Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, June 15, 2017

Last year, Michigan Democrats won more overall votes for state House than Republicans. It was by a whisper, about half of one percentage point. But Democrats got walloped in the race that counts, as the GOP swept 63 of 110 seats. How could that be? Blame a nerdy term called "the efficiency gap." ... The Michigan Senate is the most imbalanced of all legislative bodies in Michigan, according to "efficiency gap" methodology. In 2014, Republicans won 27 seats compared to 11 for Democrats. The GOP typically won their races by tighter margins, while the Dems captured safe seats in blowouts.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I have been on this since 2010. It's amazing you can actually have more votes for Democrats yet they get absolutely trounced in the elections - to the tune of super majorities.

#1 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-06-14 12:58 PM | Reply

A big reason for this is the city of Detroit votes Democrat almost unanimously.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 01:12 PM | Reply

"A big reason for this is the city of Detroit votes Democrat almost unanimously."

Proof that Detroit is the center of sanity in that state.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-14 01:41 PM | Reply

BTW, we have a Republican majority in Congress, will any of our Republican posters come right out and condemn the practice of gerrymandering. As a Democrat I will even for my own Congressman Alcee Hastings (D) whose district is obviously the result of gerrymandering. We should have a constitutional amendment outlawing gerrymandering, lobbyists, outside money, inside money, money in politics, and probably other things that are destroying democracy in America. Oh, also computer voting, we need paper ballots and to throw the electronic voting machines in the ocean.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-14 02:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Example: your State has 10 seats.

To establish an equal setting, all 10 seats will represent 10 districts.

But how to divide the State into 10 districts fairly.

By, dividing the 10 districts by the income, race, gender, etc, etc of all citizens.

You do a census of the entire State and each person is designated into a district by these elements so that every district has as close as possible the same mix of demographics.

But, someone is going to say that their district should be only those in their 'area-location-neighborhood' or 'think like them' - hence, gerrymandering.

pjmedia.com

What I found interesting is that, when the parties switch places, the gerrymandering switches to the other.

#5 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-06-15 09:05 AM | Reply

Gerrymandering has been a reality since this country was founded. It's not going away.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-15 01:22 PM | Reply

Lucky for you and everyone else that subscribes to your swine's ideology.

Your ilk would be nothing but the darkest chapters in the history books if it weren't for your mastery of dirty tricks.

#7 | Posted by Kreator at 2017-06-15 09:59 PM | Reply

What I found interesting is that, when the parties switch places, the gerrymandering switches to the other.

#5 | POSTED BY PETROUS AT 2017-06-15 09:05 AM | FLAG:

What I find interesting is that when studied, gerrymandering fails half the time because of bad demographic trend predictions.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-06-16 09:23 AM | Reply

#2 | Posted by JeffJ

Did you even read the article? You say that but another big reason is there is a LOT of the rest of the state that votes Republican in the same way.

#9 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-06-16 10:23 AM | Reply

#5 | Posted by Petrous

Well that you see is what happened. The 2010 census. You can't look at the districts in Michigan and actually believe they were not Gerrymandered.

I don't disagree that both sides do it - it is wrong. The Supreme court has said so. I am saying that NO district in any state should look like an ink blot.

#10 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-06-16 10:26 AM | Reply

What I find interesting is that when studied, gerrymandering fails half the time because of bad demographic trend predictions.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Something important to understand that almost nobody does is there have been advance in predictive analytics using software and processing power of computers. 2010 is testament to that and the GOP was the first to leverage that power. The leaps software has made in the last 20 years is scary. The same goes for processing power. Data Mining is now a recognized profession and there is an art to it but I can get answers to questions instantly that would have taken days just a few years ago. I started working with some data mining last year and I don't even have the best of the best. Imagine if you had a team of the best data miners available using IBM's systems...

2020 is scary.

#11 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-06-16 10:33 AM | Reply

But, someone is going to say that their district should be only those in their 'area-location-neighborhood' or 'think like them' - hence, gerrymandering.
pjmedia.com

#5 | POSTED BY PETROUS

If this is what you think gerrymandering is, you aren't very smart.

It's done based upon voter trend predictions to ensure democratic voters are grouped together to less their voting power and ensure other districts will squeak by with just enough votes to elect a Republican. And occasionally yes vice versa.

This way you can take a state that votes 60% Dem and 40% Republican but end up with a legislature that is 60% Republican and 40% Democrat.

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-06-16 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Here is how Gerrymandering works Lets use some round numbers to make the math easier to follow. we'll pretend there are 10 seats up for grab and 1000 voters 600 democrats and 400 republicans.

Some people see a district voting 100% for 1 party and blame THAT party for gerrymandering. The opposite is true. You only need 50% + 1 votes to win.

If the people were evenly distributed the dems would win every seat 60-40. If the dems all lived on one side of a line and the reps on the other the dems would get 6 seats and the reps would get 4

With Gerrymandering the republicans making the maps start by looking at voting history. They are required by law to split the population up among the districts so each district has 100 voters. So they start with a bucket that has 600 dems and 400 reps. If they can cut out an area that is 90% dem and 10% rep, They give that district to the dems, but "use up" 90 dem votes but only "use up" 10 rep votes. Now the dems have 1 seat but the remaining voter pool that started out 600-400 is now 510-390. So they do it again. Maybe this time because of where people live they can only get an 80-20 split. So now the dems have 2 seats but the remaining pool is now 430-370. So lets say they can build two 75-25 districts. So they give the dems 4 seats but the pool is now 280 dems 320 reps. The rest of the districts can now win the rest of the districts 53-47 and end up with a 2 seat majority despite the dems getting 50% more votes

#13 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-06-16 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hatter, I'm going to run out of Newsworthy flags if you keep posting.

Thanks for the clear, concise explanations.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-16 02:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort