1.7 Million Less Votes and 32 More Seats

[Nyvin]

Someone explain how exactly you win 1.7 Million LESS votes then the opposing party and yet still win 32 MORE seats then that same party?

This is what happened in the 2012 election with the House of Representatives. The GOP received 58,541,130 votes and the Democrats recieved 60,252,696. That's roughly a difference of 1.7 million.

...and the GOP didn't "just" break even...they won big!!! They won a solid majority of 233 seats to the Democrats 201. They managed this despite more people voting for democratic candidates.

This completely artificial majority the source of all this drama and obstruction and it wasn't even truly deserved. If you won 49% of the election you don't get 54% of the districts, unless of course you cleverly gerrymander your way to victory.

So here we are with the GOP thinking they're doing the "will of the people" when they AREN'T and are really just catering to a few right wing extremist all because of a gerrymandering gimmick that has no place in congress.

Wow, the GOP should be ashamed.

 

[TooTall]

Someone explain how exactly you win 1.7 Million LESS votes then the opposing party and yet still win 32 MORE seats then that same party?

This is what happened in the 2012 election with the House of Representatives. The GOP received 58,541,130 votes and the Democrats recieved 60,252,696. That's roughly a difference of 1.7 million.

...and the GOP didn't "just" break even...they won big!!! They won a solid majority of 233 seats to the Democrats 201. They managed this despite more people voting for democratic candidates.

This completely artificial majority the source of all this drama and obstruction and it wasn't even truly deserved. If you won 49% of the election you don't get 54% of the districts, unless of course you cleverly gerrymander your way to victory.

So here we are with the GOP thinking they're doing the "will of the people" when they AREN'T and are really just catering to a few right wing extremist all because of a gerrymandering gimmick that has no place in congress.

Wow, the GOP should be ashamed.

It really doesn't have a lot to do with gerrymandering, although both parties do it, mostly for diversity in their state. There are more lefties in CA, NY and several other big states that account for the disparity in popular vote count.

When you change the Constitution so the majority of the votes in the US get the majority of the legislators rather than who wins in their state (Senators) and districts (Representatives) you will have solved your problem. Until then, continue your whine.

Guess what else happens. The President doesn't have to get the popular vote to be elected. And, that isn't because of gerrymandering either.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's always a hoot watching the liberals' heads explode when they have to obey U.S. election law.

Especially the ones like this person, who seems to believe that if bent wrist leftist fanatics in San Francisco's congressional district vote 95% for Pelosi, they should be able to overrule normal people in San Diego's district who voted 75% for Duncan Hunter or whomever.

They're so cute when they demand things like that.....!!

 

[bendog]

Someone explain how exactly you win 1.7 Million LESS votes then the opposing party and yet still win 32 MORE seats then that same party?

This is what happened in the 2012 election with the House of Representatives. The GOP received 58,541,130 votes and the Democrats recieved 60,252,696. That's roughly a difference of 1.7 million.

...and the GOP didn't "just" break even...they won big!!! They won a solid majority of 233 seats to the Democrats 201. They managed this despite more people voting for democratic candidates.

This completely artificial majority the source of all this drama and obstruction and it wasn't even truly deserved. If you won 49% of the election you don't get 54% of the districts, unless of course you cleverly gerrymander your way to victory.

So here we are with the GOP thinking they're doing the "will of the people" when they AREN'T and are really just catering to a few right wing extremist all because of a gerrymandering gimmick that has no place in congress.

Wow, the GOP should be ashamed.

It really doesn't have a lot to do with gerrymandering, although both parties do it, mostly for diversity in their state. There are more lefties in CA, NY and several other big states that account for the disparity in popular vote count.

When you change the Constitution so the majority of the votes in the US get the majority of the legislators rather than who wins in their state (Senators) and districts (Representatives) you will have solved your problem. Until then, continue your whine.

Guess what else happens. The President doesn't have to get the popular vote to be elected. And, that isn't because of gerrymandering either.

Well, it IS because of gerrymandering, because states with more pop get more congressional seats, but as you say both parties do it. It goes back to before Tammeny Hall.

 

[Nyvin]

It really doesn't have anything to do with gerrymandering, although both parties do it, mostly for racial reasons. There are more lefties in CA, NY and several other big states that account for the disparity in popular vote count.

When you change the Constitution so the majority of the votes in the US get the majority of the legislators rather than who wins in their state (Senators) and districts (Representatives.)

Guess what else happens. The President doesn't have to get the popular vote to be elected. And, that isn't because of gerrymandering either.

What you're posting makes no sense...President doesn't have to get the popular vote to be elected??? He doesn't now, look at the 2000 election.

