[81alum]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14611.msg156696#msg156696 date=1455700842]
Here is one indication of where the country is politically:

Senate 54R/44D
House 246R/188D
Governors 31R/18D
State Leg 31R/11D/8 split
President D

Yet the House Republicans got only 52% of the vote in 2014 (and will likely be below 50% in the presidential election since Democrats can only be bothered to vote every four years).  The gerrymandering that gave the Republicans such a big majority with such a small vote margin is yet another example of how modern political parties use means that are technically constitutional but outside the boundaries of good governance.

Also, the 46 D/I senators got 20 million more votes than the 54 Rs.

More importantly, over half of potential voters never vote.  These folks are disproportionately in demographics that vote D--younger people, minorities, poor/homeless people.

Using numbers of elected officials to determine the ideological bent of the country is a silly exercise.
[/quote]
Ooops, this came in while I was posting.  Yes to all of that and we noticed some of the same things.  But as I mentioned the gerrymandering, carried out at first opportunity by both parties, is only part of the problem.  It does mean that the party that controls the most state legislatures had the gerrymandering advantage.  But the Democrats have in a sense gerrymandered themselves out of seats by concentrating where they live so overwhelmingly in urban cores.  That is the inherently undemocratic nature of all district based systems, rather than proportionate representation.

[81alum]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14611.msg156696#msg156696 date=1455700842]
Here is one indication of where the country is politically:

Senate 54R/44D
House 246R/188D
Governors 31R/18D
State Leg 31R/11D/8 split
President D

Yet the House Republicans got only 52% of the vote in 2014 (and will likely be below 50% in the presidential election since Democrats can only be bothered to vote every four years).  The gerrymandering that gave the Republicans such a big majority with such a small vote margin is yet another example of how modern political parties use means that are technically constitutional but outside the boundaries of good governance.

Also, the 46 D/I senators got 20 million more votes than the 54 Rs.

More importantly, over half of potential voters never vote.  These folks are disproportionately in demographics that vote D--younger people, minorities, poor/homeless people.

Using numbers of elected officials to determine the ideological bent of the country is a silly exercise.
[/quote]
Ooops, this came in while I was posting.  Yes to all of that and we noticed some of the same things.  But as I mentioned the gerrymandering, carried out at first opportunity by both parties, is only part of the problem.  It does mean that the party that controls the most state legislatures had the gerrymandering advantage.  But the Democrats have in a sense gerrymandered themselves out of seats by concentrating where they live so overwhelmingly in urban cores.  That is the inherently undemocratic nature of all district based systems, rather than proportionate representation.