HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Two-Mandate Myth: An ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:59 AM

The Two-Mandate Myth: An Ohio Perspective

Peter M. Shane.
The Two-Mandate Myth: An Ohio Perspective
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-m-shane/redistricting-ohio_b_2094148.html

Within moments of President Obama's apparent victory in both popular and electoral votes, Speaker Boehner was claiming that Republicans enjoy their own mandate from the 2012 elections -- Republicans kept control of the House. I'm searching in vain for a polite word for this argument.

With unemployment still near 8 percent and a majority of voters thinking the country is on the wrong track, the Democrats nonetheless not only retained the White House, but increased their majority in the Senate and racked up a string of victories, coast-to-coast, for unmistakably progressive causes and candidates. They won these victories because, in a head to head contest with opposing views, the Democratic or, more generally, the progressive, view proved more appealing.

The reason why the Republicans still have the House is simple: gerrymandering. According to NYU's Brennan Center for Justice, Republicans used their complete control of 17 state governments after the 2010 elections to pack Democrats into fewer "safe" Democratic districts and create 11 additional "likely" seats for Republicans -- that is, seats where the GOP could be expected to routinely receive 55-60 percent of the vote in a two-party contest.

<<snip>>

Another way to look at this is to compare the total votes cast for each party's congressional candidates. Of the 4,849,628 Ohioans who voted for a Democratic or Republican candidate for Congress in 2012, 2,545,368, or 52.5 percent, voted for a Republican and 2,304,260, or 47.5 percent voted for a Democrat. Apply these percentages to a 16-seat delegation and you get an 8-8 split if the delegation is apportioned according to the popular vote.

<<snip>>

So let's not be confused. November 6, 2012 provided a conspicuous electoral mandate for a progressive agenda in the United States. The Republicans could stack the deck for House elections (although they still lost seats, mind you). But when the dealer working a stacked deck gets a full house -- or, in this case, a full House -- it's not a mandate for the dealer. It's just the fruit of (in this case, lawful) cheating.

4 replies, 476 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Two-Mandate Myth: An Ohio Perspective (Original post)
dajoki Nov 2012 OP
dsc Nov 2012 #1
PETRUS Nov 2012 #2
dajoki Nov 2012 #3
bongbong Nov 2012 #4

Response to dajoki (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:07 AM

1. actually Ohio isn't even the best example

In both PA and NC democrats got more Congressional votes and saw similarly bad results. NC is 3 Dem 9 GOP with 1 narrow Dem lead being recounted. PA is 5 Dem 13 GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:17 AM

2. Also nationally

Even though the R's maintained a majority in the House I believe there were more total votes cast for Democratic reps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:52 AM

3. Yes, I live in PA...

and my district has been changed with the last three redistrictings. I don't even know who my rep is anymore, except that he is repub.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dajoki (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:25 PM

4. I have another word for the mega repig gerrymandering

 

Apartheid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread