Blue Wave in the House?

[lpetrich]

The Boston Globe collected the House election results for 2012, and I have worked out what the results are for proportional representation. I have recently calculated what would happen if larger fractions voted for the Democratic Party. The paired numbers are the number of Dem and Rep seats in the House that result. Nationwide and state-by-state are what the proportional representation is done over, and by party is the current single-member-district system. For doing proportional representation, the algorithm is the Hare system (round downward) followed by D'Hondt highest averages.

[table="class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]Tilt[/td]
[td]Dem%-50[/td]
[td]Nationwide[/td]
[td]State-by-state[/td]
[td]By party[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]0%[/td]
[td]0.46%[/td]
[td]220-215[/td]
[td]215-220[/td]
[td]201-234[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1%[/td]
[td]1.41%[/td]
[td]224-211[/td]
[td]220-215[/td]
[td]206-229[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2%[/td]
[td]2.36%[/td]
[td]228-207[/td]
[td]226-209[/td]
[td]212-223[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]3%[/td]
[td]3.31%[/td]
[td]232-203[/td]
[td]231-204[/td]
[td]214-221[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]4%[/td]
[td]4.25%[/td]
[td]236-199[/td]
[td]236-199[/td]
[td]222-213[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]5%[/td]
[td]5.20%[/td]
[td]240-195[/td]
[td]240-195[/td]
[td]231-204[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

In the baseline case, D - R = 1%, and the Dems are down 5 seats in state-by-state PR, though up 5 seats in nationwide PR. They are down 33 seats in single-member districts (the current system).

For D - R = 2%, the Dems and the Reps are equal in state-by-state proportionality and for greater D - R, state-by-state proportionality approaches nationwide proportionality. But for D - R = 2%, the Dems are down 28 SMD seats.

For D - R = 7%, the Dems and Reps are equal in SMD seats, but the Dems would have 31 or 32 seats more with PR.

So I conclude that gerrymandering costs the Dems about 30 seats. The Reps might still hold the House after the upcoming elections, but it will be by a narrow margin, and their legitimacy will become more and more in question. I suspect that if the Dems win, they will have a narrow margin of victory.

The same is likely so in several state legislatures, and I think that if Democrats win in an uphill battle against gerrymandering, they ought to try to get rid of it.

 

[jonatha]

The same is likely so in several state legislatures, and I think that if Democrats win in an uphill battle against gerrymandering, they ought to try to get rid of it.

If the Democrats win they will (to the extent possible) gerrymander it in the opposite direction.

Getting rid of it entirely (to the extent possible) would require a Constitutional Amendment specifying an algorithm for districting for the purposes of Federal elections...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html has a map of all the precincts in the country as of the 2016 election. There's a blue one in Maine that contains all but one of the islands in the Penobscot River from Bangor to East Millinocket, a distance of about 60 miles.

 

[laughing dog]

I hope there is wave of sanity into the House, regardless of the party. But I doubt there will be a Blue Wave and I seriously despair there will be a wave of sanity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The same is likely so in several state legislatures, and I think that if Democrats win in an uphill battle against gerrymandering, they ought to try to get rid of it.

If the Democrats win they will (to the extent possible) gerrymander it in the opposite direction.

They shouldn't but it is a tall order to suggest the Democrats would be 'just as bad'. Also, in order to gerrymander, you need control of the State Legislature... which is more of a 2020 question.

Getting rid of it entirely (to the extent possible) would require a Constitutional Amendment specifying an algorithm for districting for the purposes of Federal elections...

Ummm yeah... good luck passing that along in a two party nation.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope there is wave of sanity into the House, regardless of the party. But I doubt there will be a Blue Wave and I seriously despair there will be a wave of sanity.

It will be a blue wave if the turnout is there and/or if red vote turnout is lower. It won't be a blue wave if we don't see the 2010 like turnout the Republicans saw when Americans ran to the polls because of their rage over making health care more accessible. *sigh*

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

As I pointed out in another thread, the GOP - Trump budget plans for 2019 are so radical as to be beyond belief. The swine won't be pushing for this before the August recess is over but then, just before the election, they will start peddling this extremism. I suspect that it will have big repercussions for the November 6th elections. There are several such Republicans running in a not totally red, hard core Republican district that will be at risk if as I suspect, this new budget push riles up everybody.

Buckle up, the biggest political shit storm since the civil war is soon going to be upon us. We may not see a blue wave as much as a panic driven blue tsunami.

 

[Elixir]

Buckle up, the biggest political shit storm since the civil war is soon going to be upon us. We may not see a blue wave as much as a panic driven blue tsunami.

Hope so; panic is well warranted at this point.

 

[Underseer]

Polls are increasingly worthless because very few people use landlines anymore, and the polls can't account for the effects of voter purges, or fake news campaigns on social media by hostile foreign powers. Further, I don't have much faith in the apathetic non-voting majority getting involved in any of this. I'm assuming this could go either way, and if I find anyone who admits to being a non-voter, I'm going to yell like an unhinged conservolibertarian who was just told that racism is a bad thing.

 

[Terrell]

We'll see. Too early to say.

 

[Derec]

I think it would be good to have divided government.
However, I am concerned about so many primaries being won by DSA-type candidates like AOC. There is danger both in them losing many winnable seats, saving GOP House majority, and in them winning, creating a lefty "Freedom Caucus"-like block that makes governing difficult.

 

[Harry Bosch]

As I pointed out in another thread, the GOP - Trump budget plans for 2019 are so radical as to be beyond belief. The swine won't be pushing for this before the August recess is over but then, just before the election, they will start peddling this extremism. I suspect that it will have big repercussions for the November 6th elections. There are several such Republicans running in a not totally red, hard core Republican district that will be at risk if as I suspect, this new budget push riles up everybody.

