House Republicans Lose Popular Vote, Win Electoral College

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
Basically, the functional equivalent:

It can be a bit difficult to tally up the popular vote in House elections because you have to go ballot by ballot, and many incumbents run unopposed. But The Washington Post’s Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That’s a close election — 48.8%-48.5% –but it’s still a popular vote win for the Democrats. Those precise numbers might change a bit as the count finalizes, but the tally isn’t likely to flip.
Click to expand...


For those keeping score at home, the Democrats won the Presidency, the Senate and received the most votes for the House and John Boehner is the one claiming a "mandate."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...publicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/
 
Well they have more balls than brains, but the Dems need to hit back on that and the best way I think is to laugh in their faces. It would also be a really good idea for them to be all over the Sunday talk shows pointing out, over and over, that they got more votes for the House and that it's corrupt Republican gerrymandering that kept them in power there - against the will of the people. Because that's what Republicans would do in this situation.
 
Wasn't part of the Voting Rights Act to create districts heavy with minorities so their could be minority representatives elected to the House and minority voters weren't dispersed throughout gerrymandered white districts? So that creates districts where the Democrat receives a large majority of the votes but it still only counts for one seat. You then leave a more suburban district where a Republican ecks out a win among a majority white people. So while the Democrats may have dominated the votes for those two seats it is still one Dem and one Rep going to the House.
 
cawacko said:
Wasn't part of the Voting Rights Act to create districts heavy with minorities so their could be minority representatives elected to the House and minority voters weren't dispersed throughout gerrymandered white districts? So that creates districts where the Democrat receives a large majority of the votes but it still only counts for one seat. You then leave a more suburban district where a Republican ecks out a win among a majority white people. So while the Democrats may have dominated the votes for those two seats it is still one Dem and one Rep going to the House.
Click to expand...


Actually, no. Using race as a motivating factor to create majority-minority Congressional districts is unconstitutional (Of course, there are a lot of minority-majority districts, but they weren't necessarily created on the basis of race) just like using drawing districts to disperse racial minorities among disparate districts is unconstitutional (and a violation of the VRA).
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, no. Using race as a motivating factor to create majority-minority Congressional districts is unconstitutional (Of course, there are a lot of minority-majority districts, but they weren't necessarily created on the basis of race) just like using drawing districts to disperse racial minorities among disparate districts is unconstitutional (and a violation of the VRA).
Click to expand...

So what did the Voting Rights Act do then or better asked how were heavily minority dominated minority-majority districts created then if not based on race? That was just an accident or coincidence?
 
This is the story of PA's 12th Congressional district. How is this legal, let alone fair?

"After the 2000 census, the Republican-controlled state legislature radically altered the 12th in an effort to get more Republicans elected from traditionally heavily Democratic southwestern Pennsylvania. A large chunk of the old 20th District was incorporated into the 12th. In some parts of the western portion of the district, one side of the street is in the 12th while the other side of the street is in the 18th District (the reconfigured 20th). This led to criticism that the 12th was a gerrymander intended to pack as many of southwestern Pennsylvania's heavily Democratic areas as possible into just two districts—the 12th and the Pittsburgh-based 14th."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania's_12th_congressional_district
 
cawacko said:
So what did the Voting Rights Act do then or better asked how were heavily minority dominated minority-majority districts created then if not based on race? That was just an accident or coincidence?
Click to expand...


Well, it's kind of complicated. But as a general rule, under Section 2 of the VRA you can't use race to confine minorities into single districts ("packing") or to disperse minorities among congressional districts ("cracking"). Under Section 5 of the VRA (which is applicable only to certain southern areas) redistricting plans have to get clearance from the DOJ that prevent discriminatory impacts on minority voters -- again, packing and cracking are prohibited, but drawing districts to ensure majority-minority representation is OK to conform with past practice.
 
cawacko said:
So what did the Voting Rights Act do then or better asked how were heavily minority dominated minority-majority districts created then if not based on race? That was just an accident or coincidence?
Click to expand...

They gerrymandered the districts by PARTY... which in some areas will result in more minority representation.

Seven CO House seats... the closest was over a 5% point victory (my district)... all the others were even larger blowouts. No point in having anything other than primary elections for our House seats any more.
 
Superfreak said:
They gerrymandered the districts by PARTY... which in some areas will result in more minority representation.

Seven CO House seats... the closest was over a 5% point victory (my district)... all the others were even larger blowouts. No point in having anything other than primary elections for our House seats any more.
Click to expand...

The gerrymandering by party I get. (California actually recently passed a proposition where districts are chosen by an indepedent body, not the politicians anymore.)
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, no. Using race as a motivating factor to create majority-minority Congressional districts is unconstitutional (Of course, there are a lot of minority-majority districts, but they weren't necessarily created on the basis of race) just like using drawing districts to disperse racial minorities among disparate districts is unconstitutional (and a violation of the VRA).
Click to expand...

Well, it prevents the Republicans from, say, creating four districts based in white majority areas that all branch out into the black majority delta in order to get four white majority districts. But it also keeps people from turning an black majority district into a more balanced one that has a solid black minority (40%-30%) but also mixes in with suburban areas and such. This is important because black people tend to vote Democratic by ridiculous 90% margins, so packing them all into one district creates one super-duper-Democratic district. The goal is to enhance minority representation, to get more minorities actually in office, but it does have negative effects for whatever overall political interests they're ultimately allied with. If the requirement were lifted, though, I have no doubt that the primary effect would be the Republicans splitting up black or latino districts with enough whites to cancel their votes out.

Anyway, in the grand scheme of things, there are only a handful of minority districts, and it doesn't matter so much in the overall scheme of things. The biggest deal in this election has been intentional Republican gerrymanders in a number of states, such as Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, etc... where the Republicans mostly worked around minority districts because of the VRA requirements anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top