WWTBAM Bored

Real Clear Politics did a 5-part series on how and where Trump won.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 32846.html

The link is to Part 5-Conclusions, however links from there take you to the sections on the South, West, Northeast and Midwest.

One theme in "Conclusions" is how the geographic inefficiency of the Democrats' votes(concentrated in large cities) makes it tougher to draw house seats and so forth in a way that helps them.

I disagree with some of their analysis, but so be it, it is interesting (to me) regardless.

I don't understand how this is non-political.

There's nothing wrong with a thing being political, but to see it described it that way and then not experience it that way is a little ... something. Unnerving?

Does the "non-political" disclaimer just mean that you the poster are not making a particular political statement?

Thanks.

Ritterskoop wrote:I don't understand how this is non-political.

There's nothing wrong with a thing being political, but to see it described it that way and then not experience it that way is a little ... something. Unnerving?

Does the "non-political" disclaimer just mean that you the poster are not making a particular political statement?

Thanks.

I suspect you have correctly ascertained Spock's intent. "Non-partisan" probably would have been more accurate. --Bob

Ritterskoop wrote:I don't understand how this is non-political.

There's nothing wrong with a thing being political, but to see it described it that way and then not experience it that way is a little ... something. Unnerving?

Does the "non-political" disclaimer just mean that you the poster are not making a particular political statement?

Thanks.

Yes. The topic is obviously political, but while I am obviously a strong partisan-I am very interested in the topic in a non-partisan way (if that is possible.) I usually go through Michael Barone's "Almanac of American Politics" for every election cycle. This is the religious text for those interested in the geography of congressional districts and gerrymandering and so forth.

I have long-pondered what the article terms the "geographic inefficiency" of the Democrats' votes. For example-There may (or may not) be more votes cast for Democrats in House of Representative elections in Pennsylvania as a total. I don't feel like looking the numbers up right now-I have looked at in in the past and I don't remember the specifics.

However, a lot of the congressional votes for Democrats in Pennsylvania are stranded in 95% (or whatever the number is) Democrat districts in Philly and these are also blocked in by slightly less Democrat areas in the inner suburbs. There really is no way to distribute those votes out to districts where Republicans win by, say, 60 to 40.

While gerrymandering is obviously a factor by both parties-the issue of stranded (for lack of a better term) votes affects the Democrats a lot more than the Republicans.

Bob78164 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I don't understand how this is non-political.

There's nothing wrong with a thing being political, but to see it described it that way and then not experience it that way is a little ... something. Unnerving?

Does the "non-political" disclaimer just mean that you the poster are not making a particular political statement?

Thanks.

I suspect you have correctly ascertained Spock's intent. "Non-partisan" probably would have been more accurate. --Bob

Yep, Bob you are right.

Over the last few weeks, I had been looking through through Barone's Almanac on California-That takes a while with 53 House seats-I kept wondering-if you don't mind sharing-which district you are in.

I read 1 house seat, whenever I finish a chapter on the other books I am reading-so it takes a long time. I went backwards this time and I finally am on the last few seats in Alabama.

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I don't understand how this is non-political.

There's nothing wrong with a thing being political, but to see it described it that way and then not experience it that way is a little ... something. Unnerving?

Does the "non-political" disclaimer just mean that you the poster are not making a particular political statement?

Thanks.

I suspect you have correctly ascertained Spock's intent. "Non-partisan" probably would have been more accurate. --Bob

Yep, Bob you are right.

Over the last few weeks, I had been looking through through Barone's Almanac on California-That takes a while with 53 House seats-I kept wondering-if you don't mind sharing-which district you are in.

I read 1 house seat, whenever I finish a chapter on the other books I am reading-so it takes a long time. I went backwards this time and I finally am on the last few seats in Alabama.

I'm in the 37th, represented by Karen Bass. She was previously my representative in the State Assembly, during which time she served as Assembly Speaker. Before redistricting, I was in Henry Waxman's district.

I think the phenomenon you're describing is fairly well known. Even a neutral drawing of district lines is likely to be a bit disadvantageous to Democrats because cities are so heavily Democratic. But there's no question in my mind that district lines were drawn in states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina to dramatically exacerbate the problem. --Bob

We will have a special ballot in 2017 to try to fix NC's districts, I think. There wasn't time to redraw them before the November 2016 election.

The state-by-state gerrymandering is largely Republican. The Dem rep in my sister's district in Ohio had their district redrawn by Republicans in such a way that the rep said they'd probably need a boat to campaign w/o leaving the district (they got a lot of Lake Erie coastal cities). They won nevertheless (probably by traveling by car through Republican districts) but the other Dem who'd had their district merged w/ 1st Dem was forced out of House.

Ritterskoop wrote:We will have a special ballot in 2017 to try to fix NC's districts, I think. There wasn't time to redraw them before the November 2016 election.

I think the Supreme Court stayed that order. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:We will have a special ballot in 2017 to try to fix NC's districts, I think. There wasn't time to redraw them before the November 2016 election.

I think the Supreme Court stayed that order. --Bob

Yes, http://www.theroot.com/supreme-court-ha ... 1791134305

ghostjmf wrote:The state-by-state gerrymandering is largely Republican.

That is where the decimation of the Democrats in state legislatures across the country during the Obama years has come into play. The Democrats obviously draw the lines to their favor where they can-but when they can't win seats outside the big cities-they start to limit their options and the loss of their bench will be hurting them for a long while and in a lot of ways.

Spock wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:The state-by-state gerrymandering is largely Republican.

That is where the decimation of the Democrats in state legislatures across the country during the Obama years has come into play. The Democrats obviously draw the lines to their favor where they can-but when they can't win seats outside the big cities-they start to limit their options and the loss of their bench will be hurting them for a long while and in a lot of ways.

Not always. Democrats had unified control of California state government for redistricting after the 2000 census, but instead of drawing lines for partisan advantage, the Legislature drew lines to protect incumbents of both parties. That had a lot to do with the adoption by initiative of a Redistricting Commission, which was in place for the 2010 redistricting. --Bob