Did Republicans take 10 of 13 Congressional seats in the 2018 North Carolina general election with roughly...
up vote
120
down vote
favorite
This image has been shared on social media
Transcription:
Gerrymandering in North Carolina
- 1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats
- 1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats
Example sources: [1], [2]
Are these numbers correct?
united-states politics voting gerrymandering
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
120
down vote
favorite
This image has been shared on social media
Transcription:
Gerrymandering in North Carolina
- 1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats
- 1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats
Example sources: [1], [2]
Are these numbers correct?
united-states politics voting gerrymandering
2
Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
– Andrew Grimm
yesterday
2
You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
– Bob Jarvis
yesterday
Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
– DJClayworth
yesterday
1
Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
– James K Polk
21 hours ago
Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
– James Jones
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
120
down vote
favorite
up vote
120
down vote
favorite
This image has been shared on social media
Transcription:
Gerrymandering in North Carolina
- 1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats
- 1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats
Example sources: [1], [2]
Are these numbers correct?
united-states politics voting gerrymandering
This image has been shared on social media
Transcription:
Gerrymandering in North Carolina
- 1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats
- 1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats
Example sources: [1], [2]
Are these numbers correct?
united-states politics voting gerrymandering
united-states politics voting gerrymandering
edited 23 hours ago
Andrew Grimm
20.3k24100288
20.3k24100288
asked Nov 12 at 3:46
DJClayworth
39.6k16155161
39.6k16155161
2
Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
– Andrew Grimm
yesterday
2
You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
– Bob Jarvis
yesterday
Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
– DJClayworth
yesterday
1
Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
– James K Polk
21 hours ago
Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
– James Jones
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
2
Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
– Andrew Grimm
yesterday
2
You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
– Bob Jarvis
yesterday
Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
– DJClayworth
yesterday
1
Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
– James K Polk
21 hours ago
Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
– James Jones
9 hours ago
2
2
Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
– Andrew Grimm
yesterday
Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
– Andrew Grimm
yesterday
2
2
You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
– Bob Jarvis
yesterday
You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
– Bob Jarvis
yesterday
Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
– DJClayworth
yesterday
Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
– DJClayworth
yesterday
1
1
Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
– James K Polk
21 hours ago
Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
– James K Polk
21 hours ago
Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
– James Jones
9 hours ago
Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
– James Jones
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
142
down vote
accepted
Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin - probably due to different sources and time of capture).
According to the 2018 House election results (I used this handy Washington Post page), adding up numbers for NC, will give you the total of 1,748,173 votes for Democrats and 1,643,790 for Republicans - very close to the claim.
Ten of the seats went to Republicans and three to Democrats (Districts 1, 4, and 12), with most Republican wins being quite narrow and Democrats wins overwhelming.
district D R
1 188,074 81,486
2 148,959 167,382
4 242,002 80,546
5 118,558 158,444
6 122,323 159,651
7 119,606 155,705
8 112,971 140,347
9 136,478 138,338
10 112,386 164,060
11 115,824 177,230
12 202,228 74,639
13 128,764 145,962
Note: One caveat is that the Republican representative for District 3 ran uncontested. That is, it would be more appropriate to say that the result is 9 vs 3, as the total numbers don't include the voters in 3rd district.
26
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 12 at 5:30
52
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
Nov 12 at 5:38
47
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
Nov 12 at 14:23
71
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Nov 12 at 16:08
29
@hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
– Toast
2 days ago
|
show 32 more comments
up vote
49
down vote
This is a community wiki supplement to the other answer, which makes the columns easier to read and shows vote difference for each district. 3rd party or other votes are not included.
