The old Virginia Senate districts were drawn by Democrats in 2011 in an effort to try and maintain their then four seat majority. Republicans were up in arms and for good reason. Republicans were only able to win 20 out of 40 seats in 2011, despite the fact that they won the statewide vote for senate 57% to 40% in the 2011 elections. That result is far more skewed than it was for the national house in 2012. If percentage of vote equaled percentage of seats, Virginia Republicans should have won 23 to 24 seats in 2011. Usually, though, in single member districts, the curve is more responsive and 57% of the vote would result in something like 60-65% or 24 to 26 of the 40 seats.

The new districts are more likely to mirror the statewide vote for state senate. One estimate from Ben Tribbett has Republicans winning up to 27 seats in a good Republican year. This isn't terribly far off from the upper range of the responsive curve for the 2011 elections, and it certainly is closer to statewide vote than the actual 2011 seat makeup. My friend Sean Trende puts the estimate at locking in a Republican majority by two to three seats. This would actually be at the lower end of the proportional curve, but still closer to what we'd expect than the actual 2011 seat makeup.

jerseyhoya wrote:Why the 'daring' Virginia redistricting plan may not be such a bad thing

So what was said? We asked expert lip reader Larry Wenig. Wenig believes John Boehner is asking President Obama whether he had a chance to have a cigarette before the luncheon.
Wenig told "Inside Edition" that Boehner -- a known smoker -- tapped the first lady on the arm before telling the president that “somebody won’t let you do it,” referring to Michelle Obama.

pacino wrote:VA republicans also plan to pass a bill to assign electoral votes based on congressional districts. As an example, Romney would have the lost the vote in 2012 but won the state 9-6. PERFECTLY NORMAL, PERFECTLY HEALTHY

Bucky wrote:Did people consider Bush II "illegitimat" after 2000? Gore won the popular vote there.

Bucky wrote:Did people consider Bush II "illegitimat" after 2000? Gore won the popular vote there.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

pacino wrote:VA republicans also plan to pass a bill to assign electoral votes based on congressional districts. As an example, Romney would have the lost the vote in 2012 but won the state 9-6. PERFECTLY NORMAL, PERFECTLY HEALTHY

What exactly is the end game here? If Republicans pass enough of these that in 2016 their candidate could win 47% of the vote and win, then the leader of the free world will be seen as illegitimate by the world and most of the country.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Bucky wrote:Did people consider Bush II "illegitimat" after 2000? Gore won the popular vote there.

Marginally. 3 or 4 points is millions of voters.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm not convinced that gerrymandering for any purpose is as evil as many seem to think. Why should geography trump all other considerations when it comes to representation? Gerrymandering can be a way to move toward proportional representation by other means. Gerrymandering can ensure minorities have a voice. Yes, the devil is in the details, and who gets to draw those maps. But the politics of redistricting are a lot more complicated than the discussion here would indicate. There's nothing wrong with gerrymandering per se.

It's also important to note that the clever people who do the gerrymandering often outsmart themselves--things don't always go according to expectations.

From the perspective of democracy, the non-gerrymandered Senate is the most malapportioned legislative body in the world. (Throw in the filibuster, and you've got a legislative body where legislators representing the smallest 20 states (which I think is about 15% of the US population). That to me is a much huger issue than gerrymandering.