Only Gerrymandering saved the GOP from losing the House...

[caseymoz]

. . . and they know it. This election would be so much more decisive if they hadn't redrawn the districts. Now they're entrenched at least till 2022, but I'm thinking more districts are going to turn Democratic in the decade.

[Wellstone ruled]

1. This saved Bachman's sorry ass.

Mn 6 was carved out with her in mind. Extremely small minority area,mostly fundies and angry old whities.

[former9thward]

2. Gerrymandering is done by both parties.

It just depends on who is in power. In California all of the districts were gerrymandered to take out Rs. Same thing occurred in Illinois and other states where Ds have control. The Supreme Court in a series of cases has said it is ok so it will continue.

[dsc]

6. California's districts weren't gerrymandered

they were drawn by a citizens commission.

[former9thward]

7. Gerrymandering took place in 2001 after the 2000 census.

For 10 years seats did not change parties. The new commission was approved in 2010 but there are limitations. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the assembly are allowed to eliminate almost half of the applicants proved for the commission. They can eliminate any person they think will go against their interest without explanation. The commission had to work with existing districts. It will take probably two or three census cycles to get fair districts.

[Retrograde]

16. This was the first election to use the new districts

and look what happened: the state senate and assembly are now solidly Dem, and it looks like we picked up a few House seats as well.

[caseymoz]

8. I know, but my point still is:

The defeat was quite a bit worse than it first looks. Repubs know this.

That being said, they should do something about gerrymandering. There has to be an ap that does it automatically.

[former9thward]

10. Some states are changing.

In Iowa computers do it without input from the political parties (at least this is what I have read). In Arizona starting this election cycle an independent Commission did it and the results seemed pretty fair.

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. You're right, so why aren't the Democrats pushing a plan to requiring districts to be drawn

by some neutral system?

[caseymoz]

9. Because it's too late, for one thing.

For another, it's definitely not the first thing on their minds. I'm sure it will come up, but Repubs will attack it ceaselessly.

[Egalitarian Thug]

12. It comes around again in 8 years and this has gone on forever. There is barely enough time

now to start generating support for the idea and to sort through various options to find one that will be palatable. There will be a lot of resistance from within the party because of the relatively few safe Democratic seats and the republicans will like it even less, but it is necessary if we are ever to recreate productive governance.

[caseymoz]

13. It will be an opportunity in 8 years

Only if democrats take control of more state legislatures. But those legislatures now have entrenched Republican majorities due to this last round of gerrymandering.

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. Even more reason to begin the process now.

You can't bitch about the inherent unfairness of a gerrymandering system that was implemented largely by Democrats to preserve the power base they once held because it works against us now, while refusing to begin the process of changing it because it is going to be hard.

This is part of why we have this eternal cycle of uselessness and gridlock in our political system. We are the government. When it doesn't work for us, the fault is ours.

[caseymoz]

15. Implemented by Democrats?

The Party that had the name Democratic-Republicans in 1812, who's practice in Massachusetts gave us the term gerrymandering, has no connection to the party now. The roots and network of the party have evolved to where it's unrecognizable. It's like holding somebody responsible for what their ancestor did during the Revolutionary War, but worse, the genes aren't even there.

I didn't mention refusing to start anything. I said it's going to be hard. I said the legislatures we have to work with are likely to remain in Republican hands.That doesn't say we shouldn't try. But instead of blaming me for undercutting your Grand Plan to Fix Everything, how do suggest we get around that? Anything done needs a strategy, and I haven't heard it from you or anyone. How to get around legislatures that are going continue to be Republican hands for the next decade and maybe after. What do we do to persuade them to allow a process that will put them out of power as the GOP loses popularity? Call them and tell them to give up? Armed insurrection? Give me something besides your obnoxiousness and guilt tripping to work with, here.

I am not the fucking government. I'm not responsible for what it does. I don't know what "we" you're talking about. If the government chooses to arrest me and lock me up, it's not me locking myself up. The same with you. That's the reality. The entire notion you're giving is erroneous.

Your assigning guilt to me and others for government action is offensive. Governments are not run by the governed, never have been and never will be. Despite what the US founding documents say, government by the governed has never had any basis in reality. We can influence the government, even heavily influence it, but we are not the government. If we were, we wouldn't need a government, now would we? Why would we need a government if we all had the time and resources to govern the government? What the government does, is not what I do or you do. Unless we're officially in it.

So take your manipulative guilt somewhere else. I don't feel it.

No, I don't think what I told you was discouraging in the least. I think manipulativeness of assigning guilt first repulses people from causes. Yeah, people really want to help you after you say, "It's all your fault, negligent bastards. Do something about it." Try saying, "Well, this is the problem we're facing, this is what's obstructing us in solving it. Let's think of a way of solving it."

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. Do you feel better now? n/t

[flamingdem]

4. And this is why the DO NOT DESERVE their asses kissed by Obama!

Let's not let the media create permission for bs compromise with a group that has nothing to offer!

[Horse with no Name]

5. Bingo. That is what is not being acknowledged

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Anyone know a total for House votes across the country?

I know it doesn't necessarily show what would have happened in the absence of gerrymandering, but it can be a guide. One of the statistical analysts said, before the election, that they thought the Repubs had an advantage of between 1 and 2% - ie the Democrats would have to beat them by that amount to get the same number of seats.

[joshcryer]

17. That, and we lost a few districts due to apportainment. :(

Gerrymandering was the primary reason, though.

[caseymoz]

18. I considered that part of gerrymandering. nt

[joshcryer]

19. As do I.

But to be fair apportionment was done by the census, so the Republicans simply used it to their advantage. It didn't help that the liberal states lost population to the conservative states.