E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated 12:50 pm ET: Democrats won the House popular vote – those who voted in House elections -- but only made modest gains and Republican retained control of the body.
Why? Redistricting was a big reason. Republicans controlled key governorships and state legislatures, winning several of those important, but out-of-the-spotlight races over the past few cycles.
And a Republican pollster says, “There’s no crying in redistricting.” That’s because this isn’t the first time this disparity has been seen. In fact, the tables were turned in the 1970s and 1980s.
Bill McInturff, the Republican pollster who conducts the NBC-WSJ poll with Democrat Peter Hart, notes in an email and three-page memo:
“Republicans captured 49.4% of the two-party vote for Congress in 2012, yet won 54% of the seats in the House. This gap between the Republican vote and the seats they won is on the high side, but certainly not without precedent over the past 40 years. If you began your career as a Republican trying to win the House in the 1970s and 1980s, you would adopt, as I do, the borrowed adage ‘there’s no crying in redistricting.’”
From the memo:
“During the Reagan sweep in 1980, Republicans essentially broke even in terms of the two-party vote cast (49%), yet were only able to win 44% of the seats…the same type five point gap being bemoaned today. Similarly, there was an especially large gap between the Republican percentage of the vote in 1990 versus the percentage of seats won (46% of the vote, 38% of the seats).”
According to the attached tables provided by McInturff, however, there has never been an instance -- aside from 2012 -- in which one party won a majority of the popular vote, but not a majority of seats. 1980, as noted above, came the closest.
"Yes," that's true, McInturff said in a follow-up email, "because the 1970s and 1980 lines were so massively unfair ... and, of course, there's probably no question Republicans, on balance, 'baked in' an important advantage with this set of lines around the country."
McInturff concludes:
“Finally, having said that, there is a legitimate public policy discussion about the merits of there being a relationship between the votes cast by the American electorate and the composition of the House. Don’t worry. Forty years of data suggest if a party is able to convince a comfortable majority of Americans to vote for their congressional candidates, they will be rewarded with a majority of the House. As always, though, a relative tie goes to the existing party in power.”
McInturff as well as the liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress, says with this current redistricting map, Democrats would like need to win by about 7 percentage points to take back the House.
Leave a Comment:
Between GOP gerrymandering, voter suppression, and their buddies who put in place Citizens' United - the Republican party thinks it will just pursue its goals has it has been doing:
- And never mind election results.
- And never mind what the American people have loudly and repeatedly said they want, on critical 21st century issues.
Time for GOP to go BYE
I would say that Democrats need to work a little harder and get out and vote in 2014 so that we can rid the poisonous few that make up the Republican controlled House, starting with John Boehner.
Outhouse: As Barry famously said: "Elections have consequences and we won."
Suck it up and learn to live with it.
Life is good.
Enjoy.
Joe in Albany
tell me how is it that certain Republican-controlled states were won by Obama but the House seat went to a Republican?
In Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia and Pennsylvania only a small number of seats from each state went to Democrats despite the fact that Obama won all of them.
We all know that the only way Republicans can win these days is by cheating so you have no choice but to be ok with this. But a day will come when people like Rick "Medicare Fraud" Scott will no longer be able to limit people's ability to vote by liting hours and forcing them to wait 4 hrs to cast their vote.
In Philadelphia, there were numerous districts where Obama won 100.00% of the vote and Romney did not even benefit from a single "error in casting a ballot" ! Imagine that !!
Somewhere the probability curve of statistics was totally overtaken by what appears to be a rather "Curious" vote. What you really have is MASSIVE FRAUD ... but that's okie dokie with libs because the fraud was in favor of FInancial Moron-in-Chief who resides in the White House.
Oh, and Bay-Lie at #1.4, as soon as you say in your last paragraph "We all know that ...." yadda, yadda garbage infinitum .... you lose ALL credibility.
Yes.
This President won by more votes than any Democratic President in modern history. The majority is in favor of President Obama's agenda.
By comparison:
GOP lied and bought their way into 2010, with the help of SCOTUS.
For 4 years, McConnell and gop crew voted against every Jobs bill - and refused to bring the ACA (2 million jobs) to the floor for debate.
@ jim: Source, please. Otherwise......STFU.
The rural parts of my state that voted in our Tea Party governor are the very parts that are suffering the most under his policies. For example, the Republican-controlled legislature voted to allow health insurance companies to charge rural residents higher premiums, as they are not as close to hospitals, upping costs. The governor reduced taxes on the wealthiest, those mostly live along the coast and vote Democratic, while cutting Medicaid, the recipients of live in the right-wing voting districts
Eventually, these rural Republican voters are going to catch on...Tea Party beverages are only for those with crystal champagne flutes.
Life is good for Joe in Albany because he lives in a bastion of Democrats.
Democrats must NOW begin the process of amending the Senate filibuster rules.
Then, we must seek to enforce the Voting Rights Act such that Gerrymandering is greatly reduced.
Further, the Voting Rights Act should be strengthened to forbid much of the current crop of GOPeaParty shenanigans aimed at disenfranchising democrats and independents.
AlaskaGirl ...
Has little jim EVER had a source for anything?
Only for his mind altering drugs.
Because Libtards have NEVER gerrymandered... pleeeeaaassseee... Democratic districts in the 70s and 80s looked like a plate of pasta.... now let's see how many of these deadbeat Obamabots we can loop, squiggle, and lollipop into a district...
Voter suppression? Voter fraud! More votes in some districts than registered voters... tell me how that happens???
Voter suppression? Voter fraud! More votes in some districts than registered voters... tell me how that happens???
As I said to little jimmy, "Source, please." Otherwise, STFU.
politics is local. the democrats convinced folks for the national election that things would be better with the same president and his same policies. at the local level where they have a greater level of interest and the impact of their local elected folks they vote generally went to the folks that they felt would do a better job.
whining about gerrymandering is a waste -- both sides do it -- done.
lots of claims of voter fraud and cheating but no facts to back it up. personal opinions and nothing else.
so many here try to impose their opinion on the rest of us -- it goes both ways -- but when facts related to a particular story emerge one side goes still.
Alaska Girl, Get off your lazy a$$ and do your own homework . Or as John Boehner told Harry Reid, Go f_ck yourself. Your weak-ass attempt to silence my posts is embedded in your arrogance that this is a "liberal-only" website.
I first learned about the "gerrymandering" concept way back in elementary school and all you are doing is whining because the American electorate did not see fit to give Obama a rubber stamp to do whatever he wants.
Again, get off your gluteus maximus, and do your own homework.
jim-1455434
how is this relevant to redisticting?
and show me proof of those districts in Philly where 100% of vote went to Obama. PLEASE! Other than Fox News PLEASE!
Ok Jim, they were also areas that voted 100% for Romney and Obama received zero votes. Hint: some of the southern districts in southern states. Why is that Jim??
And like you said, if you want the source, get off your a$$ and do your own homework to find it.
AlaskaGirl-759554
he got it off Fox News or other irrelevant conservative blogs.
you think he will actually use this? I even narrowed it down to Philly County for him!
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx
For all the gerrymandered "safe" districts for TeaPeople, why won't those who are elected tell their constituents the truth......
Truth about cuts to safety net programs that are there for seniors, disabled, poor, vets, etc....Afterall, they supposedly are safe, so go ahead and tell the truth.
Oops, guess not so safe afterall.....gotta keep lying about 'stop the spending'.
Oh Bay-LIE, right from the start ... you want to EXCLUDE a source, even if it directly referenced a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer .... that actually BOTHERED to report on this "anomaly" ! How "Convenient" of you !!
First, I will make a minor clarification ... it was in 59 "divisions" defined as subsets of wards wherein fewer than 1,000 people might be registered to vote. In those 59 "divisions", GOP nominee Mitt Romney failed to win a single vote (imagine that, not even one "error" in 59 districts ... why it's a miracle) and the vote total was 19,065 for Obama versus 0 for Romney ! LOL !!! Even Ripley's may not beleive that one !!!!
Go to Google. type in Obama results in Philadelphia, read the article by James Rosen which directly references a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer and READ .... R.I. F. ..... Reading is Fundamental !
