View Single Post
Old 11-08-2018, 12:08 PM
Max Torque is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Raiderville, TX
Posts: 10,972
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Oh, gerrymandering definitely kept the Democratic wave from being bigger than it was. In North Carolina, for instance, 10 Republicans were elected to the House, all but one with less than 60% of the vote, as against only 3 Democrats, all of whom got at least 70% in their districts.
This Washington Post link explains it well: How gerrymandering kept Democrats from winning even more seats Tuesday. With 50 percent of the votes, Democrats only won 23 percent of the seats.

This is due to super-packing. Democrats are basically guaranteed 3 seats, but need about a 30-point swing to go from 3 to 4. It wouldn't matter if they got 30% or 50% of the statewide vote, they'd still get three seats. They'd have to get 52.5 percent to pick up a fourth seat.

I don't know where this quote is from, but someone posted it in a discussion on the article:
"I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats," said Rep. David Lewis, a Republican member of the North Carolina General Assembly, addressing fellow legislators when they passed the plan in 2016. "So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country."
He added: "I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it's possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats."