The gerrymanders are not even the main cause - reasonable maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would combined swing MAYBE 6-7 seats, but probably less.
Dems' problem is a simple one: their voters self-pack. The constitution places a large value on geographic diversity and winning individual states, and on both measures Dems fail miserably.
Remarkably lazy analysis by 538 honestly.
Non Partisan maps in those states would swing
OH: 4 districts
NC: 2 districts
MI: 3 districts
PA: 3 districts
WI: 2 districts.
That's 14. Not 6 or 7.
The notion that you could find 4 additional districts in Ohio Democrats could win with a non-partisan map is ludicrous, as is the notion you could find 3 in Michigan or 2 in Wisconsin. You could find probably 2 across Ohio and North Carolina, maybe 1 in Michigan, maybe 2 in PA and straight nothing in Wisconsin due to the fact that the Democratic power base is completely isolated in two islands that necessitate non-partisan districts be drawn around them.
Refer to my below link for a much more detailed analysis then whatever these numbers are you've fabricated.
The gerrymanders are not even the main cause - reasonable maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would combined swing MAYBE 6-7 seats, but probably less.
Dems' problem is a simple one: their voters self-pack. The constitution places a large value on geographic diversity and winning individual states, and on both measures Dems fail miserably.
Remarkably lazy analysis by 538 honestly.
Non Partisan maps in those states would swing
OH: 4 districts
NC: 2 districts
MI: 3 districts
PA: 3 districts
WI: 2 districts.
That's 14. Not 6 or 7.
What's your source on this? Not doubting you, just genuinely curious.
Probably meant to refer to Jalawest but if you're looking for a good source on this look here:
http://rrhelections.com/index.php/2017/07/23/no-partisan-gerrymandering-did-not-cost-democrats-seats-in-the-house-of-representatives-a-state-by-state-analysis/While the above link is obviously underestimating the impact of gerrymandering, the notion that Democrats are losing huge numbers of seats due to redistricting is completely fantasy.
The gerrymanders are not even the main cause - reasonable maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would combined swing MAYBE 6-7 seats, but probably less.
Dems' problem is a simple one: their voters self-pack. The constitution places a large value on geographic diversity and winning individual states, and on both measures Dems fail miserably.
Remarkably lazy analysis by 538 honestly.
I'm curious to see how you apply your theory to the House in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
There's a few reasons this is a poor counter argument:
1. The 2006 and 2008 elections were Democratic wave elections, wherein the Democrats won the house PV by 8 and 10.5 points, respectively. Of course the Democrats won way more seats under the old map with these conditions.
2. Democrats have continually performed better and better in the urban areas and worse and worse in the rural areas. It's been over 8 years since 2008 and Democrats wouldn't have a shadow of a chance in many of the districts they won back in 2008 even under the old map
even with a 10.5 point victory in the PV.
3. Polarization is much stronger now than it was. Republican-leaning districts are much more likely to vote for Republicans now just as Democrat-leaning districts are much more likely to vote straight-ticket Democrat at all levels of government. That's not the fault of the maps, but it does make the house more difficult for Democrats to win then in 2006 or 2008 even disregarding all of the above.
But ya, blaming partisan gerrymandering is a lot more comfortable then admitting your base self-packs or your message has zero appeal to rural areas so of course Democrats will do that instead. Hell, it might work in a midterm if enough low-propensity voters show up. But the results will never look at good as they 'ought to' based on PV totals, and that is not (or at least is mostly not) the fault of partisan congressional districts.
