Stunning Revelation

[_MeDotOrg]

Even though Republicans won more seats in the House of Reps, the Democrats received the majority of votes.

Gerrymandering, whether done by Democrats or Republicans, distorts the will of the people. It distorts democracy.

In California, a commission composed of Democrats, Republicans and Independents is now in charge of drawing up the districts. Even though I'm a Democrat living in a solidly Democratic state, I think it's a good idea.

• There is less distortion of the will of the people
• With gerrymandering, districts that are 'safe' for Democrats or Republicans often turn into primary battles where the candidate who panders to the base wins. That leads to my next point:
• Districts that are solidly Democrat or Republican produce more extreme candidates, which compromise much more difficult when it comes to real-world legislation.
• Districts that are evenly divided produce candidates that can appeal to at least some of the voters from outside their own party. Compromise becomes a possibility.

Congress consistently receives approval ratings lower than a Jerry Sandusky day care center. I think getting rid of gerrymandering would be a big step forward in combating partisan gridlock in Congress.

By the way, here's an interesting bit of etymology on the word itself:

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on March 26, 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then-governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander. The term was a portmanteau of the governor's last name and the word salamander.

[_Kevin Graham]

Health care reform sounds pretty progressive to me.

[_Bond James Bond]

Gerrymandering is why it's so important for the political parties to work at the state level in addition to the national level because the state legislature usually draws the maps (although some states have been going to independent groups). Check out these states that are trending Democratic at the Presidential level and yet have significant Republican representation in the House of Reps:

(For the 2011-13 112th Congress)

Illinois 11-8 Republican majority
Florida 19-6 Republican "
Ohio 13-5 Republican "
Colorado 4-3 Republican "
Pennsylvania 12-7 Republican "
Virginia 8-3 Republican "
Wisconsin 5-3 Republican "
New Jersey 6-6
Minnesota 4-4


The only Democratic comparative is North Carolina (which went Democratic in 2008) at 7-6 Democratic majority. Now I understand that most states have conservative and liberal areas but come on Florida and Ohio and Pennsylvania? If the Democrats could flip 3 seats in Florida and 2 each in Ohio, Penn., Illinois, and Virginia they'd be well on their way to a majority. New Jersey and Minnesota tied? If they could flip 2 seats each that's a majority for the Democrats right there. Frankly the Democrats should be focused on taking state legislatures in the next ten years, the 2020 elections especially, so they can have an impact on redistricting going forward.


Note: it appears the Democrats will pick up about 7-10 seats in the 113th Congress so they're on their way towards a majority. Seats in California seem to be likely places to knock off old school Republican House members.

[_Bond James Bond]

For fun everyone try to find your favorite gerrymandered districts:

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

My personal favorites are:

South Carolina 1
Florida 5
Louisiana 1
Texas 15
California 21 and 23
Penn 6, 7, 16 (basically all of PA really lol)

[_Brackite]

I was hoping for a super majority in Congress so we wouldn't have to deal with the same obstructionist b***s*** during the first four years. It just frustrates me that the votes were there, but Republicans still control the House because of the redistricting tactics. You do realize the President needs Congress to pass his proposed legislation, right?

I'm hoping that we're moving towards a "public option" with the ACA and eventually when Hillary becomes President, that can evolve into universal healthcare.

The Republicans have Not controlled Congress during all the first four years of the Presidency of Barack Obama. During his first two years of office, President Barack Obama did indeed have a super majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. The Democrats had a filibuster-free Senate from September 25, 2009 until February 3, 2010. During that time, the Senate Passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as 'ObamaCare' by Party line vote. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) ended up Passing the very heavily Democratic controlled House of Representatives in March of 2010, and then President Barack Obama ended up signing that bill into law.

111th United States Congress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Unit ... s_Congress

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Pr ... e_Care_Act



During President Bill Clinton's first two years of office, he had a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. The Democrats controlled the Senate during Bill Clinton's first two years of office, but they did not have a filibuster-free Senate during any of that time. President Bill Clinton tried to get a stimulus package passed of his own back in 1993, but the Republicans filibustered that stimulus package, and it never got signed into law. However, President Barack Obama did indeed get his stimulus package signed into law in 2009.