District D R Margin Total Votes Majority %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588 269,560 (D) 69.8%
2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R) 316,341 52.9% (R)
3 * * * (R) 186,353* 100%* (R)
4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456 322,548 (D) 75%
5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R) 277,002 57.2% (R)
6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R) 281,974 56.6% (R)
7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R) 275,311 56.6% (R)
8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R) 253,318 55.4% (R)
9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R) 274,816 50.3% (R)
10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R) 276,446 59.3% (R)
11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R) 293,054 60.5% (R)
12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589 276,867 (D) 73%
13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R) 274,726 53.1% (R)
------------------------------------------------
Total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383
* = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.
Democrat candidates received 104,383 more votes than their Republican opponents. However, Republicans received 81,970 more votes overall (1,830,143 total), when including districts they were unopposed in. (Since the there was no challenger for district 3 it is impossible to calculate a meaningful Democrat-to-Republican margin for the total count. More or fewer people may have voted, some of the cast ballots may have gone to a different party, etc.)
Data from Washington Post.
Raleigh is in district 4.
Charlotte is in district 12.
31
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 at 18:45
3
Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
– fredsbend
Nov 12 at 23:07
3
@fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
– Dunk
2 days ago
6
I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
– Dunk
2 days ago
4
@Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
– Tim B
yesterday
|
show 12 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, the results of the 2018 election are as follows. (Parties are ordered by number of votes):
District 1
Democratic Candidate: 188,074
Republican Candidate: 81,486
District 2
Republican Candidate: 167,382
Democratic Candidate: 148,959
Libertarian Candidate: 9,427
District 3
Republican Candidate: 186,353
District 4
Democratic Candidate: 242,002
Republican Candidate: 80,546
Libertarian Candidate: 11,947
District 5
Republican Candidate: 158,495
Democratic Candidate: 118,593
District 6
Republican Candidate: 159,651
Democratic Candidate: 122,323
District 7
Republican Candidate: 155,705
Democratic Candidate: 119,606
Constitution Candidate: 4,599
District 8
Republican Candidate: 140,352
Democratic Candidate: 112,736
District 9
Republican Candidate: 138,381
Democratic Candidate: 136,591
Libertarian Candidate: 5,048
District 10
Republican Candidate: 164,074
Democratic Candidate: 112,396
District 11
Republican Candidate: 177,352
Democratic Candidate: 115,889
Libertarian Candidate: 6,078
District 12
Democratic Candidate: 202,228
Republican Candidate: 74,639
District 13
Republican Candidate: 146,062
Democratic Candidate: 128,830
Libertarian Candidate: 5,443
Green Candidate: 2,795
Total
Republicans: 1,830,478
Democrats: 1,748,227
Libertarians: 37,943
Constitution: 4,599
Green: 2,795
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This graphic from the question leaves off the results from district 3. District 3 cast 186,353 votes for the Republican candidate and none for a Democrat (the Republican was unopposed). That flips the total to 1,830,219 Republican votes to 1,748,018 Democratic votes (a margin of 82,201). That's 50.5% to 48.2%. Presumably the other 1.3% went to third party candidates.
Source: Wikipedia.
Original citation for district 3. As that is the official source, someone could get the rest of the districts from there as well. Javascript required to change districts and view results.
Remember that the original claim was that Republicans won ten of thirteen races with fewer votes. That's demonstrably untrue, as the graphic only includes the votes from twelve of the districts. If it were leaving off the uncontested races, it should only have been nine of twelve contested races.
If the claim is instead adjusted so that it only compares the seat proportion to the vote proportion, there are several other states where it's the Democrats who won a higher seat share than their vote share. E.g. three out of four in Iowa with only 50.38% of the vote; five of five in Connecticut with at most 64.4% of the vote; nine of nine in Massachusetts; or California, where Republicans won more than a third of the vote but no more than half as many seats (two still undecided).
It also may be worth noting that in North Carolina in 2016 and 2014, the Republicans won by about 300,000 rather than less than 100,000. In 2010, Republicans had over 236,000 votes more than the Democrats but only won six of thirteen seats.
29
Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
– xyious
4 hours ago
@xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
– Brythan
2 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by Mad Scientist♦ Nov 12 at 13:28
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
142
down vote
accepted
Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin - probably due to different sources and time of capture).
According to the 2018 House election results (I used this handy Washington Post page), adding up numbers for NC, will give you the total of 1,748,173 votes for Democrats and 1,643,790 for Republicans - very close to the claim.
Ten of the seats went to Republicans and three to Democrats (Districts 1, 4, and 12), with most Republican wins being quite narrow and Democrats wins overwhelming.
district D R
1 188,074 81,486
2 148,959 167,382
4 242,002 80,546
5 118,558 158,444
6 122,323 159,651
7 119,606 155,705
8 112,971 140,347
9 136,478 138,338
10 112,386 164,060
11 115,824 177,230
12 202,228 74,639
13 128,764 145,962
Note: One caveat is that the Republican representative for District 3 ran uncontested. That is, it would be more appropriate to say that the result is 9 vs 3, as the total numbers don't include the voters in 3rd district.
26
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 12 at 5:30
52
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
Nov 12 at 5:38
47
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
Nov 12 at 14:23
71
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Nov 12 at 16:08
29
@hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
– Toast
2 days ago
|
show 32 more comments
up vote
142
down vote
accepted
Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin - probably due to different sources and time of capture).
According to the 2018 House election results (I used this handy Washington Post page), adding up numbers for NC, will give you the total of 1,748,173 votes for Democrats and 1,643,790 for Republicans - very close to the claim.
Ten of the seats went to Republicans and three to Democrats (Districts 1, 4, and 12), with most Republican wins being quite narrow and Democrats wins overwhelming.
district D R
1 188,074 81,486
2 148,959 167,382
4 242,002 80,546
5 118,558 158,444
6 122,323 159,651
7 119,606 155,705
8 112,971 140,347
9 136,478 138,338
10 112,386 164,060
11 115,824 177,230
12 202,228 74,639
13 128,764 145,962
Note: One caveat is that the Republican representative for District 3 ran uncontested. That is, it would be more appropriate to say that the result is 9 vs 3, as the total numbers don't include the voters in 3rd district.
26
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 12 at 5:30
52
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
Nov 12 at 5:38
47
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
Nov 12 at 14:23
71
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Nov 12 at 16:08
29
@hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
– Toast
2 days ago
|
show 32 more comments
up vote
142
down vote
accepted
up vote
142
down vote
accepted
Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin - probably due to different sources and time of capture).
According to the 2018 House election results (I used this handy Washington Post page), adding up numbers for NC, will give you the total of 1,748,173 votes for Democrats and 1,643,790 for Republicans - very close to the claim.
Ten of the seats went to Republicans and three to Democrats (Districts 1, 4, and 12), with most Republican wins being quite narrow and Democrats wins overwhelming.
district D R
1 188,074 81,486
2 148,959 167,382
4 242,002 80,546
5 118,558 158,444
6 122,323 159,651
7 119,606 155,705
8 112,971 140,347
9 136,478 138,338
10 112,386 164,060
11 115,824 177,230
12 202,228 74,639
13 128,764 145,962
Note: One caveat is that the Republican representative for District 3 ran uncontested. That is, it would be more appropriate to say that the result is 9 vs 3, as the total numbers don't include the voters in 3rd district.
Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin - probably due to different sources and time of capture).
According to the 2018 House election results (I used this handy Washington Post page), adding up numbers for NC, will give you the total of 1,748,173 votes for Democrats and 1,643,790 for Republicans - very close to the claim.
Ten of the seats went to Republicans and three to Democrats (Districts 1, 4, and 12), with most Republican wins being quite narrow and Democrats wins overwhelming.
district D R
1 188,074 81,486
2 148,959 167,382
4 242,002 80,546
5 118,558 158,444
6 122,323 159,651
7 119,606 155,705
8 112,971 140,347
9 136,478 138,338
10 112,386 164,060
11 115,824 177,230
12 202,228 74,639
13 128,764 145,962
Note: One caveat is that the Republican representative for District 3 ran uncontested. That is, it would be more appropriate to say that the result is 9 vs 3, as the total numbers don't include the voters in 3rd district.
edited 2 days ago
fredsbend
3,85163361
3,85163361
answered Nov 12 at 5:17
sashkello
2,92722336
2,92722336
26
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 12 at 5:30
52
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
Nov 12 at 5:38
47
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
Nov 12 at 14:23
71
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Nov 12 at 16:08
29
@hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
– Toast
2 days ago
|
show 32 more comments
26
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 12 at 5:30
52
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
Nov 12 at 5:38
47
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
Nov 12 at 14:23
71
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Nov 12 at 16:08
29
@hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
– Toast
2 days ago
26
26
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 12 at 5:30
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 12 at 5:30
52
52
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
Nov 12 at 5:38
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
Nov 12 at 5:38
47
47
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
Nov 12 at 14:23
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
Nov 12 at 14:23
71
71
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Nov 12 at 16:08
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
Nov 12 at 16:08
29
29
@hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
– Toast
2 days ago
@hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
– Toast
2 days ago
|
show 32 more comments
up vote
49
down vote
This is a community wiki supplement to the other answer, which makes the columns easier to read and shows vote difference for each district. 3rd party or other votes are not included.
District D R Margin Total Votes Majority %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588 269,560 (D) 69.8%
2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R) 316,341 52.9% (R)
3 * * * (R) 186,353* 100%* (R)
4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456 322,548 (D) 75%
5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R) 277,002 57.2% (R)
6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R) 281,974 56.6% (R)
7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R) 275,311 56.6% (R)
8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R) 253,318 55.4% (R)
9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R) 274,816 50.3% (R)
10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R) 276,446 59.3% (R)
11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R) 293,054 60.5% (R)
12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589 276,867 (D) 73%
13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R) 274,726 53.1% (R)
------------------------------------------------
Total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383
* = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.
Democrat candidates received 104,383 more votes than their Republican opponents. However, Republicans received 81,970 more votes overall (1,830,143 total), when including districts they were unopposed in. (Since the there was no challenger for district 3 it is impossible to calculate a meaningful Democrat-to-Republican margin for the total count. More or fewer people may have voted, some of the cast ballots may have gone to a different party, etc.)
Data from Washington Post.
Raleigh is in district 4.
Charlotte is in district 12.
31
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 at 18:45
3
Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
– fredsbend
Nov 12 at 23:07
3
@fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
– Dunk
2 days ago
6
I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
– Dunk
2 days ago
4
@Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
– Tim B
yesterday
|
show 12 more comments
up vote
49
down vote
This is a community wiki supplement to the other answer, which makes the columns easier to read and shows vote difference for each district. 3rd party or other votes are not included.
District D R Margin Total Votes Majority %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588 269,560 (D) 69.8%
2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R) 316,341 52.9% (R)
3 * * * (R) 186,353* 100%* (R)
4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456 322,548 (D) 75%
5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R) 277,002 57.2% (R)
6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R) 281,974 56.6% (R)
7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R) 275,311 56.6% (R)
8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R) 253,318 55.4% (R)
9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R) 274,816 50.3% (R)
10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R) 276,446 59.3% (R)
11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R) 293,054 60.5% (R)
12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589 276,867 (D) 73%
13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R) 274,726 53.1% (R)
------------------------------------------------
Total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383
* = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.
Democrat candidates received 104,383 more votes than their Republican opponents. However, Republicans received 81,970 more votes overall (1,830,143 total), when including districts they were unopposed in. (Since the there was no challenger for district 3 it is impossible to calculate a meaningful Democrat-to-Republican margin for the total count. More or fewer people may have voted, some of the cast ballots may have gone to a different party, etc.)
Data from Washington Post.
Raleigh is in district 4.
Charlotte is in district 12.
