View Single Post
Old 11-09-2018, 04:02 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
I've been hearing it a lot lately. The Republican control of State legislatures in 2010 let them hijack the census and use computers to create hyper-gerrymandered districts to a degree that was never possible before, which is responsible for their recent run of electoral success. In reality, these explanations say, Democrats are a nationwide majority, but they are handicapped in district elections, requiring them to have 10%+ majorities to win these heavily gerrymandered districts.

If so, how did Democrats win the House?
Every single house seat was up for re-election this year. The democrats had a 7% margin and still only picked up a very slim majority. By comparison, the 2010 tea party wave election had about the same margin, but republicans picked up a majority nearly three times the size. Democrats won the house by, in electoral terms, beating the fucking stuffing out of the republicans. And they needed to - anything less than a crushing victory, and the republicans hold the house despite losing the popular vote. That's because of gerrymandering.

Are we to believe they'd have won significantly more seats than they did, if not stymied by Republican gerrymandering?
Absolutely! North Carolina makes this really clear. Due to a partisan Gerrymander, democrats are packed into a handful of districts. The democrats got 49.7% of the votes, but only took 23% of the seats! Were it actually proportional, the blue wave would have been far larger.

Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If Democrats would disperse themselves so that they moved en masse from California and New York into low-population states like Wyoming, they would totally reshape the political landscape, but they don't want to do that.
On a collective level, if we all did that, then eventually these places might have blue majorities. Then, eventually, we might be able to pass legislature that makes those states less abominable to live in. But before then, why in god's name would we ever want to move there?!

Take Kansas for example. Kansas has a population of about 3 million (34th largest), so while it's not the easiest target, it's still very much "on the map", as it were. Kansas's republican statehouse has firmly driven the state's economy into the crapper. And we're supposed to move there, in the hopes that enough of us move there to change local politics and make it less of a terrible place to be? Fuck that noise.