Shocking: Democrats got more votes in races for the House of Representitives.

[techs]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2096978.html

Democratic House Candidates Received More Votes Than Republicans

While Republicans hung onto control of the House of Representatives after Tuesday's election, Democratic candidates across the U.S. received more total votes than Republican candidates did.

While not all ballots have been counted, Democrats hold an edge over Republicans in overall votes. According to ThinkProgress, 53,952,240 votes were cast for Democratic candidates, while Republican candidates received 53,402,643. However, thanks in part to redistricting, Republicans will hold more than half the seats in the House while receiving less than half of overall votes.

In Pennsylvania, for example, President Barack Obama received 52 percent of the vote, compared with Mitt Romney's 46.8 percent total. However, Democrats won only five of the state's 18 seats in the House of Representatives. As Slate's Dave Weigel points out, the state's congressional districts have been gerrymandered to keep suburban and rural areas red. Ohio shows a similar trend, with just four of the state's 16 seats going blue.

After Tuesday's election, the House total for next term stands at 234 Republicans to 195 Democrats, with six races still uncalled. Democrats currently lead in five of those six races. If those five win, Democrats will have picked up a net gain of seven House seats.

[EagleKeeper]

What would you expect.
You have heavily populated blue states

Liberals/Democrats here (and wherre ever they get their talking points from) seem to not have comprehension that voting does not cross state boundaries.

[pcgeek11]

Originally Posted by techs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2096978.html

Democratic House Candidates Received More Votes Than Republicans

While Republicans hung onto control of the House of Representatives after Tuesday's election, Democratic candidates across the U.S. received more total votes than Republican candidates did.

While not all ballots have been counted, Democrats hold an edge over Republicans in overall votes. According to ThinkProgress, 53,952,240 votes were cast for Democratic candidates, while Republican candidates received 53,402,643. However, thanks in part to redistricting, Republicans will hold more than half the seats in the House while receiving less than half of overall votes.

In Pennsylvania, for example, President Barack Obama received 52 percent of the vote, compared with Mitt Romney's 46.8 percent total. However, Democrats won only five of the state's 18 seats in the House of Representatives. As Slate's Dave Weigel points out, the state's congressional districts have been gerrymandered to keep suburban and rural areas red. Ohio shows a similar trend, with just four of the state's 16 seats going blue.

After Tuesday's election, the House total for next term stands at 234 Republicans to 195 Democrats, with six races still uncalled. Democrats currently lead in five of those six races. If those five win, Democrats will have picked up a net gain of seven House seats.

Do you really need help figuring this out? Really?

[eskimospy]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper

What would you expect.
You have heavily populated blue states

Liberals/Democrats seem to not have comprehension that voting does not cross state boundaries.

I do not think you understand how house apportionment works, so you might not want to wonder too much about what liberals think. The entire point is to make representation equal for X number of citizens. Whether they reside in a heavily populated state or not doesn't matter.

The only time it matters at all is when states have such a small population that due to rounding you end up with a modest disparity. That is not at all the cause of this problem, however.

Go look at a map of PA's congressional races and tell me if you think that accurately represents a state that Obama won by 6 points. Remember that every district is approximately equal in population. Then come back and try to argue big state small state.

EDIT: Here is the map of Pennsylvania, a state Obama won by actually a bit less than 6 points. If the HOR apportionment were working as intended you would see about a 50/50 district split, maybe 1 or 2 extra for the Democrats. Instead you see this:


But hey guys, big states small states, amirite?

[Phokus]

It's because of a very successful effort by republicans to gerrymander districts.

By any means necessary i guess.

[Ausm]

Originally Posted by eskimospy

I do not think you understand how house apportionment works, so you might not want to wonder too much about what liberals think. The entire point is to make representation equal for X number of citizens. Whether they reside in a heavily populated state or not doesn't matter.

The only time it matters at all is when states have such a small population that due to rounding you end up with a modest disparity. That is not at all the cause of this problem, however.

Go look at a map of PA's congressional races and tell me if you think that accurately represents a state that Obama won by 6 points. Remember that every district is approximately equal in population. Then come back and try to argue big state small state.

+1

[Ausm]

Originally Posted by Phokus

It's because of a very successful effort by republicans to gerrymander districts.

By any means necessary i guess.

Also this!

[EagleKeeper]

You have a 1% difference in the vote total between the two parties.

