Well, Ok, I am not gonna say they deliberately set up this glitch. But they knew about it, knew it would give Cruz a big advantage and did nothing to fix it. It’s fraud.
O*ldham says it’s a problem he’s seen for years.
He even told the Secretary of State about it years ago and it’s still happening.
…
Oldham tells us he recalls the problems for at least six years and says he’s talked to the Secretary of State more than once about the problem. It has not been fixed aside from signs provided by the Secretary of State to warn voters to check their selections.*
Uh-oh. I did vote straight Democrat, but did change one vote to Republican on a local level. Gosh, I’ll never forgive myself if I voted for Cruz and didn’t even know it. So is there a way to find out?
Pennsylvania previously had the same disparity, but unlike North Carolina they couldn’t ignore the court rulings and were forced to redistrict. As a result, the outcome of seats won this time much more closely reflects the balance of votes cast.
Q. It isn’t an unknown phenomenon in Aust for voters in State and Federal elections to vote the US equivalent of Blue for the House and Red for the Senate or vice versa.
Our version of checks & balances if you like.
Is this split ticket voting similarly in effect state side or is it predominantly voting straight ticket.
You certainly can do it, but it’s becoming much rarer, at least at the federal level. When vote-splitting occurs, it’s usually between one party for federal offices like President and the two houses of Congress, and the other party for local offices, because local politics is always different.
Hahahaha. You’re a hoot. Are you actually suggesting that by 1818, the Illinois border had been deliberately drawn with the intention of giving the not-yet-created GOP an edge in the 2018 elections?
No, the Senate was set up to give an edge to states without as many people. The Republican party just happens to be the current beneficiary of that bit of blatant unfairness.
I’m a Democrat, but I doubt that Beto lost due to straight ticket Democratic votes changing to Cruz. If that had been the case I think it would have shown up with a pattern where, say, Lupe Valdez would have done better against Greg Abbott because the governor votes weren’t flipped like the ones for senate were. Instead Beto did better than Lupe Valdez did, likely due to some old school (Bush type) Republicans splitting their vote.
Cruz won by around three and a half percent. In a large state like Texas, though, that’s a quarter million votes. It wouldn’t surprise me if a small handful of votes changed, but I doubt it was that many.
ETA. A while back I commented about this issue in the O’rourke thread. Flipping a few percentage points is a lot more difficult in Texas due to the absolute number of voters each percent represents.
That depends on how you’re flipping the votes. If you’re flipping them via a glitch (intentional or otherwise) in the machines used all across the state, then it doesn’t matter how big the state is.
It’s worth noting that North Carolina can’t ignore the court ruling either, the court just ruled that it didn’t have to correct the districts for the 2018 elections because it agreed with the GOP argument there wasn’t enough time to do so properly and hold elections by election day. They will have to have new court approved maps active for State legislative and U.S. House districts for the 2020 election.
I decided to look at the lowest 25 states by population (i.e. the states that are median or lower population), I labeled them as either D or R states, and there’s a GOP advantage of 15-10. So while real, it’s not as dire as is made out, and several of the R states are ones where there’s signs Dems could be competitive in the nearish future like Kansas and Iowa (Iowa is arguably closer to being a purple state if you look at their last 10 year history, Kansas just had Democrats pick up U.S. House Seats and the Governorship which speaks to ability to win statewide races.) Not to mention some of the R states have D Senators: MT, WV.
Republicans actually have advantages in a lot of states with higher than median populations:
TX, FL, OH, GA, NC, AZ, TN, IN, MO, SC, AL, LA are all 25th or higher in population, note that TX, FL, OH, GA, NC are all top 10 states population wise.
Many of these states are “purple” or regularly vigorously contested, but at least as of right this instant Republicans hold most of the cards in these states.
California represents fairly hilariously bad sorting for Democrats, because it’s so massively liberal, and could actually be split into four states, each of which would have more people than Michigan (so they’d all be tied for about the 10th most populous state) and all 8 of those U.S. Senate seats would go to Democrats.
One of the basic principles of good ballot design is that the names should not all be in the same order on all ballots, but should have multiple orderings, randomly selected. This would have prevented (or at least, significantly mitigated) both this problem, and the 2000 butterfly ballot problem. And people have known that this is good practice for ages.
May I hijack this thread for a moment and point out that this discussion is why the law mandating election by districts should be repealed and states allowed to use at-large proportional representation.