Natural Republican majority in Congressional Districts.

[Ryan]

Natural Republican majority in Congressional Districts.

Any sensible republican will be all for banning gerrymandering and drawing the most compact districts possible. It's true that both parties indulge in gerrymandering to an equal extent. They would have to, for as Churchill said, "if one side fights and the other does not the war is apt to become a tad one sided". However I believe that if gerrymandering were ended and all districts drawn in the most compact manner with maximum community of interest in each CD, then republicans would pick up in excess of 20 seats.

I will freely admit that this is not necessarily because of more republicans in the nation(not yet anyway), in fact election after election shows a close division.

Rather Republican voters are spread throughout the country more efficiently than Democratic voters are. In other words, Democrats have far more "wasted votes" than do Republicans because their voters tend to be more concentrated in Democratic districts. This occurs because nationwide democrats tend to be concentrated in densely populated urban areas where they have huge majorities (eg 70 % + in New York City) while republicans are spread out over rural and suburban areas.

This phenomenon can already be seen in operation....., in 2000 of the districts carried by Gore, he won 53 percent of them with 60 percent or more of the vote. In contrast, Bush won 60 percent of the vote or more in just 41 percent of the districts he carried. In short, Bush carried more districts, albeit with narrower margins. If you look at map of US congressional districts you will see several districts held by democrats that include a large rural or suburban area but enough of a neighboring city to give them enough votes to win. If it were only the non-urban area it would be a republican majority district. The urban part would end up in a democratic super-majority district. If compact districts were drawn in these cases it would increase republican numbers.

Thus if compact reasonable districts were drawn you would have about 250 republican districts and about 185 democratic districts. This of course would refer to seats where parties hold a majority and not necessarily to seats that WILL definitely ELECT a republican or democrat.
Be interested in hearing other peoples take on this. Would appreciate any figures or facts provided in refutation.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually if gerrymandering was banned you would end up with about 100 safe GOP seats, about 100 safe Dem seats and the rest of 'em would be marginals.
Making congressional elections very fun indeed

[Ryan]

Actually if gerrymandering was banned you would end up with about 100 safe GOP seats, about 100 safe Dem seats and the rest of 'em would be marginals.
Making congressional elections very fun indeed

Wow 235 competitive seats> I'd never get any other work done. I disagree with your conclusion but it is sure fun to imagine

[Filuwaúrdjan]

At least 150 would be very competetive and most of the of other marginals would only be won by a few %.

It won't happen though, unpredictible elections are NOT what the RNC or the DNC want.

Bastards

[Ryan]

LOL too true. Dont lose hope though. There is a ballot initiative underway in California to throw out the current map which was a bipartisan gerrymander and draw compact and competitive districts. Maybe it will succeed and the idea will spread.
 A long shot but hey I can dream cant I?

At least 150 would be very competetive and most of the of other marginals would only be won by a few %.

It won't happen though, unpredictible elections are NOT what the RNC or the DNC want.

Bastards

[Filuwaúrdjan]

BI-PARTISAN GERRYMANDER?!?!!!!

[Ryan]

BI-PARTISAN GERRYMANDER?!?!!!!

U didnt know??? California's redistricting map was drawn by democrats but they needed republican support to get it through the legislature (else by law they have to submit it to popular vote and God forbid the people's opinion be asked  )

The upshot was that all incumbents were protected (save one aged republican) and competition was minimised. Only 5-6 districts are even remotely competitive out of 53.

It was to be fair to my own party done by the democratic party but the California GOP did co-operate so I term it a "bipartisan" gerrymander.

[zorkpolitics]

California was not the only bi-partisan gerrymander.  NJ had two close districts in 2000 (Holt in 12 and Ferguson in 7) that were suppose to be competitive, but after the bi-partisan Gerrymander to protect incumbents, both won in 2002 with nearly 60%.  

In fact after the 2002 redistricting competitive districts were reduced to an all time low, only 34 out of 435 seats were won with a margin less than 10%.  And this includes the 31 Open seats that are usually considered competitive.

[NorthernDog]

Didn't the Voter's Rights Act require more minority representation? I remember Republicans making sure that black voters were
put into the same districts, making them certain to elect a black candidate.  It also deprived white Democrat candidates of most of black votes.  Tricky, Tricky.  But if this is what really happend it was kinda hard for liberals to balk.  Ironically it was Democrats who used to slice up the minority communities to make sure they always had a white candidate.

[Ryan]

I thought redistricting in NJ was supposed to be done by a comission? Maybe I'm mixing it up with another state? Or is the commision bi-partisan rather than independent?

California was not the only bi-partisan gerrymander.  NJ had two close districts in 2000 (Holt in 12 and Ferguson in 7) that were suppose to be competitive, but after the bi-partisan Gerrymander to protect incumbents, both won in 2002 with nearly 60%.  

In fact after the 2002 redistricting competitive districts were reduced to an all time low, only 34 out of 435 seats were won with a margin less than 10%.  And this includes the 31 Open seats that are usually considered competitive.

[Beet]

Gerrymandering is a terrible practice but it is not impossible to overcome.

[zorkpolitics]

NJ redistricting was indeed done by a comission, but by a bi-partisan gerrymander commission:
A thirteen-member Redistricting Commission draws the congressional districts. The speaker of the General Assembly, the president of the Senate, the minority leaders of both chambers, and the chairs of the two largest political parties each appoint two members. The twelve in turn vote on a thirteenth member.

[Ryan]

A thirteen-member Redistricting Commission draws the congressional districts. The speaker of the General Assembly, the president of the Senate, the minority leaders of both chambers, and the chairs of the two largest political parties each appoint two members. The twelve in turn vote on a thirteenth member.

Ah I see, btw what party was the 13th member from or did they manage to find an actual independent?

[Gustaf]

What exactly would define a "compact district"?

[DarthKosh]

What exactly would define a "compact district"?

The most people in the smallest area.

[DarthKosh]

A thirteen-member Redistricting Commission draws the congressional districts. The speaker of the General Assembly, the president of the Senate, the minority leaders of both chambers, and the chairs of the two largest political parties each appoint two members. The twelve in turn vote on a thirteenth member.

Ah I see, btw what party was the 13th member from or did they manage to find an actual independent?

No such this as a true independant.

[NHPolitico]

Actually if gerrymandering was banned you would end up with about 100 safe GOP seats, about 100 safe Dem seats and the rest of 'em would be marginals.
Making congressional elections very fun indeed

I wouldn't have a problem with it, though we'd have likely lost the House in 1998. We'd have gotten it back in 2000 and had ridiculous margins in 2002.  On the whole, I think the GOP would come out way ahead in such a reality.

[NHPolitico]

Actually if gerrymandering was banned you would end up with about 100 safe GOP seats, about 100 safe Dem seats and the rest of 'em would be marginals.
Making congressional elections very fun indeed

Wow 235 competitive seats> I'd never get any other work done. I disagree with your conclusion but it is sure fun to imagine

If there was basic parity in all the districts to the extent possible, there'd be easily that many seats competitive. I don't think we'd have a high turnover, but the races would be competitive. They'd also be more expensive. Would people think that's a good development?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's basically the case over here. Big turnovers are rare, and huge wons even rarer(1945 and 1997 being the most recent)
The GOP would have had a huge majority in 1994, but most of the new congressmen would have lost their seats in 1996.

In 2002 the overall numbers would be similer to what they are now, but there would be a big difference in how many state delagations both parties would have.

[jravnsbo]

speaking of state delegations.  How do they break down by party now?  I mean how many for each adn a tie, looking ahead to a House tiebreaker scenario for President.

[Gustaf]

Actually if gerrymandering was banned you would end up with about 100 safe GOP seats, about 100 safe Dem seats and the rest of 'em would be marginals.
Making congressional elections very fun indeed

Wow 235 competitive seats> I'd never get any other work done. I disagree with your conclusion but it is sure fun to imagine

If there was basic parity in all the districts to the extent possible, there'd be easily that many seats competitive. I don't think we'd have a high turnover, but the races would be competitive. They'd also be more expensive. Would people think that's a good development?

Considering the fact that the cost for all British political parties' campaigns in the last election combined was less than the election campaign of 1 American senator (I can't remember which) theof election campaigns depends on a lot of things, but it might be bad to continue down that road. The referendum campaign in Sweden last fall was more expensive than Bush's election campaign, counted per voter.

[jravnsbo]

Yes but you have to remember that England is not that big land wise.  Senate campaigns especially can be expensive as you have to run in a number major media markets.  But yes I see your point.

Actually if gerrymandering was banned you would end up with about 100 safe GOP seats, about 100 safe Dem seats and the rest of 'em would be marginals.
Making congressional elections very fun indeed

Wow 235 competitive seats> I'd never get any other work done. I disagree with your conclusion but it is sure fun to imagine

If there was basic parity in all the districts to the extent possible, there'd be easily that many seats competitive. I don't think we'd have a high turnover, but the races would be competitive. They'd also be more expensive. Would people think that's a good development?

Considering the fact that the cost for all British political parties' campaigns in the last election combined was less than the election campaign of 1 American senator (I can't remember which) theof election campaigns depends on a lot of things, but it might be bad to continue down that road. The referendum campaign in Sweden last fall was more expensive than Bush's election campaign, counted per voter.

[NHPolitico]

That's basically the case over here. Big turnovers are rare, and huge wons even rarer(1945 and 1997 being the most recent)
The GOP would have had a huge majority in 1994, but most of the new congressmen would have lost their seats in 1996.

In 2002 the overall numbers would be similer to what they are now, but there would be a big difference in how many state delagations both parties would have.

I think bringing more importance to congressional election via turnover would be good. It would cut both ways, but when the GOP does well, like in 1994, the GOP would have a much stronger hand.

[zorkpolitics]

speaking of state delegations.  How do they break down by party now?  I mean how many for each adn a tie, looking ahead to a House tiebreaker scenario for President.

Curently the Republicans have a majority of State Delegations:
Rep = 32
Dem = 15 (Hall switch in TX moved TX to a tie)
Tie = 4
But it is likley SD will switch to Democrats after the special election in June

[nclib]

speaking of state delegations.  How do they break down by party now?  I mean how many for each adn a tie, looking ahead to a House tiebreaker scenario for President.

Curently the Republicans have a majority of State Delegations:
Rep = 32
Dem = 15 (Hall switch in TX moved TX to a tie)
Tie = 4
But it is likley SD will switch to Democrats after the special election in June

Isn't it 31 Repub.?