Did Republicans take 10 of 13 Congressional seats in the 2018 North Carolina general election with roughly...











up vote
132
down vote

favorite
10












This image has been shared on social media




Gerrymandering in North Carolina




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?










share|improve this question




















  • 4




    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
    Nov 14 at 21:29






  • 5




    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
    Nov 15 at 0:32










  • Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
    – DJClayworth
    Nov 15 at 1:16






  • 1




    Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
    – James K Polk
    Nov 15 at 5:20






  • 2




    I predict the democrats have a majority in densely populated urban areas and the republicans have a majority in thinly populated rural areas. So a map may show tiny blue areas and large red areas. To counteract this, the voting districts would have to extend very far outside city limits, which may appear unfair also.
    – Chloe
    Nov 15 at 22:38















up vote
132
down vote

favorite
10












This image has been shared on social media




Gerrymandering in North Carolina




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?










share|improve this question




















  • 4




    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
    Nov 14 at 21:29






  • 5




    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
    Nov 15 at 0:32










  • Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
    – DJClayworth
    Nov 15 at 1:16






  • 1




    Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
    – James K Polk
    Nov 15 at 5:20






  • 2




    I predict the democrats have a majority in densely populated urban areas and the republicans have a majority in thinly populated rural areas. So a map may show tiny blue areas and large red areas. To counteract this, the voting districts would have to extend very far outside city limits, which may appear unfair also.
    – Chloe
    Nov 15 at 22:38













up vote
132
down vote

favorite
10









up vote
132
down vote

favorite
10






10





This image has been shared on social media




Gerrymandering in North Carolina




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?










share|improve this question















This image has been shared on social media




Gerrymandering in North Carolina




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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 15 at 3:00









Andrew Grimm

20.3k24100288




20.3k24100288










asked Nov 12 at 3:46









DJClayworth

39.6k16155161




39.6k16155161








  • 4




    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
    Nov 14 at 21:29






  • 5




    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
    Nov 15 at 0:32










  • Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
    – DJClayworth
    Nov 15 at 1:16






  • 1




    Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
    – James K Polk
    Nov 15 at 5:20






  • 2




    I predict the democrats have a majority in densely populated urban areas and the republicans have a majority in thinly populated rural areas. So a map may show tiny blue areas and large red areas. To counteract this, the voting districts would have to extend very far outside city limits, which may appear unfair also.
    – Chloe
    Nov 15 at 22:38














  • 4




    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
    Nov 14 at 21:29






  • 5




    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
    Nov 15 at 0:32










  • Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
    – DJClayworth
    Nov 15 at 1:16






  • 1




    Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
    – James K Polk
    Nov 15 at 5:20






  • 2




    I predict the democrats have a majority in densely populated urban areas and the republicans have a majority in thinly populated rural areas. So a map may show tiny blue areas and large red areas. To counteract this, the voting districts would have to extend very far outside city limits, which may appear unfair also.
    – Chloe
    Nov 15 at 22:38








4




4




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
Nov 14 at 21:29




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
Nov 14 at 21:29




5




5




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
Nov 15 at 0:32




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
Nov 15 at 0:32












Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
– DJClayworth
Nov 15 at 1:16




Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
– DJClayworth
Nov 15 at 1:16




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
Nov 15 at 5:20




Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
– James K Polk
Nov 15 at 5:20




2




2




I predict the democrats have a majority in densely populated urban areas and the republicans have a majority in thinly populated rural areas. So a map may show tiny blue areas and large red areas. To counteract this, the voting districts would have to extend very far outside city limits, which may appear unfair also.
– Chloe
Nov 15 at 22:38




I predict the democrats have a majority in densely populated urban areas and the republicans have a majority in thinly populated rural areas. So a map may show tiny blue areas and large red areas. To counteract this, the voting districts would have to extend very far outside city limits, which may appear unfair also.
– Chloe
Nov 15 at 22:38










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
154
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.



+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+
| dist. | D | D % | R | R % | Winner |
+=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
| 1 | 188,074 | 69.8% | 81,486 | 30.2% | D |
| 2 | 148,959 | 47.1% | 167,382 | 52.9% | |
| 4 | 242,002 | 75.0% | 80,546 | 25.0% | D |
| 5 | 118,558 | 42.8% | 158,444 | 57.2% | |
| 6 | 122,323 | 43.4% | 159,651 | 56.6% | |
| 7 | 119,606 | 43.4% | 155,705 | 56.6% | |
| 8 | 112,971 | 44.6% | 140,347 | 55.4% | |
| 9 | 136,478 | 49.7% | 138,338 | 50.3% | |
| 10 | 112,386 | 40.7% | 164,060 | 59.3% | |
| 11 | 115,824 | 39.5% | 177,230 | 60.5% | |
| 12 | 202,228 | 73.0% | 74,639 | 27.0% | D |
| 13 | 128,764 | 46.9% | 145,962 | 53.1% | |
+=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
| Total | 1,748,173 | 51.5% | 1,643,790 | 48.5% | |
+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+


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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 29




    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






  • 60




    @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






  • 57




    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






  • 79




    @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








  • 38




    @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
    Nov 13 at 2:50


















up vote
53
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.



North Carolina congressional districts






share|improve this answer



















  • 36




    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






  • 4




    @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
    Nov 13 at 18:54






  • 7




    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
    Nov 13 at 19:04








  • 10




    @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
    Nov 14 at 22:50




















up vote
8
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: 190,445

    Republican Candidate: 82,209



District 2

    Republican Candidate: 170,050

    Democratic Candidate: 151,966

    Libertarian Candidate: 9,654



District 3

    Republican Candidate: 187,901



District 4

    Democratic Candidate: 247,067

    Republican Candidate: 82,052

    Libertarian Candidate: 12,284



District 5

    Republican Candidate: 159,915

    Democratic Candidate: 120,462



District 6

    Republican Candidate: 160,636

    Democratic Candidate: 123,601



District 7

    Republican Candidate: 156,797

    Democratic Candidate: 120,804

    Constitution Candidate: 4,665



District 8

    Republican Candidate: 141,371

    Democratic Candidate: 114,057



District 9

    Republican Candidate: 139,246

    Democratic Candidate: 138,341

    Libertarian Candidate: 5,130



District 10

    Republican Candidate: 164,969

    Democratic Candidate: 113,259



District 11

    Republican Candidate: 178,012

    Democratic Candidate: 116,508

    Libertarian Candidate: 6,146



District 12

    Democratic Candidate: 203,974

    Republican Candidate: 75,164



District 13

    Republican Candidate: 147,570

    Democratic Candidate: 130,402

    Libertarian Candidate: 5,513

    Green Candidate: 2,831



Total



    Republicans: 1,845,892

    Democrats: 1,770,886

    Libertarians: 38,727

    Constitution: 4,665

    Green: 2,831



(Note: results are not yet official)






share|improve this answer






























    up vote
    4
    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.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 30




      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
      Nov 13 at 4:50








    • 4




      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
      Nov 15 at 21:49






    • 2




      @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
      Nov 15 at 23:51






    • 1




      The point of the graphic, since you missed it, is that 51% of the votes are Democratic,but they only got 23% of the seats. In other words, a state that is technically marginally Democratic is 70+% Republican because of where the borders are drawn. This is a direct consequence of how voting regions are laid out. Give one party a few seats in exchange for a lot of seats. This is what people who point out gerrymandering usually refer to. Not that Republicans won districts with fewer votes, simply that the state's total vote doesn't reflect what the seats represent.
      – phyrfox
      2 days ago










    • I realize, though, that's not actually proof of gerrymandering, but you can imagine how, say, if football fans got upset because their team got 51% of the touchdowns but still lost the game somehow. Anytime you have a representative (vs direct vote) system, you'll always end up with accusations of that sort. No matter how you look at it, it's definitely a flaw in the system; no one side should get 75% of the representation with only 49% of the votes. It's simply something that doesn't make sense to normal, reasonable people.
      – phyrfox
      2 days ago











    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
    154
    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.



