Stinky The Clown (48,735 posts) Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:10 PM
Does anyone know the total popular vote for the House?
Yes, the repubicans won the House, thanks to gerrymandering.
But what was the total number who voted for them and what was the total number who voted Democratic?
Lasher (19,679 posts) Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:14 PM
1. Yes.
53,952,240 votes were cast for Democratic candidates in the House. 53,402,643 were cast for Republicans.
Warren Stupidity (29,300 posts) Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:21 PM
2. It isn't just gerrymandering.
Right now republicans are winning lots of split districts and democrats are winning lots of lopsided urban districts. We pile up the votes, but not the reps, they pile up the reps, but not the votes. Some of that is the misfortune of losing so many state legislatures in 2010, just in time for redistricting based on the 2010 census, but a lot of it is the demographics of the urban rural cultural divide.
Does anybody know what the new congressional districts in Maryland, drawn by a Democrat governor and Democrat state legislature, look like? Are they compact and geographically rational?
Bwahahahahaha! You're funny, Frank.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9JT52BV85gc/T4jN8FQkgyI/AAAAAAAAEJY/ndAim4GAvFk/s400/Maryland%2BGerrymandering.bmp
As you can clearly see, there is no rhyme or reason to it.
You gotta be kidding me.
That's Maryland's congressional boundaries?
That adds a whole new meaning to "gerrymander."
Aren't they constitutionally mandated to be as compact and geographically rational as possible?
Drawn by a Republican governor and Republican state legislature:Obviously meant to disenranchise minorities.(http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t374/primitiveland/CongressDistricts.jpg)
You gotta be kidding me.
That's Maryland's congressional boundaries?
That adds a whole new meaning to "gerrymander."
Aren't they constitutionally mandated to be as compact and geographically rational as possible?
Obviously meant to disenranchise minorities.