Percentage of House seats and NPV

[DataGuy]

Much has been said about Republican gerrymandering and the Democrats' supposed structural disadvantage in the House. But I think it's interesting that the seat breakdown this year is shaping up to be almost perfectly fair relative to the popular vote. Democrats are expected to have something like a 30-seat majority, which translates to a 7% seat margin. Meanwhile, they're winning the NPV by about 7-8%. So in another words, an almost entirely proportional result.

[Virginiá]

Much has been said about Republican gerrymandering and the Democrats' supposed structural disadvantage in the House. But I think it's interesting that the seat breakdown this year is shaping up to be almost perfectly fair relative to the popular vote. Democrats are expected to have something like a 30-seat majority, which translates to a 7% seat margin. Meanwhile, they're winning the NPV by about 7-8%. So in another words, an almost entirely proportional result.

But less so on the state level:




Republicans got blown out in Wisconsin and yet lost one seat in the Assembly. This is exactly what the case that went before SCOTUS was all about. Republicans have totally insulated themselves from being held accountable by rigging the elections, leading to majorities so calcified that it would take a historic wave election (for WI) to dislodge them. But apparently this issue is going to be non-justiciable, because yes this is all perfectly normal and is how true democracy works.

/rant

[Pericles]

The thing is usually in an FPP system is that the winning party is usually supposed to receive a greater percentage of seats to their percentage of the vote. In 2010 Republicans got 55.7% of House seats while getting 51.2% of the vote, in 2008 Democrats got 59.1% of the seats with 53.2% of the vote. The difference is even more acute with the Electoral College. So while it may be more democratic, it's a freaky accidental positive of gerrymandering rather than a sign gerrymandering is not a problem. What would be more indicative is to look at the tipping-point House district and see how far it is to the right of the district. So say if the tipping-point district was won by Democrats by 2%, while Democrats win the NPV by 7%, then the tipping-point district is 5 points to the right of the nation and Democrats would have needed a 5-point PV win to win the House. In 2016 I believe it was like 11 points to the right of the nation, fortunately the problem isn't that bad this year, but in a neutral environment I highly doubt Democrats would have won the House and may even have not come that close.

[Mike Thick]

Considering things like median seat PVI, this seems like it’s clearly a fluke

[DataGuy]

We're talking about national results, though. Some Democrats were worried that they could win the NPV by near double digits and yet lose the House because of the supposedly ironclad Republican gerrymanders. But it looks like everything balanced out in the end.

Individual states are a different matter. Wisconsin is definitely a example of disproportionate seat breakdowns, as is Pennsylvania. But it's disingenuous to imagine that gerrymandering is a one-party thing. Everyone tries it when they have the opportunity. Maryland comes to mind as an obvious Democratic gerrymander on the federal level. As for state legislatures, Democrats in Rhode Island and Hawaii have seat percentages markedly higher than their share of the popular vote.

[Virginiá]

We're talking about national results, though. Some Democrats were worried that they could win the NPV by near double digits and yet lose the House because of the supposedly ironclad Republican gerrymanders. But it looks like everything balanced out in the end.

Right. Fwiw, I always thought the worry over needing high single digits or double digits even was irrational. Most of the respected analysts pegged it between 5 - 7 points, and that is where it ended up being.

I posted on AAD that I think Clinton's more efficient Congressional seat spread proportionate to her popular vote win (if she got Obama's 2012 margin, it is easy to see her winning a bare majority of districts) may have helped Democrats this time. That would be ironic if so, because afaik, the generally-accepted wisdom of 2016 is that Democrats dug deeper into smaller geographical areas while Republicans consumed more of the vast expanse of America. In reality, Democrats are just gobbling up votes where people actually live en masse. Not the most ideal trend given the way we do elections, but it may have helped us this time.

Individual states are a different matter. Wisconsin is definitely a example of disproportionate seat breakdowns, as is Pennsylvania. But it's disingenuous to imagine that gerrymandering is a one-party thing. Everyone tries it when they have the opportunity. Maryland comes to mind as an obvious Democratic gerrymander on the federal level. As for state legislatures, Democrats in Rhode Island and Hawaii have seat percentages markedly higher than their share of the popular vote.

