragement and discontent for the 2014 mid-term elections is not a positive thing to do.

[edhopper]

5. Look at the Ohio map I posted

most are 10% and the lowest is 5%. Those are still tough margins to overcome.
Reality can be a downer, I am just saying we are facing an unfair fight.
I combine this with the polls that show no matter how little the American people think of Congress, and we know that this is largely due to the behavior of the GOP, they don't blame them as much as they should, usually spread it between both parties.
The truth is sometimes depressing, but unlike the Repugs, I don't live in my own reality. i try to face the one that is real.

[MineralMan]

6. Defeatism is not activism.

What positive activism will you be engaging in in 2014 that will help win seats in Congress for Democrats? Just give me one example of something you will do that will help, if you can. I'm tired of defeatism. Tired to death of it.

[edhopper]

7. Phone bank work

donating what small amount I can to the Dem caucus.

I am sorry if you think it is defeatism. But I see ignoring how big a problem GOP gerrymandering is to be denial of reality.
We now get more votes than Repukes.
Feel free to ignore this thread. I have never thought closing ones eyes to the truth as helpful.
As i said in the OP, I don't have an answer, but would more than welcome others to post theirs here.
And i truly hope the Dem PTB address this. If we don't, we will lose.

[MineralMan]

8. I will not be ignoring defeatist threads in 2014. Not a chance.

Phone bank work is good, and thank you for doing it. Encouraging others to make this election important is another good thing you can do. Every person who puts their work into campaigning, canvassing, and GOTV activism in their own district will help. If we could gain just 1 seat in each of those states you listed, we'd be well on our way to a House majority. In my state of Minnesota, there are two districts that can be turned this year, due to circumstances that are different from 2012. It won't be easy, but it can be done. One is Michelle Bachmann's district. She's not running. She won by only about a 1% margin in 2012. We can turn that district, and we will do everything we can to do so. The other is the district with John Kline as the incumbent. It's winnable, too, with a great effort from Democrats in that district.

I don't count on winning any district that is currently a Republican district. But, we can win enough of them to gain a majority in the House. If we don't do it, it will be because we did not try hard enough.

So, please consider finding ways to write that will help people, encourage people, and aid in that goal.

Defeatism never won an election, except for Republicans.

[edhopper]

9. I think Howard Dean's

50 State strategy was a good one and would help in this case. We don't know for sure where these districts might be until we see who is running. Having boots on the ground would be a big plus.

I understand what you are saying, but I won't apologize for this thread. I see it as a major problem and see nothing wrong with addressing it so. I have a reply on this very thread that denies gerrymandering is a problem at all.


We only win by looking at the real situation, I find constant boosterism can be tedious. In deference to Jack Nicholson, we can handle the truth.

[MineralMan]

10. We cannot redistrict any state in 2014. The districts are

set until 2020. So, we have to work with what there is. Not every state does its redistricting fairly, although many do. The district boundaries are what they are. The answer to unbalanced districts is to turn out a larger percentage of Democratic voters, wherever that is possible.

Campaigns need to take advantage of Republican obstructionism and sell our candidates as the alternative to it. We need to focus on positive achievements of Democratic leadership, even if we don't think they went far enough. We need to focus on what can be done, not on what cannot be done.

We cannot change district boundaries, so we must work within those districts to identify, convince, and bring Democrats to the polls in record numbers. While some of that can be done with an infusion of campaign funds, individual activism within each district can do even more, if enough individuals get involved.

[edhopper]

11. That is true

and electing Dem Governors is also important.

But the fact that we need to win 60% of the vote to take congress sickens me and makes me disgusted at my country.
I know I have to turn that energy into positive action, and I am not admitting defeat. But the problem must be realized and not pushed aside. Else we will fail.

And don't get me started on Citizens United.

[MineralMan]

12. The Citizens United decision is another thing

we can't change before the 2014 election. Those are realities, of course. Another reality is that Republicans failed their constituents miserably in many ways. That's a reality we can take out into our districts to use when campaigning and canvassing. In every election, we are dealing with the realities that exist.

For me, luckily, the reality is that my congressional representative, Betty McCollum, will win again in 2014 without question. So, I'll be focusing on my neighboring district much of the time, where Michele Bachmann is currently the housemember. I'll still be talking to voters in my own district and precinct, but I'm going to put my time in CD-6 as well, since it's right next door to mine. It's winnable, with a proper effort, so that's where I can do the most.

For DUers in Red States, the key is to find that one district or districts that can be turned and to devote energy there. We must never forget that every congressional race is a local race. If you live in or near a district, you know the issues that drive that district far better than anyone living elsewhere. That makes you a powerful tool in district campaigns. Money is not the only thing that wins elections. Not by a long shot. Feet on the ground also win elections. We all have feet and fingers to dial the phone. We need to exercise those well in 2014.

[edhopper]

13. I actually think

in many of these blue and purple states, a more progressive campaign about things like income inequity and minimum wage could be winners.

[Jim Lane]

16. Well, we COULD, it's just that we won't.

Republicans did a between-census redistricting in Texas, and the Supreme Court said that was OK. Blue state legislators and governors would be entitled to study that decision, figure out exactly how much naked partisanship they could get away with, and pay the Republicans back.

For better or worse, though, elected Democrats seem more inclined to operate on principle. California now sets its district lines through an impartial commission. In New York, the Democrats might well retake the State Senate next year, but even if that happens, they've made it clear that they won't use their control of both houses plus the governorship to implement a screw-the-Republicans redistricting.

I did see a sample map, though, even if only for fantasizing purposes. Someone worked out the details. It featured a district in the central part of the state that looked sort of like a nerve cell, with tendrils going out to wrap around the major urban areas without including them. With so many rural Republicans packed into that one district, the rest of the upstate districts could become reliably Democratic. In New York City, it would break up Staten Island, the most Republican borough; the northern part would be in a district with lower Manhattan while the southern part was joined with Brooklyn, in each case bringing in enough Democratic neighborhoods that Michael Grimm (the current incumbent Republican) couldn't win in either district.

Back in the real world, you're right that this won't happen. In 2014 we have to do our best with the district lines we have. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean suppressing all talk about gerrymandering. If nothing else, we might get some traction by portraying the Republicans as cheaters. Some voters who don't follow all the intricacies of economic policy will nevertheless respond to the idea that the election shouldn't be rigged.

[ReasonableToo]

14. fracturing counties and communities

I notice many district maps fracture counties. I wonder how the numbers would change if there were a priority to keep counties intact when drawing district lines....

[edhopper]

15. The results would be

a Dem House. Remember we would need just 16 seats to take the house. If the delegations of states like PA, MI and OH reflected the popular vote we would have it easily.