Election Reform
Related: About this forumGerrymandering beats actual votes
In a counter to the oft repeated line that demography is destiny, National Journal argues the competitive edge Democrats expected to gain from increasing racial diversity may have been effectively counterbalanced by pro-Republican redistricting.
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=78133&qid=3722857
......
Since Democrats collected more votes than Republicans in EACH of the last THREE elections yet GOP won the seats, my comment on the argument is: 'DUH!'
..
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)This is why Hillary is going to tailor her campaign to winning the Middle Class Votes. And nothing short of that will do. She has to capture the thirteen big states and in there lies the hard work.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,029 posts)victories. I know "both sides do it," but, as with most things, the Teabagger-dominated Republican party has taken it to the extreme. This and voter suppression have made election results express the will of a RW minority.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write, "Democrats collected more votes than Republicans in EACH of the last THREE elections...."
You're right that, in the 2012 House elections, Democratic candidates collected more votes but Republican candidates won more seats. In 2014, however, my recollection is that Republican candidates collected more votes (although their preponderance in the new House was greater than would have been the case without gerrymandering).
Panich52
(5,829 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Before posting I made a quick search and couldn't find the numbers. (I didn't have time to give the research the full-court press.) That's why I was guarded in my wording.
It doesn't matter too much -- we both agree that gerrymandering boosts the Republicans and that, in 2012, it turned a minority (of votes) into a majority (of seats). Those are the important points.