    +-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+
    | dist. | D | D % | R | R % | Winner |
    +=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
    | 1 | 188,074 | 69.8% | 81,486 | 30.2% | D |
    | 2 | 148,959 | 47.1% | 167,382 | 52.9% | |
    | 4 | 242,002 | 75.0% | 80,546 | 25.0% | D |
    | 5 | 118,558 | 42.8% | 158,444 | 57.2% | |
    | 6 | 122,323 | 43.4% | 159,651 | 56.6% | |
    | 7 | 119,606 | 43.4% | 155,705 | 56.6% | |
    | 8 | 112,971 | 44.6% | 140,347 | 55.4% | |
    | 9 | 136,478 | 49.7% | 138,338 | 50.3% | |
    | 10 | 112,386 | 40.7% | 164,060 | 59.3% | |
    | 11 | 115,824 | 39.5% | 177,230 | 60.5% | |
    | 12 | 202,228 | 73.0% | 74,639 | 27.0% | D |
    | 13 | 128,764 | 46.9% | 145,962 | 53.1% | |
    +=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
    | Total | 1,748,173 | 51.5% | 1,643,790 | 48.5% | |
    +-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+


    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.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 29




      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






    • 60




      @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






    • 57




      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






    • 79




      @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








    • 38




      @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
      Nov 13 at 2:50















    up vote
    154
    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.



    +-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+
    | dist. | D | D % | R | R % | Winner |
    +=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
    | 1 | 188,074 | 69.8% | 81,486 | 30.2% | D |
    | 2 | 148,959 | 47.1% | 167,382 | 52.9% | |
    | 4 | 242,002 | 75.0% | 80,546 | 25.0% | D |
    | 5 | 118,558 | 42.8% | 158,444 | 57.2% | |
    | 6 | 122,323 | 43.4% | 159,651 | 56.6% | |
    | 7 | 119,606 | 43.4% | 155,705 | 56.6% | |
    | 8 | 112,971 | 44.6% | 140,347 | 55.4% | |
    | 9 | 136,478 | 49.7% | 138,338 | 50.3% | |
    | 10 | 112,386 | 40.7% | 164,060 | 59.3% | |
    | 11 | 115,824 | 39.5% | 177,230 | 60.5% | |
    | 12 | 202,228 | 73.0% | 74,639 | 27.0% | D |
    | 13 | 128,764 | 46.9% | 145,962 | 53.1% | |
    +=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
    | Total | 1,748,173 | 51.5% | 1,643,790 | 48.5% | |
    +-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+


    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.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 29




      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






    • 60




      @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






    • 57




      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






    • 79




      @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








    • 38




      @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
      Nov 13 at 2:50













    up vote
    154
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    154
    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.



    +-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+
    | dist. | D | D % | R | R % | Winner |
    +=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
    | 1 | 188,074 | 69.8% | 81,486 | 30.2% | D |
    | 2 | 148,959 | 47.1% | 167,382 | 52.9% | |
    | 4 | 242,002 | 75.0% | 80,546 | 25.0% | D |
    | 5 | 118,558 | 42.8% | 158,444 | 57.2% | |
    | 6 | 122,323 | 43.4% | 159,651 | 56.6% | |
    | 7 | 119,606 | 43.4% | 155,705 | 56.6% | |
    | 8 | 112,971 | 44.6% | 140,347 | 55.4% | |
    | 9 | 136,478 | 49.7% | 138,338 | 50.3% | |
    | 10 | 112,386 | 40.7% | 164,060 | 59.3% | |
    | 11 | 115,824 | 39.5% | 177,230 | 60.5% | |
    | 12 | 202,228 | 73.0% | 74,639 | 27.0% | D |
    | 13 | 128,764 | 46.9% | 145,962 | 53.1% | |
    +=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
    | Total | 1,748,173 | 51.5% | 1,643,790 | 48.5% | |
    +-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+


    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.






    share|improve this answer














    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.



    +-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+
    | dist. | D | D % | R | R % | Winner |
    +=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
    | 1 | 188,074 | 69.8% | 81,486 | 30.2% | D |
    | 2 | 148,959 | 47.1% | 167,382 | 52.9% | |
    | 4 | 242,002 | 75.0% | 80,546 | 25.0% | D |
    | 5 | 118,558 | 42.8% | 158,444 | 57.2% | |
    | 6 | 122,323 | 43.4% | 159,651 | 56.6% | |
    | 7 | 119,606 | 43.4% | 155,705 | 56.6% | |
    | 8 | 112,971 | 44.6% | 140,347 | 55.4% | |
    | 9 | 136,478 | 49.7% | 138,338 | 50.3% | |
    | 10 | 112,386 | 40.7% | 164,060 | 59.3% | |
    | 11 | 115,824 | 39.5% | 177,230 | 60.5% | |
    | 12 | 202,228 | 73.0% | 74,639 | 27.0% | D |
    | 13 | 128,764 | 46.9% | 145,962 | 53.1% | |
    +=======+===========+=======+===========+=======+========+
    | Total | 1,748,173 | 51.5% | 1,643,790 | 48.5% | |
    +-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+


    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.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 23 hours ago









    Nat

    2,90311433




    2,90311433










    answered Nov 12 at 5:17









    sashkello

    3,04722336




    3,04722336








    • 29




      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






    • 60




      @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






    • 57




      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






    • 79




      @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








    • 38




      @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
      Nov 13 at 2:50














    • 29




      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






    • 60




      @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






    • 57




      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






    • 79




      @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








    • 38




      @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
      Nov 13 at 2:50








    29




    29




    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




    60




    60




    @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




    57




    57




    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




    79




    79




    @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






    38




    38




    @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
    Nov 13 at 2:50




    @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
    Nov 13 at 2:50










    up vote
    53
    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.



    North Carolina congressional districts






    share|improve this answer



















    • 36




      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






    • 4




      @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
      Nov 13 at 18:54






    • 7




      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
      Nov 13 at 19:04








    • 10




      @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
      Nov 14 at 22:50

















    up vote
    53
    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.



    North Carolina congressional districts






    share|improve this answer



















    • 36




      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






    • 4




      @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
      Nov 13 at 18:54






    • 7




      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
      Nov 13 at 19:04








    • 10




      @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
      Nov 14 at 22:50















    up vote
    53
    down vote










    up vote
    53
    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.



    North Carolina congressional districts






    share|improve this answer














    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.



