Wisconsin Dems Get 54% of Statewide Vote, Just 36% of Seats

Monday, November 19, 2018

Democrats netted 1.3 million votes for State Assembly, 54 percent statewide. Even so, Republicans will return to the Capitol in 2019 with Republicans holding 63 of 99 seats in the Assembly, a nearly two-thirds majority.

Posted by JOE at 07:30 PM | 61 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Wisconsin, in other words, did not have a democratic election for the state assembly. Something resembling an election took place and voters cast their ballots in earnest, but the entire state assembly race was rigged.

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 wonder who the first "country loving" righty will be to throw their hat in the ring and defend this.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-19 01:26 PM | Reply

I wonder who the first "country loving" righty will be to throw their hat in the ring and defend this.

I've already read the "This is how it SHOULD be - Madison and Milwaukee don't speak for the state" defense.

#2 | Posted by dylanfan at 2018-11-19 01:38 PM | Reply

Joe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is NOT a democracy.

#3 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-19 04:38 PM | Reply

#4 - I'm surprised this took so long.

So, Sniper, why specifically in the state of Wisconsin should a party that garners over half the vote hold roughly 1/3 of the seats? Do you think this somehow matches with the vision of a republic?

#4 | Posted by dylanfan at 2018-11-19 05:19 PM | Reply

#4 A Republic still has representative government you absolute dolt.

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-19 07:08 PM | Reply

"This is NOT a democracy."

Then what is it?
What are the elections for, Sniper?
Are the elections themselves not democratic?

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-19 08:07 PM | Reply

"Joe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is NOT a democracy."

Clearly it isn't a Democracy. It isn't a Republic either with an outcome like this. It's a sham.

#7 | Posted by dibblda at 2018-11-19 08:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In Michigan we just passed non-partisan redistricting. Sounds like a LOT of other states need it.

#8 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-11-19 09:16 PM | Reply

Are the "America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic" people always insufferable buffoons?

#9 | Posted by hamburglar at 2018-11-19 09:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Want to see one of worst gerrymandered states in the USA, look up the blue state of Maryland - the continue to bitch with that in mind.

#10 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-11-19 10:38 PM | Reply

'the' continue obviously was meant to be 'then', but thought I had to explain for the libbies.

#11 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-11-19 10:39 PM | Reply

Maryland didn't have majority of its residents vote Republican and then end up with a majority of Democrats in their state house.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-19 10:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I've yet to see a map of Wisconsin's gerrymandered districts, although I'll take it for granted they probably are and should be fixed.

The point many seem to be missing when talking about the 'statewide vote' is that a balance will always need to be struck between proportional representation in raw numbers of the people in the state and not having a person who represents a district living a hundred miles away from many of his constituents.

Pardon for injecting a bit of sanity into this thread.

#13 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-11-19 10:47 PM | Reply

"Pardon for injecting a bit of sanity into this thread."

Speaking of sanity, do you believe 54% of the vote should garner 36% of the seats?

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-19 10:50 PM | Reply

"Speaking of sanity, do you believe 54% of the vote should garner 36% of the seats?"

Probably not, which is why I prefaced my statement with the first sentence, but one would have to look deeper at how the maps were drawn.

#15 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-11-19 11:05 PM | Reply

I've yet to see a map of Wisconsin's gerrymandered districts, although I'll take it for granted they probably are and should be fixed.

The true measure of a gerrymander isn't how strange the map looks (though that can often be an indicator) - it's the "efficiency gap" between a vote for one party versus a vote for the other. In other words, how much easier it is for one party's vote to be actualized into legislative power than it is for the other.

In Wisconsin, Republicans got 46% of the statewide assembly vote but netted 64% of the assembly seats. The map is rigged in such a way that any conceivable election outcome will result in a majority, if not supermajority, for Republicans.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-19 11:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Speaking of sanity, do you believe 54% of the vote should garner 36% of the seats?"

Probably not"

^
"So you're saying... there's a chance!"