31
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 at 18:45
3
Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
– fredsbend
Nov 12 at 23:07
3
@fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
– Dunk
2 days ago
6
I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
– Dunk
2 days ago
4
@Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
– Tim B
yesterday
|
show 12 more comments
up vote
49
down vote
up vote
49
down vote
This is a community wiki supplement to the other answer, which makes the columns easier to read and shows vote difference for each district. 3rd party or other votes are not included.
District D R Margin Total Votes Majority %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588 269,560 (D) 69.8%
2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R) 316,341 52.9% (R)
3 * * * (R) 186,353* 100%* (R)
4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456 322,548 (D) 75%
5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R) 277,002 57.2% (R)
6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R) 281,974 56.6% (R)
7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R) 275,311 56.6% (R)
8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R) 253,318 55.4% (R)
9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R) 274,816 50.3% (R)
10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R) 276,446 59.3% (R)
11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R) 293,054 60.5% (R)
12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589 276,867 (D) 73%
13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R) 274,726 53.1% (R)
------------------------------------------------
Total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383
* = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.
Democrat candidates received 104,383 more votes than their Republican opponents. However, Republicans received 81,970 more votes overall (1,830,143 total), when including districts they were unopposed in. (Since the there was no challenger for district 3 it is impossible to calculate a meaningful Democrat-to-Republican margin for the total count. More or fewer people may have voted, some of the cast ballots may have gone to a different party, etc.)
Data from Washington Post.
Raleigh is in district 4.
Charlotte is in district 12.
This is a community wiki supplement to the other answer, which makes the columns easier to read and shows vote difference for each district. 3rd party or other votes are not included.
District D R Margin Total Votes Majority %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588 269,560 (D) 69.8%
2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R) 316,341 52.9% (R)
3 * * * (R) 186,353* 100%* (R)
4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456 322,548 (D) 75%
5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R) 277,002 57.2% (R)
6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R) 281,974 56.6% (R)
7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R) 275,311 56.6% (R)
8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R) 253,318 55.4% (R)
9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R) 274,816 50.3% (R)
10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R) 276,446 59.3% (R)
11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R) 293,054 60.5% (R)
12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589 276,867 (D) 73%
13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R) 274,726 53.1% (R)
------------------------------------------------
Total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383
* = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.
Democrat candidates received 104,383 more votes than their Republican opponents. However, Republicans received 81,970 more votes overall (1,830,143 total), when including districts they were unopposed in. (Since the there was no challenger for district 3 it is impossible to calculate a meaningful Democrat-to-Republican margin for the total count. More or fewer people may have voted, some of the cast ballots may have gone to a different party, etc.)
Data from Washington Post.
Raleigh is in district 4.
Charlotte is in district 12.
edited 23 hours ago
community wiki
7 revs, 4 users 67%
BurnsBA
31
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 at 18:45
3
Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
– fredsbend
Nov 12 at 23:07
3
@fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
– Dunk
2 days ago
6
I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
– Dunk
2 days ago
4
@Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
– Tim B
yesterday
|
show 12 more comments
31