It's not that I don't care. If you read my post history and ignore my jaded comments about "fighting back" and such, you'd see I'm very much a staunch proponent of fair redistricting nationwide, even if I do admit from time to time that it's hard to see the utility in unilaterally disarming while Republicans in other states laugh as they rig the $*@(! out of their elections.

Gerrymandering election rigging shouldn't even be a thing. The fact that it's gone on this long is really a huge stain on America. It's the worst kind of behavior, and it should be illegal.

[DataGuy]

Considering things like median seat PVI, this seems like it’s clearly a fluke

This has actually happened several times in the past few years, so it can't exactly be called a fluke. In 2000, Democrats won 49% of the vote and 47% of the seats. In 2002, they won 47% of the vote and 45% of the House seats. In 2004, they won 46% of the vote and 47% of the seats. In 2006, Democrats won 52% of the popular vote and won 54% of House seats. In 2010, Democrats won 44% of the NPV and won 45% of seats. This year, they won somewhere around 52% of the NPV and appear on track to win about 53% of the seats.

So it's really not that uncommon at all. Republicans have overperformed their NPV in a few recent cycles, but Democrats also did so by a huge margin in 2008.

Fact is, everything tends to balance out eventually. Things aren't as quite as broken as some believe.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

and it should be illegal.

Reminds me of all those times I responded to TimTurner or someone's extreme gerrymanders in the Redistricting board with "You should be in prison!"

At the end of the day is to a large extent criminal distortion of the popular will.


I will say this though, a lot of GOP gerrymanders are based on a wishful thinking from the Obama years. The same kind of wishful thinking that governed the Romney campaign in 2012 was ever present in 2011 in a lot of states. That mindset is coming home to roost in a lot of places where we have seen GOP gerrymanders collapse like VA and also I would point out the GOP vote sinks drawn by the Democrats in the Chicago suburbs.

[DC Al Fine]

and it should be illegal.

Reminds me of all those times I responded to TimTurner or someone's extreme gerrymanders in the Redistricting board with "You should be in prison!"

At the end of the day is to a large extent criminal distortion of the popular will.


I will say this though, a lot of GOP gerrymanders are based on a wishful thinking from the Obama years. The same kind of wishful thinking that governed the Romney campaign in 2012 was ever present in 2011 in a lot of states. That mindset is coming home to roost in a lot of places where we have seen GOP gerrymanders collapse like VA and also I would point out the GOP vote sinks drawn by the Democrats in the Chicago suburbs.

I can definitely see Texas getting into a Georgia dummymander type situation in the 2020's, where the GOP has too many incumbents to appease, draws the gerrymander too aggressively rather than sacrificing one or two reps to produce a more effective map, and the whole thing falls apart the first good year the Dems have.

[DC Al Fine]

Republicans got blown out in Wisconsin and yet lost one seat in the Assembly. This is exactly what the case that went before SCOTUS was all about. Republicans have totally insulated themselves from being held accountable by rigging the elections, leading to majorities so calcified that it would take a historic wave election (for WI) to dislodge them. But apparently this issue is going to be non-justiciable, because yes this is all perfectly normal and is how true democracy works.

/rant

How much of that is due to gerrymandering vs Democratic self-packing Virginia? In the Bush/Obama era one would expect the GOP to win a 50/50 race due to the Democrats running up the margins in their strongholds while the Republicans would have comparatively muted margins in the burbs and rural areas. Wisconsin is an interesting case of this because you get two very different packs; one in Milawaukee and another Madison. Obviously this effect is starting to disappear in states like Texas and Georgia but Wisconsin is the sort of place one would expect it to hold up.

[Virginiá]

How much of that is due to gerrymandering vs Democratic self-packing Virginia? In the Bush/Obama era one would expect the GOP to win a 50/50 race due to the Democrats running up the margins in their strongholds while the Republicans would have comparatively muted margins in the burbs and rural areas. Wisconsin is an interesting case of this because you get two very different packs; one in Milawaukee and another Madison. Obviously this effect is starting to disappear in states like Texas and Georgia but Wisconsin is the sort of place one would expect it to hold up.

