Would the Democrats have regained control of the House...

[morgieb]

...with non-partisan redistricting?

Of course, it probably depends on how a commission drew the seats....Arizona, New Jersey and Washington for example didn't really draw very balanced maps.

[muon2]

It would depend significantly on the criteria used, especially what if any factors are used to define a of community of interest. If the criteria were weighted towards competitive districts as in AZ, then the Dems would likely have prevailed since it was a year that swung their way.

[pbrower2a]

Yes. Democrats won the majority of votes for House races in 2012.

[Indy Texas]

They would have gained more seats had the gerrymanders in Pennsylvania and Michigan not taken place. However, they would have gained fewer seats had their own gerrymander in Illinois not taken place. Those are the most egregious offending states.

I'd say overall they would have netted more seats but probably not enough to regain a majority.

[traininthedistance]

The USA does have a sort of "natural gerrymander" against Democrats insofar as the Dems are more concentrated in urban districts, and there are more small Republican states (mostly in the interior West) then there are small Dem states (mostly in New England).  So an absolutely even House vote should translate to the Republicans having a small advantage (say, 5-10 seats) in the House. 

This was not an absolutely even House vote, the Dems won more by a little bit.  I don't know if it would be enough to take the majority, but it would be within a handful of seats either way.

[muon2]

They would have gained more seats had the gerrymanders in Pennsylvania and Michigan not taken place. However, they would have gained fewer seats had their own gerrymander in Illinois not taken place. Those are the most egregious offending states.

I'd say overall they would have netted more seats but probably not enough to regain a majority.

That's along the same lines as an opinion piece in yesterday's NYT. Based on a statistical analysis, eight states were out of whack due to partisan gerrymandering: MI, NC, PA, WI, VA, OH, FL, IL. If a neutral simulated result was used instead of the actual results, it would have been 220 R - 215 D.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yes. Democrats won the majority of votes for House races in 2012.

That's the problem with FPTP system. And when we add awful gerrymandering.

[memphis]

They would have gained more seats had the gerrymanders in Pennsylvania and Michigan not taken place. However, they would have gained fewer seats had their own gerrymander in Illinois not taken place. Those are the most egregious offending states.

I'd say overall they would have netted more seats but probably not enough to regain a majority.

Virginia and Pennsylvania  are both way worse than Illinois. IL is a 55-60% Dem state where the Dems have 2/3 of seats (including Jackson's vacancy). PA is a lean Dem state and VA is a tossup, both of which the President won. In both states the GOP has gerrymandered their way into >70% of seats. Granted not everybody votes the same for House and President, but there are no GOP equivalents of a Matheson in any of these states. Nothing but perfectly legal shenanigans.

[Sbane]

They would have gained more seats had the gerrymanders in Pennsylvania and Michigan not taken place. However, they would have gained fewer seats had their own gerrymander in Illinois not taken place. Those are the most egregious offending states.

I'd say overall they would have netted more seats but probably not enough to regain a majority.

That's along the same lines as an opinion piece in yesterday's NYT. Based on a statistical analysis, eight states were out of whack due to partisan gerrymandering: MI, NC, PA, WI, VA, OH, FL, IL. If a neutral simulated result was used instead of the actual results, it would have been 220 R - 215 D.

That sounds about right. Democrats are at a disadvantage because there are many more areas with a lot of people voting 80% Democrat than is true for Republicans. This means that a fair map leads to Dem packs in many areas. This is especially true of cities where there is a large Black population, leading to states like Ohio or Michigan to be naturally gerrymandered before partisan gerrymandering even kicks in. The Republicans on the flip side get hurt a bit out west where Hispanics are the largest minorities and there are a lot of non-citizens, thus inflating the number of Democratic districts as compared to statewide numbers. Still, things are naturally gerrymandered towards the Republicans and so they win the house even with a slight Democratic win in the popular vote. Still, the Democrats should win the house with a 2 point win, although with the current gerrymander it might take a 3-4 point win. If only the Democrats in congress could have performed as well as Obama, they likely would have taken back the house.....

[Antonio the Sixth]

Illinois is a pretty mild gerrymander if you compare it to the monstrosities of PA, OH, MI, VA and NC.

[morgieb]

Illinois is a pretty mild gerrymander if you compare it to the monstrosities of PA, OH, MI, VA and NC.

I think Illinois is more extreme than Virginia tbh.

[old timey villain]

The weird thing is that this isn't new. Even back in the day when Dems perpetually controlled the house, they often had to work harder to gain more seats than the Republicans did. For instance, in the 1950 midterms House democrats won the popular vote by a slim margin but they still lost 23 seats.  In 1956 Dems got over a million votes more than the Repubs but only gained 2 seats.

But the craziest is 1960, when Democrats got 6 million more votes than Republicans and still lost 21 seats!

can anybody explain this?

[morgieb]

The weird thing is that this isn't new. Even back in the day when Dems perpetually controlled the house, they often had to work harder to gain more seats than the Republicans did. For instance, in the 1950 midterms House democrats won the popular vote by a slim margin but they still lost 23 seats.  In 1956 Dems got over a million votes more than the Repubs but only gained 2 seats.

