When gerrymandering backfires

[RandBlade]

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...e-seats-579890

[Loki]

That's not backfiring. If Dems end up with 50% of the national vote, they'd get less than 50% of the seats.

[RandBlade]

Yes but 50% of the vote is not the only scenario and they can achieve more than that this November.

The point is that if they end up with >50% of the vote they can reach a tipping point whereby instead of a small amount of swing seats being won they win an exaggeratedly large amount of seats.

[Loki]

Just like Hillary Clinton won 400 electoral votes.

[RandBlade]

She got over 50% of the vote? I must have missed that.

Obama did get 365 and there is no gerrymandering in the electoral votes because it's winner takes all in almost all of them.

[GGT]

Gerrymandering "backfired" in PA at least. Our supreme court agreed, and we have new district lines. (Really good interactive maps https://nyti.ms/2BFBdMn )

I finally got my new voter registration card, but it says I'm still in an old District. I'm betting there will be lots of people showing up at the wrong polling place today for the primaries. Won't affect me since our primaries are closed to (R) and (D) only, and I'm registered non-affiliated, which is another bone-headed idea that restricts voting Interesting to note that Trump was +21 in my old District 4 but would only be +9 in new District 10, but that's sort of balanced out that old District 16 went Trump +7 and new District 11 has Trump +26. I suppose?

Bigger picture: I'm hoping people don't forget that all these voting districts rely on official US Census data. The next one won't be until 2020, so it's still based on 2010 numbers -- that may not accurately reflect the demographic changes post-financial/housing crisis -- when some small towns died and others boomed. The GOP is already trying to change the questionnaire and who gets counted, in what *appears* to be an effort to restrict voting. We'll see....