Final House Results, Dems 57%-41% popular vote, (1994: Reps 52%-44%) They really fucked us over

[Grebrook]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_election,_2006

I really am happy about winning back Congress, but the popular vote results really disgust me. We literally won TWICE the margin of victory as the Republicans won in 1994 (8% then for the Republicans, 16% now for the Dems) and yet we won 20-less seats then them. What should Congress do about this? Is there any realistic chance Pelosi or the house leadership will try to put forward some amendment to the constitution to stop this partisan gerrymandering that fucked us over big time?

We damn well should. It should be a first priority. Don't forget, we won the popular vote in 1996 and 2000 too, but both times we were left in the minority (we won the popular vote if you count Bernie Sanders in with us, since he caucused with us).

Something needs to be done.

[KingFlorez]

1. The redistricting is up the states

Democrats have to pick up more state legislatures in order to be able draw the maps.

[Grebrook]

2. Right, but that's not a solution, cause then we'll be locked in an eternal partisan gerrymandering

And when Dems do it the public won't pay attention to us when we get fucked over later after the Republicans win them back and redraw the lines again. We should stop it once and for all. Wouldn't an amendment to the constitution taking away the power of the state legislature to draw congressional districts be a reasonable solution? Hand it over some non-partisan election commission or just to the individual state Supreme Courts.

[KingFlorez]

4. It should be left up to the states

I think non-partisan commissions should draw lines, but I think the individual states should decide how their lines are drawn.

[USA_1]

5. True.

This is why Dems must not think that the battle is over. Those state legislatures must be recaptured and new districts drawn up so that American voters can truly be represented.

As an independent voter, I am very glad to see that the reich wing control over our domestic politics has been loosened. Now it must completely neutralized so that we can begin the process of reversing the damage done by the GOP and in healing the USA.

[bluestateguy]

3. If that's true then the exit poll UNDERstated the Democratic vote

Here the NEP exit poll shows Democrats winning 52.5% of the House vote nationwide to 45.0% for the Republic Party.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

If this vote count is true then the exit poll results fall OUTSIDE of its margin of error, which should be a little over 1%, given that the N is over 13,000.

So much for Ken Mehlman's CW that exit polls understate the Republic vote in elections.

[Joanne98]

6. One congress critter per 2.1 million people....

It should go by people not district.

[Bucky]

27. Bah! That would mean under 150 representatives!

I don't like that ratio. I'd like to see something more like 400-500 members of the House (which would come out to one MC per 600,000 or 750,000 people--a far more reasonable district size.

[SoCalDem]

50. Wyoming 500K people in the whole state 2 senators & 1 congresscritter

= 1 congressperson per 500K

California almost THIRTY SEVEN MILLION...2 senators & 53 congresscritters= 1 congressperson per 698K people

if you add in the senators, Wyo has A representative (incl sen & house) per every 166K people

California? 1 per every 660K people..


That's why the EC will never be allowed to "go away".. the rattlesnake, tumbleweed & dirt states would never vote for it..:grr:

[liberaldemocrat7]

57. Liberals need to move to those states.

If a Liberal has already considered moving then perhaps if liberals consider moving to those states and take them over in each congressional district.

I recall conservative libertarians chose New Hampshire to move to in their Free State project.

Imagine liberals moving to those states? The population appears low and it could turn the tide in Presidential elections.

[9119495]

66. Thank you. I've been saying this for years.

See my other post (probably way down thread). I think Wyoming's population (or any state the eventually may be lower) should be the base and the number of members in congress should be in ditricts the same as or smaller than that state's one district. Thus the number of members might fluctuate but never more than a few each cycle. Hell you could still calculate it every ten years.

[mom cat]

7. TIA has analyzed the resukts and concurs that the margin of

victory was substantially different that what was predicted by the pre-election polls:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x460141

[skipos]

12. The pre-election polls were very consistent with the final results

Just check out realclearpolitics.com

[nashville_brook]

32. hahaha! realpolitics.com is David Brooks' and Brit Hume's CHOICE for polling news!

http://realclearpolitics.com/about.html

About RealClearPolitics
Site Background

Founded in 2000 by John McIntyre and Tom Bevan, Chicago-based RealClearPolitics.com (RCP) is America’s political web site for intelligent opinion, news, polls and analysis. Each month, more than 500,000 visitors from across the political spectrum go to RCP to take the pulse of American politics. With leading-edge technology, RCP culls the best columns, magazine articles, and web write ups to deliver readers news from all points of the political compass and covering all the important issues of the day. By tapping into millions of weblogs and hundreds of newspapers every day, RCP has become a trusted filter for anyone interested in politics.