G.O.P. Senators Prevail, Sinking Clinton's Economic Stimulus Bill:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/22/us/go ... -bill.html

Obama Signs Stimulus Into Law:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123487951033799545.html

[_Kevin Graham]

.

[_Bond James Bond]

I was hoping for a super majority in Congress so we wouldn't have to deal with the same obstructionist b***s*** during the first four years. It just frustrates me that the votes were there, but Republicans still control the House because of the redistricting tactics. You do realize the President needs Congress to pass his proposed legislation, right?

I'm hoping that we're moving towards a "public option" with the ACA and eventually when Hillary becomes President, that can evolve into universal healthcare.

The Republicans have Not controlled Congress during all the first four years of the Presidency of Barack Obama. During his first two years of office, President Barack Obama did indeed have a super majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. The Democrats had a filibuster-free Senate from September 25, 2009 until February 3, 2010. During that time, the Senate Passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as 'ObamaCare' by Party line vote. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) ended up Passing the very heavily Democratic controlled House of Representatives in March of 2010, and then President Barack Obama ended up signing that bill into law.

111th United States Congress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Unit ... s_Congress

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Pr ... e_Care_Act



During President Bill Clinton's first two years of office, he had a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. The Democrats controlled the Senate during Bill Clinton's first two years of office, but they did not have a filibuster-free Senate during any of that time. President Bill Clinton tried to get a stimulus package passed of his own back in 1993, but the Republicans filibustered that stimulus package, and it never got signed into law. However, President Barack Obama did indeed get his stimulus package signed into law in 2009.

G.O.P. Senators Prevail, Sinking Clinton's Economic Stimulus Bill:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/22/us/go ... -bill.html

Obama Signs Stimulus Into Law:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123487951033799545.html

The Stimulus was passed with three Republican Senate votes (Specter, Snowe, Collins) when obama had been in office for less than a month and was still riding high on the election high. The health care law was passed after almost a year of debate/misinformation by the Republican media machine during that narrow window the Democrats had a Super Majority in the Senate.

[_Brackite]

.

[_Kevin Graham]

You used the term "supermajority" which refers to a representation two thirds majority, enabling them to veto legislation. You're telling me the Democrats had a two-thirds representation in the House? Not quite. If you had just said majority, I wouldn't have commented. But this has been such a tired argument from the Right it gets old. Obama didn't have a "supermajority" his first two years, in either branch of Congress.

[_Brackite]

You used the term "supermajority" which refers to a representation two thirds majority, enabling them to veto legislation. You're telling me the Democrats had a two-thirds representation in the House? Not quite. If you had just said majority, I wouldn't have commented. But this has been such a tired argument from the Right it gets old. Obama didn't have a "supermajority" his first two years, in either branch of Congress.

Well, I should have probably used the phrase heavily Democratic controlled House of Representatives instead. However, the Republicans did Not have control of either of the House of Representatives or the Senate during "the first four years" of the Presidency of Barack Obama. The Republicans took control of the House of the House of Representatives during the third and fourth year of the Presidency of Barack Obama.

The Democrats in California will very likely surely have a super-majority there.

California Democrats Likely to Win Supermajority:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/po ... ature.html


Let's see how California will do within the next couple of years with the tax increases in the passing of Proposition 30 taking effect on January 1, 2013 there.

GOP Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack ended up losing her House seat from California to her Democratic opponent there.

Mary Bono Mack concedes House race to Raul Ruiz:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 0792.story



President Bill Clinton after his first years of office, Never again had a majority of Democrats in either the House of Representatives or in the Senate during the next six years of his Presidency. Yet, during that time, President Clinton along with the Republicans in Congress got welfare reform passed and signed into law, and the National budget ended up getting balanced towards the end of his Presidency with a Republicans in Congress still in control.