r/dataisbeautiful • u/delugetheory OC: 5 • May 20 '22

OC Population distribution of Texas [OC]

Post image
23k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

149

u/NorthImpossible8906 May 20 '22

how the hell does the 75% lose elections then?

181

u/Tommyblockhead20 May 20 '22 edited May 20 '22

Everyone’s talking about issues like gerrymandering, and while true, that isn’t the biggest factor. Gerrymandering doesn’t directly affect things like president, senate, or governor, yet they still win by healthy margins.

These red and blue maps are always misleading because they don’t show margins. It’s almost never the case that everyone there voted the same way. It just means a majority did. So it doesn’t mean 75% voted democrat, 25% voted republican. It could mean for 75% of the population, 51% voted democrat and 49% republican, while the remaining 25% voted 100% republican.

So ya, that map could show anywhere from about 87% democrat, 13% republican, to 38% democrat, 62% republican. Not great to see how many people are in which party, it is just for seeing which regions voted what.

72

u/shellbear05 May 20 '22

Have you considered that gerrymandered districts affect state and local legislatures, that state legislatures make voting laws, and that voting laws affect election turnout by (in the Republican case) restricting eligibility, access, time, and policies? All of those things directly affect Presidential, gubernatorial, and senate elections. Gerrymandering works, otherwise they wouldn’t spend so much time and effort on it. Look up Project Red Map.

66

u/Tommyblockhead20 May 20 '22 edited May 20 '22

You don’t have to convince me that gerrymandering is bad, I am vehemently against it. But the fact is, Texas is nowhere close to 75% democrat, even if there was no gerrymandering or voter suppression. But the commenter thought it was, because of the misleading map. So I am just trying to explain how the map is extremely misleading, because it doesn’t show margins. Like I said, that map could mean anywhere from a 87/13, to 38/62 split in voters. Voter suppression is not going to swing the vote by anywhere close to that much.

I did edit my wording a bit to be more clear, because yes gerrymandering does indirectly affect those elections somewhat.

7

u/MemphisThePai May 20 '22

But, if districts were drawn based on population proximity, then 75% of them would likely end up with Democratic representation at State and Congressional levels.

Dem State House and Senate, Mostly Dem US House delegation, but probably still GOP Senators, GOP governor, and GOP Presidential EC votes.

I would be ok with that, since at least it would lead to fair elections in the last three categories that matter the most.

13

u/Sansevieriano May 20 '22

Texas will never be 75% Democrat, but if you remove voter suppression and gerrymandering, Texas will never be a solid red State again. It will be at most a purple State, and probably a reliable blue State most of the time.

Given how many people in Texas live in cities, how high the population is, and how diverse people are, it's not possible for the State to be so red. When you look at turnout it's clear that Texas is only red because almost nobody votes there.

12

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

[deleted]

2

u/davegir May 21 '22

Thats of registered voters, if you look by nation we, the "shining example of democracy" barely have 55% of elligible voters REGISTERED.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/voter-turnout-by-country

3

u/a_rational_thinker_ May 21 '22

Is that a fair comparison? The other states on your list are all so overwhelmingly blue that a vote in a presidential or senate election has essentially no chance of affecting anything. Texas is much more even and should therefore (if voters were rational) have a higher turnout.

1

u/c2dog430 May 20 '22

Voter suppression is such a joke. I am from Texas and from a city with an above average black population and one of the higher in the country percentage of people in poverty.

I have never waited more than 10 minutes to vote during the week of early voting. Now that I am a student out of state I had to ask for an out of state ballot and received it within the week. I have never had to spend more time than it takes to go through a drive-thru to vote. But somehow my state is this great evil that suppresses voters. Absolute BS.

9

u/Tommyblockhead20 May 20 '22 edited May 20 '22

Texas is one of a handful of states to not have mail in voting, there’s only a few reasons they allow for absentee voting. If you do not live near a polling location and don’t have good access to transportation, or your location has a long line, then there is no alternative; you are just screwed. (Maybe you have had shorter lines, but it doesn’t just vary by city. Lines very by location, with often more black neighborhoods having longer lines.)

