Reply #67: interesting math

[ulTRAX]

fob wrote: "So 10 years later;

Dem's lose 10%(From 50% to 45%) of their vote total percentage but lose 20% of their seats (21 to 17)

rep's gain 12% (From 48% to 54%) of their vote total percentage but gain 66% of their seats (9 to 15)!

Is that solely due to redistricting?"

Since the issue I was raising was the Dem's 1990 redistricting scheme... I presented the numbers there. I haven't presented any others so what happened in 2000 or after is not really the topic of this thread.

So was your exercise trying to "prove" that the Dem DIDN'T Gerrymander in 1990? Or divert attention from it?

BTW... your use of percentage figures is confusing. It reminds me of how the Right tried to prove there was a revenue boom under Reagan. They didn't compare post ERTA revenues to revenues under Carter... in which case there was a clear drop of revenues for several years. They used a depressed baseline where the revenues could only go up. Poof! Instant revenue boom.

So despite your implication that if the Dems were being treated unfairly in 2002.... the ratio of Democratic votes to wins is much more equitable than the 1992 result.

In the end it's the system that is the real problem. But as long as people try to game it rather than reform it... it just sets everyone up to be hypocritical.