How Targeting State Races in 2010 Led to a Republican House Majority in 2013

[philnotfil]

Effective strategy, but it seems different from how a representative republic should work.

rslc.com

On November 6, 2012, Barack Obama was reelected President of the United States by nearly a three-point margin, winning 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney’s 206 while garnering nearly 3.5 million more votes. Democrats also celebrated victories in 69 percent of U.S. Senate elections, winning 23 of 33 contests. Farther down-ballot, aggregated numbers show voters pulled the lever for Republicans only 49 percent of the time in congressional races, suggesting that 2012 could have been a repeat of 2008, when voters gave control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Democrats.

But, as we see today, that was not the case. Instead, Republicans enjoy a 33-seat margin in the U.S. House seated yesterday in the 113th Congress, having endured Democratic successes atop the ticket and over one million more votes cast for Democratic House candidates than Republicans. The only analogous election in recent political history in which this aberration has taken place was immediately after reapportionment in 1972, when Democrats held a 50 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives while losing the presidency and the popular congressional vote by 2.6 million votes.

As the 2010 Census approached, the RSLC began planning for the subsequent election cycle, formulating a strategy to keep or win Republican control of state legislatures with the largest impact on congressional redistricting as a result of reapportionment. That effort, the REDistricting MAjority Project (REDMAP), focused critical resources on legislative chambers in states projected to gain or lose congressional seats in 2011 based on Census data.

After REDMAP’s success on Election Day 2010, Republicans held majorities in 10 of the 15 states that gained or lost U.S. House seats and where the legislature played a role in redrawing the state legislative and congressional district map. In the 70 congressional districts that were labeled by National Public Radio as “competitive” in 2010, Republicans controlled the redrawing of at least 47 of those districts; Democrats were responsible for 15, and a non-partisan process determined eight.

Shouldn't a non-partisan process have determined all 70 of those districts?

How can the Republicans say with a straight face that their gains in the House reflect the will of the people, while at the same time bragging about how they perverted the districting process so that they have a majority in the House despite not having a majority of the votes?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Effective strategy, but it seems different from how a representative republic should work.

rslc.com







Shouldn't a non-partisan process have determined all 70 of those districts?

How can the Republicans say with a straight face that their gains in the House reflect the will of the people, while at the same time bragging about how they perverted the districting process so that they have a majority in the House despite not having a majority of the votes?

Unfortunately, and unlike most other democracies, districts and other voting regulations are determined by politicians in America, something fair minded people of all political persuasions are likely to agree should be changed.

[egator1245]

Just who should determine them, administrators, SOPs, appointees?

[JerseyGator01]

How can anyone say with a straight face that vote totals reflect the will of the people when so many state don't have voter I.D. laws? It would be easy, very easy, for me to organize a scheme to have lots of people vote multiple times in NJ without ANY fear of getting caught. The system is an absolute joke!

Then again, since Obama only got 30% of those age eligible votes, no one really knows what the will of the people is.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

How can anyone say with a straight face that vote totals reflect the will of the people when so many state don't have voter I.D. laws? It would be easy, very easy, for me to organize a scheme to have lots of people vote multiple times in NJ without ANY fear of getting caught. The system is an absolute joke!

Then again, since Obama only got 30% of those age eligible votes, no one really knows what the will of the people is.

Then why don't you do it? Probably for the reason no one else does.

[corpgator]

I've been pushing this since a day after the election. It was clearly apparent then and even more so now that the numbers are done. It wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't deliberately planned this.

Instead of making their party relevant on issues, they decided to cheat them system to stay in power while not giving up their more extreme views for as long as possible.

[GatorNorth]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

How can anyone say with a straight face that vote totals reflect the will of the people when so many state don't have voter I.D. laws? It would be easy, very easy, for me to organize a scheme to have lots of people vote multiple times in NJ without ANY fear of getting caught. The system is an absolute joke!

Then again, since Obama only got 30% of those age eligible votes, no one really knows what the will of the people is.

Red herring math. Probably fair to say that no president has ever won an election with a majority of age eligible voters. Does that mean we've never known what the will of the people is.

Perhaps those that abstain from voting have no will.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by egator1245

Just who should determine them, administrators, SOPs, appointees?

Staff, under clear procedural rules and answerable to courts. Florida passed a constitutional amendment in 2010 by ballot initiative which is a simple statement of principle, but without teeth. One would hope that it could be the basis for lawsuits that would eventually end gerrymandering by whoever controls the state legislature.

[108]

if you can't win, cheat