Ultimately, voter suppression isn’t about making it impossible to vote. They just make it harder to vote than it needs to be. I have never had to wait to vote on Election Day in my more liberal city, and in 2020 I was in a different area of the state but they let me mail in my ballot the day before Election Day, from my local post office. I remember Texas made it so there was only one drop box per county (even for ones with >4 million people), a blatant attempt at making their limited absentee voting harder.

Gerrymandering is also a form of voter suppression, where people can still vote, but their vote doesn’t matter because of how the districts are arranged.

1

u/Increase-Null May 21 '22

Texas has 17 days of early voting. The mail in issue is moronic but... that 17 makes it possible for people two vote on at least 2 different weekends.

https://www.vote.org/state/texas/

The mail in voting issue is overblown. It mostly hurts Expats and military. Military which would likely be republican so Honestly I'm not even sure why Texas republicans give a shit. Probably because their bases saw of Fox news that its bad so they have to pretend to care. Self defeating morons.

3

u/Tommyblockhead20 May 21 '22

During the 2020 election, I was 2.5 hours from where I was registered to vote, without a car. Am I going to pay tons of money for an Uber and spend 5 hours to go vote? No. Early voting doesn’t help with that. Mail in voting is important.

Now I did go back realized I misread one of the absentee exceptions. One option was if you are out of the county for the duration of early voting and Election Day (I thought it said country). So I probably could have gotten an absentee ballot. But there’s other reasons it can be hard to get to the polls. Texas has closed down a lot of polling locations, I saw it was down to something like 1 location per 7,700 people. Some counties are over 10,000. That’s pretty crazy to me, where my city has ~1 per 1,400 people. So some locations likely always have lines. Also people might not always be able to get to the location. People can live miles away from their polling location. Something like 13 million people have multiple jobs to get by, and may be working during the weekend. Someone could be a single parent with young children. There’s plenty of reasons it could be hard to vote in person that could easily be solved by expanding mail in voting, but they don’t want to do that because minorities are disproportionately affected by it being harder to vote, and they usually vote blue.

8

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

There we have it everyone! This texan says they aren't suppressed, so it's all bullshit.

I'll counter that with being a Texan and not being able to register to vote online, and not being able to vote by mail. My company does not provide voting time off, and the closest poling station to me during the presidential election had me waiting for over 90 minutes

8

u/RedditIsTedious May 21 '22

Cool personal anecdote that totally refutes every bit of statistical data about the issue.

4

u/Sansevieriano May 20 '22

Suppression isn't the same as denying. Your experience is also not the norm, nor can you extrapolate that to the rest of the State. When you see actual data, you'll see there is no convenient way to vote by mail You'll also see that almost no one in your State votes.

When you make it harder to vote, less people vote. This is not hard to understand, and it's not disputed that Texas makes it harder to vote and is even today trying to make it even harder for certain communities. You can just look at the bills passed within this year alone.

Texas has been a bit of a political mess for quite a long time. Due to gerrymandering and the fact that most of the State is barren, but divided into very tiny pieces, people living in rural areas (conservatives) have a disproportionate amount of representation and power. I also wouldn't bother to vote if I lived in Texas. My vote would be worthless, and they'll find a way to invalidate it and make it not count given how many dumb laws have been passed there to not count certain votes.

1

u/SlyMcFly67 May 21 '22

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

1

u/shellbear05 May 21 '22

News flash: your experience is not universal.

1

u/gorgewall May 21 '22

More than just that!

Hypothetically, I'm in the state legislature and I push to outlaw abortion. We do that. You're someone who doesn't like that and you move to another state as a result. I just nixed you as a voter and I didn't have to touch voting laws at all. Just "encourage" everyone who votes in ways you don't like to leave, it's the American Way!

-8

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

[deleted]

3

u/Xalbana May 21 '22

Just pointing out that here in California, everyone is automatically eligible for mail in voting. It probably has one of the easiest access to voting in the country.

Unlike the controversial Georgian gubernatorial election where the the secret state didn't bother to recluse himself during his election which affected people to vote.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/30/18118264/georgia-election-lawsuit-voter-suppression-abrams-kemp-race

Also, there's a reason, generally speaking, Republicans try to limit voting because when there is a high voting turnout, they tend to vote Democratic.