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 at 18:45
3
Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
– fredsbend
Nov 12 at 23:07
3
@fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
– Dunk
2 days ago
6
I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
– Dunk
2 days ago
4
@Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
– Tim B
yesterday
31
31
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 at 18:45
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 at 18:45
3
3
Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
– fredsbend
Nov 12 at 23:07
Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
– fredsbend
Nov 12 at 23:07
3
3
@fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
– Dunk
2 days ago
@fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
– Dunk
2 days ago
6
6
I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
– Dunk
2 days ago
I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
– Dunk
2 days ago
4
4
@Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
– Tim B
yesterday
@Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
– Tim B
yesterday
|
show 12 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, the results of the 2018 election are as follows. (Parties are ordered by number of votes):
District 1
Democratic Candidate: 188,074
Republican Candidate: 81,486
District 2
Republican Candidate: 167,382
Democratic Candidate: 148,959
Libertarian Candidate: 9,427
District 3
Republican Candidate: 186,353
District 4
Democratic Candidate: 242,002
Republican Candidate: 80,546
Libertarian Candidate: 11,947
District 5
Republican Candidate: 158,495
Democratic Candidate: 118,593
District 6
Republican Candidate: 159,651
Democratic Candidate: 122,323
District 7
Republican Candidate: 155,705
Democratic Candidate: 119,606
Constitution Candidate: 4,599
District 8
Republican Candidate: 140,352
Democratic Candidate: 112,736
District 9
Republican Candidate: 138,381
Democratic Candidate: 136,591
Libertarian Candidate: 5,048
District 10
Republican Candidate: 164,074
Democratic Candidate: 112,396
District 11
Republican Candidate: 177,352
Democratic Candidate: 115,889
Libertarian Candidate: 6,078
District 12
Democratic Candidate: 202,228
Republican Candidate: 74,639
District 13
Republican Candidate: 146,062
Democratic Candidate: 128,830
Libertarian Candidate: 5,443
Green Candidate: 2,795
Total
Republicans: 1,830,478
Democrats: 1,748,227
Libertarians: 37,943
Constitution: 4,599
Green: 2,795
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, the results of the 2018 election are as follows. (Parties are ordered by number of votes):
District 1
Democratic Candidate: 188,074
Republican Candidate: 81,486
District 2
Republican Candidate: 167,382
Democratic Candidate: 148,959
Libertarian Candidate: 9,427
District 3
Republican Candidate: 186,353
District 4
Democratic Candidate: 242,002
Republican Candidate: 80,546
Libertarian Candidate: 11,947
District 5
Republican Candidate: 158,495
Democratic Candidate: 118,593
District 6
Republican Candidate: 159,651
Democratic Candidate: 122,323
District 7
Republican Candidate: 155,705
Democratic Candidate: 119,606
Constitution Candidate: 4,599
District 8
Republican Candidate: 140,352
Democratic Candidate: 112,736
District 9
Republican Candidate: 138,381
Democratic Candidate: 136,591
Libertarian Candidate: 5,048
District 10
Republican Candidate: 164,074
Democratic Candidate: 112,396
District 11
Republican Candidate: 177,352
Democratic Candidate: 115,889
Libertarian Candidate: 6,078
District 12
Democratic Candidate: 202,228
Republican Candidate: 74,639
District 13
Republican Candidate: 146,062
Democratic Candidate: 128,830
Libertarian Candidate: 5,443
Green Candidate: 2,795
Total
Republicans: 1,830,478
Democrats: 1,748,227
Libertarians: 37,943
Constitution: 4,599
Green: 2,795
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, the results of the 2018 election are as follows. (Parties are ordered by number of votes):
District 1
Democratic Candidate: 188,074
Republican Candidate: 81,486
District 2
Republican Candidate: 167,382
Democratic Candidate: 148,959
Libertarian Candidate: 9,427
District 3
Republican Candidate: 186,353
District 4
Democratic Candidate: 242,002
Republican Candidate: 80,546
Libertarian Candidate: 11,947
District 5
Republican Candidate: 158,495
Democratic Candidate: 118,593
District 6
Republican Candidate: 159,651
Democratic Candidate: 122,323
District 7
Republican Candidate: 155,705
Democratic Candidate: 119,606
Constitution Candidate: 4,599
District 8
Republican Candidate: 140,352
Democratic Candidate: 112,736
District 9
Republican Candidate: 138,381
Democratic Candidate: 136,591
Libertarian Candidate: 5,048
District 10
Republican Candidate: 164,074
Democratic Candidate: 112,396
District 11
Republican Candidate: 177,352
Democratic Candidate: 115,889
Libertarian Candidate: 6,078
District 12
Democratic Candidate: 202,228
Republican Candidate: 74,639
District 13
Republican Candidate: 146,062
Democratic Candidate: 128,830
Libertarian Candidate: 5,443
Green Candidate: 2,795
Total
Republicans: 1,830,478
Democrats: 1,748,227
Libertarians: 37,943
Constitution: 4,599
Green: 2,795
According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, the results of the 2018 election are as follows. (Parties are ordered by number of votes):
District 1
Democratic Candidate: 188,074
Republican Candidate: 81,486
District 2
Republican Candidate: 167,382
Democratic Candidate: 148,959
Libertarian Candidate: 9,427
District 3
Republican Candidate: 186,353
District 4
Democratic Candidate: 242,002
Republican Candidate: 80,546
Libertarian Candidate: 11,947
District 5
Republican Candidate: 158,495
Democratic Candidate: 118,593
District 6
Republican Candidate: 159,651
Democratic Candidate: 122,323
District 7
Republican Candidate: 155,705
Democratic Candidate: 119,606
Constitution Candidate: 4,599
District 8
Republican Candidate: 140,352
Democratic Candidate: 112,736
District 9
Republican Candidate: 138,381
Democratic Candidate: 136,591
Libertarian Candidate: 5,048
District 10
Republican Candidate: 164,074
Democratic Candidate: 112,396
District 11
Republican Candidate: 177,352
Democratic Candidate: 115,889
Libertarian Candidate: 6,078
District 12
Democratic Candidate: 202,228
Republican Candidate: 74,639
District 13
Republican Candidate: 146,062
Democratic Candidate: 128,830
Libertarian Candidate: 5,443
Green Candidate: 2,795
Total
Republicans: 1,830,478
Democrats: 1,748,227
Libertarians: 37,943
Constitution: 4,599
Green: 2,795
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
DavePhD
73.3k18314341
73.3k18314341
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This graphic from the question leaves off the results from district 3. District 3 cast 186,353 votes for the Republican candidate and none for a Democrat (the Republican was unopposed). That flips the total to 1,830,219 Republican votes to 1,748,018 Democratic votes (a margin of 82,201). That's 50.5% to 48.2%. Presumably the other 1.3% went to third party candidates.
Source: Wikipedia.
Original citation for district 3. As that is the official source, someone could get the rest of the districts from there as well. Javascript required to change districts and view results.
Remember that the original claim was that Republicans won ten of thirteen races with fewer votes. That's demonstrably untrue, as the graphic only includes the votes from twelve of the districts. If it were leaving off the uncontested races, it should only have been nine of twelve contested races.
If the claim is instead adjusted so that it only compares the seat proportion to the vote proportion, there are several other states where it's the Democrats who won a higher seat share than their vote share. E.g. three out of four in Iowa with only 50.38% of the vote; five of five in Connecticut with at most 64.4% of the vote; nine of nine in Massachusetts; or California, where Republicans won more than a third of the vote but no more than half as many seats (two still undecided).
It also may be worth noting that in North Carolina in 2016 and 2014, the Republicans won by about 300,000 rather than less than 100,000. In 2010, Republicans had over 236,000 votes more than the Democrats but only won six of thirteen seats.
29
Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
– xyious
4 hours ago
@xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
– Brythan
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This graphic from the question leaves off the results from district 3. District 3 cast 186,353 votes for the Republican candidate and none for a Democrat (the Republican was unopposed). That flips the total to 1,830,219 Republican votes to 1,748,018 Democratic votes (a margin of 82,201). That's 50.5% to 48.2%. Presumably the other 1.3% went to third party candidates.
Source: Wikipedia.
Original citation for district 3. As that is the official source, someone could get the rest of the districts from there as well. Javascript required to change districts and view results.
Remember that the original claim was that Republicans won ten of thirteen races with fewer votes. That's demonstrably untrue, as the graphic only includes the votes from twelve of the districts. If it were leaving off the uncontested races, it should only have been nine of twelve contested races.
