Interestingly, it appears the GOP screwed itself due to their gerrymandering efforts

[Phokus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...rrymandering-to-blame/?utm_term=.fe40dbe1e43b

Oops! Trump actually thinks he can shame the House Freedom Caucus by lashing out at them, Sad!

 

[Bitek]

I've been thinking about this subject.

It seems to me the gerrymandering has been successful in creating Congressional seats larger than the public support should lead to, but at the expense of creating a significant portion of the seats held by extremists.

What is left is an unnaturally grown party with little cohesion and ability to govern.

 

[hardhat]

My father, who is a staunch conservative, pontificated that republicans would lose votes in 2018 due to their failure to repeal the ACA. I had to remind him about the gerrymandering. There is little hope to come to any compromise and meaningful reform until at least 2020, and even then it is unlikely to happen. One side has created a structural advantage by changing the rules, and they are unlikely to want to undo those actions, even if it means disruption in the country and being hated by an ever growing portion of the country. Because winning is apparently more important than governing in government.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The premise of the article doesn't make sense. The point of Gerrymandering isn't to create 100% safe seats, it's to create as many seats as possible that are skewed just enough for party to reliably win. Creating 100% seats runs counter to this.

 

[shortylickens]

Yes thats nice but how are they going to blame all this on the Democrats?

 

[Meghan54]

The premise of the article doesn't make sense. The point of Gerrymandering isn't to create 100% safe seats, it's to create as many seats as possible that are skewed just enough for party to reliably win. Creating 100% seats runs counter to this.

I believe this falls under the "unintended consequences" realm.

 

[vi edit]

The premise of the article doesn't make sense. The point of Gerrymandering isn't to create 100% safe seats, it's to create as many seats as possible that are skewed just enough for party to reliably win. Creating 100% seats runs counter to this.

No, the article makes sense. They talked about exactly what you described - taking a seat that was held by a "conservative" democrat, and then redrawing the lines. The point of Gerrymandering isn't to push more red votes into a district, but to remove blue from it and add them to an area that is already considered "safe blue". You dilute the power of the blue votes rather than increase the number of red.

The byproduct is that you now have more districts that are red competitive than they were previously giving you a numbers advantage in reps. Because of the built in advantage Dems are not even challenging seats.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

No, the article makes sense. They talked about exactly what you described - taking a seat that was held by a "conservative" democrat, and then redrawing the lines. The point of Gerrymandering isn't to push more red votes into a district, but to remove blue from it and add them to an area that is already considered "safe blue". You dilute the power of the blue votes rather than increase the number of red.

The byproduct is that you now have more districts that are red competitive than they were previously giving you a numbers advantage in reps. Because of the built in advantage Dems are not even challenging seats.

Exactly, the intent is to turn 30% of the population into 60% of the vote, then win it.

 

[Sonikku]

If only the GoP poured as much energy into governing as they do into winning elections.

 

[Paratus]

Exactly, the intent is to turn 30% of the population into 60% of the vote, then win it.

I always liked this simplified graphic to get across how Gerrymandering can screw an electorate either by minimizing the majority or maximizing the majority.

 

[fskimospy]

I always liked this simplified graphic to get across how Gerrymandering can screw an electorate either by minimizing the majority or maximizing the majority.

Combined with geographic concentration that's how you end up with a situation like in Pennsylvania where Democrats got more than 50% of the vote for House candidates and the map ended up looking like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Pennsylvania,_2012

Democrats got 50.3% of the vote and ended up with 5 out of 18 seats.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Combined with geographic concentration that's how you end up with a situation like in Pennsylvania where Democrats got more than 50% of the vote for House candidates and the map ended up looking like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Pennsylvania,_2012

Democrats got 50.3% of the vote and ended up with 5 out of 18 seats.

There's another fun one.

 

[dank69]

Yes thats nice but how are they going to blame all this on the Democrats?

Maybe if Democrats weren't such America-hating-Sharia-pushing-gender-fluid snowflakes the GOP wouldn't have to wage a holy war against us.

 

[JEDI]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...rrymandering-to-blame/?utm_term=.fe40dbe1e43b

Oops! Trump actually thinks he can shame the House Freedom Caucus by lashing out at them, Sad!

how about adding the title of the article to your OP?
'Trump can’t stop the Freedom Caucus. He has GOP gerrymandering to blame.'

 

[dullard]

The key to defeating gerrymandering is that gerrymandering makes votes volatile. So just a tiny shift in the political winds can undo all that gerrymandering.

Suppose in the "1. Perfect representation" option, someone in the left red column switches to blue. There would be no difference at all. There would still be two red districts, three blue ones, and blue would still win. The non-gerrymandered map is unaffected by a 2% shift (1 out of 50) in voters.

Suppose in the "2. Compact, but unfair" option, someone in the left red column switches to blue. There would be no difference at all. There would still be zero red districts, five blue ones, and blue would still win. The unfair map is unaffected by a 2% shift.

Suppose in the "3. Neither compact, nor fair" option, someone in the left red column switches to blue. Now the result is completely unpredictable. There would be two red districts, two blue districts, and a toss-up district. The winner may come down to the weather that particular day or some other normally meaningless variable. The gerrymandered map can swap winners with just a 2% shift.

Even with that highly gerrymandered option 3, only a 2% change in the vote can still let blue win. Meaning that gerrymandering could also have screwed the GOP in another way. A 2% change in voter's opinions can make the next election a landslide for democrats. What did the other thread say, oh yes, 3% of republicans are regretting their vote already.

 

[agent00f]

The premise of the article doesn't make sense. The point of Gerrymandering isn't to create 100% safe seats, it's to create as many seats as possible that are skewed just enough for party to reliably win. Creating 100% seats runs counter to this.

That's actually a correct statement, but not necessarily in the way you intended. The "point" of gerrymandering here is to create 100% safe democratic seats, basically to stuff all the blue votes into fewer districts, and have red ones barely win all the rest.