Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a state issue. Some states have set up nonpartisan redistricting commissions.
While I disapprove of gerrymandering, I support my state doing it as long as blue states are doing it too. (In fact, my state does it far less egregiously than a lot of the blue states do, though it is more because the Voting Rights Act keeps Republicans from doing extreme gerrymandering.)
WHAT??
Texas basically took gerrymandering to a whole new level when they decided to push through mid-decade redistricting. The whole process ultimately got the former House Majority speaker Tom Delay sentenced to three years in jail for money laundering as it related to the whole mess.
The maps in Texas, might not be as extreme as some states, but doing it mid-decade was something really insane.
PA & Ohio have had some of the most insane gerrymanders following the 2000 and 2010 census. Florida's 2000 one was probably one of the most brazen. Voters passed a referendum in 2010 that someone reduced the GOP's gerrymandering. They could still gerrymander and still did, but had to make the districts conitgious. Which is why West ran halfway across the state, since there was no way he would have a remote chance running where he held the seat, since this was now illegal.
Both sides have done it, though the GOP has done it more, granted that likely has to do with the GOP holding more legislative seats following 2000 and 2010 than the Dems. If the census was following 2006 and 2008 when more Dems were in control, you would likely see Dems doing it more.
Here in NY the GOP has long controlled the State Senate, the Dems the Assembly. GOP drew their Senate Seats, Dems drew their Assembly seats, the Congressional seats were generally a compromise map, after 2000 it was a Incumbent Protection Gerrymander compromise.
It's true. gerrymandering after the 2010 census pretty much means Republicans will control the house at least until 2020. BTW gerrymandering is by design thwarts the will of the people and makes a mockery of democracy itself.
No, the Census can be used to redistrict without gerrymandering. You can just set up an independent redistricting commission (theoretically).
Look, I don't think gerrymandering is a good thing but those "independent" commissions may not always be able to come up with solutions that are 100% fair anyway. As long as both red states and blue states are gerrymandering, they cancel each other out to some degree. When they can't completely cancel each other out, it's because one party had a disproportionate of power because the other f***ed up.
AZ voters put in an independent redistricting system by referendum a couple years ago. This year, we got a new seat and quite a battle as the Governor and Republicans tried to use the courts to interfere with the panel. They failed. The panel did gerrrymander a couple districts, some Rep and some Dem as they were required to by the rules the voters approved that call for respecting cultural factors. But they also set up a few as "competitive". It was the competitive ones that the Republicans fought against. The reps lost them in the election mostly because of the Libertarians.
Is there anything that can be done about gerrymandering? It doesn't serve the American people of either party well.
I don't know. Is there anything we can do about
There are 15 states with photo ID requirements for voting. Mr. Obama lost in all of them. In places with the weakest controls, specifically counties in Florida, Ohio, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, he generally drew turnouts in the 90% or greater range and won by better than 95% of the vote.
They are looking at numbers like those from Florida's St. Lucie County (where Mr. Obama got 247,713 votes from only 175,554 registered voters) are starting to question the legitimacy of the electoral results as reported.
There are 15 states with photo ID requirements for voting. Mr. Obama lost in all of them. In places with the weakest controls, specifically counties in Florida, Ohio, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, he generally drew turnouts in the 90% or greater range and won by better than 95% of the vote.
They are looking at numbers like those from Florida's St. Lucie County (where Mr. Obama got 247,713 votes from only 175,554 registered voters) are starting to question the legitimacy of the electoral results as reported.
Either way, what can you do. He's president legitimately or illegitimately we will never know.
You`re getting your "facts" from something called Pundit Press? Nothing fired up Obama`s base as efficiently as the Jim Crow ID issue and what we DO know is that Obama is president legitimately.
The GOP is flaming out and fighting for its life. Either the Republican idiots in the House do something to help this country, or their numbers will be severely depleted.
In the most historic results elections of 2010 I do not believe there were people predicting the death of the Democratic Party.
Those results far surpassed this election.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
Dems will probably lose the Senate too. Lots of Dems defending seats in Red states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
Obama and Nate Silver will be but a footnote in history come Wednesday.
You just can't seem to help yourself with that "prediction addiction", can ya...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo
You`ll need to silence the Mourdock`s and Akin`s first of all.
That does seem to be the problem with these entrenched conservative backwaters, that their wingnuttery also has a tendency to go "viral". And BTW, looks like the ever-vocal tea baggers ain't taking all this lying down!
Vocal Conservatives Blame Mitch McConnell
Behind every tea party defeat in the Senate lurks Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — at least according to a small but vocal band of conservative activists.
“There are Democrats, Republicans and appropriators. Mitch McConnell is an appropriator before he’s a Republican,” said Erickson, who is also a CNN contributor. “He’s not willing to engage in the fight; he’s a consummate Washington guy.”
Nate Silver isn't always accurate long before elections. Hell, even in September of 2010, he said the Republicans had a ~25% chance of gaining 60 seats in the House.
This being said, he is correct on this. It would take a huge Democratic wave which is even less likely in a mid-term with a Democratic president.
Apples to oranges.
The article you cite predicts a massive GOP wave. The eventuality was... a massive GOP wave. That he did not nail the precise magnitude of the wave says absolutely nothing about his current early assessment of the Democrats being 'unlikely' (an assessment with which I fully agree, because it is rather obvious) to take the House in 2014.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