If the claim is instead adjusted so that it only compares the seat proportion to the vote proportion, there are several other states where it's the Democrats who won a higher seat share than their vote share. E.g. three out of four in Iowa with only 50.38% of the vote; five of five in Connecticut with at most 64.4% of the vote; nine of nine in Massachusetts; or California, where Republicans won more than a third of the vote but no more than half as many seats (two still undecided).
It also may be worth noting that in North Carolina in 2016 and 2014, the Republicans won by about 300,000 rather than less than 100,000. In 2010, Republicans had over 236,000 votes more than the Democrats but only won six of thirteen seats.
29
Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
– xyious
4 hours ago
@xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
– Brythan
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
This graphic from the question leaves off the results from district 3. District 3 cast 186,353 votes for the Republican candidate and none for a Democrat (the Republican was unopposed). That flips the total to 1,830,219 Republican votes to 1,748,018 Democratic votes (a margin of 82,201). That's 50.5% to 48.2%. Presumably the other 1.3% went to third party candidates.
Source: Wikipedia.
Original citation for district 3. As that is the official source, someone could get the rest of the districts from there as well. Javascript required to change districts and view results.
Remember that the original claim was that Republicans won ten of thirteen races with fewer votes. That's demonstrably untrue, as the graphic only includes the votes from twelve of the districts. If it were leaving off the uncontested races, it should only have been nine of twelve contested races.
If the claim is instead adjusted so that it only compares the seat proportion to the vote proportion, there are several other states where it's the Democrats who won a higher seat share than their vote share. E.g. three out of four in Iowa with only 50.38% of the vote; five of five in Connecticut with at most 64.4% of the vote; nine of nine in Massachusetts; or California, where Republicans won more than a third of the vote but no more than half as many seats (two still undecided).
It also may be worth noting that in North Carolina in 2016 and 2014, the Republicans won by about 300,000 rather than less than 100,000. In 2010, Republicans had over 236,000 votes more than the Democrats but only won six of thirteen seats.
This graphic from the question leaves off the results from district 3. District 3 cast 186,353 votes for the Republican candidate and none for a Democrat (the Republican was unopposed). That flips the total to 1,830,219 Republican votes to 1,748,018 Democratic votes (a margin of 82,201). That's 50.5% to 48.2%. Presumably the other 1.3% went to third party candidates.
Source: Wikipedia.
Original citation for district 3. As that is the official source, someone could get the rest of the districts from there as well. Javascript required to change districts and view results.
Remember that the original claim was that Republicans won ten of thirteen races with fewer votes. That's demonstrably untrue, as the graphic only includes the votes from twelve of the districts. If it were leaving off the uncontested races, it should only have been nine of twelve contested races.
If the claim is instead adjusted so that it only compares the seat proportion to the vote proportion, there are several other states where it's the Democrats who won a higher seat share than their vote share. E.g. three out of four in Iowa with only 50.38% of the vote; five of five in Connecticut with at most 64.4% of the vote; nine of nine in Massachusetts; or California, where Republicans won more than a third of the vote but no more than half as many seats (two still undecided).
It also may be worth noting that in North Carolina in 2016 and 2014, the Republicans won by about 300,000 rather than less than 100,000. In 2010, Republicans had over 236,000 votes more than the Democrats but only won six of thirteen seats.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
Brythan
8,65053550
8,65053550
29
Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
– xyious
4 hours ago
@xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
– Brythan
2 hours ago
add a comment |
29
Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
– xyious
4 hours ago
@xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
– Brythan
2 hours ago
29
29
Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
– KRyan
2 days ago
Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
– xyious
4 hours ago
This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
– xyious
4 hours ago
@xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
– Brythan
2 hours ago
@xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
– Brythan
2 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by Mad Scientist♦ Nov 12 at 13:28
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
2
Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
– Andrew Grimm
yesterday
2
You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
– Bob Jarvis
yesterday
Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
– DJClayworth
yesterday
1
Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
– James K Polk
21 hours ago
Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
– James Jones
9 hours ago