Districts are not equal populations.
Some are safe districts where the amount of voters for one party greatly outnumber that of the other.
The district next door may have more of a 50/50 split.

As example, if each has 100 people; the first district may have 80/20 split and the other a 45/55.
the first district is drawn to guarantee a seat; the other has the left overs and is up fro grabs.

Nothing says that people need to vote the party line. In PA that happened in Bucks county; a Republican got a higher percentage of Dem votes than Obama did.

Is someone going to state that the Dems do not gerrymander districts.

Originally Posted by Phokus

It's because of a very successful effort by republicans to gerrymander districts.

By any means necessary i guess.

Look at CA as a perfect example.
35% Republican; they do not have 35% of the seats.
Why?
the boundaries are drawn to exclude that ratio - where are the Dems complaining that that is not fair.

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by eskimospy

I do not think you understand how house apportionment works, so you might not want to wonder too much about what liberals think. The entire point is to make representation equal for X number of citizens. Whether they reside in a heavily populated state or not doesn't matter.

The only time it matters at all is when states have such a small population that due to rounding you end up with a modest disparity. That is not at all the cause of this problem, however.

Go look at a map of PA's congressional races and tell me if you think that accurately represents a state that Obama won by 6 points. Remember that every district is approximately equal in population. Then come back and try to argue big state small state.

EDIT: Here is the map of Pennsylvania, a state Obama won by actually a bit less than 6 points. If the HOR apportionment were working as intended you would see about a 50/50 district split, maybe 1 or 2 extra for the Democrats. Instead you see this:


But hey guys, big states small states, amirite?

where are the Blue votes concentrated in.

The two big population areas and the union coal district
Expected.

Rural areas are not so liberal
Also, why do people have to vote the party lines; they vote based on who they feel best represent them.

Maybe the rural areas think rather than toe.

[MomentsofSanity]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper

You have a 1% difference in the vote total between the two parties.

Districts are not equal populations.
Some are safe districts where the amount of voters for one party greatly outnumber that of the other.
The district next door may have more of a 50/50 split.

As example, if each has 100 people; the first district may have 80/20 split and the other a 45/55.
the first district is drawn to guarantee a seat; the other has the left overs and is up fro grabs.

Nothing says that people need to vote the party line. In PA that happened in Bucks county; a Republican got a higher percentage of Dem votes than Obama did.

Is someone going to state that the Dems do not gerrymander districts.


Look at CA as a perfect example.
35% Republican; they do not have 35% of the seats.
Why?
the boundaries are drawn to exclude that ratio - where are the Dems complaining that that is not fair.

I don't think it's quite meaningful to look at the popular vote in any US election until it actually means something. People in Red and Blue states stay home when it's pointless for them to vote. The outcomes are already well established.

To use those numbers to compare to districting or even the EC which people have been doing lately just seems pointless to me.

[eskimospy]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper

You have a 1% difference in the vote total between the two parties.

Districts are not equal populations.
Some are safe districts where the amount of voters for one party greatly outnumber that of the other.
The district next door may have more of a 50/50 split.

As example, if each has 100 people; the first district may have 80/20 split and the other a 45/55.
the first district is drawn to guarantee a seat; the other has the left overs and is up fro grabs.

Nothing says that people need to vote the party line. In PA that happened in Bucks county; a Republican got a higher percentage of Dem votes than Obama did.

Is someone going to state that the Dems do not gerrymander districts.


Look at CA as a perfect example.
35% Republican; they do not have 35% of the seats.
Why?
the boundaries are drawn to exclude that ratio - where are the Dems complaining that that is not fair.

Ah ha! You are at least shifting to better arguments now. It's not about the size of the state, but the concentration of its districts.

You are right that the average Democratic district tends to be more Democratic than the average Republican one. This is in fact one of the big reasons for the disparity, of course a lot of this is also the result of gerrymandering by Republicans. So really you are in fact describing the result of a successful gerrymander and then trying to use it to explain away the problem?

No one has said that Democrats don't use gerrymandering, but since Republicans controlled many more state legislatures when the boundaries were redrawn, they did a lot more of it. This is of course why I've always been against partisan drawing of electoral districts. It's wrong no matter who does it.

That political parties try to screw with the rules to get seats they shouldn't have isn't new. Where it is relevant here however is that the Republicans seem to be claiming that because they held the House that people were endorsing their behavior over the last 2 years. In fact, the popular vote for House elections swung nearly seven points. As a point of comparison the Republican "landslide" of 2010 came from a net swing of ten points. Amazing how 10 points in their favor is a mandate, but seven points against them is an endorsement of their policies.

