The Democratic mandate in the House

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

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

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]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

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]

Originally Posted by Row6

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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by Row6

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]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by Row6

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/199...ionment-caucus

[m9000]

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

End of story.

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.