Self-packing also makes it easier to draw these kinds of gerrymanders (for Republicans). You might argue that is why this one is particularly rigid. But geographic effects in this case would not totally neuter Democrats in the legislature. That kind of margin should have flipped the Assembly or come close like VA 2017.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The historically average seats/votes slope for U.S. Congress is very close to 2, i.e. for every additional 1% in vote, a party wins an additional 2% of seats.  A seats/votes slope greater than 1  tends to be true in all single-member plurality rule electoral systems.

So under a "fair" map, we would expect Dems to win 56% of the seats if they win 53% of the two-party vote.  They won't get that, but there will probably be less bias than there was in 2012.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I am not impressed. First, the votes have not actually all been counted and finalized yet, so you are jumping to conclusions based on assumptions.

Even if this argument were correct (and others have already pointed out that the more important factor is the tipping point seat, and that normally in a FPTP system you expect the winner to get a majority somewhat larger than their vote share), it boils down to the idea that "if only some voters are disenfranchised, but other voters are not disenfranchised, then it is ok, because thanks to the voters who are not disenfranchised, it will all work out in the end."

Dems didn't pick up a single seat in states like NC, WI, and OH. Why is that? Not because Dems failed to increase their levels of support in those states, but because the elections were rigged there. And that is not acceptable.

And in 2012, Dems won the popular vote but lost the House (didn't even come close to winning it, actually). You might say, "but this time, the Democrats won the popular vote and did win the House." That is nice, but is utterly irrelevant to the principle. Even one single time of that happening is a failure of democracy and is not in any way acceptable.

So I am not impressed at all. I am actually more impressed by those who just outright say "I favor election rigging and oppose democracy." That, at least, is intellectually honest. This is just wishy-washy muddling through.

[Skill and Chance]

I am not impressed. First, the votes have not actually all been counted and finalized yet, so you are jumping to conclusions based on assumptions.

Even if this argument were correct (and others have already pointed out that the more important factor is the tipping point seat, and that normally in a FPTP system you expect the winner to get a majority somewhat larger than their vote share), it boils down to the idea that "if only some voters are disenfranchised, but other voters are not disenfranchised, then it is ok, because thanks to the voters who are not disenfranchised, it will all work out in the end."

Dems didn't pick up a single seat in states like NC, WI, and OH. Why is that? Not because Dems failed to increase their levels of support in those states, but because the elections were rigged there. And that is not acceptable.

And in 2012, Dems won the popular vote but lost the House (didn't even come close to winning it, actually). You might say, "but this time, the Democrats won the popular vote and did win the House." That is nice, but is utterly irrelevant to the principle. Even one single time of that happening is a failure of democracy and is not in any way acceptable.

So I am not impressed at all. I am actually more impressed by those who just outright say "I favor election rigging and oppose democracy." That, at least, is intellectually honest. This is just wishy-washy muddling through.

They will almost surely be un-rigged in NC and WI going forward, and at minimum there will be an opportunity to un-rig them every 4 years in OH. 

If you want to worry about gerrymandering, worry about Florida, where it's plausible everyone just ignores FDF and draws something almost as bad as the 2000's map while a majority of the FL Supreme Court (3 out of 7 justices about to be appointed by DeSantis, all replacing ancient Dem appointees) looks the other way.

[Vern]

I ran the numbers in NC from 2016 and it was 52-47 PV for the House. So The Dems didn't game that much ground in 2018, overall.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I ran the numbers in NC from 2016 and it was 52-47 PV for the House. So The Dems didn't game that much ground in 2018, overall.

If you think election rigging is OK, why don't you move to Russia or maybe Syria?

[Vern]

I ran the numbers in NC from 2016 and it was 52-47 PV for the House. So The Dems didn't game that much ground in 2018, overall.

If you think election rigging is OK, why don't you move to Russia or maybe Syria?

Did I say anything about election rigging? I just said the Democrats didn't gain much ground from 2016 to 2018 in the PV.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Did I say anything about election rigging? I just said the Democrats didn't gain much ground from 2016 to 2018 in the PV.

And so you are implying that their is no problem with the election rigging in NC.

