We are all sardines basically in the cities for the most part. Republicans are everywhere else which allows for more districts with lower voters. That is the system. Some states are ensuring that Democratic voters have very little representation, but Democratic politicians are learning the system and ensuring that Republicans have very little representation in their state like California and Maryland. I don't think that anything is going to change anytime soon.

over the map clearly shows that the fascists are gaming the system.
It is blatant. I really think we could win.

and the Courts used to rule when it was obviously for Party advantage as opposed to minority representation.
No more, so now it has given the GOP an unfair advantage.
Case in point Ohio and Pennsylvania. Both went for Obama, both close to 50/50 in party affiliation. Ohio Reps 12R-4D PA Reps 13R/5D
Gerrymandering pure and simple.

since the minority vote is solidly Democratic, don't you think that could be interpreted as being for party advantage?

But5 again, that was supervised by the Courts. Now it's all's fair.
I don't think when that was the main goal of redistricting you would have found such a disparity in voter registration and Rep seats.
Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/us/politics/redistricting-helped-republicans-hold-onto-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

State after State where the Dems got close to or more votes than the Rs and yet they have only a few seats due to redistricting.
The undemocratic results are obvious.

Pennsylvanians also voted to re-elect Mr. Obama, elected Democrats to several statewide offices and cast about 83,000 more votes for Democratic Congressional candidates than for Republicans. But new maps drawn by Republicans — including for the Seventh District outside Philadelphia, a Rorschach-test inkblot of a district snaking through five counties that helped Representative Patrick Meehan win re-election by adding Republican voters — helped ensure that Republicans will have a 13-to-5 majority in the Congressional delegation that the state will send to Washington next month.

Republican-drawn lines also helped Republicans win lopsided majorities in other swing states Mr. Obama won: Democratic Congressional candidates won nearly half the votes in Virginia but only 27 percent of its seats, and 48 percent of the vote in Ohio but only a quarter of its seats.

Party affiliation is not a protected class, and you can't force every candidate to win by the same margin.

government except for municipal government.

No.
As far as the House, we blew it when we gave away the 2010 election, allowing the GOP to gerrymander to their hearts content until 2020.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the Voting Rights Act is largely null and void.

Obama and the Dems didn't fire up the base or give independents enough reason to vote for them. I think the decision to keep hands off Wall Street and The Banks was a big part of that.

Also, maybe the Republican base was ultra-fired up because of the ACA. I think a lot of the independents were also voting anti-ACA.

I think the Dems let the GOP set the conversation on that one too. As they often do.

They got about 57% of the seats.

http://www.thenation.com/article/188801/republicans-only-got-52-percent-vote-house-races#

Your use of "Fascist" mocks the victims of actual fascism. Someday try and learn what fascism is.

The facists ARE hurting people NOW.
Maybe you should look it up.

Sad ...

as square (or rectangular, depending on the shape of the state) as possible, taking state boundaries and population density into account. Gerrymandering isn't a D or R thing, it's a political thing where the party in charge will do whatever they think is needed to maintain their advantage over the other party.

For instance, the "redistricting" was along state boundaries. They were Senate races, in most of the stories, and unless we feel like dissolving the boundaries between Virginia and MD, between Ohio and Indiana, and redrawing them there is no redistricting.

The Senate is a creation of the Constitution. Those who drew the state boundaries from the 1700s until the 1950s are, it would seem, the "Fascists." Then again, the demographics of the states have changed quite a bit since then, so perhaps they were really Communists or Socialists, and it's the resettlement practices that are to blame.


The other big problem was time. Let's take two hypothetical elections. In election 1, for half of the seats on the local cat shearing board, 80% of the 200 voters turn out, for a total of 160. Of those 160, the 2 Symmetry candidates (S) each got 120 votes and win the election by a wide margin. The 2 Asymmetry candidates (A) only got 40 votes each. Totals: 240 (S), 80 (A). Pretty dismal.

In election 2, an off-year election, 20% of the electorate turned out to elect the other 2 reps to the cat shearing board, a total of 40 voters. In that election, the 2 (A) candidates got 90% of the votes, or 36 each, for a total of 72. Whoa--they got fewer than in the election in which they were beaten. But the (S) candidates only got 4 votes each, for a total of 8 votes.

Somebody comes along and sees that there are 2 (S) victors and 2 (A) victors. The cat shearing board is tied. Somebody else comes along and says, "No, wait, the S candidates got a total of 248 votes between the two elections, but the A candidates only got a total of 152 votes.

You see the problem? Another difficulty is that this depends crucially upon when you count. If you'd picked the previous two years you might have gotten a different kind of skew, and in the next election the skew might also be disfavorable--but nobody's interested in that because people are only interested in what helps them now. If the same kind of tally is disfavorable, just shift the argument and say that it doesn't matter who got the most votes over 2 or 3 elections, what matters is who won each election. Because that, after all, is the law.

Now spread this out not just over years but also over states, in which some large states have perhaps 40 million voters and others have 5 million voters. The argument has to conclude that because the numbers look good for us now, it's the law and the Constitution that are whack. (But if the same kinds of numbers were to go against us, of course what matters is the law and the Constitution, and if you don't like them you can get them changed.)


I cut to the chase. If you don't like the law and the Constitution, you can work to have them changed.

Somebody else pointed out that this kind of skew is, in fact, not all that recent. If you drop back a decade or two there were Senates that were majority (D) but in which (R) Senators had, indeed, racked up a greater vote tally. There were no cries of unfairness from Democrats at the time. We had power; that's what really mattered, with issues of fairness being irrelevant when we have power and crucial when we don't.