Non-partisan Redistricting

[Gulo Blue]

Reverse that and we'd have a lot more laws pass, but then again maybe not since bills get killed in the Senate since they only have 58% of the vote

Has it always benefited Republicans? I doubt it.

 

[tsmith7559]

Detroit represents over 300,000 of those votes and areas in and around detroit like Ann arbor, southfield, Warren, Redford, Westland and the smaller communites in between are heavy democratic, that's why you have the makeup we do, sure there are some adjustments republicans make to get a better district but it wouldn't make sense to divide detroit into several parts and stretch districts out into st clair county, for example.

 

[grandy]

Has it always benefited Republicans? I doubt it.

It has not, I've been working on a spreadsheet for pop vote vs seat percentage. Democrats are heavily skewed in the 80s (Some years nearly 10% house representation over pop vote percentage).

 

[Michchamp]

Detroit represents over 300,000 of those votes and areas in and around detroit like Ann arbor, southfield, Warren, Redford, Westland and the smaller communites in between are heavy democratic, that's why you have the makeup we do, sure there are some adjustments republicans make to get a better district but it wouldn't make sense to divide detroit into several parts and stretch districts out into st clair county, for example.

how does that make sense? so you don't deserve equal representation in a legislature because you happen to live in a big city?

300,000 Detroiters = 1 rep

300,000 country bumpkins = 2 or more... because they're white, right? just come out and say it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It has not, I've been working on a spreadsheet for pop vote vs seat percentage. Democrats are heavily skewed in the 80s (Some years nearly 10% house representation over pop vote percentage).

I figured it should bounce around. I just looked up the last presidential race and Obama got 51.1% of the popular vote last time around, but 61.7% of the electoral votes. Must be all those racist bumpkins MC is complaining about.

 

[Michchamp]

I figured it should bounce around. I just looked up the last presidential race and Obama got 51.1% of the popular vote last time around, but 61.7% of the electoral votes. Must be all those racist bumpkins MC is complaining about.

the electoral collage is a different issue... and hell, if we apportioned electors based on the popular vote, we'd never have had a second President Bush.

 

[Michchamp]

I figured it should bounce around. I just looked up the last presidential race and Obama got 51.1% of the popular vote last time around, but 61.7% of the electoral votes. Must be all those racist bumpkins MC is complaining about.

you give me no credit for using the nicer term "bumpkin" for them.

 

[tsmith7559]

how does that make sense? so you don't deserve equal representation in a legislature because you happen to live in a big city?

300,000 Detroiters = 1 rep

300,000 country bumpkins = 2 or more... because they're white, right? just come out and say it.

No, 730,000 detroiters vote 95%dem. You libs live too close together

 

[Gulo Blue]

the electoral collage is a different issue... and hell, if we apportioned electors based on the popular vote, we'd never have had a second President Bush.

SKIP THIS PARAGRAPH AND GO TO THE BIG EDIT AT THE BOTTOM.

I know, but they're related here. EC gives you a reason to expect some of this skewing between popular vote and % representatives and gerrymandering is another reason you'd see skewing. At least when you look at national numbers (which we were with that 5% difference.) There was less than a 5% difference (according to Sbee), but that's the combination of the skew due to EC and gerrymandering. It's possible they offset, but really, it's tough to come up with a narrative that makes this look like there's more republican cheating in this way. You'd agree the EC benefits republicans right now, right? So there must be about as much or more gerrymandering out there benefiting dems as there is reps. It's got to add up to a swing 5% for republicans. It could be the republicans get a 1% boost from the electoral college and only a 4% boost from gerrymandering, or maybe republicans get a 10% boost from the electoral college and democrats get a 5% boost from gerrymandering. The only way you can get a big republican boost from gerrymandering is if the democrats are getting a boost from the electoral college. I don't think anyone is buying that idea.


REALLY BIG EDIT:

Hang on, SBee's numbers were only House and not Senate, weren't they?

Then nevermind. Gerrymandering probably nets republicans about +5% on top of what the electoral college does. That means nothing with relation to not freaking out over issues of population density that make the maps look all red, but it does mean MC's right about the electoral college not being the issue.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you give me no credit for using the nicer term "bumpkin" for them.

How 'bout I give you credit for being right about the EC (non)issue?

 

[Thumb]

No, 730,000 detroiters vote 95%dem. You libs live too close together

Like you mean, how poor people do? (minorities)

Hey I understand, why the fuck is everyone not rich and white and live on a nice wide open spread in Clarkston next to Kid Rock?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think it's natural to view the invasiveness of laws and the need for "invasive" laws differently if you share a wall with your neighbor vs. if you have a quarter mile between neighbors.

 

[tsmith7559]

Like you mean, how poor people do? (minorities)

Hey I understand, why the fuck is everyone not rich and white and live on a nice wide open spread in Clarkston next to Kid Rock?

What does that have to do with detroit being a congressional district due to its population?

 

[Thumb]

What does that have to do with detroit being a congressional district due to its population?

"you libs live too close together"


Nice attempt at a sidestep.

 

[tsmith7559]

"you libs live too close together"


Nice attempt at a sidestep.

You might want to read my previous post regarding the communities I listed

 

[biggunsbob]

Cheating wins I guess... Republicans are just really good at it...

Off to see Interstellar..

 

[grandy]

Done spreadsheeting...here are the results

I went back 50 years (25 elections) (This does not include the 2014 election as full results aren't in yet)

- A positive percentage means the house percentage was higher than the popular vote percentage
- A negative percentage means the house percentage was lower than the popular vote percentage
- Note: Some years included both positive, this is due to the popular percentage of both parties adding up to less than 100%

- From 1964 to 1992, districting favored Democrats (greatly so in some cases)
- From 1996 to present, with the exception of 2006 and 2008, districting slightly favored Republicans (greater in recent years)
- The 1994 and 2006 Houses were the best representation compared to popular vote

Data for reference

Raw numbers are from Wikipedia

I did not account for independents, I do not think this will alter the data too much, here are the 3rd party counts by year
2004 = 1
2002 = 1
2000 = 2
1998 = 1
1996 = 1
1994 = 1
1992 = 1
1990 = 1
1972 = 1

 

[Gulo Blue]

Awesome work!

What's tinypic? Easy site to use? I should check that out.

 

[grandy]

Awesome work!

What's tinypic? Easy site to use? I should check that out.

Yeah, pretty straightforward...I originally picked it because it didn't require an account, but I'd recommend creating an account if you want to keep track of your pics, otherwise they get lost in the void if you lose the link

 

[grandy]

I actually wonder if we need more representatives

It's currently fixed by law at 435

However, number of voters per representative has gone up significantly since then
1912 = ~6,300 voters per rep
1964 = ~150,700 voters per rep
2012 = ~271,000 voters per rep