And one final point, go back and read YOUR final question in #1.4 about how is this relevant ? YOU asked the question .... one district won by an enormous percentage can override many districts where the other side wins in a close race.
Oh, but the story doesn't end there.
First off, realize that the "59 divisions" are in a predominantly African-American part of the City of Philadelphia. You wouldn't expect Romney to get many votes there, if any.
Second, these "divisions" are quite small, each might have about 600 or so registered voters. So it's entirely possible to go knock on doors and try to find someone who voted for Romney.
Well, guess what? Some reporters for the Philadelphia Inquirer (don't be confused by the name -- this is a major mainstream newspaper) did just that! Better yet, they got voter registration lists and zeroed in on registered Republicans in those divisions. Here's what they found:
Although voter registration lists, which often contain outdated information, show 12 Republicans live in the ward's third division, The Inquirer was unable to find any of them by calling or visiting their homes.
Four of the registered Republicans no longer lived there; four others didn't answer their doors. City Board of Elections registration data say a registered Republican used to live at 25th and York Streets, but none of the neighbors across the street Friday knew him. Cathy Santos, 56, founder of the National Alliance of Women Veterans, had one theory: "We ran him out of town!" she said and laughed.
James Norris, 19, who lives down the street, is listed as a Republican in city data. But he said he's a Democrat and voted for Obama because he thinks the president will help the middle class.
A few blocks away, Eric Sapp, a 42-year-old chef, looked skeptical when told that city data had him listed as a registered Republican. "I got to check on that," said Sapp, who voted for Obama.
Eighteen Republicans reportedly live in the nearby 15th Division, according to city registration records. The 15th has the distinction of pitching two straight Republican shutouts - zero votes for McCain in 2008, zero for Romney on Tuesday. Oh, and 13 other city divisions did the same thing in 2008 and 2012.
Three of the 15th's registered Republicans were listed as living in the same apartment, but the tenant there said he had never heard of them. The addresses of several others could not be found.
On West Albert Street, Duke Dunston says he knows he's a registered Republican, but he's never voted for one.
So, if you want to know why Mitt Romney registered zero votes in those mostly-black neighborhoods in Philly, here's a better theory for you: it's because he didn't get any votes there.
Funny that, with all of the might and money of the Republican party, not one single Romney voter from any of those divisions has ever been found. And yes, this was covered by the Philly papers as well as national media, so you would surely think that just one such voter would be aware of the issue and would contact the party to raise a big stink.
Not one?
All sizzle, no steak here.
Excellente! Thank you, RonB for filling in the gaps that, one jimnumbers curiously left out. What a tool jim is.
Oh, Alaska Girl, you STILL FAILED to explain how no one, NO ONE at all ...out of 19,065 votes made a single error ! The statistical probability of that alone is somewhere in outer space. Geez ... when Al Gore lost Florida years ago, that was part of the great Democratic Party battle cry for claiming that Al Gore had really won .... WHEN HE DID NOT !!
As to the garbage above, I fail to see a citation so he is either plagiarizing someone else's response or he is making stuff up. Perhaps he can reveal his source.
Speaking of lying AK girl, you earlier today claimed legislative districts in four different corners of a state ! LOL !! Did you EVER reply to that challenge or did you simply get caught lying ??
jim, I really encourage you to seek mental health attention. Once again, I did not make any assertions whatsoever about legislative districts, so get your head out of your ass. If you have a beef, I suggest you take it up with the poster who actually did make the comment because it was not me. Better yet, go to my page and see exactly all the comments that I have made today and you will finally see that I did not make any comments about @!$%# that went down in PA. Okay, I have grown very tired of you. I simply cannot imagine ANY woman being able to put up with you without the aid of alot of alcohol and weed.
oh jimmy,
yes, if it makes you less informed, and Fox News does just that...you are better off shutting off your TV so start there.
district, divisions, both words starting with d but what a different meaning. You claimed DISTRICTS so we asked for proof. You can only be mad at your own stupidity.
again, the question had to do with REDISTRICTING so why don't you admit that your comment about divisions (and massive fraud as you suggested) has nothing to do with the topic and is totally unsubstantiated .
btw, you are trying so hard but you fail to realize that the issue is not with presidential candidate vs. presidential candidate. The redistricting (aka Gerrymandering) has all to do with a fact that a presidential candidate wins the state but the members of his party running for Congress do not - even if they won the popular vote in that state.
you need to work on your analogical reasoning.
bayllie, you are awesome!
