Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.....!!
10% range
There is no mandate how much variation each district can have. The constitutional minimum is 30,000 people per district.
10% range
There is no mandate how much variation each district can have. The constitutional minimum is 30,000 people per district.
scotus said 10% iirc....
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.
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's what you do when you've lost in the arena of ideas.
i'm sure you said the same thing when dems did the same in ill....
At least in Ill the Dems got the majority of the vote.
never mind, i see they got the majority
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.
And a number of political scientists pointed to what Jowei Chen, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan, and Jonathan Rodden, a professor of political science at Stanford University, call unintentional gerrymandering in a forthcoming paper the natural geographic patterns that lead many Democrats to choose to live in dense, urban areas with very high concentrations of Democrats, effectively packing themselves into fewer districts.
Now, more than ever in history, Democrats are clustered in a small number of these urban districts, Professor Chen said in an interview.
But it is undeniable that redistricting played a role as well. The new lines helped Republicans maintain their control of the House, largely because they were able to add more Republican voters to districts where Republicans won close races in 2010.
Michael P. McDonald, an associate professor of public affairs at George Mason University who has served as a consultant on redistricting for both parties, said there was a reason both parties fight so hard for the power to draw the maps noting that they were not going to all that trouble just to draw neutral plans.
Democrats also drew gerrymandered lines in states where they controlled the process, but had less of an impact over all because they had control in fewer states, said Keesha Gaskins, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, which has been studying the impact of redistricting.
In Illinois, where Democrats drew the maps, Republican Congressional candidates won 45 percent of the popular vote but only a third of the House seats. And in Maryland, Republicans won 35 percent of the votes but just 13 percent of the seats.
An analysis by the Brennan Center found that the new lines that took effect this year may have changed which party won in at least 25 House districts this year, and that they helped Republicans win a net gain of six more seats than they would have won under the old maps.
One particularly striking finding in their analysis highlights the power that comes with drawing the maps. In states where Republicans controlled the process, it found, their candidates won roughly 53 percent of the vote and 72 percent of the seats. And in the states where Democrats controlled the process, their candidates won about 56 percent of the vote and 71 percent of the seats.
never mind, i see they got the majority
Not like I'm saying what Illinois dems did was justified either. I really think all congressional districts should be drawn by some independent judical body apart from political parties and with better guidelines on how to draw them.
never mind, i see they got the majority
Not like I'm saying what Illinois dems did was justified either. I really think all congressional districts should be drawn by some independent judical body apart from political parties and with better guidelines on how to draw them.
although i understand the how, i do think it sort of puts a kabosh in any republican claim to a mandate from the people to defund the aca