Buckle up, the biggest political shit storm since the civil war is soon going to be upon us. We may not see a blue wave as much as a panic driven blue tsunami.

I wish you were right, but I just don't see it. The left remains too divided. Too difficult to motivate. The right is united. They want power. They want their agenda pushed. They are willing to sacrifice and look the other way, as long as the left is down. I think that it's a very dangerous time for a so-called democracy to not have any levers of power for a majority.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think it would be good to have divided government.
However, I am concerned about so many primaries being won by DSA-type candidates like AOC.

You said you liked Bernie. What is differdnt about AOC that you don't like her?

There is danger both in them losing many winnable seats, saving GOP House majority, and in them winning, creating a lefty "Freedom Caucus"-like block that makes governing difficult.

Making it difficult for Twitler to govern is a bad thing?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it would be good to have divided government.
However, I am concerned about so many primaries being won by DSA-type candidates like AOC.

You said you liked Bernie. What is differdnt about AOC that you don't like her?

Also, name six other primary winners that have a shot at victory that are DSA.

There is danger both in them losing many winnable seats, saving GOP House majority, and in them winning, creating a lefty "Freedom Caucus"-like block that makes governing difficult.

Making it difficult for Twitler to govern is a bad thing?

Seeing that most of the primaries have been won by establishment Democrats, I have no idea what in the heck you are talking about.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think it would be good to have divided government.
However, I am concerned about so many primaries being won by DSA-type candidates like AOC.

You said you liked Bernie. What is differdnt about AOC that you don't like her?

There is danger both in them losing many winnable seats, saving GOP House majority, and in them winning, creating a lefty "Freedom Caucus"-like block that makes governing difficult.

Making it difficult for Twitler to govern is a bad thing?

Of course people on the right love Bernie! They are hoping beyond hope that he will run again.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Polls are increasingly worthless because very few people use landlines anymore, and the polls can't account for the effects of voter purges, or fake news campaigns on social media by hostile foreign powers. Further, I don't have much faith in the apathetic non-voting majority getting involved in any of this. I'm assuming this could go either way, and if I find anyone who admits to being a non-voter, I'm going to yell like an unhinged conservolibertarian who was just told that racism is a bad thing.

I only vote on the ballot initiatives, not the electoral races. Does that count?

I look forward to you keeping your promise by not yelling.

 

[Derec]

You said you liked Bernie. What is differdnt about AOC that you don't like her?

I did early on. But he then proved to be your regular doctrinaire leftist.
One example: DAPL, the Dakota Access Pipeline that connects the Bakken shale fields to the refineries that process it. Shale revolution meant more demand for pipelines from shale fields. DAPL (and other pipelines) have many benefits for the normal people, the 99%. Construction jobs, oil jobs in the Bakken, government revenues from taxes and fees on that economic activity. And compared to moving oil by trains, pipelines are both cheaper and safer. But the hard, ideological left opposed it, led by people like Hollywood millionaire Mark Ruffalo and hedge fund billionaire Tim Steyr. Sanders quickly took their side over against the 99% who benefit from it.

Another area where he even betrayed his heritage to toe the hard left party line is his taking the Palestinian side in the Israel-Gaza conflict that has been going on most Fridays since March 30th.

Making it difficult for Twitler to govern is a bad thing?

The Freedom Caucus is doing that already. A similar schism in the Democratic Party would do the same for President [insert insulting nickname here] (D-[some state]) who will probably get elected in 2020.

 

[Derec]

Also, name six other primary winners that have a shot at victory that are DSA.

Don't have that data on my fingertips. AOC certainly has a great chance to win, and I sure there are at least 6 more like her.

Seeing that most of the primaries have been won by establishment Democrats, I have no idea what in the heck you are talking about.

DSA block doesn't have to be a majority of the Democratic Caucus for them to be a thorn in Dems side.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You said you liked Bernie. What is differdnt about AOC that you don't like her?

I did early on. But he then proved to be your regular doctrinaire leftist.
One example: DAPL, the Dakota Access Pipeline that connects the Bakken shale fields to the refineries that process it. Shale revolution meant more demand for pipelines from shale fields. DAPL (and other pipelines) have many benefits for the normal people, the 99%. Construction jobs, oil jobs in the Bakken, government revenues from taxes and fees on that economic activity. And compared to moving oil by trains, pipelines are both cheaper and safer. But the hard, ideological left opposed it, led by people like Hollywood millionaire Mark Ruffalo and hedge fund billionaire Tim Steyr. Sanders quickly took their side over against the 99% who benefit from it.

Another area where he even betrayed his heritage to toe the hard left party line is his taking the Palestinian side in the Israel-Gaza conflict that has been going on most Fridays since March 30th.

Making it difficult for Twitler to govern is a bad thing?

The Freedom Caucus is doing that already. A similar schism in the Democratic Party would do the same for President [insert insulting nickname here] (D-[some state]) who will probably get elected in 2020.

You liked Bernie in spite of these things until afterward. Therefore I conclude you hated Hillary.

 

[Derec]

You liked Bernie in spite of these things until afterward.

I did not.

Therefore I conclude you hated Hillary.

I disliked Hillary more, true.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You knew he was far left, he's a socialist for crying out loud!

 

[Derec]

You knew he was far left, he's a socialist for crying out loud!

Yeah, but most Americans don't have any idea what "socialism" means.
And besides, I was hoping because Hillary. And I was proven right: Hillary was such a weak candidate she lost to somebody like Trump.