But the craziest is 1960, when Democrats got 6 million more votes than Republicans and still lost 21 seats!

can anybody explain this?

I think they had more to fall down.

[old timey villain]

The weird thing is that this isn't new. Even back in the day when Dems perpetually controlled the house, they often had to work harder to gain more seats than the Republicans did. For instance, in the 1950 midterms House democrats won the popular vote by a slim margin but they still lost 23 seats.  In 1956 Dems got over a million votes more than the Repubs but only gained 2 seats.

But the craziest is 1960, when Democrats got 6 million more votes than Republicans and still lost 21 seats!

can anybody explain this?

I think they had more to fall down.

Yeah, that's what I realized when I thought more about it.

Of course 2012 is the opposite of that sense the dems were in the minority, got more votes and still didn't come out on top

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The weird thing is that this isn't new. Even back in the day when Dems perpetually controlled the house, they often had to work harder to gain more seats than the Republicans did. For instance, in the 1950 midterms House democrats won the popular vote by a slim margin but they still lost 23 seats.  In 1956 Dems got over a million votes more than the Repubs but only gained 2 seats.

But the craziest is 1960, when Democrats got 6 million more votes than Republicans and still lost 21 seats!

can anybody explain this?

Constantly getting 80-85% of the vote in Southern districts, often without Republican competition.

[Brittain33]

But the craziest is 1960, when Democrats got 6 million more votes than Republicans and still lost 21 seats!

can anybody explain this?

Their lead in 1960 was proportionately smaller than their lead in 1958, when they also led by 6 million votes on a much lower total.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The weird thing is that this isn't new. Even back in the day when Dems perpetually controlled the house, they often had to work harder to gain more seats than the Republicans did. For instance, in the 1950 midterms House democrats won the popular vote by a slim margin but they still lost 23 seats.  In 1956 Dems got over a million votes more than the Repubs but only gained 2 seats.

But the craziest is 1960, when Democrats got 6 million more votes than Republicans and still lost 21 seats!

can anybody explain this?

Comparing PV results with seat gains is comparing apples and oranges. It's obvious that there's no correlation whatsoever, nor should there be.

[Mr.Phips]

The weird thing is that this isn't new. Even back in the day when Dems perpetually controlled the house, they often had to work harder to gain more seats than the Republicans did. For instance, in the 1950 midterms House democrats won the popular vote by a slim margin but they still lost 23 seats.  In 1956 Dems got over a million votes more than the Repubs but only gained 2 seats.

But the craziest is 1960, when Democrats got 6 million more votes than Republicans and still lost 21 seats!

can anybody explain this?

Constantly getting 80-85% of the vote in Southern districts, often without Republican competition.

These unopposed districts didnt get counted in the national House PV tabulation, understating the Dem advantage further. 

[Mr.Phips]

The weird thing is that this isn't new. Even back in the day when Dems perpetually controlled the house, they often had to work harder to gain more seats than the Republicans did. For instance, in the 1950 midterms House democrats won the popular vote by a slim margin but they still lost 23 seats.  In 1956 Dems got over a million votes more than the Repubs but only gained 2 seats.

But the craziest is 1960, when Democrats got 6 million more votes than Republicans and still lost 21 seats!

can anybody explain this?

I think they had more to fall down.

Yeah, in 1958, Democrats won seats that they were never going to hold in anything even close to an even playing field environment.  They gained seats in places like Western Nebraska and Kansas and deep in the "T" of Pennsylvania that they would never hold again.  They had also won every single seat in Conneticut, which was then unthinkable, as it included the rock-ribbed Republican Greenwich based 4th district. 

[Beet]

Why was 1958 such a blowout? Democrats won commanding majorities at the Congressional and state levels that they would not give back until 1994.

[freepcrusher]

Yeah, in 1958, Democrats won seats that they were never going to hold in anything even close to an even playing field environment.  They gained seats in places like Western Nebraska and Kansas and deep in the "T" of Pennsylvania that they would never hold again.  They had also won every single seat in Conneticut, which was then unthinkable, as it included the rock-ribbed Republican Greenwich based 4th district. 

yeah it seems that unlike 1974, the class of 58 had no staying power. Rosty was from the class of 58, but his seat was already dem. The only two dems out of that class from previously GOP districts (ie the pickup seats) who remained in office for awhile; were Kastenmeier and Brademas.

[morgieb]

Why was 1958 such a blowout? Democrats won commanding majorities at the Congressional and state levels that they would not give back until 1994.

Recession, plus the Class I Senate seats had two good Republican cycles.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

They'd do better, though the Democrats have the added problem that their House vote was too concentrated in urban districts where they got 85 or 90%. If their margin over the Republicans was more spread out instead of stacking up in already safe districts, then they'd have taken the House. The urban/rural divide may not hurt at a presidential level, but it's toxic for House races.

[Mr.Phips]

Why was 1958 such a blowout? Democrats won commanding majorities at the Congressional and state levels that they would not give back until 1994.

A big factor was that Republicans stupidly put right to work referedums on a lot of statewide ballots, which drove up union(read Democratic) turnout. 

[minionofmidas]

Would have been close, but probably fallen short.