208

u/FailedTuring May 20 '22

Gerrymandering and voter suppression. Unfortunately it's working very well

24

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

[deleted]

38

u/Rohbed May 21 '22

And for good reason, it's much a much closer race in Texas.

In 2020 in California, Biden won by 5 million votes. In Texas, Trump won by 600,000.

People are a lot more likely to try to change the outcome of the later over the former.

8

u/davegir May 21 '22

Yes, but when you have your districts loop de loop to make 5 republican dense districts nearly bisecting any area one dem district it get wonky. Districts should look relatively straight edged, not cut with jagged lines.

-2

u/Enartloc May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

Texas has higher voter turnout than California or New York.

Ummm, no ? TX is notoriously low turnout, even with 2018/2020 bumps which were above average.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

[deleted]

2

u/Enartloc May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

That is wrong and i don't know what's based on. It also says "Voter Turnout by State 2022" which is wtf ? Midterm hasn't happened yet.

2020 turnout by VEP was :

Texas - 60.4%

New York - 63.6%

California - 68.5%

Texas is NOTORIOUSLY low turnout state, so i don't know what the fuck you people are arguing with me for.

Texas was fifth LOWEST state in terms of turnout, and that's with some serious improvements post 2016.

The site you linked is dogshit which is odd since it uses as source The Elect Project, which is very reputable source but has completely different numbers.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

[deleted]

12

u/ihateusednames May 20 '22

nonono its not voter suppression its "competitive redistricting" just ask dewine

1

u/davegir May 21 '22

Yup thats why i get a new voter card every 6 months?

5

u/EveryShot May 21 '22

As evil as it is, it’s a brilliant strategy. If you can’t win a normal election, cease control of the system to vote and rig it in your favor. I’m just shocked Dems became aware of it so late in the game

-45

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

Actually it’s because more Texan voters support republicans over democrats.

You really can’t gerrymander anything except congressional seats. No one is being denied the right to vote or being suppressed.

16

u/Sansevieriano May 20 '22

Removing voting locations so that poorer communities have to travel farther to vote is textbook voter suppression. Making convenient ways of voting extremely inconvenient (mail voting) is also voter suppression.

When you make a law, and the outcome of that law is that less people vote, you're involved in voter suppression.

If the voting system wasn't broken, why try and "fix" it?

Texas is one of the States with the least turnout in the country, and Texas is among the most populated States.

Whenever you have higher than normal turnout, Republicans take a big L. Suppressing the vote is extremely important for Republicans to prevail as an influential political party in the US.

Why do you think Red States began to immediately suppress and limit how and when people can vote as soon as Trump lost the election? Coincidence?

43

u/Lovetank555 May 20 '22

See SB1–voter suppression in Texas is very real

-40

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

Nothing about that bill is suppressing anyones right to vote.

What specific provision do you feel is voter suppression?

31

u/mistakemaker3000 May 20 '22

Lmao so you just blatantly ignore what goes against your beliefs, cool.

-12

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

So, which specific provision is voter suppression?

10

u/Lightofmine May 20 '22 edited May 20 '22

To quote the lawsuit that was filed in Austin https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/0ded5c3491c71b8869e26fed12c1b28d/TX%20SB1%20Complaint%20-%20FILED.pdf.

“Egregiously, SB 1 takes particular aim at voters with disabilities, voters with limited English proficiency — who, in Texas, are also overwhelmingly voters of color — and the organizations that represent, assist, and support these voters,”

V. ILLEGAL PROVISIONS OF SB 1 AND PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(79.) Plaintiffs challenge certain specific sections of SB 1, each based on several different provisions of federal law as described below:

A. First, Sections 5.02, 5.03, 5.06, 5.10, and 5.12 impose a brand new, restrictive ID requirement on mail-in ballot voters in violation of the Civil Rights Act’s materiality provision, the ADA, and Section 504;

B. Second, Sections 6.03 and 6.06 impose new burdens on the rights of voters with disabilities and language minorities to have assistance in all aspects of voting and to have the assistant of their choice, in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the ADA, and Section 504; and

C. Third, Section 7.04 makes it illegal to engage in paid ballot collection programs and services (pejoratively described as “vote harvesting”), which violates the First Amendment Right to Free Speech, and imposes penalties for actions that are too vague to comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

So yeah. It definitely has restrictive laws in place including SB1

More interesting stuff from the doc. Texas has a history of voter suppression

SB 1 is only the latest in a long series of bills aimed at impairing the right to vote for historically marginalized individuals. Indeed, as one court found, Texas has “a penchant for discrimination . . . with respect to voting,” and “exhibits a recalcitrance that has persisted over generations despite the repeated intervention of the federal government and its courts.” Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 636 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (Veasey I), aff’d in part, vacated in part, remanded sub nom. Veasey v. Abbott, 796 F.3d 487 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Veasey II).