    North Carolina congressional districts







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 15 at 2:45


























    community wiki





    7 revs, 4 users 67%
    BurnsBA









    • 36




      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






    • 4




      @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
      Nov 13 at 18:54






    • 7




      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
      Nov 13 at 19:04








    • 10




      @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
      Nov 14 at 22:50
















    • 36




      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






    • 4




      @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
      Nov 13 at 18:54






    • 7




      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
      Nov 13 at 19:04








    • 10




      @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
      Nov 14 at 22:50










    36




    36




    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




    4




    4




    @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
    Nov 13 at 18:54




    @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
    Nov 13 at 18:54




    7




    7




    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
    Nov 13 at 19:04






    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
    Nov 13 at 19:04






    10




    10




    @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
    Nov 14 at 22:50






    @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
    Nov 14 at 22:50












    up vote
    8
    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: 190,445

        Republican Candidate: 82,209



    District 2

        Republican Candidate: 170,050

        Democratic Candidate: 151,966

        Libertarian Candidate: 9,654



    District 3

        Republican Candidate: 187,901



    District 4

        Democratic Candidate: 247,067

        Republican Candidate: 82,052

        Libertarian Candidate: 12,284



    District 5

        Republican Candidate: 159,915

        Democratic Candidate: 120,462



    District 6

        Republican Candidate: 160,636

        Democratic Candidate: 123,601



    District 7

        Republican Candidate: 156,797

        Democratic Candidate: 120,804

        Constitution Candidate: 4,665



    District 8

        Republican Candidate: 141,371

        Democratic Candidate: 114,057



    District 9

        Republican Candidate: 139,246

        Democratic Candidate: 138,341

        Libertarian Candidate: 5,130



    District 10

        Republican Candidate: 164,969

        Democratic Candidate: 113,259



    District 11

        Republican Candidate: 178,012

        Democratic Candidate: 116,508

        Libertarian Candidate: 6,146



    District 12

        Democratic Candidate: 203,974

        Republican Candidate: 75,164



    District 13

        Republican Candidate: 147,570

        Democratic Candidate: 130,402

        Libertarian Candidate: 5,513

        Green Candidate: 2,831



    Total



        Republicans: 1,845,892

        Democrats: 1,770,886

        Libertarians: 38,727

        Constitution: 4,665

        Green: 2,831



    (Note: results are not yet official)






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      8
      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: 190,445

          Republican Candidate: 82,209



      District 2

          Republican Candidate: 170,050

          Democratic Candidate: 151,966

          Libertarian Candidate: 9,654



      District 3

          Republican Candidate: 187,901



      District 4

          Democratic Candidate: 247,067

          Republican Candidate: 82,052

          Libertarian Candidate: 12,284



      District 5

          Republican Candidate: 159,915

          Democratic Candidate: 120,462



      District 6

          Republican Candidate: 160,636

          Democratic Candidate: 123,601



      District 7

          Republican Candidate: 156,797

          Democratic Candidate: 120,804

          Constitution Candidate: 4,665



      District 8

          Republican Candidate: 141,371

          Democratic Candidate: 114,057



      District 9

          Republican Candidate: 139,246

          Democratic Candidate: 138,341

          Libertarian Candidate: 5,130



      District 10

          Republican Candidate: 164,969

          Democratic Candidate: 113,259



      District 11

          Republican Candidate: 178,012

          Democratic Candidate: 116,508

          Libertarian Candidate: 6,146



      District 12

          Democratic Candidate: 203,974

          Republican Candidate: 75,164



      District 13

          Republican Candidate: 147,570

          Democratic Candidate: 130,402

          Libertarian Candidate: 5,513

          Green Candidate: 2,831



      Total



          Republicans: 1,845,892

          Democrats: 1,770,886

          Libertarians: 38,727

          Constitution: 4,665

          Green: 2,831



      (Note: results are not yet official)






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        8
        down vote










        up vote
        8
        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: 190,445

            Republican Candidate: 82,209



        District 2

            Republican Candidate: 170,050

            Democratic Candidate: 151,966

            Libertarian Candidate: 9,654



        District 3

            Republican Candidate: 187,901



        District 4

            Democratic Candidate: 247,067

            Republican Candidate: 82,052

            Libertarian Candidate: 12,284



        District 5

            Republican Candidate: 159,915

            Democratic Candidate: 120,462



        District 6

            Republican Candidate: 160,636

            Democratic Candidate: 123,601



        District 7

            Republican Candidate: 156,797

            Democratic Candidate: 120,804

            Constitution Candidate: 4,665



        District 8

            Republican Candidate: 141,371

            Democratic Candidate: 114,057



        District 9

            Republican Candidate: 139,246

            Democratic Candidate: 138,341

            Libertarian Candidate: 5,130



        District 10

            Republican Candidate: 164,969

            Democratic Candidate: 113,259



        District 11

            Republican Candidate: 178,012

            Democratic Candidate: 116,508

            Libertarian Candidate: 6,146



        District 12

            Democratic Candidate: 203,974

            Republican Candidate: 75,164



        District 13

            Republican Candidate: 147,570

            Democratic Candidate: 130,402

            Libertarian Candidate: 5,513

            Green Candidate: 2,831



        Total



            Republicans: 1,845,892

            Democrats: 1,770,886

            Libertarians: 38,727

            Constitution: 4,665

            Green: 2,831



        (Note: results are not yet official)






        share|improve this answer














        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: 190,445

            Republican Candidate: 82,209



        District 2

            Republican Candidate: 170,050

            Democratic Candidate: 151,966

            Libertarian Candidate: 9,654



        District 3

            Republican Candidate: 187,901



        District 4

            Democratic Candidate: 247,067

            Republican Candidate: 82,052

            Libertarian Candidate: 12,284



        District 5

            Republican Candidate: 159,915

            Democratic Candidate: 120,462



        District 6

            Republican Candidate: 160,636

            Democratic Candidate: 123,601



        District 7

            Republican Candidate: 156,797

            Democratic Candidate: 120,804

            Constitution Candidate: 4,665



        District 8

            Republican Candidate: 141,371

            Democratic Candidate: 114,057



        District 9

            Republican Candidate: 139,246

            Democratic Candidate: 138,341

            Libertarian Candidate: 5,130



        District 10

            Republican Candidate: 164,969

            Democratic Candidate: 113,259



        District 11

            Republican Candidate: 178,012

            Democratic Candidate: 116,508

            Libertarian Candidate: 6,146



        District 12

            Democratic Candidate: 203,974

            Republican Candidate: 75,164



        District 13

            Republican Candidate: 147,570

            Democratic Candidate: 130,402

            Libertarian Candidate: 5,513

            Green Candidate: 2,831



        Total



            Republicans: 1,845,892

            Democrats: 1,770,886

            Libertarians: 38,727

            Constitution: 4,665

            Green: 2,831



        (Note: results are not yet official)







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited yesterday

























        answered Nov 13 at 23:42









        DavePhD

        73.3k18315342




        73.3k18315342






















            up vote
            4
            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.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 30




              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
              Nov 13 at 4:50








            • 4




              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
              Nov 15 at 21:49






            • 2




              @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
              Nov 15 at 23:51






            • 1




              The point of the graphic, since you missed it, is that 51% of the votes are Democratic,but they only got 23% of the seats. In other words, a state that is technically marginally Democratic is 70+% Republican because of where the borders are drawn. This is a direct consequence of how voting regions are laid out. Give one party a few seats in exchange for a lot of seats. This is what people who point out gerrymandering usually refer to. Not that Republicans won districts with fewer votes, simply that the state's total vote doesn't reflect what the seats represent.
              – phyrfox
              2 days ago










            • I realize, though, that's not actually proof of gerrymandering, but you can imagine how, say, if football fans got upset because their team got 51% of the touchdowns but still lost the game somehow. Anytime you have a representative (vs direct vote) system, you'll always end up with accusations of that sort. No matter how you look at it, it's definitely a flaw in the system; no one side should get 75% of the representation with only 49% of the votes. It's simply something that doesn't make sense to normal, reasonable people.
              – phyrfox
              2 days ago















            up vote
            4
            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.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 30




              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
              Nov 13 at 4:50








            • 4




              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
              Nov 15 at 21:49






            • 2




              @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
              Nov 15 at 23:51






            • 1




              The point of the graphic, since you missed it, is that 51% of the votes are Democratic,but they only got 23% of the seats. In other words, a state that is technically marginally Democratic is 70+% Republican because of where the borders are drawn. This is a direct consequence of how voting regions are laid out. Give one party a few seats in exchange for a lot of seats. This is what people who point out gerrymandering usually refer to. Not that Republicans won districts with fewer votes, simply that the state's total vote doesn't reflect what the seats represent.
              – phyrfox
              2 days ago










            • I realize, though, that's not actually proof of gerrymandering, but you can imagine how, say, if football fans got upset because their team got 51% of the touchdowns but still lost the game somehow. Anytime you have a representative (vs direct vote) system, you'll always end up with accusations of that sort. No matter how you look at it, it's definitely a flaw in the system; no one side should get 75% of the representation with only 49% of the votes. It's simply something that doesn't make sense to normal, reasonable people.
              – phyrfox
              2 days ago













            up vote
            4
            down vote










            up vote
            4
            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.






            share|improve this answer














            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.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Nov 15 at 1:03

























            answered Nov 13 at 2:35









            Brythan

            8,72053550




            8,72053550








            • 30




              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
              Nov 13 at 4:50








