GOP More Proficient At Gerrymandering

Fairly recently I did an article about why the 2010 election was so important.* I mentioned in the article that both parties use "gerrymandering;" that is, tailoring congressional districts to their own advantage, and I thought Democrats might have been whining a bit after having failed to recapture the House in 2012. Since I wrote that article I did a little research, only to find that the redistricting for the 2012 election was more than a little tilted to the GOP. It was really GERRYMANDERED, bringing into question whether Americans are really being represented by the votes they cast in 2012. In the overall collective vote for members of the House of Representatives, Democratic candidates drew nearly a million and a half more votes than Republican candidates, with Republicans retaining control of the House by 33 seats (234 to 201), as Democrats gained only 8 seats from the 2010 election. While not unheard of in the history of American congressional elections, a plurality by one party over the other usually has produced bigger gains for that political party, and a plurality that large would have been thought to produce many more Democratic gains, which then would have more adequately represented the congressional delegation split in the House and thus what American voters seemed to be saying with their votes. When results come out like in 2012, are American voters really being represented in "their" House; which after all, is the entity closest to the people. But here's what happened: in seven states where districts were redrawn by Republicans. Republican candidates only outdrew Democratic candidates by about 300,000 votes out of more than 33 million votes in those states, which would have given the GOP an expected "tilt" in seats, but which instead produced a large disparity, with Republicans taking 73 seats and Democrats only 34. For example, here in Ohio, Republican congressional candidates drew a bit more than 2.6 million votes and Democratic candidates drew a bit more than 2.4 million votes, yet while only about 200,000 total votes separated the two parties, Republicans won 12 seats to only 4 for Democrats. Democrats and some media had complained well in advance about how the districts were drawn to give Republicans more than an advantage, but a STAGGERING advantage. As a comparison, Democrats redrew House districts in Illinois where in 2012 Democratic House candidates garnered nearly 2.75 million votes to Republican candidates slightly more than 2.2 million, a difference of more than a half million. This translated to 12 Democratic victories and 6 Republican wins.**/*** 

* The link to the article is:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-2010-was-such-important-election.html

** All numbers come from the Archives of the U.S. House of Representatives.

*** Gerrymandering typically involves the party in charge of redistricting drawing boundaries to include a majority of voters registered with their own party into as many districts as possible, but also placing as many voters registered with the other party into as few districts as possible; districts their candidate would likely lose anyway. This concentration of many opposition voters into districts thus dilutes the other party's impact in the other, more competitive, districts.

WORD HISTORY:
Honey-Forms of this word, common only in the Germanic languages, trace back to Indo European "khonekos," which seems to have had much to do with the color "yellow" or "golden," perhaps even "pale,"  "light" or "bright." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "hunagom/hunagam," which meant "honey," due to its color. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hunig," which then became "hony," before the modern version. The "ig" ending of many Old English words later changed to "y" or "ey," although its Germanic relatives have usually retained the sound (at least in official spelling) as "ig," "ich," "ing," or "ung." Hearing some Germans pronounce the "ig" ending in some words often, but my no means always, comes across as a "y" sound. The other Germanic languages have: German "honig," Low German Saxon "honnig," West Frisian "honing," Dutch "honing," Danish and Norwegian "honning," Swedish "honung," and Icelandic "hunang."

Why 2010 Was Such An Important Election

First published in May 2013

Republicans have lost the last two presidential elections by fairly large margins, but in between they won a major victory by taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, an election which also saw the GOP whittle down the Democratic majority in the Senate. Not only that, Republicans won several key governorships and took control of many more state legislative chambers, giving Republicans the most seats they've held in state legislatures since the 1920s!* This was immensely important, because it gave Republicans control of many states for the all important redistricting for the House of Representatives and state legislative districts based upon the 2010 census.With Republicans redrawing boundaries, they were able to cement some Republican leaning districts into strong or stronger Republican districts, tilt some highly competitive districts Republican, and weaken some Democratic leaning districts.** This favorable redrawing of boundaries is called "gerrymandering," and it is not just a Republican device, as Democrats use it too,*** and it is highly effective, even though on occasion the "non favored" party candidate may win in a gerrymandered district, that person will have to carefully watch his/her votes on key issues, lest they antagonize the voters of their district, the majority of whom usually favor the opposite party. George Voinovich, a Republican, was elected to the Ohio House of Representatives and Mayor of Cleveland in overwhelmingly Democratic territory, but he was not an extremist and he was more than willing to work with Democrats. As mayor, Voinovich relied upon the president of city council, George Forbes, a staunch Democrat, to help achieve much of his agenda. In the case of both men, they worked for what they thought would benefit the city, not their respective political parties.

