The Democratic mandate in the House

[Row6]

Well, there certainly is no republican one.

From today's WaPo

As a new Congress convenes, it has become an unquestioned truth among Republicans that their party has as much of a mandate as President Obama because voters returned them to power in the House

The mantra has been intoned by John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist and many other party eminences, and there is a certain logic to saying that the voters, by giving Republicans the House, were asking for divided government.

But the claim to represent the voters’ will doesn’t add up.

The final results from the November election were completed Friday, and they show that Democratic candidates for the House outpolled Republicans nationwide by nearly 1.4 million votes and more than a full percentage point — a greater margin than the preliminary figures showed in November. And that’s just the beginning of it: A new analysis finds that even if Democratic congressional candidates won the popular vote by seven percentage points nationwide, they still would not have gained control of the House.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-republican-gerrymandering-makes-the-difference-in-the-house/2013/01/04/f6e9bd1e-56a4-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html

[108]

gerrymandering

:yes:

[viningsgator]

The fix is in on both sides. Will try and find the article I read a few days ago that shows that all but a few congressional districts are rigged for one party.

[JerseyGator01]

WP is excellent advocacy journalism. It's a weak argument at best since we only have one Prez who only needed to look like less of a moron than the blue blood's selection for the GOP. Not real hard really. Even Joe Biden could do it with the level of present media brainwashing in this country.

Campaign finance is an even bigger problem than gerrymandering.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

[MichiGator2002]

There really is no bottom to the political depravity, seeking now to invalidate the House majority on what is an utterly, utterly irrelevant ground -- the aggregate of total votes cast. I mind quails at how such an argument could convince anyone. You do realize that all it takes for this meaningless anamoly to come up, is for Democrats to have won their seats by wider majorities than Republicans won theirs, right? What would that fact tell you? That each specific representative has more support on their district than another. It says nothing.

N O T H I N G

About national support. And here is another twist... who cares? The legislature is not elected en masse, so in any real sense, it never has a mandate en masse. Each member had a mandate from her constituents, and no other. And there are more GOP members.

What is even more absurd about this asinine appeal to hold the measure of the legislature to a national popular vote, is that pretty much by definition, to be in the majority but not have that total, means that you won more of the closely contested districts than the minority, that the minorities wins were more in monolithic districts.

[rpmGator]

Pubs lost seats to the other side, and in two years, may lose more if they don't wise up and start representing more than white males...

My guy had a tough time getting elected this time around, and I don't think he will win the next time as the face of the district is getting less white.

[Dreamliner]

Why represent the voters anyway, given their cognitive dissonance ?

[corpgator]

There really is no bottom to the political depravity, seeking now to invalidate the House majority on what is an utterly, utterly irrelevant ground -- the aggregate of total votes cast. I mind quails at how such an argument could convince anyone. You do realize that all it takes for this meaningless anamoly to come up, is for Democrats to have won their seats by wider majorities than Republicans won theirs, right? What would that fact tell you? That each specific representative has more support on their district than another. It says nothing.

N O T H I N G

About national support. And here is another twist... who cares? The legislature is not elected en masse, so in any real sense, it never has a mandate en masse. Each member had a mandate from her constituents, and no other. And there are more GOP members.

What is even more absurd about this asinine appeal to hold the measure of the legislature to a national popular vote, is that pretty much by definition, to be in the majority but not have that total, means that you won more of the closely contested districts than the minority, that the minorities wins were more in monolithic districts.

That anomaly is actually what happened: Dems won their seats by a wider margin than Reps. This was not an accident, though, but an intentional strategy the GOP carried out by making sure they had control of state legislatures when it was time to redraw districts.

[MichiGator2002]

The respective district margins imputed absolutely nothing about the national agenda. Any other suggestion is just... insipid. I mean, can a serious person infer from Nancy Pelosi's margin that Peter King has no mandate from his constituents? Because that is the load of bull one is being asked to swallow to accept the premise that national margin across 400+ independent elections determine a single mandate for the House.

[bluelang]

Divided government is good. Our legislature is designed to be inefficient.

[Minister_of_Information]

Wow, it's unfortunate for democrats that Representatives are elected from individual districts rather than the nation at large. :rolleyes:

[el_lagarto]

i just dont care anymore. im surrounded by a bunch of idiots who cant seem to grasp the idea that voting for any incumbent is a moronic idea.

congress has an approval rating collectively in the toilet and the same assclowns get re-elected year after year b/c the electorate is a bunch of retards,..no offense to retards.

congress is not the problem. stupid people are the problem. and stupid is in an exponential growth curve.