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-19 11:54 PM | Reply

And I realize that districts need to be compact and contiguous to avoid claims of gerrymandering. But in order for a gerrymander to work, it needs to effectively disenfranchise people as a result of the violation of those principles. And Wisconsin Republicans used taxpayer money to pay a high priced law firm to draft the most effective gerrymander in the country.

#18 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-19 11:55 PM | Reply

"I've yet to see a map of Wisconsin's gerrymandered districts"

The only thing that proves, Sentinel, is they didn't Gerrymander any of them into the shape of a swastika.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-20 12:01 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

For a map of the Wisconsin Legislative districts, go to...

legis.wisconsin.gov

...where you can download PDF versions of them. And note that while the districts around Milwaukee are amazing, they don't come close to what they did with Madison (too really appreciate this, you need to download the 'poster-size' map).

OCU

#20 | Posted by OCUser at 2018-11-20 01:06 AM | Reply

To put this another way, it took Dems 36,388 votes to earn each assembly seat. It took Reps just 17,460 votes to earn each of their seats.

In order to get as many seats as the Republicans won, Dems would have needed 149% of the vote.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-20 08:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"In order to get as many seats as the Republicans won, Dems would have needed 149% of the vote." - #22 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-20 08:21 AM

Then they should have held the election in Chicago. :-)

#22 | Posted by Hans at 2018-11-20 09:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The republicans controlled both houses of the legislature, the governor, and the supreme court. When the districts were drawn the Democrats were not even allowed to be present in the room. The process was so secretive that even many republican lawmakers were not aware of the changes in their own districts until the final maps were unveiled. They were signed into law in 2011

#23 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-11-20 11:16 AM | Reply

#4 A Republic still has representative government you absolute dolt.

#6 | Posted by JOE

Yes they do but total vote count does not mean anything in a republic.

#24 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-20 11:20 AM | Reply

"This is NOT a democracy."

Then what is it?
What are the elections for, Sniper?
Are the elections themselves not democratic?

#7 | Posted by snoofy

You could not possibaly be that stupid. I told you before......... a democracy is where 3 sheep ane 3 wolves vote on what is for dinner. What part of that goes over your head?

#25 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-20 11:22 AM | Reply

Make that 2 sheep and 3 wolves.

#26 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-20 11:26 AM | Reply

total vote count does not mean anything in a republic

In a Republic the person with the most votes wins. There is nothing "republican" about gerrymandering. There is something awfully "Republican" about it in Wisconsin though.

#27 | Posted by joe at 2018-11-20 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"a democracy is where 3 sheep ane 3 wolves vote on what is for dinner. What part of that goes over your head?
#26 | POSTED BY SNIPER"

Pretty much all of it.

Based on what you've said, why have elections?

Did Wisconsin vote to eat the sheep, and Gerrymandering protected the sheep?

Republicans are the sheep in your analogy, Sniper?

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-20 12:48 PM | Reply

In a Republic the person with the most votes wins. There is nothing "republican" about gerrymandering. There is something awfully "Republican" about it in Wisconsin though.

#28 | Posted by joe

True, but only in the district they are in. State wide vote count does not mean anything.

#29 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-20 02:16 PM | Reply

Republicans are the sheep in your analogy, Sniper?

#29 | Posted by snoofy

And that makes you WHAT? Majority does not rule except in your feeble mind. The senate is a democracy, the house and president elections are not.

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-20 02:19 PM | Reply

Why do we have elections, Sniper?

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-20 02:24 PM | Reply

The senate is a democracy, the house and president elections are not.

#31 | Posted by Sniper

The senate is the least democratic part of government.

In the senate, a voter in wyoming has several THOUSAND TIMES more representation than a voter in california.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-11-20 02:27 PM | Reply

The senate is a democracy, the house and president elections are not.

The thread is not about US elections, genius.

#33 | Posted by dylanfan at 2018-11-20 03:07 PM | Reply

True, but only in the district they are in.