Yeah, there's more lefties in CA and NY...there's also more righties in the deep south like Alabama and Oklahoma...and guess what? all district have roughly equal population!

And if you don't think Gerrymandering plays any role...PFF. Look at Ohio...51% of the people voted for democratic candidates but Republicans win 12 out of 16 seats...pathetic.

 

[Nyvin]

It's always a hoot watching the liberals' heads explode when they have to obey U.S. election law.

Especially the ones like this person, who seems to believe that if bent wrist leftist fanatics in San Francisco's congressional district vote 95% for Pelosi, they should be able to overrule normal people in San Diego's district who voted 75% for Duncan Hunter or whomever.

They're so cute when they demand things like that.....!!

Do you think there aren't districts that vote 95% Republican??? You're spouting nonsense.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Someone explain how exactly you win 1.7 Million LESS votes then the opposing party and yet still win 32 MORE seats then that same party?

You assume that everyone votes for the same party all the way down ticket. I don't.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's always a hoot watching the liberals' heads explode when they have to obey U.S. election law.

Especially the ones like this person, who seems to believe that if bent wrist leftist fanatics in San Francisco's congressional district vote 95% for Pelosi, they should be able to overrule normal people in San Diego's district who voted 75% for Duncan Hunter or whomever.

They're so cute when they demand things like that.....!!

Do you think there aren't districts that vote 95% Republican??? You're spouting nonsense.

There are no Congressional districts that do.

 

[Nyvin]

Someone explain how exactly you win 1.7 Million LESS votes then the opposing party and yet still win 32 MORE seats then that same party?

You assume that everyone votes for the same party all the way down ticket. I don't.

Your statement is irrelevant...the 1.7 million less number comes "Only" from house of rep. votes. It doesn't include presidential, senate, or state legislature votes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Someone explain how exactly you win 1.7 Million LESS votes then the opposing party and yet still win 32 MORE seats then that same party?

You assume that everyone votes for the same party all the way down ticket. I don't.

Your statement is irrelevant...the 1.7 million less number comes "Only" from house of rep. votes. It doesn't include presidential, senate, or state legislature votes.

Gerrymandering

 

[Mustang]

Someone explain how exactly you win 1.7 Million LESS votes then the opposing party and yet still win 32 MORE seats then that same party?

This is what happened in the 2012 election with the House of Representatives. The GOP received 58,541,130 votes and the Democrats recieved 60,252,696. That's roughly a difference of 1.7 million.

...and the GOP didn't "just" break even...they won big!!! They won a solid majority of 233 seats to the Democrats 201. They managed this despite more people voting for democratic candidates.

This completely artificial majority the source of all this drama and obstruction and it wasn't even truly deserved. If you won 49% of the election you don't get 54% of the districts, unless of course you cleverly gerrymander your way to victory.

So here we are with the GOP thinking they're doing the "will of the people" when they AREN'T and are really just catering to a few right wing extremist all because of a gerrymandering gimmick that has no place in congress.

Wow, the GOP should be ashamed.

It has to do with demographics, like-minded people intentionally segregating themselves based on income and ideological beliefs, redistricting when you have the advantage in a statehouse (and sometimes gerrymandering), and good old fashioned finely tuned knowledge of the electorate and who lives where especially in the cities which tend to be more liberal than rural areas.

If and when you're a conservative member of a state legislature, you can choose to draw districts in such a way as to put as many Democrats, or liberals, or people otherwise inclined to not vote for you, in one or two districts that are essentially safe for Democrats so that that other districts will have a much higher probability of being won by your party in a 55-45 split as opposed to the 80-20 split that a Democrat wins in his or her district. Then you can walk away with more Congressional seats in the country overall even though your party has won fewer votes in all contests.

The Senate can work in the same yet slightly different way since Gore received 540,000 more votes than Bush in 2000, even though Bush won 30 states. Statistically speaking, the law of averages gives the advantage to Republicans in such contests if the state vote for Senators up for election/reelection mirrors the presidential contest. The only thing that keeps it from happening regularly is the fact that only 1/3 of the Senate is up to bat every two years while all the members of the House have to face the voters.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It really doesn't have anything to do with gerrymandering, although both parties do it, mostly for racial reasons. There are more lefties in CA, NY and several other big states that account for the disparity in popular vote count.

When you change the Constitution so the majority of the votes in the US get the majority of the legislators rather than who wins in their state (Senators) and districts (Representatives.)

Guess what else happens. The President doesn't have to get the popular vote to be elected. And, that isn't because of gerrymandering either.

What you're posting makes no sense...President doesn't have to get the popular vote to be elected??? He doesn't now, look at the 2000 election.

