Ohio was one of the keys to the Democrats’ taking the US House majority in 2006, right? Certainly, but not to the degree it could have been.
A solid majority (53%) of Ohio voters voted for Democratic House candidates in November, 2006, yet the single-seat district plurality electoral system produced a reversal of the outcome: Republicans won 61% (11 of 18) of the seats in the state’s delegation.
Similar reversals also occurred in Michigan and Iowa in 2006; the latter case went against a Republican voting majority in the state. That a reversal of the electorate’s choice happened in Iowa is a reminder that gerrymandering is not a necessary factor in these reversals: Iowa has a nonpartisan redistricting process, allegedly doing things “the right way.” Plurality reversals are an inherent tendency of single-seat district, plurality electoral systems.
There were six such states at the last cycle. Thanks for pointing out that it’s not gerrymandering alone. Citing FV’s work, the Columbia Dispatch placed relative emphasis on gerrymandering last year.
Seed planted by Jack — 16 February 2007 @ 19:08