Gerrymandering, the concentration of Dem voters in urban areas, the death of the blue dog Dem, midterm drop-off. All these certainly make it harder for the Dems to win the House, especially before 2022. But it’s not impossible. After to the 2004 election, there were many who thought Republican control was inevitable for the foreseeable future. It turned out that future wasn’t very long, and after the 2008 election, the Dems controlled more seats than the republicans do now. If you’d asked anyone in the months following the 2008 election if the Republicans had a shot at regaining the House, you would have gotten laughter.
Of course it is always easier for the party that doesn’t hold the White House to run up big numbers as an expression of voter anger and disappointment, so be careful what you wish for. The surest way to flip the House by 2020 would be with a Republican president.
Despite the Republican pickups, all down the ballot in may states, there were interesting trends, the overwhelming passage of minumum wage increase ballot measures in red states, that Dems held the state house in KY, killing the chance of “right-to-work-for-less” becoming law, that an overwhelming majority of voters feel the economy is set up to benefit the rich, including about a third of Republican voters. There is clearly a sizable Republican vote that is potentially susceptible to a populist economic message. Some will always vote Republican for cultural reasons, but some will wake up to the fact that the Republicans aren’t their friends if the Dems aren’t afraid to embrace a more aggressive tone. The louder the Republicans squeal about “class warfare”, the better Democrats do.
In other words, the GOP/Teatrolls quite literally do not believe in democracy whatsoever and this is proof. They quite literally want minority rule and have achieved it. In other words, 'Murka has died.
One thing that would help and that wouldn’t require any constitutional amendment is to increase the number of House districts. The Constitution does not specify any number, only that each state must have at least one. Congress used to increase the number of districts periodically as the population grew, but stopped in 1913. In the 100 years since then, the population has more than tripled, so there ought to be somewhere around 1500 House districts. No other country has districts with anywhere near 750,000 people as the US House does.
The argument is made as to how you would manage debates with that many members. But let’s be honest, the floor debates are a joke; does anyone imagine that votes are changed by some particularly brilliant speech? As for seating in the chamber, let the poor dears have less elbow room.
With proportional representation who chooses the people to fill each party delegation to Congress? If it isn’t the voters, and I don’t see how it could be, then the oligarchs pick the individual members, as they do today. The mechanics of this system need to be carefully worked out.
I’m suggesting we forbid partisan gerrymandering - and while we’re at it, partisan election officials. We need to guarantee that people’s votes count and their right to the franchise is unabridged by state actions designed to limit it.
There needs to be a citizen push for proportional representation. And perhaps educating people on the benefits of a larger chamber.
Even nonpartisan commissions can’t do it expect in states with very even population distribution (e.g. Iowa) or states in which the usual rural-urban GOP-Dem split does not apply (e.g. Arizona).
But focusing the Democratic Party on economic and pocketbook issues, combined with a push for non-partisan management of elections and districting, might do the trick as it would finally make the Dems relevant to rural America again and not continue concentrating them where mapmakers can take advantage.
Sorry, but I got redistricted here in Texas and guess what? as a white voter I have no standing to challenge a redistricting plan that was entirely designed to make my democratic vote meaningless.
Has anyone done a study that shows total number of votes for Republicans vs. total votes for Democrats? In my District, Minnesota’s 5th, (Minneapolis) the Democrat won with over 70% of the vote. That’s a lot of excess votes that could have been used elsewhere. The Republican didn’t even get 24%, BTW.
Unfortunately, 2018 is probably more important than 2020, since 34 states’ governorships will be decided then (and continue through the next redistricting). 2020 will only matter in-so-far as it lines up with state legislatures, and maybe a little in determining the country’s overall “mood”.
Yup. I’ve felt for years and with the computer programs we have today, the whole country should be re-districted.
Another thing along the same lines that causes new headaches every two years is the lack of uniform voting laws, particularly as they apply to federal offices. Why is it that we have 50 different (probably 51 if you include the District of Columbia) ways of voting for the same elections? This can’t possibly be seen as a state’s rights issue as members of Congress legislate on behalf of the whole nation. In fact, I imagine that if challenged in court that voter ID laws and all the other crap used to suppress votes, are all constitutional. We need to adopt national standards, which probably should include going back to voting in person.
You forget that the GOP has established the precedent that it is OK to redistrict in a non-census year. The GOP just lost the governor’s job in Pennsylvania so a reverse gerrymander may be possible.
How is this for a fix? Democrats running at the state level agree to push for a minimum of 1/3 of seats of any any federal house delegation to be at-large (with the exception of two member delegations) when re-districting occurs. This would be fair.
One delegate= at large anyway.
Two = east west/north south
Three= east west/north south + at large
Four= east west/north south + 2 at large
Five= east/central/west + 2 at large etc…
This would be odd in California but it would get a wider spectrum of house members both to the left and right. Coalitions would as a result be more fluid. Small red states might stay more permanently red, but large blue states would become more blue.
Other than the fight this would cause by challenging the status quo, am I missing something on why this isn’t a good idea?