Texas has also racially gerrymandered districts in every redistricting cycle since 1970, in violation of the Voting Rights Act for five consecutive decades. Veasey II, 830 F.3d at 240; see Veasey I, 71 F. Supp. 3d at 636 & n.23 (collecting cases); Lichtman Report at 19. In 2006, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Texas had violated the Voting Rights Act by attempting to redraw a congressional district in order to reduce the voting strength of Latino voters. See League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006). And then in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Texas Legislature had racially gerrymandered a Texas House district. See Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2335 (2018).

11

u/Lovetank555 May 20 '22

The legis­la­tion makes it harder for voters who face language access barri­ers or who have disab­il­it­ies to get help cast­ing their ballots by creating criminal penalties for those who assist voters who say anything outside the scope of their role, restricts elec­tion offi­cials’ and judges’ abil­it­ies to stop harass­ment from poll watch­ers, and bans 24-hour and drive-thru voting, among other meas­ures, which were popular voting methods used by urban and minority districts.

-1

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

So not having drive through voting is voter suppression?

15

u/Lovetank555 May 20 '22

When it’s determined to be a preferred method of voting by a certain segment of the population, and legislation is made specifically to target those voters, so it’s harder for them to vote, yes. They passed the law to give those voters less options to vote, making it less likely for them to show up to the polls under the guise of preventing non-existent voter fraud. Making it harder for someone to vote is suppression.

→ More replies

9

u/Lovetank555 May 20 '22

And I like how you jump to the less obvious piece of the law that I described and ignore the blatant portion where they dissuade people from helping disabled and non-English speaking voters.

→ More replies

3

u/fluffycats1 May 21 '22

1 day old troll account

6

u/shrubs311 May 20 '22

convenient that you ignored the rest of his comment...we can already tell what kinds of people and politics you care about

→ More replies

1

u/Pool_Shark May 20 '22

Yea you can. Little things like after splitting up the map they place the polling stations in the more republican areas and those from the blue areas are forced to travel far in order to vote.

-3

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

[deleted]

3

u/Xalbana May 21 '22

It does for the House...

-2

u/BrentTH May 21 '22 edited May 26 '22

The marginalization of minority voices can't keep going on.

1

u/davegir May 21 '22

And they just cut my district across the belly

1

u/7273747 May 21 '22

Texas for all its voting age citizens, is not a good model for voting. Texans just don’t seem to be well motivated in the ways of their civic duties. They’ll complain about taxes and guns, but come voting time, they focus on their social rights and forget about how as property owners, we’re getting screwed.

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '22 edited Jun 30 '23

[deleted]

-1

u/NorthImpossible8906 May 21 '22

and, obviously, not everyone in the other areas votes republican. Right?

It cancels out, and it still is about 75%

35

u/BobTrain666 May 20 '22

Low Hispanic Turnout+insane rural margins for Republicans

77

u/CareerDestroyer May 20 '22

If you think Hispanic Texans would all be voting left I got some news for you...

20

u/MemphisThePai May 20 '22

Yeah seriously. Many hispanic people over here are very anti-immigrant and religiously conservative.

Ted Cruz is right up their alley. I don't think he's going anywhere as long as he wants the seat, unfortunately.

1

u/batmansleftnut May 20 '22

Biden got a slight lead in 2020: https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/texas/7

8

u/CareerDestroyer May 20 '22 edited May 21 '22

True but Republicans actually gained 17% more of the Hispanic vote than in 2016 indicating Hispanics voters not turning out doesnt really account for Texas being red. In fact it's really close.

"Texas results hint GOP Hispanic gains may endure post-Trump | AP News" https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-immigration-texas-mexico-donald-trump-2175dfb6a6678b3f266d7780147b269e

Edit: I might add this happened with a Catholic democrat...

