Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
WaPo: Debate Is Over: Gerrymandering Is Crucial to G.O.P.s Hold on House
No, he doesn’t need directions. An unidentified man carried giant maps because he was on his way to the federal court house in San Antonio for a redistricting trial that began last month. The court will rule on whether Texas discriminated against minorities when it adopted its current congressional map.
This is a season of gerrymandering. A federal court in Texas will soon rule on whether the state discriminated against minorities when it adopted its current congressional map. The Supreme Court will hear the biggest case of all in October: a challenge to Wisconsin’s partisan gerrymander with the potential to curb partisan gerrymandering nationwide.
But before the courts weigh in, it’s time to end the last debate over partisan gerrymandering. That’s the one that unfolded after the 2012 election, when Democrats won the House popular vote but fell 17 seats short of taking the chamber. It caused a classic feud between “data” and the conventional wisdom, with data journalists and political scientists contending that gerrymandering wasn’t responsible for Republican control of the House.
Now, the electoral context has changed, and the old debate is moot. Heading into the 2018 midterms, data and conventional wisdom agree: Gerrymandering is a big reason the G.O.P. has a real chance to retain control of the House, even if the Democrats score a clear win.
Most of the political-science-based estimates suggested that gerrymandering cost the Democrats a net of 7 to 12 seats in 2012 (with a few estimates coming in higher and lower). That wouldn’t be enough to prove decisive in 2012, not with the Democrats falling 17 seats short. But in other contexts, that’s potentially a very significant number. If the party had come somewhat closer to retaking the House, most political scientists and data journalists would have probably conceded that partisan gerrymandering was at least plausibly responsible for the G.O.P.’s margin of victory.
But before the courts weigh in, it’s time to end the last debate over partisan gerrymandering. That’s the one that unfolded after the 2012 election, when Democrats won the House popular vote but fell 17 seats short of taking the chamber. It caused a classic feud between “data” and the conventional wisdom, with data journalists and political scientists contending that gerrymandering wasn’t responsible for Republican control of the House.
Now, the electoral context has changed, and the old debate is moot. Heading into the 2018 midterms, data and conventional wisdom agree: Gerrymandering is a big reason the G.O.P. has a real chance to retain control of the House, even if the Democrats score a clear win.
Most of the political-science-based estimates suggested that gerrymandering cost the Democrats a net of 7 to 12 seats in 2012 (with a few estimates coming in higher and lower). That wouldn’t be enough to prove decisive in 2012, not with the Democrats falling 17 seats short. But in other contexts, that’s potentially a very significant number. If the party had come somewhat closer to retaking the House, most political scientists and data journalists would have probably conceded that partisan gerrymandering was at least plausibly responsible for the G.O.P.’s margin of victory.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/upshot/its-time-to-end-the-old-debate-over-gerrymandering.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
We already know that - gerrymandering is undemocratic and it's cheating in the worst way.
I will not deny that Democrats have also done the same, but it was very small limited cases and situations. The GOP is doing it on steroids while we've been sitting on our hands, looking the other way.
Gerrymandering has to stop - for both parties. Never again, starting immediately.
Post-election: Oh yeah, maybe we ought to look into gerrymandering.
Well, this country has its priorities sorted out...