RCP’s political commentary, election analysis and polling averages have been featured in national media outlets including The New York Times, FOX News, CNN, The Economist, Investor’s Business Daily, The Chicago Sun-Times and many, many more.

Alan Warms joined RealClearPolitics as Publisher in September 2005. Alan also runs Participate Media based here in Chicago.

What People Say About Us

"RealClearPolitics is the first web site I check every morning. It's an invaluable tool for anybody interested in politics or public affairs." - David Brooks, The New York Times

"I check RealClearPolitics every day. It is the best collection of political commentary on the web." - Brit Hume, FOX News

"A site that makes a credible effort to do the impossible: to provide a comprehensive, real-time (and not just Beltway-based) overview of the entire American political conversation." - Howard Fineman, Newsweek

"RealClearPolitics is terrific. It's one of the first things I get to every morning. I don't know how I ever got along without RealClearPolitics.com." - Michael Barone, US News & World Report

"RealClearPolitics.com is my favorite political web site after OpinionJournal.com." - Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal

"Absolutely indispensable." - Peter Beinart, The New Republic

"RealClearPolitics is just terrific. I spend as much time on RCP as I do with the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the Financial Times combined.” - Rich Karlgaard, Forbes

"Not a day goes by that I don't click on RealClearPolitics at least once, the presidential poll charts, graphs and moving averages are great. If RCP didn't already exist, somebody would have to invent it." - Charlie Cook, National Journal

"Never miss it - that's the second biggest compliment I'd give to RealClearPolitics.com. The first is that it has become indispensable to anyone, in or outside of journalism, who's interested in politics, policy, or world affairs." - Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard

[skipos]

49. Ah... so the ole "if my enemy likes it, I should hate it" argument

Not to far from the Republican argument "If Democrats hate Bush, and Osama hates Bush, then Democrats must love Osama!"

Do you even know what realclearpolitics does?

[nashville_brook]

61. no, it's BIASED information. there's plenty of non-biased data our there, how come

you don't use that?

[nashville_brook]

33. so like, you're kidding... right...

bwahahahaha!

good one!

:rofl:

[skipos]

48. YOU are kidding right?

Please explain to me how the pre-election polls WEREN'T pretty accurate in general. I can't wait to hear your explanation! :rofl:

Final RealClearPolitics Averages
State/ predicted winner/ predicted margin of victory/ actual margin of victory

Arizona Kyl (R) 8.6% (9%)
Connecticut Lieberman (I) 11.8% (10%)
Maryland Cardin (D) 3.7% (10%)
Michigan Stabenow (D) 14.5% (16%)
Minnesota Klobuchar (D) 16.6% (20%)
Missouri McCaskill (D) 2.5% (3%)
Montana Tester (D) 3.0% (1%)
New Jersey Menendez (D)6.4% (8%)
Ohio Brown (D) 10.0% (12%)
Pennsylvania Casey (D) 11.5% (18%)
Rhode Island Whitehouse (D) 1.0% (6%)
Tennessee Corker (R) 6.0% (3%)
Virginia Webb (D) 1.5% (1%)
Washington Cantwell (D)13.3% (17%)

[nashville_brook]

60. if Brit Hume endorses RealPolitcs.com, then i have no use for it

find some non-rightwing endorsed data and we'll talk.

[skipos]

63. Do you even know what rcp has to do with the polls they post? nt

[Zynx]

13. TruthIsAll is full of it.

Generic ballot is meaningless. Actual race polls were very accurate.

[nashville_brook]

35. "poll results accurate" according to... link or reference please...

[Zynx]

73. Every significant election forecaster out there.

The outcomes of the individual races were widely predicted. ~30 seats in the House, 4-6 Senate seats. Other than idiocy like Barrons' prediction and propaganda like Novak and Rove, everyone who does this for a living, Republican, Independent and Democrat, had their numbers in that range. These forecasts had nothing to do with generic ballot. Generic ballot is once again useless. It does not take into account local races - people who may be supporting Republicans or Democrats who don't live in competitive districts, for example. Or people who don't like Republicans, but like thier Republican.