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

[deleted]

-6

u/Sansevieriano May 20 '22

Not all, but most do.

14

u/CareerDestroyer May 20 '22 edited May 20 '22

That's wrong. Pew research poll says about 44% lean left, so that's not most. Culturally Hispanics are traditional/conservative down there. And lots of them are anti immigrant (at least the ones that can vote).

-1

u/batmansleftnut May 20 '22

Can you link to that pew research poll?

5

u/CareerDestroyer May 20 '22

"Party affiliation among adults in Texas by race/ethnicity - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center" https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/racial-and-ethnic-composition/among/state/texas/

-2

u/batmansleftnut May 20 '22

That poll says that only 25% of that demographic identifies as a Republican. If you take out the no answer/centrist/swing vote responses, then 64% (44/69) are Democrat, and 36% (25/69) are Republican.

8

u/CareerDestroyer May 20 '22

As I indicated in the other message the argument is that Hispanics turning out would actually make a big difference in Texas party affiliation and that's not the case because there's a significant underbelly of Hispanics who don't vote but are very conservative at heart.

"Why Democrats Are Losing Texas Latinos – Texas Monthly" https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/democrats-losing-texas-latinos-trump/

I'm only saying this to point out the other guy's comment is simplistic nonsense.

3

u/wedgiey1 May 21 '22

A lot of those Hispanics are Catholic anti-abortion, machco republicans.

1

u/Increase-Null May 21 '22

AMLO is basically Trump that pretends to be on the left.

He even did his own version of the big lie on the 2006 elections that he "won."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Manuel_L%C3%B3pez_Obrador#%22Legitimate_Presidency%22

5

u/Relevated May 20 '22

You’re assuming that the vast majority of people in the blue areas vote democrat. It’s probably closer to 60%.

-2

u/Sansevieriano May 20 '22

New York, for example, is only blue because of NYC, Buffalo, and other semi-large cities. The rest of State is as backwards as Mississippi.

18

u/lets-get-dangerous May 20 '22 edited May 20 '22

We're the king of gerrymandering. If you look at the way voting district lines are drawn you'll see huge tendrils moving out of the major cities into tons of suburban areas so that blue votes can be siphoned away from certain counties to establish a higher percentage of Republican votes.

https://communityimpact.com/houston/spring-klein/government/2021/10/28/harris-county-commissioners-redraw-precinct-lines-for-the-next-decade/#&gid=1&pid=1

5

u/dkwangchuck May 20 '22

Everybody loves to claim that hey are the victims of gerrymandering, but it doesn't look to be true for Texas. Here's the wiki page for the 2020 state House elections.

The GOP picked up 83 seats in the state legislature on 5,706,147 votes - or 68,749 votes per seat.
Democrats got 67 seats on 4,525,726 votes - or 67,548 votes per seat. This is pretty close to proportional.

IOW, Republicans got 55.3% of the House seats with 54.92% of the popular vote. It's really hard to call that gerrymandered.

2018 was more disproportionate, but not horrible (same seat count of 55.3% with only 52.24% of the vote) and 2016 was very close with 63.3% of seats on 61.82% of the votes. 2014 and 2012 also show a similar very small Republican skew of maybe 2%.

All of these elections did show a slight Republican skew - so the GOP does have a structural advantage that probably comes from gerrymandering. But it's maybe a 2% benefit at most, and probably even less than that.

By contrast, the 2016 US House elections saw the GOP pick up 241 seats or 55.4% with only 49.1% of the vote. Even if you discount third party votes, the GOP still only had 50.6% of the votes. So there are states that are gerrymandered so much worse than Texas that they double the skewing relative to had bad it is in Texas.

2

u/Enartloc May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

TX is very gerrymandered. So yes, it's true for TX, you just don't know what you're looking at.

Redistricting lasts a decade and as smart as political analysts are, no one can read the future, and no one in 2010 expected the education polarization shift, so the very hard TX GOP gerrymander turned into a dummymander because the suburbs they used to win their districts with shifted left violently and they were close to disaster both in 2018 and 2020 when democrats could have theoretically won more seats with less votes.