Gosh, Jim, suddenly you want me to do your homework for you?
I think you can easily Google what I did and find the Inquirer article from which I took a small quote.
Plagiarism? I think you might want to look up the definition, my friend. I cited my source. End of inquiry.
So, Jim, I've given a perfectly plausible report of an investigation of what I grant is an interesting voting result.
I'd say that, if you still want to cry about foul play, the ball's in your court. Voter rolls are public records. When are you and Rush and Hannity going to hit the Philly streets and knock on doors? Have you got someone who claims to have voted for Romney there?
Until then, I'm joining the choir.
We're singing the "STFU Chorus."
Unfortunately, my edit seems not to have made it in time. I apologize if this is redundant.
But, Jim seems to posit that at least some African-American voters just must have mistakenly voted for Romney. How could it be, he wonders, that there were zero mistakes in 59 largely black neighborhoods.
All I can tell you is that I worked in the polls in the last two presidential elections. And if you want to suggest to me that urban black voters somehow mistakenly voted for Romney? Let me just say: no.
That did not happen.
Let me say that again.
That did not happen.
What Conservatives understand that Liberals have been slow to grasp is that EVERY election matters. Republicans put on a big push in 2010 partly BECAUSE they'd be able to make exactly those changes to congressional districts. They did the same thing in 2000 for the same reason. Like it or not (and I don't) Conservatives played the game better in 2010 and are reaping the rewards.
That said I would recommend the nonpartisan Iowa process for redistricting as a model to be emulated around the country. A nonpartisan group works in secrecy to produce a map that must comply with very strict requirements -- 1) Population should be as equal as practicable among the proposed districts, 2) No county shall be divided into multiple congressional districts, 3) Districts MUST be contiguous, 4) Districts must be compact, and 5) Political registration and most other nonpopulation demographics are by law excluded from consideration.
Once the nonpartisan board releases their proposal the legislature cannot amend it, only vote it up or down. Likewise the Governor can only accept or veto, not change in any way the proposal. If the plan is rejected the board will convene again and produce a second plan, or a third. The third is subject to amendment on a limited time frame before the Supreme Court drafts its own plan.
By doing this neither party gains an unfair advantage, and incumbents quickly agree to one of the plans as they fear the next plan could be really bad for them...but it will ALWAYS be bad for some.
It's a good system, one which has produced outstanding results and (notwithstanding Tea-addled idiot Steve King) a well balanced and relatively moderate group of legislators. As much as it pains me to say it King actually represents the mindset of his western Iowa (eastern Nebraska?) constituents rather well.
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/Central/LSB/Guides/NonpartisanApproach_NCSL_2002.pdf
Jim, at least TRY to post something that hasn't already been ruled false at snopes.com . http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp
AlaskaGirl-759554
so are you :)
RonB from Pittsburgh and John B, Des Moines, IA great posts!
I don't remember Democrats being foolish enough to decide a district consists of several parts of a state.
Republicans on the other hand, have no problem requiring government to spend money for a single district that consists of a small part in the Southeast, another part in the Northeast, and another part in the West. In between these parts, they draw up several more districts.
Payback shall come over the next decade because we are spreading the word and showing Americans that Republicans do not have common sense anymore. The more people we talk to, the more Americans realize today's Republican party is afraid of American voters and afraid of common sense.
BS. Need a link to a district map or, as AlaskaGirl so eloquently put it above STFU.
Thanks! I am feeling pretty eloquent today!
Talk to the Hand and AlaskaGirl...
So you are admitting that what Republicans are doing today will cost them dearly in upcoming elections. Just like it cost Democrats dearly for nearly 20 years.
Ummmm no. What I am saying is I want you to provide a link to a state map that districts itself as you state above.
This should be amusing, Alaska Girl is caught in a LIE ? Could it be ??
If I remember correctly from about the 4th or 5th grade .... it seems like ALL districts had to be "CONTIGUOS" to be legal. If this is true, Alaska Girl will run for the hills !
Talk to the Hand, I hope you don't hold your breath waiting for her to respond. You have caught her in a whopper ! LOL !!
Ahhh, dumbass aka jim: Talk to the Hand was commenting to another poster's comments. In other words, I did not make the comment in question. You guys make this too easy!
yeah liberals wrote the book on election results .
Count Every Vote- Liberal Lie
This was the mantra of the Al Gore campaign after the 2000 presidential election. Liberals were demanding every vote be counted and through legal action votes were counted by hand in 3 highly Democrat voting counties. However- at the same time they were trying to disqualify military votes for various reasons (the main reason- most people in the military vote Republican). Also - please note that that Democrats were not requesting votes be hand counted throughout the state- only in highly Democrat counties. In effect they were trying to change the rules of the election after the election had taken place, which violated federal election law. A liberal Florida Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the Gore Campaign until the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to it. To this very day, liberals actually believe George Bush stole the election. The truth is- liberals were trying to steal the election- but Republicans stopped the theft.
michigan - your entire post is a lie and totally absurd - but just what we expect from you, nothing more. Republicans stole the election for Bush - both times. Mommy and Daddy bought it - as they have everything for the dufus George!
The Florida recount is yet another urban myth. Gore, who is now richer than Romney, would have lost under all scenarios.
The facts are that Gore lost. The SC did NOT hand the election to Bush.
The only way Gore would have won is if West Palm Beach, a decidedly liberal county, hadn't screwed up their ballot and caused votes go to Pat Buchanan, from a highly Jewish county.
Got to love the fact that you have to trust such amateurs when electing the President.
Your name speaks volumes about your ability to present a cogent argument... keep seeking...
Fed Up - oh darlin, been seeking sanity in the Republican party for a long time now and you, Alan, etc., prove daily there is absolutely NONE to be found!
seeking -- but, but i thought christie was one of your favorites or was that just when he allowed obama to get some good photo ops after the storm
McInturff's historical analysis is interesting but relates to a time before Citizens United, which I think has its greatest impact on smaller races like House races and State offices. Add to that voter suppression tactics and gerrymandering and I'm not sure it will be easy to change the balance in the House.
Interesting... even with Citizens United, the right spent less than the Squanderer-in-Chief. Never mind the fawning Liberal Media giving Oblunder free PR at every opportunity, and being outright hostile to Romney the entire campaign. Add voter fraud to that, and it's a miracle that Dems didn't elect a dictator.
So the media was hostile toward Romney during the campaign. Big deal. That just puts them ahead of the curve because the entire republican party has been hostile toward him since approximately 10:00 pm on November 6. The media beat on him for specific reasons, such as his notorious 47% speech and his unwillingness to present any details on his spending cuts agenda. But the republican party has been outwardly hostile toward him since the election simply on the basis of Mitt being Mitt. I ask you. Which is worse...hostility toward campaign issues or hostility toward a man for being "unelectable", "the wrong man for the job" or "disconnected from the people"? The pounding that this man has taken from his own supporters makes what the media did look like school yard teasing.
Congressional voting districts should be as square, in shape, as possible, on a map. Otherwise it is shameless gerrymandering.
If it takes more than the republi-tainted electoral process to unseat them, then that is what that sack of door-knobs and their concubine con-stitchencies will ultimately be faced with.
A minority party of over-lords and their ignorant serfs will not steer the ship for long without running it straight into the iceberg of true American public opinion. The 'merkins better run some lifeboat drills and stay polished up on it because one way or another they're headed overboard.
Joey, Jimmynumbers, and TTTH... For some reason you like the crumbs that accidentally fall to you from a table you really aren't even welcome at. Enjoy the mindless servitude.
Nice! chick binder.
chick binder - oh, they're welcome there - as long as they're clearing the table!