...and when those "districts" are drawn with explicit partisan intentions by lawyers whose sole goal is to cement one party in supermajority power regardless of how few votes they get, the notion of a "republic" or a "democracy" is turned on its head.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-20 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

54% times 3/5 is 36%.
Math.
Republicans want dem votes to be counted like rigger votes.

#35 | Posted by bored at 2018-11-20 04:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's actually worse than that, 32.4%

#36 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-11-20 05:23 PM | Reply

"In the senate, a voter in wyoming has several THOUSAND TIMES more representation than a voter in california."

Saying this just makes people look ignorant of how the senate works. The drafters of the constitution intended for each State to have equal representation in the senate regardless of its size or population.

The point you were responding to was saying that US senators are elected by a statewide democratic majority, whereas district representatives are not.

Gerrymandering sucks, no matter who does it, but some of the people making inane arguments in this thread will still be bitching if an independent commission redraws the districts, because they don't understand how district representation works or they don't think people who live "in close proximity to cows" deserve equitable representation.

#37 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-11-20 08:25 PM | Reply

"The drafters of the constitution intended for each State to have equal representation in the senate regardless of its size or population."

All 13 of them.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-20 08:28 PM | Reply

"they don't think people who live "in close proximity to cows" deserve equitable representation."

Equal, yes.

Greater than equal, no.

Can you at least admit that 1/300,000 strength to elect a Senator is greater power than 1/20,000,000 strength?

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-20 08:32 PM | Reply

The Founders also wanted one Representative in the House for every 30,000 inhabitants in a state.

You know, like the House of Representative was supposed to be some kind of democratically elected representative body.

Since then, it's skewed towards over-representing the smaller states and under-representing the larger states.

Which is pretty damn backwards, since the Senate already does that.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-20 08:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"All 13 of them."

At that time, the largest state was ~12.5x the smallest state. Now it's ~66.5x. Equitable?

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-20 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#2: Considering all the gerrymandering in Wisconson and many other states as well as the bulls#it in Mississippi (Ms. Hyde-Smith), we obviously need to start spreading democracy within the United States. Let alone the Middle East.

#42 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2018-11-20 09:36 PM | Reply

"Can you at least admit that 1/300,000 strength to elect a Senator is greater power than 1/20,000,000 strength?"

No, because Senatorial elections in California and Wyoming are completely independent of each other. In each one the results are determined by a democratic majority within each state and have no effect on the other one.

"All 13 of them."

So? That's how it was set up and designed to work. Don't like it, change the Constitution and the name of the country while you're at it.

"Equitable?"

As we're so often reminded, equitable is not the same thing as equal. If the country changed to a purely democratic system, then representation would be skewed almost entirely to the densely populated areas and those living in rural and less populated areas would effectively have no representation and be disenfranchised.

#43 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-11-20 10:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

...and those living in rural and less populated areas would effectively have no representation and be disenfranchised.

So directly opposite of the current "fair' system?

#44 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-11-20 10:26 PM | Reply

"As we're so often reminded, equitable is not the same thing as equal."

So, is it equitable, or not?

You didn't answer the question is because you don't want things to be equitable.

That's what you're trying to hide, and come off as a normal rational person, Sentinel.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-20 10:31 PM | Reply

"So directly opposite of the current "fair' system?"

Are you just complaining about gerrymandering here, or are you whining about the representative republic system of government as it was intended? I sensed that may in this thread were conflating the latter with the former, and it looks like I was right.

#46 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-11-20 10:32 PM | Reply

"No, because Senatorial elections in California and Wyoming are completely independent of each other."

That has nothing to do with my question. A Wyoming resident has 65x the power of a California resident when it comes to electing a Senator.

"representation would be skewed almost entirely to the densely populated areas"

Why shouldn't the people who pay the bills get to decide how to do it?

"less populated areas would effectively have no representation and be disenfranchised."