BTW, the election rigging itself affects the popular vote by changing turnout - why vote in a rigged election where your vote can't make any difference anyway? So even just looking at the popular vote doesn't necessarily tell the full picture. And in addition, the elections in NC were also rigged in 2016 (Dems should have won more seats than they actually did then, not just in 2018).

This all brings us back to the central point - if you think that election rigging is ok, why don't you leave the USA and go to a country like Russia or Syria instead? Or maybe Iran? Apparently you might feel right at home there.

[DC Al Fine]

Did I say anything about election rigging? I just said the Democrats didn't gain much ground from 2016 to 2018 in the PV.

And so you are implying that their is no problem with the election rigging in NC.

BTW, the election rigging itself affects the popular vote by changing turnout - why vote in a rigged election where your vote can't make any difference anyway? So even just looking at the popular vote doesn't necessarily tell the full picture. And in addition, the elections in NC were also rigged in 2016 (Dems should have won more seats than they actually did then, not just in 2018).

This all brings us back to the central point - if you think that election rigging is ok, why don't you leave the USA and go to a country like Russia or Syria instead? Or maybe Iran? Apparently you might feel right at home there.

You seem lost. This is Atlas Forum. Youtube comment sections is three blocks over.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And so you are implying that their is no problem with the election rigging in NC.

BTW, the election rigging itself affects the popular vote by changing turnout - why vote in a rigged election where your vote can't make any difference anyway? So even just looking at the popular vote doesn't necessarily tell the full picture. And in addition, the elections in NC were also rigged in 2016 (Dems should have won more seats than they actually did then, not just in 2018).

This all brings us back to the central point - if you think that election rigging is ok, why don't you leave the USA and go to a country like Russia or Syria instead? Or maybe Iran? Apparently you might feel right at home there.

You seem lost. This is Atlas Forum. Youtube comment sections is three blocks over.
[/quote]

Sorry if it upsets you to have to read the opinion that rigging elections is bad and that the USA should be a representative democracy.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Fact is, everything tends to balance out eventually. Things aren't as quite as broken as some believe.

"Things aren't quite as broken as some believe."

The interesting thing about this statement is that it concedes that things are broken.

The argument is only that things are not as broken and some believe.

So, let's grant for the sake of argument that indeed things are not as broken and some believe.

OK, fine. But nevertheless, things are still broken. So let's fix things, so that rather than things being less broken than some believe, things are not broken at all and we have an actual well functioning democratic and representative system.

[DC Al Fine]

How much of that is due to gerrymandering vs Democratic self-packing Virginia? In the Bush/Obama era one would expect the GOP to win a 50/50 race due to the Democrats running up the margins in their strongholds while the Republicans would have comparatively muted margins in the burbs and rural areas. Wisconsin is an interesting case of this because you get two very different packs; one in Milawaukee and another Madison. Obviously this effect is starting to disappear in states like Texas and Georgia but Wisconsin is the sort of place one would expect it to hold up.

Self-packing also makes it easier to draw these kinds of gerrymanders (for Republicans). You might argue that is why this one is particularly rigid. But geographic effects in this case would not totally neuter Democrats in the legislature. That kind of margin should have flipped the Assembly or come close like VA 2017.

I'm going to have to push back a little bit on your Wisconsin example. According to Ballotpedia, the GOP left 30/99 state assembly seats uncontested vs only 8 for the Democrats. That's bound to screw up any comparison of popular vote vs seat share.

[Vern]

Did I say anything about election rigging? I just said the Democrats didn't gain much ground from 2016 to 2018 in the PV.

And so you are implying that their is no problem with the election rigging in NC.

BTW, the election rigging itself affects the popular vote by changing turnout - why vote in a rigged election where your vote can't make any difference anyway? So even just looking at the popular vote doesn't necessarily tell the full picture. And in addition, the elections in NC were also rigged in 2016 (Dems should have won more seats than they actually did then, not just in 2018).

This all brings us back to the central point - if you think that election rigging is ok, why don't you leave the USA and go to a country like Russia or Syria instead? Or maybe Iran? Apparently you might feel right at home there.

How was there election rigging in NC? I am asking because I haven't heard of any of this on the news local or national news.