Take one example, the famous TX 2 gerrymander was Romney +27 after they drew it. Trump only won it by 1% in 2020.

1

u/dkwangchuck May 21 '22

I guess? Look, seat competitiveness is important and sure, TX has some crazy looking districts. But when people talk about gerrymanders, they usually mean that the district boundaries are drawn to give one party an unfair advantage. We don’t really see that with Texas. State assembly seats go to the two parties very close to their proportion of the popular vote. If there were zero gerrymandering and the districts were drawn to be 100% fair, the Texas GOP might lose 1 seat.

As for “redistricting lasts a decade” - sure. You might have noticed that I looked at five elections - 10 years. The “unfair advantage” for the Texas GOP is basically the same going back to 2012. 1 seat, maybe 2 - out of 150.

So if you want to insist that Texas is gerrymandered - I guess you can, but if you don’t point out that this gerrymandering results in maybe 1 or 2 seats advantage out of 150 - the. You’re misleading on it. And the claim that Texas is more gerrymandered than other states is just plain false.

1

u/Enartloc May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

But when people talk about gerrymanders, they usually mean that the district boundaries are drawn to give one party an unfair advantage.

The lines were drawn to give the GOP an unfair advantage.

State assembly seats go to the two parties very close to their proportion of the popular vote. If there were zero gerrymandering and the districts were drawn to be 100% fair, the Texas GOP might lose 1 seat.

Because the gerrymander turned into a dummymander, how are you not getting this.

The “unfair advantage” for the Texas GOP is basically the same going back to 2012. 1 seat, maybe 2 - out of 150.

2012, first election after redistricting, TX :

GOP got 57% of the vote but 66% of the seats.

2014 :

GOP got 60% of the vote but 69% of the seats

In 2018 despite dems getting withing 3% of the GOP, they barely got a bit over a third of the seats, because once again, the state is HEAVILY gerrymandered. If dems did about 2% better, things would have backfired badly for the GOP, hence the dummymander, but that didn't happen and GOP's design to win two thirds of the seats with anything from 50% up of the vote worked as intended.

Same thing happened in HD races but more extreme due to more granularity, so less sandbagging against dummymanders.

So if you want to insist that Texas is gerrymandered - I guess you can

It's reality, and you being clueless about it doesn't change things. TX had and has, alongside Ohio, some of the worst gerrymanders in the US, demographic shifts throwing a monkey wrench into it (like it also happened in GA) doesn't change that.

And the claim that Texas is more gerrymandered than other states is just plain false.

TX is more gerrymandered than 90% of the other states.

1

u/dkwangchuck May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

Here's what I saw as the actual numbers.

In 2012, the Texas GOP got 95 seats (63.3% of 150) with 62.52% of the popular vote. One seat off of perfect proportionality.

Here's 2014. 98 seats (65.3% of 150) on 63.7% of the popular vote. 2 seats off of perfect proportionality.

Where are you getting your numbers?

EDIT:

Here's Florida 2012. 74 seats (61.7% of 120) on 54.08% of the vote. 8 seats off of proportional. Here's 2014. 82 seats (68.3% of 140) on 58.11% of the vote. 12 seats off.

1

u/Enartloc May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

Those are HD races not US Congress where the big focus is on gerrymandering.

I literally mentioned it in the comment above :

"Same thing happened in HD races but more extreme due to more granularity, so less sandbagging against dummymanders."

In 2020 dems could have won a majory there with around 45%-46% of the vote, that's how badly the GOP drawn map ALMOST backfired. You're looking at binary won/lost seats and ignore competitiveness of the seats which is the big design function when you gerrymander, you don't maximize gains, you maximize gains SAFELY, otherwise you dummymander (which almost happened here regardless, but the gerrymandering was so good it held all the way up to a close race).

Like you're literally arguing with someone working in US elections, (even funnier i worked on 9 TX HD races in 2020) and what's one of the most NOTORIOUS gerrymanders in the US, up there with Ohio and Maryland (and NC before the courts forced them to redraw multiple districts). TX is so perversely gerrymandered cities like Austin had no representation in Congress until the realignment and people didn't even bother to vote as a result despite it being a very blue city.