[JerseyGator01]

Yep, there was a very large percentage of stupid voters this year who based their vote largely on a Hurricane Sandy photo op involving two very overrated so-called leaders.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

[wargunfan]

i just dont care anymore. im surrounded by a bunch of idiots who cant seem to grasp the idea that voting for any incumbent is a moronic idea.

congress has an approval rating collectively in the toilet and the same assclowns get re-elected year after year b/c the electorate is a bunch of retards,..no offense to retards.

congress is not the problem. stupid people are the problem. and stupid is in an exponential growth curve.

^^^This. The dumbing down of America is paying real dividends for the ruling class.

[wargunfan]

Pubs lost seats to the other side, and in two years, may lose more if they don't wise up and start representing more than white males...

My guy had a tough time getting elected this time around, and I don't think he will win the next time as the face of the district is getting less white.

Wait.....are you saying that some people vote for a candidate because he/she is not white??!! Why, that's racist!

[Row6]

There really is no bottom to the political depravity, seeking now to invalidate the House majority on what is an utterly, utterly irrelevant ground -- the aggregate of total votes cast. I mind quails at how such an argument could convince anyone. You do realize that all it takes for this meaningless anamoly to come up, is for Democrats to have won their seats by wider majorities than Republicans won theirs, right? What would that fact tell you? That each specific representative has more support on their district than another. It says nothing.

N O T H I N G

About national support. And here is another twist... who cares? The legislature is not elected en masse, so in any real sense, it never has a mandate en masse. Each member had a mandate from her constituents, and no other. And there are more GOP members.

What is even more absurd about this asinine appeal to hold the measure of the legislature to a national popular vote, is that pretty much by definition, to be in the majority but not have that total, means that you won more of the closely contested districts than the minority, that the minorities wins were more in monolithic districts.

Bottomless "political depravity"? Whoa baby, that is some over the top righteous anger there.

But speaking of bottomless depravity, the facts are that in order to win the House back, democrats will have to win by about a 7-8% total vote, instead of the 1% they just won by. It is also a fact that overwhelmingly Republican seats are safe, meaning their district went for Romney, and their greatest fear is getting "primaried" by Tea Party nuts, not winning the general election. That is not as true for democrats. You want "bottomless depravity"?

"Obama won Pennsylvania by 5 points, but Republicans took 13 of 18 House districts. In Ohio, Obama won by two and the GOP kept 12 of 16 House seats."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/11/the_supreme_court_may_gut_the_voting_rights_act_an d_make_gerrymandering.html

The House is the people's house and should more closely correspond to the popular vote if things aren't rigged, unlike the Senate where it is rigged by design towards small states.

[Matthanuf06]

Bottomless "political depravity"? Whoa baby, that is some over the top righteous anger there.

But speaking of bottomless depravity, the facts are that in order to win the House back, democrats will have to win by about a 7-8% total vote, instead of the 1% they just won by. It is also a fact that overwhelmingly Republican seats are safe, meaning their district went for Romney, and their greatest fear is getting "primaried" by Tea Party nuts, not winning the general election. That is not as true for democrats. You want "bottomless depravity"?

"Obama won Pennsylvania by 5 points, but Republicans took 13 of 18 House districts. In Ohio, Obama won by two and the GOP kept 12 of 16 House seats."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/11/the_supreme_court_may_gut_the_voting_rights_act_an d_make_gerrymandering.html

The House is the people's house and should more closely correspond to the popular vote if things aren't rigged, unlike the Senate where it is rigged by design towards small states.

I would suggest you look up a county by county map. It's mainly red. So it makes sense the GOP does well in smaller elections that generally avoids urban outposts

[rivergator]

I would suggest you look up a county by county map. It's mainly red. So it makes sense the GOP does well in smaller elections that generally avoids urban outposts

I'm not sure 'more counties' is necessarily the key.

[Matthanuf06]

I'm not sure 'more counties' is necessarily the key.

It isn't given all of the gerrymandering. But lets not forget the purpose of the house. It was never intended to be a popular nationwide vote. Or even a statewide vote. At its simplest it is to give a voice to small areas of citizens because it was recognize that certain clusters of citizens may not have a national voice.

Gerrymandering reduces the competitiveness of those pockets of citizens but the whole premise of the house remains intact. Moving towards greater districts removes that premise.

In fact a good argument is that we should want gerrymandering, as we want as many as possible to have a voice.

[MichiGator2002]

Bottomless "political depravity"? Whoa baby, that is some over the top righteous anger there.

But speaking of bottomless depravity, the facts are that in order to win the House back, democrats will have to win by about a 7-8% total vote, instead of the 1% they just won by. It is also a fact that overwhelmingly Republican seats are safe, meaning their district went for Romney, and their greatest fear is getting "primaried" by Tea Party nuts, not winning the general election. That is not as true for democrats. You want "bottomless depravity"?

