|
Fun with numbers
Wednesday, Dec 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller * Zorn…
There are so many problems with this type of analysis. I looked at the Senate races because I don’t have all day, but I’d bet much the same can be said of the House. * Let’s start with something that often gets overlooked. There are a lot of Latino residents in the 22nd Senate District (at least 36 percent), which means the turnout will not be as high as other districts. So, Democrat Christina Castro got 64 percent of the vote and 39,000 votes. In the far whiter 26th District, however, Republican Sen. Dan McConchie scored 59 percent, but almost 63,000 votes. Also, by focusing solely on contested districts you leave out the votes in all those uncontested districts. This year, 15 Chicago Senate districts were up for grabs, but none of those incumbents had challengers. And, to say the least, it would be tough for even the most committed reformers to draw lots of Republican districts in the city unless they were spoking them way out into the western suburbs. There were also no challengers in the Rockford Senate district, and the Dem districts in Rich Township, Joliet, Peoria and Alton. That’s 20 overwhelmingly Democratic areas without Republican challengers. By contrast, just 8 Senate Republicans had no challengers. I don’t know why those votes weren’t counted. * On to the main point. Seven Democratic incumbents and one Dem favorite had Republican challengers this year. The Democrats lost one of those races by 10,000 votes (Forby). Sen. Tom Cullerton won by only 800 or so. Of the other winners, Cristina Castro won by almost 20,000, Sen. Bennett won by 19,000, Sen. Morrison won by 16,000, Sen. Bush won by about 7,000, Sen. Bertino-Tarrant won by 6,000 and Sen. Laura Murphy won by about 5,500. All but the Castro race were “real” contests. That works out to a total margin for the Democratic winners of a little over 74,000 votes. But Democratic candidates challenged several heavily favorited Republicans, which ran up the score. Sen. Oberweis ended up winning by 10,000 as did Fowler over Forby. Sen. Rezin won by 15,000, Sen. McConchie won by almost 20,000, Paul Schimpf beat Sheila Simon by 21,000 and Sen. Althoff won by a whopping 34,000 votes (almost half the Democrats’ total margin). That works out to be a total margin for the winners of about 110,000 votes. And all that tells you… what? Well, it does tell you that the Democratic map-makers packed a whole lot of Republican voters into GOP districts (which would be GOP anyway because of where they are) and carved up some swing districts for themselves. But does it mean that voters as a whole actually preferred Republicans over Democrats when you’re only talking about a handful of districts? Nope. * Now, is the state more closely divided than the legislative maps indicate? Well, Hillary Clinton got 55.8 percent of the vote here. Let’s compare that to the House totals since all House seats were up this year. The Democrats won 67 seats, or 56.8 percent of the chamber. Um, that’s pretty darned close. Go back a couple of years and look at the governor’s race and things are different, of course. But, hey, as long as we’re playing around with numbers… * Again, just to be clear, I support remap reform on general principles. The people should pick their legislators, not the other way around. But let’s have an honest discussion about it. * Semi-related…
|
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:52 pm:
I have not had a chance to vote Republican for state senate, or representative for 4 years, as a democrat is the only one running for these offices on my ballot in Palos Hills This is thanks to the way the democrats drew up the voting district. It sucks and is undemocratic.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:56 pm:
I’m okay with some sort of remap reform, but Illinois isn’t even that badly gerrymandered.
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1946&context=public_law_and_legal_theory
Democrats have a slight advantage over what you would expect given a perfectly fair map. Could we do better? Sure, but it’s not that bad.
That said, if you want to represent people better without the gerrymandering the best way to do it would be proportional representation. Why isn’t there the fervor for it that there is for a remap reform which still creates inefficiency based on geography?
- JoeMaddon - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:16 pm:
**I have not had a chance to vote Republican for state senate, or representative for 4 years, as a democrat is the only one running for these offices on my ballot in Palos Hills This is thanks to the way the democrats drew up the voting district. It sucks and is undemocratic.**
Nope. Republicans didn’t run a candidate because, well, they didn’t run a candidate. Don’t blame the Dems for the Republicans not running a candidate.