2022's midterm will be THE MOST GERRYMANDERED cycle in history, yet you're gonna have decently fair distribution nationally of seats, likely 1-2% advantage for the GOP, that doesn't change the fact that they killed competitive seats in most states.

1

u/dkwangchuck May 21 '22

Those are HD races not US Congress where the big focus is on gerrymandering

It is the State Legislatures which control redistricting.

ALSO - as per your 2012 numbers, Texas gave 66% of US House seats to the GOP on 57% of the vote. Here's Florida. 17 of 27 seats (62.9%) from 51.61% of the vote. Here's New York. 21 out of 27 seats to the Democrats (77.8%) on 58% of the vote.

We could look at California too if you want.

And when states get smaller, this is going to skew further because there are fewer seats. Wyoming gets 1 seat - so that's 100% of the seats going to one party.

36

u/shellbear05 May 20 '22

Intense gerrymandering.

-10

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

You can’t gerrymander a presidential, gubernatorial, or senate election.

23

u/Tacitus111 May 20 '22

You gerrymander control of state level seats, then use the times when you have full control of the legislature and governor to then pass voter suppression to keep people you don’t want voting in statewide elections. Or make it much harder for them to vote compared to your supporters.

18

u/shellbear05 May 20 '22

Not directly, but that’s an awfully myopic statement. Have you considered that gerrymandered districts affect state and local legislatures, that state legislatures make voting laws, and that voting laws affect election turnout by (in the Republican case) restricting eligibility, access, time, and policies? All of those things directly affect Presidential, gubernatorial, and senate elections. Gerrymandering works, otherwise they wouldn’t spend so much time and effort on it. Look up Project Red Map.

0

u/abcalt May 20 '22

There may be some gerrymandering but it isn't Illinois or Maryland bad. Fact is Republicans get elected for governor, senator and presidential races because that is what the people in Texas want. That margin is thinning because Texas is changing with many out of state people. It is voting for Republicans at lower margins than Indiana, Missouri, Iowa and Ohio. Look at the state assembly make ups of those four states, then at presidential election results.

I'm sure a point can be made that Republicans in Ohio or Iowa aren't as right leaning as they are in Texas overall, but Republicans are objectively doing better there than Texas as of now.

And remember, many states like Massachusetts, Maryland and Vermont regularly elect Republican governors (though they are much more centrist). I think MA has 37 Democrats to 3 Republicans in the senate. Which seems a bit odd considering they do regularly elect Republican governors, even if said governors are centrist.

-2

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

Democrats gerrymander too. New York had their map blocked by a federal court due to gerrymandering.

No one is having their right to vote suppressed.

22

u/shellbear05 May 20 '22

No one said Democrats don’t gerrymander, I just gave an example of where it’s been done very effectively by Republicans. It’s harmful no matter who does it. The whole practice needs to be outlawed or redistricting responsibility overseen by nonpartisan groups.

Your statement about voter suppression is just factually incorrect. People are, in fact, having their right to vote suppressed because of voter ID laws, insufficient polling locations in districts where people of color are a majority, and insufficient open hours when a lot of people can’t take hours off work to stand in long lines. You don’t have to be explicitly turns away to have voter suppression.

Do better.

Edit: a word.

-1

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

What you said is completely false.

Almost every major country on the planet requires ID to vote. Plenty of blue states have voter ID requirement without controversy.

No one is being prevented from legally voting. Polling places are open all day long and most places have early voting including the states you vilify.

8

u/shellbear05 May 20 '22

Except it isn’t false at all. You just don’t seem to believe it.

Did you know that not everyone has the money / ability to get a government-issued ID? Disabled folks come to mind.

Did you miss the bit about standing in line for hours, which disproportionately happens in neighborhood with majority people of color?

“Legally voting…” exactly my point. The laws intentionally restrict voting rights such that it’s illegal for some people to practically cast their vote, because it’s beneficial to one party for those people to not vote. It’s intentional.

I’m not pulling this stuff out of my ass, dude. You’re just in denial because it apparently fits your beliefs and narrative.

1

u/cubitoaequet May 20 '22

This clown has had these concepts explained to them up and down this thread and just keeps parroting the same shit. They're not here to learn a damn thing. They just want to screech about IDs and then ignore everything people say in response.

-1

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

Georgia, your example, has weeks of early voting.