Of course strong one party control of districts, or even of states in the case of senators or presidents, can allow the favored party officeholder to adamantly oppose the other party. After Republicans took a beating in congressional elections in 2006 and 2008, the remaining senators and representatives were often in pretty safe states or districts, allowing them much latitude in their criticism of President Obama, and Democrats in general, and as we've seen, they even refused to negotiate with Democrats, preferring to block as much legislation as possible. For many of these Republicans there is no downside to this, at least at the moment.

In the 2012 election, Democrats scored heavily, even garnering nearly a million and a half more votes in House races than the Republican majority. Still Republicans retained control of the House of Representatives, although by a narrower majority. In the House, legislation only requires a majority, unlike in the Senate, where by its own rules, legislation (with some exceptions) needs a minimum of 60 votes (the Senate has 100 members, the House 435 members). At this time in the Senate, Democrats hold 53 seats, independents hold two seats, both of whom caucus with the Democrats, and Republicans hold 45 seats. In the House, Republicans hold 233 seats, Democrats hold 201 seats, and there is one vacant seat in Missouri (vacated by a Republican) scheduled to be filled in a special election, with the Republican candidate heavily favored.

While all elections are important, elections held in the year of a census and then two years later (after new district boundaries are drawn) are critical to how the House of Representatives will likely set up for a decade. This also is true for legislative seats in state legislatures. While Democrats scored a major victory in 2012 and they drew far more votes in House races (collectively), they still could not overturn the Republican House majority, mainly because of redistricting.

Going back decades, Republicans "tend" to be more in accord over major issues, although they have marched from being just conservative a few decades ago, to very conservative now. Democrats have always been more divided, although they too are more similar in many views today than they were in the past. Part of this is because the once "solidly Democratic South," a generally conservative area, has switched to become much more Republican,**** leaving Democrats with much more of a progressive side. Further, liberal/progressive Republicans are virtually unheard of today, whereas they once formed a major part of the GOP. Some of these people became Democrats (see note ****), others became independents. For Democrats to win control of the House, they will need to win in many more conservative tilting or outright conservative districts. That means they will need right-leaning candidates to win in these areas, something "true believing" progressive Democrats may have a problem with. With more conservative districts on the election map now, Republicans, on the other hand, don't have to worry much about unseating Democrats in progressive-leaning districts with what the "true believing" Republicans contemptuously call "RINO" candidates; that is, "R(epublican) I(n) N(ame) O(nly)." So, barring some major event that shakes up the electorate, Republicans will be very difficult to dislodge from control of the House of Representatives. That's why 2010 was so important. 

* Democrats took five governorships away from Republican control, but Republicans took eleven governorships from Democratic control. In addition, Republican turned independent Lincoln Chafee took the governorship of Rhode Island from Republican control. Chafee, while an independent, has leaned toward Democratic and progressive ideas. In a sense, Republicans also retained control of the statehouse in Florida, where Charlie Crist had been elected as a Republican, only to become an independent (he has since become a Democrat). If my numbers are correct, Republicans went from controlling 36 state legislative chambers prior to the election to 57 after the votes were counted. There are 99 state legislative chambers, with 49 states having two chambers, a house and a senate, and Nebraska having only one chamber. Nebraska, a pretty solidly Republican state, has a non-partisan legislature; that is, candidates do not technically run under a party designation, but I'd have to believe a majority of delegates there are Republicans or Republican leaning. 

** That's not to say all of this happened in a vacuum, as I'm sure states under Democratic control saw Democrats do similar.  

*** "Gerrymandering" comes from the early 1800s, when then Governor Gerry of Massachusetts supported and signed redrawn districts to gain advantage for his own Democratic-Republican Party. One district supposedly had the shape of a salamander, thus the Governor's name was coupled with the second part of salamander to give us, "Gerrymander."

**** Just for example, Richard Shelby, a senator from Alabama, was once a Democrat, as was Governor Rick Perry of Texas. On the other hand, former Florida governor, Charlie Crist was elected as a Republican, then declared himself an independent, then registered as a Democrat. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was a liberal/progressive Republican, but then became an independent.

WORD HISTORY:
Peace-This word, closely related to "pact," goes back to Indo European "pak," which had the notion of "fasten, fix in place." This gave its Latin offspring "pax," which meant "peace," with the idea being "a fixed condition of harmony;" that is, an agreement (a pact). Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited a form of the word as "pais," which then was carried to England by the Normans as "pes." It was borrowed by English as "pece" during the 1100s. It then displaced English words used to express "peace," one of which was "freod," whose relatives in the other Germanic languages live on as: German "Friede(n)," Low German Saxon "Freden," West Frisian "frede," Dutch "vrede," Danish, Swedish and Norwegian "fred," Icelandic "friður" (the 'ð'= 'th').