[nehalem256]

Black people vote 90+% for Democrats.

Black people live in concentrated urban areas that will pretty much inherently be in 1 district.

Maybe Democrats should start trying to appeal to white and (men/married women) if they want to retake control of the house?

[eskimospy]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper

where are the Blue votes concentrated in.

The two big population areas and the union coal district
Expected.

Rural areas are not so liberal
Also, why do people have to vote the party lines; they vote based on who they feel best represent them.

Maybe the rural areas think rather than toe.

I genuinely don't understand your argument. Why does it matter if an area is rural or urban? This is not the United States and the Electoral College. Rural areas of states gain exactly zero apportionment advantage for house seats. zero.

The only part that makes sense is that people don't have to vote party line. While this is true, they often do. When you look at districts that are truly tossups the congressional vote and the presidential vote are often quite close to one another. What is your explanation for why this is suddenly so different in PA?

[eskimospy]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Black people vote 90+% for Democrats.

Black people live in concentrated urban areas that will pretty much inherently be in 1 district.

Maybe Democrats should start trying to appeal to white and (men/married women) if they want to retake control of the house?

Concentrated urban areas do not need to inherently be in one district, that is obviously false by even a cursory look at apportionment throughout the country.

House districts are about population. If a lot of people live in one area, they get more than one district. In a correctly apportioned state there should be no advantage or disadvantage to urban areas.

[Ausm]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper

where are the Blue votes concentrated in.

The two big population areas and the union coal district
Expected.

Rural areas are not so liberal
Also, why do people have to vote the party lines; they vote based on who they feel best represent them.

Maybe the rural areas think rather than toe.

They think Rethugs represent blue collar working rural people? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hopefully someday soon they will wake up and smell the coffee.

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Black people vote 90+% for Democrats.

Black people live in concentrated urban areas that will pretty much inherently be in 1 district.

Maybe Democrats should start trying to appeal to white and (men/married women) if they want to retake control of the house?

That's demonstrably false overall, and where it's true, it just demonstrates the lingering effects of prejudice & de facto segregation.

[techs]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper

You have a 1% difference in the vote total between the two parties.

Districts are not equal populations.
Some are safe districts where the amount of voters for one party greatly outnumber that of the other.
The district next door may have more of a 50/50 split.

Look at CA as a perfect example.
35% Republican; they do not have 35% of the seats.
Why?
the boundaries are drawn to exclude that ratio - where are the Dems complaining that that is not fair.

I had to quote this because it is so wrong.
Districst ARE equal populations. There are about a little over 700,000 people in each House district. The only exceptions are when a state has less than 700,000 they still get one district. The other exceptions is that since each district must be entirely within one state that sometimes you can have more than 700,000 because you don't have quite enough to get another seat.

California actually uses a very fair system that takes away the possibility of gerrymandering by using a formula instead of it being done by the legislature. The fact that California doesn't have exactly 35 percent House seats held by Republicans is because sometimes people don't elect someone from the majority and more importantly once a party because a very small minority the results tend to skew them down to an even lower percentage. For example, a party that gets 5 percent of the vote will almost always get no seats unless all of them lived in a highly concentrated area.

The problem is that the Republicans have used the new demographics available in the modern computer age to draw wildly discontinuous districts that put high proportions of Democratics in some districts while putting just enough Republicans in other districts to give them representation far outside what could be expected if districts were drawn fairly.

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by Ausm

They think Rethugs represent blue collar working rural people? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hopefully someday soon they will wake up and smell the coffee.

According to this discussion, your Obama BLUE state does.

[shortylickens]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Black people vote 90+% for Democrats.

Black people live in concentrated urban areas that will pretty much inherently be in 1 district.

Maybe Democrats should start trying to appeal to white and (men/married women) if they want to retake control of the house?

Their whole platform is "you are evil if yur white and straight". I am amazed so many dumbasses voted for Obama a second time. I guess nobody realizes he wants to replace them all the hispanic illegals.

[techs]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Black people vote 90+% for Democrats.

Black people live in concentrated urban areas that will pretty much inherently be in 1 district.

Maybe Democrats should start trying to appeal to white and (men/married women) if they want to retake control of the house?