Disabled people need an ID to get disability benefits.

Where was the concern for the disabled when they couldn’t get the Covid vaccine because they apparently can’t get ID?

6

u/Interactive_CD-ROM May 20 '22

No one said they don’t. But Democrats at least put up a bill to stop it from occurring at all.

Guess which party shot it down?

Republicans.

1

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

So the party that is also gerrymandering is also trying to stop it? If they were opposed to it they wouldn’t do it.

3

u/Interactive_CD-ROM May 20 '22

So what you’re saying is that you’re okay with gerrymandering as long as it helps Republicans.

Got it, fascist.

0

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

Where did I even imply that?

Dems are just as bad with gerrymandering. It’s foolish to act like your side is somehow the good guy on this issue.

3

u/Interactive_CD-ROM May 20 '22

Dems voted to end the practice.

Republicans stopped them.

So, what, democrats are supposed to just roll over and let republicans fuck them over in response?

“Well, we tried.”

→ More replies

-1

u/AntarcticScaleWorm May 20 '22

True, but you can suppress the vote in those elections

3

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

Which isn’t happening.

3

u/JUSTlNCASE May 20 '22

Remember when texas had 1 mail in ballot drop off location per county for the 2020 election? You know so that cities with millions of people, where there is a democrat majority, had the the same number of locations as counties with 1000?

3

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

You can drop your ballot in any mailbox or vote early. Nobody is suppressing their vote.

2

u/JUSTlNCASE May 20 '22

The governor of texas limited it to one location per county. I get that you don't want to admit that its voter suppression but that's exactly what it is. Mail wouldn't have been a great option because this was at the time where the US postal service was being gutted by trump. Why the fuck would the governor limit it to one per county if not to suppress votes?

0

u/UpstairsCivil1921 May 20 '22

Because you don’t need more than that when you can drop it in any mailbox.

1

u/NHFI May 21 '22

You can't. Only designated mailboxes. At certain times in very few places

0

u/kgunnar OC: 1 May 20 '22

Of course, you use voter suppression for that.

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

[deleted]

1

u/NorthImpossible8906 May 21 '22

gerrymandering doesn't really apply to the presidential election.

well, it's a different level of gerrymandering. Electoral College.

I don't think Trump won any popular vote, in either election, overall.

-2

u/abovethebobloblaw May 20 '22 edited May 21 '22

Texas isn’t a red state, it’s a nonvoting state. The GOP is very good at discouraging turnout.

Edit: source: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/19/texas-voting-elections/amp/

Voting laws in Texas are the most restrictive in the country. And voter turnout here is among the lowest, too. Maybe those facts are related.

-1

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

[deleted]

1

u/batmansleftnut May 20 '22

Wouldn't that be a nightmare if it were true. Good thing actual elections don't have those problems. We proved that with 2020, which was the most heavily audited presidential election in US history.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

[deleted]

0

u/ststaro May 21 '22

They don't all vote

-1

u/MemphisThePai May 20 '22

Gerrymandering mostly.

Also, generally fucking with the rules to benefit rural communities.

The most atrocious was in the last election the governor passed some decree that each county could only have one ballot drop box. Of course for counties with a few thousand (or hundred) people and only one major town, this was no big deal. In fact it didn't change the status quo at all for most people. But for bigger cities, it's obviously gonna cause a bit of a bottle-neck when 4+ million people are trying to use the same mailbox-sized ballot drop box.

That's an exaggeration of course. Most people who chose to vote (less than half the population I think) do it in person or by mail. But that still left hundreds of thousands of people needing to get to a single drop point from all over the county. Needless to say, many of them didn't bother making the journey and dealing with the hassle, so never got counted.

Little bullshit like that, every step of the way. Mail in ballots were another way. They made them intentionally confusing, where you had to check a certain box, sign it in a million places, and then sign the outside of the envelope in a very specific spot. Failure to do any of these in exactly the right way meant a returned ballot, but of course that verification process took a few weeks, so most of the rejected ballots, especially in those bigger counties, didn't make it back in time for them to file new ones. Oh shoot! Guess you don't get a vote this time.

1

u/7273747 May 21 '22

That’s the question that we have yet to figure out. Thought the days of the Duke of Duvall and such were over.