America voted the House GOP out. Gerrymandering kept them in.

[Direckshun]

The math:

Between the two parties, voters voted for the Democratic House candidates nationally, 48.8% to 48.5%.

That would translate to Democrats having 214 DNP seats to 212 GOP.

The end results as of now (votes are still being counted in 6 races): 233 GOP to 194 DNP.

That's 53.5% GOP to 44.6% DNP.

A 9-point, 21-seat swing.

Want to know why John Boehner was so quick to extend the olive branch?

That's why.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...got-a-mandate/

House Democrats got more votes than House Republicans. Yet Boehner says he’s got a mandate?
Posted by Ezra Klein
November 9, 2012 at 10:15 am

The political-science evidence is clear on this: There’s no such thing as an election mandate. There’s only what a president is able to get done with the Congress the American people gave him.

But few politicians agree. And so the days and weeks after elections are heavy with arguments about who has a mandate, and for what. The latest debate is about whether President Obama, who ran a campaign explicitly promising to raise taxes on high earners and who beat a candidate explicitly promising to refuse any and all tax increases, has a mandate to raise taxes.

Speaker John Boehner says he doesn’t. “Listen, our majority is going to get reelected,” he said the day before the election. “We’ll have as much of a mandate as he [President Obama] will … to not raise taxes.”

Boehner’s logic is, on its face, sound. House Republicans have been as clear in their opposition to new taxes on the rich as Obama has been in his support for them. And House Republicans were reelected. They have as much right to claim a popular mandate as the president does.

Or they would if they’d actually won more votes. But they didn’t. House Republicans did the equivalent of winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote.

It can be a bit difficult to tally up the popular vote in House elections because you have to go ballot by ballot, and many incumbents run unopposed. But The Washington Post’s Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That’s a close election — 48.8%-48.5% –but it’s still a popular vote win for the Democrats. Those precise numbers might change a bit as the count finalizes, but the tally isn’t likely to flip.



What saved Boehner’s majority wasn’t the will of the people but the power of redistricting. As my colleague Dylan Matthews showed, Republicans used their control over the redistricting process to great effect, packing Democrats into tighter and tighter districts and managing to restructure races so even a slight loss for Republicans in the popular vote still meant a healthy majority in the House.

That’s a neat trick, but it’s not a popular mandate, or anything near to it — and Boehner knows it. That’s why his first move after the election was to announce, in a vague-but-important statement, that he was open to some kind of compromise on taxes.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Wouldnt a better example of gerrymandering be that despite winning by a couple % of the popular vote, Obama won by about 330 electoral votes to 200?

Summary

Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as determined by the laws of each state. Generally (with Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions), each state appoints its electors on a winner-take-all basis, based on the statewide popular vote on Election Day. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington, D.C. actually choose electors for their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices.

Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials and media organizations, the national popular vote is not the basis for electing a President or Vice President.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Mrs. Loopner

THIS!!!

volunteering services?

[SNR]

Direckshun, the election's ****ing over. You have yet to talk about ANY of the QBs coming out in the 2013 draft. I've got a thread all nice and set up just for you in the lounge.

Get the **** out of here and start talking about the draft, damn it. I want your opinion and I want it now.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by SNR

If the "true" left-leaning America didn't want to get gerrymandered, they shouldn't have voted in so many Republicans in 2010.

Really.

That's why people voted the Republicans in in 2010.

To gerrymander.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Wouldnt a better example of gerrymandering be that despite winning by a couple % of the popular vote, Obama won by about 330 electoral votes to 200?

That's not gerrymandering.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Popular vote: Obama 51%-Romney 48%. Election results: Obama 1-Romney 0. That's 51% turned into 100%. Stop whining.

What argument is this, even?

You're saying that gerrymandering shouldn't matter because the DNP retained the Presidency?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by h5n1

will you not give up until every senator, congressman and member of the executive and judicial branches agrees with you, direckshun?

I'm big on self-determination.

The current partisan makeup in the House is undemocratic.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Ugly Duck

Its not the population density, its how you carve districts into the population to give your party an advantage. You carve up any weird, convoluted shapes you can to either isolate densely concentrated opponent areas or dilute them by breaking 'em up into pieces & adding the pieces to your areas. Lookit Pennsylvania - Repubs only went 47% for Romney, but have 72% of the house seats. Even though 53% of Pennsylvanians voted for Obama, all the Democrats in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were cut up & cramed into a mere four seats, and the other 14 were left for Republicans.

Yup.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

Jeez Direkshun...get laid or something. Seriously. You need to take a break. Enjoy your victory and just take a damn break!

Originally Posted by Brainiac

I was thinking the same thing. Direckshun is starting to get pretty goddamn annoying.

Originally Posted by Mrs. Loopner

THIS!!!

Get the sand out of your vagina. It's ****ing DC.

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Really.

That's why people voted the Republicans in in 2010.

To gerrymander.

A little sugar would work wonders for those sour grapes.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by SNR

Direckshun, the election's ****ing over. You have yet to talk about ANY of the QBs coming out in the 2013 draft. I've got a thread all nice and set up just for you in the lounge.

Get the **** out of here and start talking about the draft, damn it. I want your opinion and I want it now.

I'll get there when I get there.

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm big on self-determination.

The current partisan makeup in the House is undemocratic.

was it completely cool when the democratic congresses did this in the past? serious question.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What argument is this, even?

You're saying that gerrymandering shouldn't matter because the DNP retained the Presidency?

Go outside.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by h5n1

was it completely cool when the democratic congresses did this in the past? serious question.

Of course not. The Democratic Congress did it somewhat recently.

Simply put, the GOP is the NBA of gerrymandering. The most recent Democratic gerrymandering was not this pervasive or radical.

To bilk the American people out of 21 seats... It's criminal.

I embrace a ban on gerrymandering, as we all should.

Fat chance, of course, because both parties support it.

[Mrs. Loopner]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

volunteering services?

Sure but I’ll need to bring a ball gag, restraints and penis extension for Direcshun to wear.