There were very few left field surprises - the Republicans losing both New Hampshire seats was by far the biggest.

[Richard Steele]

70. And we can just take YOUR word for that, right?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Zynx]

75. Go read data yourself. I'm not going to dictate factual information.

[Richard Steele]

78. I NEVER expected you to.

[Zynx]

83. Okay. Take a look.

http://www.pollster.com/house.php
http://www.pollster.com/senate.php

Many races were very close and thus polling was not perfect at predicting winners, but we split toss-up races fairly evenly.

[Dick Diver]

14. TIA and the "journalist" autorank also

calculated the odds on Lamont getting exactly the same number of votes as Lieberman's 2000 opponent. Garbage in, garbage out.

[nashville_brook]

38. wow dick, not often our autorank is described with such derision

care to explain your position. why do you deride auto? why put "journo" in scare quotes?

[Dick Diver]

59. I think real journalists rely upon primary sources,

particularly when they are readily available, rather than secondary sources that tell them what they wish to hear. I think that real journalists don't encourage colleagues/researchers to analyze questionable data without doing a bit of research first to determine the validity of the data. I also think real researchers (rather than simply partisans) might look at anomalous and question it prior lending their name (on this board and others) to a public analysis of that data. But, as I've said before regarding this particular researcher's work, "garbage in, garbage out."

For those who don't know what I'm refering to, examine some of the Lamont/Lieberman threads that appeared soon after the election.

[EFerrari]

81. Real journalists like Judith Miller? Oh puh-lease.

:rofl:

/a

:rofl:

[Dick Diver]

82. Who mentioned Judith Miller? I didn't.

I merely pointed out that if you are serious about journalism, or historical research, or other similar fields, you don't rely upon secondary sources if the primary sources are available.

If you want to hold to the same standards as Judith Miller, be my guest. You must think Jason Leopold ranks up there with the greats.

[Kelly Rupert]

23. TIA's shtick is getting old.

He was pretty popular back when everyone refused to believe that we could have lost in 2004, because he said what we wanted to hear--that Kerry really won.

Now, though, he's just getting ridiculous. We won this year. We won big-time. The district-by-district exit polls were all spot-on. There is zero evidence of fraud. Zero. There is zero indication of anything fishy at all. And the fact that he's still trying to stir up noise about "fraud" in '06 really kills any credibility he might have had.

Edit: Concurs with whom? Far as I know he's about the only one claiming massive '06 fraud.

[nashville_brook]

28. 391 posts worth TIA getting old?? since NOV of this year... 3 WEEKS AGO???

TIA's been around quite some time working this angle -- a lot of DU history contained in TIA's story. sorry to comment on your post count... but it's like hearing a child say grown-ups are stupid.

the schtick is gettiing old? how about the discrepancies getting old?

if he's wrong, it could be proven in a verified vote... but, uh... fair's fair. let's put all the cards on the table and settle this once and for all.

wouldn't you rather see these issues addressed than simply shoot the messenger? what if he's right? doesn't that seem chilling? what's to lose by having a looksee?

[Gelliebeans]

56. ahh but there is the rub...

if we pull those curtains back and take a looksie we might find out the truth. Can't have that :sarcasm:

We are in power now which is the best time in my opinion to have a looksie! ;)

[buddysmellgood]

36. At least TIA backs up his post with facts. You are spewing crap. Show the "spot on"

It's not spot on. There is heaps of evidence of fraud. Heaps. Open your eyes. In one race, a candidate got NO votes. Not even his vote and his wife's.

[nashville_brook]

40. i love that story! "gee honey... didn't you vote for yourself?"

thanks for weighing in! :evilgrin:

[ProfessorGAC]

80. Sorry, But That's Untrue

Facts are isolated in TIA's work, but the assumptions and analytical methods used are wholly unscienitific. And TIA knows it, since i've personally corresponded to show the errors. TIA prefers the hero worship from folks who hang on every new "analysis" over doing actual science.
The Professor

[fooj]

51. No evidence of fraud? Might want to ask Florida about that.

[Land Shark]

52. Kelly Rupert you are obviously not familiar with the field if you think TIA's the only one

There's an exit poll discrepancy of about 5% in the 50th Congressional District where we commissioned an exit poll by Zogby. www.bradblog.com/?p=3772 That didn't change the result but it does change the election night and later analysis of the competitiveness of the district. Google the words landslide denied and you'll get one report that goes through things nationally

FWIW: surely partisan gerrymandering plays a role here, and a significant one. But we are dealing with a multi-factor process in terms of causing or affecting election results, not just one "cause" like gerrymandering.