Uh, white people live in concentrated rural areas that are overwhelmingly 90+% white.
Your logic fails.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by techs

Uh, white people live in concentrated rural areas that are overwhelmingly 90+% white.
Your logic fails.

Do you even know what rural means?

It seems like what you are proposing is that we just do a nationwide popular vote for the House of Representative and then hand control over to whichever side wins.

Which ever party wins by even 1 vote should have complete control of the country.

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by techs

I had to quote this because it is so wrong.
Districst ARE equal populations. There are about a little over 700,000 people in each House district. The only exceptions are when a state has less than 700,000 they still get one district. The other exceptions is that since each district must be entirely within one state that sometimes you can have more than 700,000 because you don't have quite enough to get another seat.

California actually uses a very fair system that takes away the possibility of gerrymandering by using a formula instead of it being done by the legislature. The fact that California doesn't have exactly 35 percent House seats held by Republicans is because sometimes people don't elect someone from the majority and more importantly once a party because a very small minority the results tend to skew them down to an even lower percentage. For example, a party that gets 5 percent of the vote will almost always get no seats unless all of them lived in a highly concentrated area.

The problem is that the Republicans have used the new demographics available in the modern computer age to draw wildly discontinuous districts that put high proportions of Democratics in some districts while putting just enough Republicans in other districts to give them representation far outside what could be expected if districts were drawn fairly.

And you also want to claim that the Democrats to not try to pack districts when they control the legislature.

The only reason at this time that the results are such is that the voters back in 2010 put more Republicans in charge of their local government. Why; apparently they had some concerns witht he Democrats in charge of local government.

When Dems were in charge of the states back on 2000; they rewrote districts in their favor.

But that is ancient history and has no bearing.

What the voters want does not matter. they do not know what is best for them; only big government does.

[techs]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper

And you also want to claim that the Democrats to not try to pack districts when they control the legislature.

The only reason at this time that the results are such is that the voters back in 2010 put more Republicans in charge of their local government. Why; apparently they had some concerns witht he Democrats in charge of local government.

When Dems were in charge of the states back on 2000; they rewrote districts in their favor.

But that is ancient history and has no bearing.

What the voters want does not matter. they do not know what is best for them; only big government does.

Once again your knowledge is incomplete.
Many Democratic states use a predertimed set of rules to apportion house districts and it is independent of the State legislatures.
It has been the Republicans who have led the charge in using newly available demographic data to pack democratic districts and make Republican districts winnable with as few votes as possible.

The reality is that it is not equivalent. The Republicans have led the charge in this area and have been hugely successful. The proof is in the proportions in the upcoming Congress and the popular vote.

It is the very fact of Republican gerrymandering in many states and the fact that they will undoubtedly continue this that makes it impossible for the Republicans to attract minorities.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by techs

I had to quote this because it is so wrong.
Districst ARE equal populations. There are about a little over 700,000 people in each House district. The only exceptions are when a state has less than 700,000 they still get one district. The other exceptions is that since each district must be entirely within one state that sometimes you can have more than 700,000 because you don't have quite enough to get another seat.

California actually uses a very fair system that takes away the possibility of gerrymandering by using a formula instead of it being done by the legislature. The fact that California doesn't have exactly 35 percent House seats held by Republicans is because sometimes people don't elect someone from the majority and more importantly once a party because a very small minority the results tend to skew them down to an even lower percentage. For example, a party that gets 5 percent of the vote will almost always get no seats unless all of them lived in a highly concentrated area.

The problem is that the Republicans have used the new demographics available in the modern computer age to draw wildly discontinuous districts that put high proportions of Democratics in some districts while putting just enough Republicans in other districts to give them representation far outside what could be expected if districts were drawn fairly.

Please show us this district without a continuous boundary.

And as for highly concentrated area. You mean like Democrats do in Pennsylvania? 4/5 of their districts cover very little area.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/PA/house

The only district that is even close is 12. Democrats just fail to appeal to Pennsylvanians outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Stop blaming Republicans for being unable to appeal beyond a certain demographic.

[techs]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Please show us this district without a continuous boundary.

And as for highly concentrated area. You mean like Democrats do in Pennsylvania? 4/5 of their districts cover very little area.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/PA/house

The only district that is even close is 12. Democrats just fail to appeal to Pennsylvanians outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Stop blaming Republicans for being unable to appeal beyond a certain demographic.

HaHa. I'm loving it. This is why the Republicans are becoming a minority party.
Keep up your posts. You just keep alienating future voters