Nonsense. Their representation would reflect their numbers.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-20 10:36 PM | Reply

These factions should just secede from the Union, and then face the subsequent war.
That's how "the south will rise again --" via the long game of butthurt political partisans.

#48 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2018-11-20 11:03 PM | Reply

Gerrymandering sucks, no matter who does it, but some of the people making inane arguments in this thread will still be bitching if an independent commission redraws the districts

I wouldn't be one of them, and that's a stupid reason no to advocate for a fairer process anyway.

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-21 08:26 AM | Reply

"representation would be skewed almost entirely to the densely populated areas"

In other words, "more people" would have a say in their government instead of "less people." I've never seen a coherent explanation for how that is a bad thing.

#50 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-21 08:45 AM | Reply

Make that 2 sheep and 3 wolves.

#27 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-11-20 11:26 AM | REPLY

A republic is where 2 jackals and 6 sheep are allowed to vote for which jackal will decide which sheep get eaten first

#51 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-11-21 11:22 AM | Reply

Sniper

Tell us why skewing representation to the sparsely populated rural areas is desirable

#52 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-11-21 11:23 AM | Reply

Welcome to the SAME EXACT WHINEYNESS that Democrats had to deal with coming from Republicans in the 90s when Dems gerrymandered so hard.

Oh, but the side who's turn it is to whine never wants to acknowledge they once were on the other side because that doesn't help their cause. Get over it. In another 20 or 30 years it will be reversed again. Waaaah. Until both sides learn to compromise and do what's best for the people instead of the party, this cycle will never end.

#53 | Posted by humtake at 2018-11-21 12:09 PM | Reply

"In other words, "more people" would have a say in their government instead of "less people." I've never seen a coherent explanation for how that is a bad thing."

So, in this day and age of political correctness, you really don't understand why the minority isn't given an equal voice to the majority? I mean, we as a people bicker back and forth all the time over an INSANELY tiny fraction of people who want to use a different bathroom but you can't understand why treating millions of people who have viewpoints due to their upbringing and lifestyle differently than a larger group of millions who have different viewpoints because of their upbringing and lifestyle?

I mean, I'm all for getting rid of the snowflake epidemic, but it's really not that hard to understand that saying a larger group of people is more right than a smaller group of people just because of lifestyle differences is a terrible thing to say. That's just the age we live in.

Lifestyles are completely different in the rural 75% of the US compared to the urban 25%. How can anyone in the politically correct climate we live in today believe that one group of people who can't relate at all to another should be making the rules for them? It goes against everything the PC movement is about. You can like or dislike the PC movement all you want, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon and anyone who can't understand its fundamental principles is fighting a losing battle.

#54 | Posted by humtake at 2018-11-21 12:19 PM | Reply

"Lifestyles are completely different in the rural 75% of the US compared to the urban 25%."

I don't think they're so different.

I mean, if Iived in Alaska I'd be buying several cases of beer at a time on my monthly trip into town, and here in San Diego I just walk down to the corner store for a sixpack whenever I want, but I'd still be sitting on a couch watching football just the same.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-21 12:25 PM | Reply

"That has nothing to do with my question"

It has everything to do with your question. If you can't even see or acknowledge that, then this discussion is pointless.

#56 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-11-21 12:25 PM | Reply

#55 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2018-11-21 12:19 PM | REPLY

So again why should the small group of rural voters be making the rules for everyone else? Why is that better?

Why are a few rural voters' demands more important than EVERYBODY ELSES?

#57 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-11-21 12:34 PM | Reply

The Wisconsin gerrymander is 4 wolves and 6 sheep deciding what's for dinner, but the 4 wolves get to draw arbitrary lines between the ten animals that magically transform them into 7 wolves and 3 sheep.

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-21 01:18 PM | Reply

Sniper has brought a new level of stupidity to this thread.

It's amazing. This is the new Republican Party.

#59 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-11-21 04:18 PM | Reply

Sounds like illinois

#60 | Posted by visiter at 2018-11-21 05:17 PM | Reply