[DoYouEverWonder]

58. Zero evidence of fraud?

I guess you never heard of Sarasota?

18,000 votes missing in the vapor.

[Richard Steele]

71. You've been here 3 weeks. Hardly qualifies you to say who is "getting old".

And, "There is zero indication of anything fishy at all." Really?

Who told you that, Rush Limbaugh?

What utter nonsense. You very obviously don't know what
you are talking about.

[Bill McBlueState]

54. you understand that the OP is not about election fraud, right?

It's about the systematic underrepresentation of Democrats due to the way district boundaries are drawn.

The pseudo-mathematical babblings of banned poster #34720 really aren't relevant here.

[rinsd]

67. TIA is full of it. Stop thread-jacking (nt)

[StatGirl]

8. We need a constitutional amendment, or a movement . . .

For each state, districts should be drawn in such a way as to minimize the total perimeter of the districts, subject to the constraint that the largest district should have no more than, say, 5% more people than the smallest district. (That could potentially be tightened to 2%.)

The computer capability exists to do this. The hard part is counting the people and figuring out where they are, but I imagine that's a problem under the current system, too.

[w4rma]

16. That, I agree with. (nt)

[Tiggeroshii]

9. You gotta remember that the Republicans had a huge redistricting campaign going on

right before the 94 elections. So thus, as one would presume, they would have won far more seats than us, just by gaining a given 20 seats from the redistricting in the southa that was going on.

[Cocoa]

10. that needs a source

where do those numbers come from?

[Tiggeroshii]

15. As of 11-11, Huffington post had it at 55-42

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/what-a-mandate-popular-_b_33882.html

[Tiggeroshii]

11. But shoot! How is THAT for a mandate?

Bush thought his lousy 3 percent margin was a mandate....

We got 16%. Why don't we rub that mandate in the Repukes' faces...

[Stevepol]

18. Kerry won by 3%; Bush didn't win by the 2 1/2 % claimed.

Freeman, Mark Crispin Miller, and the PhD statisticians at Election Archive didn't get it wrong.

[Kelly Rupert]

24. Yes, but when you consider the votes that were actually cast by real people

I'm afraid we lost.

[buddysmellgood]

39. Are you real?

[Richard Steele]

76. Psst!

[nashville_brook]

41. WOW... we must take your word for it then. all settled!

what a relief.

[Tiggeroshii]

47. LOL

And you can tell that, how? Unfortunately that's not something we can really verify real easily. In fact, if we were to verify the votes cast by real people, we'll find out that there is a substantial miscount in favor of Bush in Ohio, this is major enough to - if the recount finished, give Ohio to Kerry.However, a more factual way of saying what you said is...

"If you consider the official vote count as recorded and submitted by the Secretary of States in every state, I'm afraid we lost."

[Richard Steele]

74. So, you are claiming that DEMS committed all the Election Fraud?

BWAHaHaHahahaha!!!!!


Moran. :rofl:

[Dick Diver]

17. Wait a minute here...

Either these numbers are wrong or TIA is certainly full of it. In this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2775205

TIA is claiming that the house vote should be 57-41 but in reality the vote TURNED OUT TO BE 51-46. Yet here the claim is that the vote WAS what TIA projected. What's going on here? More magic numbers that make us look like fools? Or, are TIA's sychophants mucking around with Wiki?

[On the Road]

20. TIA Believes That the Exit Polls are Correct

and that when the actual vote deviates, it is always due to fraud. If you accept his premise, the rest of his arguments follow.

Personally, I think the results show that a 5% discrepancy in the exit polls can be legitimate, just like in 2004. Otherwise, you would have to believe that Republicans were able to steal 5% of the vote to make it close, but not the extra fraction that would have turned around many congresisonal elections.

[Grebrook]

22. That's also from a week ago, the results are still coming in, I believe

I don't think they tabulated a lot of the exact numerical results in heavily Democratic and Republican districts until the last couple of days because everyone knew who had won the overall race due to election projections.

[Cocoa]

26. where do your numbers come from?

the numbers in that Wikipedia entry, what's the source?