Yeah, there's more lefties in CA and NY...there's also more righties in the deep south like Alabama and Oklahoma...and guess what? all district have roughly equal population!

And if you don't think Gerrymandering plays any role...PFF. Look at Ohio...51% of the people voted for democratic candidates but Republicans win 12 out of 16 seats...pathetic.

Adams, Hayes, and Harrison won the election but lost the popular vote. That was in the 1800's.

 

[Nyvin]

It's always a hoot watching the liberals' heads explode when they have to obey U.S. election law.

Especially the ones like this person, who seems to believe that if bent wrist leftist fanatics in San Francisco's congressional district vote 95% for Pelosi, they should be able to overrule normal people in San Diego's district who voted 75% for Duncan Hunter or whomever.

They're so cute when they demand things like that.....!!

Do you think there aren't districts that vote 95% Republican??? You're spouting nonsense.

There are no Congressional districts that do.

Texas's 13th congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BlindBoo]

Someone explain how exactly you win 1.7 Million LESS votes then the opposing party and yet still win 32 MORE seats then that same party?

This is what happened in the 2012 election with the House of Representatives. The GOP received 58,541,130 votes and the Democrats recieved 60,252,696. That's roughly a difference of 1.7 million.

...and the GOP didn't "just" break even...they won big!!! They won a solid majority of 233 seats to the Democrats 201. They managed this despite more people voting for democratic candidates.

This completely artificial majority the source of all this drama and obstruction and it wasn't even truly deserved. If you won 49% of the election you don't get 54% of the districts, unless of course you cleverly gerrymander your way to victory.

So here we are with the GOP thinking they're doing the "will of the people" when they AREN'T and are really just catering to a few right wing extremist all because of a gerrymandering gimmick that has no place in congress.

Wow, the GOP should be ashamed.

Because there were 434 separate elections. Just the same way a president can get less votes and still win the White House. By design we the people have no political mechanism for any type of national referendum.

 

[Vox]

Someone explain how exactly you win 1.7 Million LESS votes then the opposing party and yet still win 32 MORE seats then that same party?

This is what happened in the 2012 election with the House of Representatives. The GOP received 58,541,130 votes and the Democrats recieved 60,252,696. That's roughly a difference of 1.7 million.

...and the GOP didn't "just" break even...they won big!!! They won a solid majority of 233 seats to the Democrats 201. They managed this despite more people voting for democratic candidates.

This completely artificial majority the source of all this drama and obstruction and it wasn't even truly deserved. If you won 49% of the election you don't get 54% of the districts, unless of course you cleverly gerrymander your way to victory.

So here we are with the GOP thinking they're doing the "will of the people" when they AREN'T and are really just catering to a few right wing extremist all because of a gerrymandering gimmick that has no place in congress.

Wow, the GOP should be ashamed.

Because there were 434 separate elections. Just the same way a president can get less votes and still win the White House. By design we the people have no political mechanism for any type of national referendum.

He can not comprehend that there were people who voted obama in and voted Republican on all others.

Or pick and chose here and there.

 

[Yurt]

how would we have a popular vote win for the house? the entire purpose of the house is to represent DISTRICTS. obviously some districts have less population than other districts.

it is really quite a simple concept and quite dishonest to claim that because dems received more votes overall that they pubs do not really represent the people. the founders realized we don't need people in heavily populated areas representing those in far away rural areas. of course a district encompassing los angeles is going to have far more votes than a smaller district like san luis obispo.

you can't be serious in saying that because LA had more dem votes than SLO that LA dem votes should be included for SLO are you?

 

[Nyvin]

obviously some districts have less population than other districts.

it is really quite a simple concept and quite dishonest to claim that because dems received more votes overall that they pubs do not really represent the people. the founders realized we don't need people in heavily populated areas representing those in far away rural areas. of course a district encompassing los angeles is going to have far more votes than a smaller district like san luis obispo.

False! By law all districts are required to have roughly the same population.

 

[Yurt]

10% range

 

[Nyvin]

10% range

There is no mandate how much variation each district can have. The constitutional minimum is 30,000 people per district.

 

[Ragnar]

Someone explain how exactly you win 1.7 Million LESS votes then the opposing party and yet still win 32 MORE seats then that same party?

You assume that everyone votes for the same party all the way down ticket. I don't.

I voted Libertarian where I could, and mostly Republican when I could not vote libertarian. Thus, I account for one of the 1.7 million and in Ohio to boot.

The Libertarian party won about one percent nationally in 2012. Thats a lot of votes.

Also, yeah, not everyone is a partisan hack like the d-bag in the OP.