"Obama won Pennsylvania by 5 points, but Republicans took 13 of 18 House districts. In Ohio, Obama won by two and the GOP kept 12 of 16 House seats."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/11/the_supreme_court_may_gut_the_voting_rights_act_an d_make_gerrymandering.html

The House is the people's house and should more closely correspond to the popular vote if things aren't rigged, unlike the Senate where it is rigged by design towards small states.

Again, it is utterly irrelevant what national popular totals are required to win the House. To even care beyond casual curiosity what the national popular totals about the House are is evidence of either total ignorance of what the House is, or intentional misrepresenation of sane to incite outrage in those totally ignorant of what the House is.

Each seat is an election unto itself, period. The only way to lose the house but win the meaningless national popular total is to have more monolithic results in the districts won by the minority. Hell, if that says anything meaningful on the subject of gerrymandering, it is an indictment of the party with the most one-sided results in the districts it won.

[Row6]

Again, it is utterly irrelevant what national popular totals are required to win the House. To even care beyond casual curiosity what the national popular totals about the House are is evidence of either total ignorance of what the House is, or intentional misrepresenation of sane to incite outrage in those totally ignorant of what the House is.

Each seat is an election unto itself, period. The only way to lose the house but win the meaningless national popular total is to have more monolithic results in the districts won by the minority. Hell, if that says anything meaningful on the subject of gerrymandering, it is an indictment of the party with the most one-sided results in the districts it won.

Monolithic results are part of gerrymandering strategy as you concentrate your opponents voters in fewer odder shaped districts. BTW, Democrats won more total House votes in Pennsylvania and yet the delegation from that state is overwhelmingly Republican.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/11/121109_JURIS_gerryPA.jpg.CROP.rectangle2-mediumsmall.jpg

[Row6]

Wow, it's unfortunate for democrats that Representatives are elected from individual districts rather than the nation at large. :rolleyes:

The House is supposed to represent the people, unlike the Senate which is supposed to represent geography. As constituted now it doesn't and is purposefully immune to national will.

[Row6]

I would suggest you look up a county by county map. It's mainly red. So it makes sense the GOP does well in smaller elections that generally avoids urban outposts

The House is not based on geography but people, which is why the number of representatives per state changes with the census. Urban counties will have multiple representatives while rural ones share with neighboring counties. Gerrymandering is the practice of ganging high numbers of voters who favor the opposite party in fewer districts thus making both their seats and the more numerous ones left without opposition safe.

[MichiGator2002]

Monolithic results are part of gerrymandering strategy as you concentrate your opponents voters in fewer odder shaped districts. BTW, Democrats won more total House votes in Pennsylvania and yet the delegation from that state is overwhelmingly Republican.



Which by definition means that Democrats won their seats by wider margin than Republicans won theirs. The former, again by definition, would seem more suspcious as gerrymandered districts to allow such lopsided results. "go Gatah"'s district isn't drawn as it is to make her seat more competitive.

Look, I will make this simple -- any point you think you want to make that relies on counting cumulative popular totals across multiple districts is invalid on its face. It simply couldn't be more of an idle, meaningless curiousity. Each district carries only its own mandate, or lack thereof, and referring to the majority party as having one means anything solely as a function of it being a coalition of the most members who ostensibly have a mandate from their constituents. To wit, just as the House leadership can say they have a mandate and it isn't to go along with Obama, the Tea party candidates can turn around and say they have a mandate and it isn't to go along with Boehner.

[Row6]

Which by definition means that Democrats won their seats by wider margin than Republicans won theirs. The former, again by definition, would seem more suspcious as gerrymandered districts to allow such lopsided results. "go Gatah"'s district isn't drawn as it is to make her seat more competitive.

Look, I will make this simple -- any point you think you want to make that relies on counting cumulative popular totals across multiple districts is invalid on its face. It simply couldn't be more of an idle, meaningless curiousity. Each district carries only its own mandate, or lack thereof, and referring to the majority party as having one means anything solely as a function of it being a coalition of the most members who ostensibly have a mandate from their constituents. To wit, just as the House leadership can say they have a mandate and it isn't to go along with Obama, the Tea party candidates can turn around and say they have a mandate and it isn't to go along with Boehner.

Corrine Brown's seat is a perfect example of gerrymandering by a Republican state legislature. It puts most blacks in about 4 counties in one district, thus insuring that neighboring Republican seats are safer. Why do you think a Republican state legislature has signed off on that abortion of district boundaries 2 different times?

I'll make it simple for you. It is true that the House will not absolutely reflect the popular vote across districts or states, but the goal should be attempting to make it do so. We have the opposite result now and that is verified by several measures, not just one, including looking at a map of Corrine Brown's district.

[Minister_of_Information]

The House is supposed to represent the people, unlike the Senate which is supposed to represent geography. As constituted now it doesn't and is purposefully immune to national will.

I'm sorry, but if that was correct then House members would be elected at large. The House as constituted represents the people... of particular states. That is how representatives are assigned under the Constitution. The fact that some states and some jurisdictions are inherently heavily democratic and therefore skew the vote totals in one direction or other is hardly relevant to the way the House is constituted. Federal jurisprudence is pretty clear cut on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. If particular instances violate the law then you should discuss them, but throwing out the aggregate numbers of votes cast nationally as though they are pertinent in some way to the apportionment of the house is patently ridiculous.

[Row6]

I'm sorry, but if that was correct then House members would be elected at large. The House as constituted represents the people... of particular states. That is how representatives are assigned under the Constitution. The fact that some states and some jurisdictions are inherently heavily democratic and therefore skew the vote totals in one direction or other is hardly relevant to the way the House is constituted. Federal jurisprudence is pretty clear cut on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. If particular instances violate the law then you should discuss them, but throwing out the aggregate numbers of votes cast nationally as though they are pertinent in some way to the apportionment of the house is patently ridiculous.

1 The House obviously represents the people of specific geographical regions, but by virtue of being assigned based on population - which changes over time - they are to roughly approximate the will of the people. It should go without saying that this is also a laudable goal that citizens of good will should wish to move forward by opposing gerrymandering, no matter who is practicing it.

2 One only need to look at Corinne Brown's district - and many others like it around the country - to see that votes that "skew .... in one direction or the other", as if this were a random occurrence, are not the problem. If that's all it was, we could all say "Oh well" and hope the randomness would even out next time. Purposeful gerrymandering is the problem and the soonest that will happen is 2212.

3 You can look at state results that I mentioned above to see this travesty played out and one can also look at national results, where democrats in the House and Obama clearly won the national vote and yet the House membership is not just republican, but strongly so, as if they had some kind of mandate. Indeed, despite that result they - along with their filibustering brethren in the House - will continue to obstruct the agenda of the winning party. Given the preponderance of Republicans from safe seats the threat of primary challenges will dictate their agenda more than the will of all the people in the general election. That is the road to dysfunction that we are on.

[Minister_of_Information]

It isn't very complicated. A portion of the nation is heavily blue. The rest is light red to purple. Election results in heavily blue states have nothing to do with representation in other more closely divided areas.

[oragator1]

Which by definition means that Democrats won their seats by wider margin than Republicans won theirs. The former, again by definition, would seem more suspcious as gerrymandered districts to allow such lopsided results. "go Gatah"'s district isn't drawn as it is to make her seat more competitive.

Look, I will make this simple -- any point you think you want to make that relies on counting cumulative popular totals across multiple districts is invalid on its face. It simply couldn't be more of an idle, meaningless curiousity. Each district carries only its own mandate, or lack thereof, and referring to the majority party as having one means anything solely as a function of it being a coalition of the most members who ostensibly have a mandate from their constituents. To wit, just as the House leadership can say they have a mandate and it isn't to go along with Obama, the Tea party candidates can turn around and say they have a mandate and it isn't to go along with Boehner.

I think both what you are arguing for and against can be true.
Clearly if someone wins a district the way it's drawn they have a mandate from their district to do whatever it is that their district wants.
But on the flip side, claiming a mandate as a party that you don't have (especially for the legislation you are passing) always leads to longer term disaster, one need look back no further than 2010 after Obama's "elections have consequences"' and passing health care among other things to see what happens. Passing things that the country doesn't want won't help the republicans long term, especially at a time when they are increasingly seen as out of the mainstream.

[gatorev12]

Corrine Brown's seat is a perfect example of gerrymandering by a Republican state legislature. It puts most blacks in about 4 counties in one district, thus insuring that neighboring Republican seats are safer. Why do you think a Republican state legislature has signed off on that abortion of district boundaries 2 different times?

You do realize that the Black Caucus in the Florida Legislature made a deal with the State Republicans to sign off on the redistricting plan in order to ensure a "safe" number of black representatives at the state and federal levels, right?

So if you want to blame someone, blame black Democrats who gave Republicans the votes needed to create such districts--and sustain them. Similar deals like this have gone on all around the country too.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-01-29/news/9201050721_1_blacks-and-republicans-house-reapportionment-caucus

[m9000]

The composition of the House is decided by 435 INDIVIDUAL RACES and Republicans won a majority.

End of story.

[DeanMeadGator]

i just dont care anymore. im surrounded by a bunch of idiots who cant seem to grasp the idea that voting for any incumbent is a moronic idea.

congress has an approval rating collectively in the toilet and the same assclowns get re-elected year after year b/c the electorate is a bunch of retards,..no offense to retards.

congress is not the problem. stupid people are the problem. and stupid is in an exponential growth curve.

Addendum: the members of Congress are stupid people.

[wargunfan]

If you cut Row6 he bleeds Democrat and is frustrated that the House can block the administration's main plans for wealth redistribution and Demopork. When blood coagulates we have Obama.