[nashville_brook]

30. geez -- maybe just maybe TIA's on to something...

could you possibly entertain that for a minute?

let the data do the talking.

forget the egos involved. your's especially. TIA's a number-cruncher not a pundit. TIA's laid down a gauntlet. wouldn't it be nice if this were a poker game and the other side had to show their cards at some point?

i don't think TIA is the bugaboo ya'll make him out to be. what on earth would ANYONE get out of doing all the hundreds of hours of work TIA's done without compensation. he believes the data reveals something important. lots of people agree. the only way to settle this is to verify the vote.

my question to you -- would you be down with that? hypothetically? do you think there is room in our democracy to demand answers to these questions? or is it not within our right?

[Zynx]

77. You can be a true believer and still be a crank.

TIA's "issues" have been addressed in other threads and in other posts.

[hootinholler]

19. There should be an algorithim developed by the NIST

That draws the lines. Then let it draw the lines everywhere.

-Hoot

[Turn CO Blue]

21. Many districts are gerrymandered for a 5% advantage to

Repubs. That is where the discrepancy is.

[karynnj]

25. Some of this is NOT gerrymandering

The Democratic vote is geographically more concentrated. Many inner cities have multiple congress districts all with very high % Democrat voters. The Republicans in rural and suburban areas tend to be Republican but by a much lower margin. So, a suburb that is usually 60% Republican - will tend to always have a Republican. An inner-city may be 90% Democrat. (As you can see we "waste" more of our voters.)

[nashville_brook]

31. if SOME is not gerrymandering, then MOST is... is it not?

[karynnj]

44. I don't have any idea what percent is each way

I know the Republicans have gerrymandered. (Texas was gerrymandered with great precision - I was simply pointing out that even if the districts were drawn using computers (and say telephone data to identify communities), there is some natural inherent factors which lead to many very concentrated Democratic districts - by using "some" I was specificly not contradicting the point.

[nashville_brook]

46. here's what Gerrymandering is: incumbent free-for-all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Increased_incumbent_advantage_and_campaign_costs

Gerrymandering is a controversial form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage. The word "gerrymander" is named for the American politician Elbridge Gerry (July 17, 1744 – November 23, 1814),<1> and is a portmanteau of his name and the word "salamander," which was used to describe the appearance of a tortuous electoral district Gerry created in order to disadvantage his electoral opponents. "Gerrymander" is used both as a verb meaning "to commit gerrymandering" as well as a noun describing the resulting electoral geography. Ideally, it is pronounced with a hard G, as with Elbridge Gerry's actual name, but the "jerry" pronunciation is now the normal pronunciation.<2>
Gerrymandering may be used to advantage or disadvantage particular constituents, such as members of a racial, linguistic, religious or class group, often in the favor of ruling incumbents or a specific political party. Although all electoral systems which use multiple districts as a basis for determining representation are susceptible to gerrymandering to various degrees, governments using single winner voting systems are the most vulnerable. Most notably, gerrymandering is particularly effective in nonproportional systems that tend towards fewer parties, such as first past the post.
Gerrymandering is specially related to the very minority of democracies, with one-candidate elections in single districts, like in the United States and Great Britain. Other democratic countries can have a combination of district elections and proportional division of mandates, which make gerrymandering relatively less important.

Among Western democracies, states like Israel and the Netherlands are not susceptible to gerrymandering in the national government, as they employ electoral systems with only one (nationwide) voting district. Other countries, such as the UK and Canada, attempt to prevent gerrymandering by having the constituency boundaries set by non-partisan organisations such as the UK's Boundary Commission. Gerrymandering is most common in countries such as the United States of America where elected state politicians are responsible for drawing districts, with a few exceptions.

[Bucky]

37. That would be true if the cities and suburbs were the same size. But they're not.

The cities, as the name implies, are bigger. Also the congressional districts don't fall neatly along lines dividing suburb from city. In fact, most districts meander in and out of different residency areas to help both Democratic and Republican factions have a few safe seats and allow only a few swing districts. I also suspect your notion that most inner cities are anything close to 90% Democratic.

I do think your characterization of the current Democratic and Republican districts is accurate, tho--at least in Texas where Tom Delay planned it that way. But that's what gerrymandering is, arranging districts by historic voting patterns to manipulate the make up of the final Congressional delegation. Delay certainly did crowd minorities into near solid districts and managed to pick up four seats in 2004.

But that boomeranged a lot on Texas. We'd have picked up two committee chairmanships when the Democrats took over this year, if it weren't for Delay. His final legacy was to screw Texas out of political power.

[nashville_brook]

43. gerrymandering favors INCUMBENTS and BIG MONEY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Increased_incumbent_advantage_and_campaign_costs

Increased incumbent advantage and campaign costs
The effect of gerrymandering on incumbents is particularly focused, as incumbents are far more likely to be reelected under conditions of gerrymandering. For example, in 2002, only four challengers were able to defeat incumbent members of Congress, the lowest number in modern American history, according to political scientists Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann.<4> This is due in part both to the high likelihood of incumbents to be the ones orchestrating a gerrymander as well as the relative ease of renomination for incumbents in subsequent elections, including incumbents among the minority. This shows another commonly cited effect of gerrymandering: a deleterious effect on the principle of democratic accountability. No longer fearing removal from office with their renomination and electoral success secured due to uncompetitive elections, incumbent politicians have a greatly reduced incentive to govern based on the interests of their constituents, even when these interests reflect an issue that enjoys majority support across the electorate as a whole.
Gerrymandering can also have a more practical effect on the campaign costs for district elections. As districts become increasingly concave and oddly elongated, the difficulty of finding transportation and focusing campaign advertising across a district increases significantly, resulting in higher costs to run for office. When incumbents have an advantage at securing campaign funds (as is commonly the case), this further amplifies the advantage to incumbents that gerrymandering provides.

[karynnj]

45. Manhattan voted over 80% for Kerry

my suburban NJ county is red, voted for Bush - but by less than 60%. I don't have a link - but this was a point I read some time ago.

[Bucky]

29. But still, look at this picture: it is a thing of beauty

I do notice more deep blue than deep red (but don't count the navy blues and chocolate reds--those are probably uncontested seats). That would suggest Democrats getting crowded into safe Dem districts, which spreads out the Republican votes into more seats.

The key is to hold onto as many state legislatures as possible until the 2011-2012 redistricting sessions. That's where your alignment-flippers kick in.

[snowbear]

34. No kidding Bucky.. some people would whine no matter what..

Me thinks the OP should just kick back, relax, maybe donate to DU and enjoy being in the MAJORITY party!

[Land Shark]

53. really? I'd like to be your employer, after shorting your paycheck

and where you are clearly owed a thousand dollars, you will accept $925 and have a party that you're "getting paid" Yippee!!!!

It's not just a question of winning, it's what one SHOULD have won, minus what one DID win, and the size of any difference between those two.

being apparently willing to accept 95 cents on the dollar is a shitty political strategy even while i do understand the need to party and celebrate what IS... you're not REALLY advocating tolerating this are you? If so, in effect you impose a supermajority requirement on the Dems that is not imposed on the republicans.

[Grebrook]

55. Yeah, plus, since 2008 can't possibly be as good for us as 2006, we might lose seats simply

because of gerrymandering, even if we continue to win the popular vote. Because in order to win Congress, we have to win decisively, which the REpublicans don't. They can just pull within the margins and take Congress.

We can't accept this.

[nashville_brook]

62. you say that so well!

"...in effect you impose a supermajority requirement on the Dems that is not imposed on the republicans."

[nashville_brook]

42. that map illustrates gerrymandering... so yeah, we won DESPITE it

[Land Shark]

72. yeah, we Won running uphill while opponents ran a flat course, SO...

(some real non-thinkers conclude) There's NO PROBLEM WITH FAIRNESS OF THE TERRAIN OF THE COURSE! :sarcasm:

Let's pop another champagne cork! :sarcasm:

[9119495]

64. I would INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE

435 is antiquated. Why not make the number something like 535 or 601? Hell, maybe even a thousand. Right now we have unequal district sized due to high population (read: blue) states being capped on the number of reps they get because every state gets one. No district should be larger in population than the population of the ditrict of a one district state like Wyoming. If Wyoming gets one seat for its approximately 500,000 people, than all other states should have districts that size or smaller. As it is, red states are way over represented.

[Grebrook]

68. Um, isn't that actually how it works? 1 rep for every 600,000 people?

[9119495]

79. No, the number of representatives have been capped at 435

for quite a while (can't remember the exact date). Thus, high population states are at a disadvantage.

[Tony Soprano]

65. MANDATE!!!!

:)

[TexasLawyer]

69. kick