[Nyvin]

How much of that is due to gerrymandering vs Democratic self-packing Virginia? In the Bush/Obama era one would expect the GOP to win a 50/50 race due to the Democrats running up the margins in their strongholds while the Republicans would have comparatively muted margins in the burbs and rural areas. Wisconsin is an interesting case of this because you get two very different packs; one in Milawaukee and another Madison. Obviously this effect is starting to disappear in states like Texas and Georgia but Wisconsin is the sort of place one would expect it to hold up.

Self-packing also makes it easier to draw these kinds of gerrymanders (for Republicans). You might argue that is why this one is particularly rigid. But geographic effects in this case would not totally neuter Democrats in the legislature. That kind of margin should have flipped the Assembly or come close like VA 2017.

I'm going to have to push back a little bit on your Wisconsin example. According to Ballotpedia, the GOP left 30/99 state assembly seats uncontested vs only 8 for the Democrats. That's bound to screw up any comparison of popular vote vs seat share.

The Democrats won all the statewide offices by varying amounts as well though.

Not all of them by 54%, but at least very close to a majority, and certainly more than 36%.

[DataGuy]

I am not impressed. First, the votes have not actually all been counted and finalized yet, so you are jumping to conclusions based on assumptions.

Even if this argument were correct (and others have already pointed out that the more important factor is the tipping point seat, and that normally in a FPTP system you expect the winner to get a majority somewhat larger than their vote share), it boils down to the idea that "if only some voters are disenfranchised, but other voters are not disenfranchised, then it is ok, because thanks to the voters who are not disenfranchised, it will all work out in the end."

Dems didn't pick up a single seat in states like NC, WI, and OH. Why is that? Not because Dems failed to increase their levels of support in those states, but because the elections were rigged there. And that is not acceptable.

And in 2012, Dems won the popular vote but lost the House (didn't even come close to winning it, actually). You might say, "but this time, the Democrats won the popular vote and did win the House." That is nice, but is utterly irrelevant to the principle. Even one single time of that happening is a failure of democracy and is not in any way acceptable.

So I am not impressed at all. I am actually more impressed by those who just outright say "I favor election rigging and oppose democracy." That, at least, is intellectually honest. This is just wishy-washy muddling through.

The votes have not been completely counted, but the evidence strongly suggests that Democrats will win the NPV by about 7-8%. That's about the same margin by which Democrats are expected take the House. It's an educated estimate based on readily available data.

You can't have it both ways. First, you're not impressed because Democrats didn't "get a majority somewhat larger than their vote share," as is the norm in a FPTP system. But then, it's a failure of democracy for the seat share to deviate from the popular vote. That's a contradiction.

You're not satisfied because even though the result was proportional on a national scale, it was not perfectly true every time in each and every state.

Yes, the results in NC, WI and OH are disproportionate. But it's not just Republican states where representation is disproportionate. The 25-40% of Republicans, millions of people, in MA, CT, RI, NH, HI, VT, and DE have no federal representation whatsoever. They are just as disenfranchised as the Democrats in NC, WI and OH. I'm only pointing this out because everyone seems to assume that Democrats are always the ones who are disenfranchised. That's not true.

The fact is that perfect proportionality will never happen in our current system of districts. The United States is not, and was never meant to be, a direct nationalized parliamentary democracy where legislators come from centralized party lists. We are a representative republic in which locals represent the interests of locals in their own districts.

That can sometimes result in discord between the popular vote and seat shares. For example, Democrats might run up the score in urban areas by dominant margins, while non-urban voters might favor Republicans but by less lopsided margins. Should the majorities in those non-urban communities have their wishes overshadowed by the political homogeneity of the urban areas?

Sometimes districts are obviously drawn to benefit one party (while keeping in mind that both parties do it where they're in power), but as I just explained there will inevitably be some degree of disproportionality as long as we elect our representatives district by district, even without gerrymandering. That's just how federalism works. If you consider even "one single" instance of disproportionality in any place to reflect a systemic failure, you will be perpetually disappointed.

The district system cannot accommodate perfect proportionality, but the district system also protects local interests. You cannot have guaranteed proportional outcomes on a national scale without sacrificing localized representation for each community's unique desires.