Republican Congressional Majorites the highest they've been in 60 years

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't really follow the Senate, but I can point out that in between the 1994 and 1996 House elections the GOP Majority was actually bigger than it is now (and, to be honest with ya it isn't very big) due to defections and Special Election gains.

Oh I should also let you know that notionally speaking the GOP actually lost House seats this year (treating those TX seats as GOP seats, which they in effect were. Not a lot of use for power and stuff, but electorally speaking, more accurate)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I mean due to election.

Those TX seats are being treated as GOP seats. What's your point?

I mean the seats the GOP "gained" in Texas. They cannot and should not be treated as Democratic seats if you are being intellectually honest when comparing election results.

I've not worked out notional results for 2000 on 2002 lines yet, BTW

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I said it's the highest we've had since 1928. I didn't say it was higher than any other election since then.

And again, I said as the result of an election. Party flips in between elections don't count.

Quit spinning

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The GOP has had a 10 year run with a modest advantage in the House.

Yes... it's strange isn't it? A reasonably long time controlling a Lower House but never with a large majority and with no real prospect of every getting one.
Only a seriously gerrymandered Lower House could produce something like that... oh... right... I see...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would take a big shift in a lot of marginal districts (mostly held on the strength of incumbency), but with the right candidates it's possible.
With good local candidates almost anything is possible (being called Matheson in Utah is a good example)

Ditching Pelosi (is having a leader who has to ham up her liberal-ness to fend off a potential primary challenge *really* what the Democrats need right now?) would be a good start...

This is an interesting topic. More soon I hope.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

At the local level, in one or two ridings, almost anything IS possible.

Something that Phil Crane found out this year

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True: most of the big states were gerrymandered to protect incumbents. When there are more potentially competetive districts in Kentucky than California it's obvious that something has gone badly wrong somewhere.

Letting State Legislatures draw the lines is like giving a monkey the key to a banana plantation...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In fairness a lot of districts could become competetive with a strong candidate (and the habit of both parties running no-namers (and sometimes NO ONE AT ALL) in competetive districts has really got to end...) but it's still a disgrace

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Has any activist court ever tried ruling that Representatives have to be elected by equal population districts?

Equal Population Districts are part of the problem. It makes it so much easier to add weird little corridors here, a strange blob there and a weird hole in the district about there.

A quota system would be much, much saner.