As Rich pointed out, the Dems even had a candidate (though she didn’t actually run any campaign) against Pam Althoff.
- Deft Wing - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:19 pm:
–”I’m okay with some sort of remap reform, but Illinois isn’t even that badly gerrymandered.”–
Much of what is wrong with Illinois, its politics and governance, can be gleaned from that statement, right there.
- Scamp640 - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:30 pm:
Democrats should not go along with a revised district remap process that could jeopardize their hold on the Illinois GA — even if it is the “fair” thing to do.
Republicans have played hardball to gerrymander districts and impose voting rights restrictions to wrest control over 32 state legislatures. Republicans don’t really care about “fairness.” They only care about control at any cost. The state of Illinois remap debate is really part of a national fight for power.
What happens to the US Constitution when a super-majority of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans? Maybe I should check ALEC to see the Republican “wish list.”
- Rabid - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:37 pm:
Term limits are designed so you don’t vote for the wrong person. It’s a civil right to vote for whoever you want to for as many times as you want to
- Chicagonk - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:38 pm:
Gerrymandering also insulates Democrats from other Democrats. Especially one representing the 22nd district.
- JB13 - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:39 pm:
Please. If you believe Republicans gerrymandered their way to 32 state legislatures, while IL’s gerrymanders somehow reflect the true nature of this state, you are a Democratic partisan. Full stop. Democrats are in the majority in this state. No question. But they are not a *supermajority.* You want more reasonable politics? Support remap, and allow reality to restore balance.
- Signal and Noise - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:47 pm:
Nice job by Mark Brown there. “I don’t agree with this proposal and it won’t actually help anything, but just give it to Rauner guys! He keeps complaining!”
Nope.
- Angry Chicagoan - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:50 pm:
tronc needs better columnists. But that’s why we have the Sun-Times and Crain’s, right?
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:55 pm:
==But they are not a *supermajority.*==
Neither are the Democratic caucuses.
Look, a FPTP election system is always going to distort the representation a little, because neither party can recruit and fund an all-upside candidate in each race.
So, if you wanna talk about ditching FPTP…well, let’s talk about that.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 4:08 pm:
===Much of what is wrong with Illinois, its politics and governance, can be gleaned from that statement, right there.
Did you read the cited article? Please share with me your analysis.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 4:10 pm:
Joe Madden, I do blame the Democrats for drawing a voting map that disenfranchises me!
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 4:12 pm:
===Joe Madden, I do blame the Democrats for drawing a voting map that disenfranchises me!
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.
Seriously, you get to vote so you are not disenfranchised. Because your preferred candidate does not win is not disenfranchisement.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 4:15 pm:
===Support remap, and allow reality to restore balance.
So look at the percent of vote for Clinton. Now look at the percent of seats for Democratic State House members. Okay, how is reality not being represented?
I agree with some sort of remap reform as Rich does, but Illinois isn’t some great distortion of partisanship.
Why not move to proportional representation if you want to have the balance better reflect the underlying population? Or is the goal not to be a fair representation of the underlying population?
- Scamp640 - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 4:20 pm:
@JB13. I will thank you to lower your sense of righteous indignation. I do believe Republicans gerrymandered their way to 32 state legislatures. They also used anti-democratic voter ID laws.
If you want proof, here is a recent newspaper report showing that in North Carolina, Republicans gerrymandered 28 electoral districts. A federal court is ordering special elections with redrawn districts that do not so obviously favor a Republican outcome. Note that this article is from last week. I have provided evidence. Please provide yours.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article117843388.html
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 4:43 pm:
A one party person, running for a state office, because of a party drawing a map, to exclude a persons choice, is not democracy!
- Keyser Soze - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 4:43 pm:
Zorn may not have mentioned that Trump won the popular vote in all but 11 of Illinois’ 102 counties.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 6:19 pm:
=Zorn may not have mentioned that Trump won the popular vote in all but 11 of Illinois’ 102 counties.=
Counties do not vote, people do.
But, since you brought it up, Cook is one of those 11 counties and it has 5.2 million people.
I wonder if that has anything to do with it?