Busting the "both sides do it" myth

[minionofmidas]

Both sides play the game. The rules are slanted in the Republicans' favor, but both sides play by them.

[minionofmidas]

In regards to Texas and especially Arizona, the main factor there is "rotten boroughs", the turnout in Democratic Hispanic areas is FAR below in Republican areas. Especially in Arizona, where Ed Pastor's district has some of the worst turnout in the country, and is both the most Democratic district in Arizona (in percentage) and least Democratic (in raw votes). But it elects just as many representatives as a high turnout Republican district does. I haven't looked at the numbers for the Hispanic districts in Texas, but similar ones wouldn't surprise me.

4 Texas Democrats (TX-15, TX-29, TX-33, TX-34) received less than 90000 votes. Texas Republicans won most of their seats with 150000 to 200000 votes and many of the people they defeated by 20+ points got more than 90000 votes.

This has consequences - without VRA style protections such areas can be distributed among their neighbors comparatively easily as they're easier to outvote.

And Republican redistricters have an interest in throwing any and all nearby White Librul areas in with these districts if they are to exist at all. Because they usually don't suffer from that problem, at least not anywhere near as much. That (in Phoenix even more than in Tucson) was the core of Torie's 7 R for AZ plan.

[minionofmidas]

I just tried to make a McCain district on a map of Massachusetts. Any McCain district. I couldn't even get to six hundred thousand people.

In regards to if a McCain seat in Massachusetts is possible, the answer is "well sort of". This district voted for McCain by about 600 votes, but obviously wouldn't be legal because of how it divides the rest of the state into uneven pieces, making even population districts impossible.

You guys lack talent and imagination.

[minionofmidas]

How shameful of the Dems not to draw that district.

It's not really any worse than Central Maryland (although that is due to keeping incumbents apart, not the overall partisan lean) or Southeast Pennsylvania. Or the 2001 Dem Georgia map.
Of course, that's only because it's not technically possible to get worse than that.


As to the silly debate over what number of seats a party "deserves" under fptp... if fptp is to have any legitimacy at all it derives from its ability to elect Representatives for specific communities. It follows there is no single "fair" outcome (and the article's premise is hogwash), and Massachusetts and Maryland are excellent examples to show that. Maryland voted slightly more Democratic than Massachusetts, yet a community-oriented Massachusetts map comes out 8-0-1 or 7-0-2 - and they tilt Democratic, really - while in Maryland you get something like 4-2-2 or even 4-3-1 (D-R-swingy) because the votes are distributed much more unevenly.