Joey, Jimmynumbers, and TTTH... I love it!
Nixon taught the GOP how to be crooks, too bad he didn't teach them about foreign relations, the environment, health care etc... In the modern GOP Nixon would be a flaming red commie.
Nicely put, chick binder, nice!
It is what it is and we must live with it. Gerrymandering may be a way one party or other thinks they can get a leg up on the others and that may happen in the immediate future but as time passes and people move around disticts change. Parties also change. The Republican party of today is not the same as it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. They are much more extreme. The public will catch on and eventually they will lose and continue to lose regardles of geremandering efforts. In those "Republican" districts where we see a moderate Republican running they may well have an easy election but where there are Tea Partiers or other extremists those districts will very well be a loss for Republicans.
I think that this is only partially true. Much of the republican party is the same as it was 20-40 years ago. But there is an extreme faction that did not really exist prior to today. What is setting up is really a three party system with the republicans breaking down into the Tea Party and the Moderate wings. In some states, being a Tea Party extremist is a valued thing. (See Kansas). In other places, it is a death warrant. (See NJ). Simply because a candidate has Tea Party cred does not mean that this sets up to be a loss for the republicans. What remains to be seen is whether moderate republicans side with the Tea Party to form a republican majority in the House, or whether they get fed up (a la Gov. Christie) and side with democrats, leaving the TP as an insignificant, irrelevant minority. I sense that over the next decade, that is what we will see. The only thing that can save the republican party at this point is to amputate the gangreneous appendage, and that may mean short-term allegiences with the moderate democrats in order to teach the TP folks a lesson in politics. It is no fun being a minority that measures only 20% or so. But as long as the rest of the republicans continue to listen to the shrill cries of that 20%, nothing will ever get done.
Proof that we need serious electoral reform. Federal standards should be issued with which states must comply for all federal elections. There should also be federal oversight of redistricting in all states. Lines should be drawn by non-partisan committees following universal guidelines and be subject to judicial review, not approval by the elected executive or legislative branch of the state or federal government.
Bad comparisons. The 70's and 80's were still periods of Southern Democrats, both those who were actually moderate Democrats and those who ultimately became Republicans. Plus, there was also a bias that treated urban areas as sacrosanct and entitled to their own exclusive representation. But now under the GOP, urban areas (Cleveland, OH) are carved up to dilute Dem votes, or packed in draw all Democrats into one or two districts (Michigan, Ohio and Indiana).
The fair way to do it is to have bipartisan commitees draw up the districts like WA, AZ and CO or to have nonpartisan commitees like NJ and RI.
Republican family values, lie, cheat and steal. You know, like good Christians.
Is this BS funny or what?? With the changes happening today all of the redistricting in the world will not help the Republican party remain relevent after the next decade. they "may" still get 30-35% of the vote for another decade or so but in the end,,,,,,,,,The Democrats have won purely on party policy and acceptance of the changes in demographics nationwide.
I'd advise you not to be overconfident, Bo. The GOPTP is moving very aggressively to enshrine their regressive policies permanently into the American fabric. Gerrymandering, vote suppression, the war on women, and public employees, and public schools, and the entire social welfare system (including Social Security) are all part of an effort to become a one-party government. The wealthy elites who fund all this are mostly old men who realize they have a limited time horizon to see their dreams come to fruition. We have several electoral cycles before the changing demographics become overwhelming.
redistricting the way it is being practiced by the rethugs, is unamerican and a threat to our democracy and is more in line with Fascism and Communism.
the only way rethugs can stay in office is to lie, steal, and cheat. they tied to steal the last election with their phony voter id scam, it had nothing to do with voter fraud and everyone knows that, heck some of them even admitted to it. Go goggle the 14 defining characteristics of Fascism and then compare it to the current GOP, its really kind of scary.
Why cry about this now, Dems? Didn't the Dems do the exact same thing for years? What is good for one is good for the other. Get over it.
Maybe we should remember who the term gerrymander was named after!!!!
And as our illustrious President loves to proclaim, "Elections have consequences!"
If we let them, the GOP will try the rise of the Fourth Reich, right here in the US.... One small step at a time.