            • 4




              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
              Nov 15 at 21:49






            • 2




              @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
              Nov 15 at 23:51






            • 1




              The point of the graphic, since you missed it, is that 51% of the votes are Democratic,but they only got 23% of the seats. In other words, a state that is technically marginally Democratic is 70+% Republican because of where the borders are drawn. This is a direct consequence of how voting regions are laid out. Give one party a few seats in exchange for a lot of seats. This is what people who point out gerrymandering usually refer to. Not that Republicans won districts with fewer votes, simply that the state's total vote doesn't reflect what the seats represent.
              – phyrfox
              2 days ago










            • I realize, though, that's not actually proof of gerrymandering, but you can imagine how, say, if football fans got upset because their team got 51% of the touchdowns but still lost the game somehow. Anytime you have a representative (vs direct vote) system, you'll always end up with accusations of that sort. No matter how you look at it, it's definitely a flaw in the system; no one side should get 75% of the representation with only 49% of the votes. It's simply something that doesn't make sense to normal, reasonable people.
              – phyrfox
              2 days ago














            • 30




              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
              Nov 13 at 4:50








            • 4




              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
              Nov 15 at 21:49






            • 2




              @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
              Nov 15 at 23:51






            • 1




              The point of the graphic, since you missed it, is that 51% of the votes are Democratic,but they only got 23% of the seats. In other words, a state that is technically marginally Democratic is 70+% Republican because of where the borders are drawn. This is a direct consequence of how voting regions are laid out. Give one party a few seats in exchange for a lot of seats. This is what people who point out gerrymandering usually refer to. Not that Republicans won districts with fewer votes, simply that the state's total vote doesn't reflect what the seats represent.
              – phyrfox
              2 days ago










            • I realize, though, that's not actually proof of gerrymandering, but you can imagine how, say, if football fans got upset because their team got 51% of the touchdowns but still lost the game somehow. Anytime you have a representative (vs direct vote) system, you'll always end up with accusations of that sort. No matter how you look at it, it's definitely a flaw in the system; no one side should get 75% of the representation with only 49% of the votes. It's simply something that doesn't make sense to normal, reasonable people.
              – phyrfox
              2 days ago








            30




            30




            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
            Nov 13 at 4:50






            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
            Nov 13 at 4:50






            4




            4




            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
            Nov 15 at 21:49




            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
            Nov 15 at 21:49




            2




            2




            @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
            Nov 15 at 23:51




            @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
            Nov 15 at 23:51




            1




            1




            The point of the graphic, since you missed it, is that 51% of the votes are Democratic,but they only got 23% of the seats. In other words, a state that is technically marginally Democratic is 70+% Republican because of where the borders are drawn. This is a direct consequence of how voting regions are laid out. Give one party a few seats in exchange for a lot of seats. This is what people who point out gerrymandering usually refer to. Not that Republicans won districts with fewer votes, simply that the state's total vote doesn't reflect what the seats represent.
            – phyrfox
            2 days ago




            The point of the graphic, since you missed it, is that 51% of the votes are Democratic,but they only got 23% of the seats. In other words, a state that is technically marginally Democratic is 70+% Republican because of where the borders are drawn. This is a direct consequence of how voting regions are laid out. Give one party a few seats in exchange for a lot of seats. This is what people who point out gerrymandering usually refer to. Not that Republicans won districts with fewer votes, simply that the state's total vote doesn't reflect what the seats represent.
            – phyrfox
            2 days ago












            I realize, though, that's not actually proof of gerrymandering, but you can imagine how, say, if football fans got upset because their team got 51% of the touchdowns but still lost the game somehow. Anytime you have a representative (vs direct vote) system, you'll always end up with accusations of that sort. No matter how you look at it, it's definitely a flaw in the system; no one side should get 75% of the representation with only 49% of the votes. It's simply something that doesn't make sense to normal, reasonable people.
            – phyrfox
            2 days ago




            I realize, though, that's not actually proof of gerrymandering, but you can imagine how, say, if football fans got upset because their team got 51% of the touchdowns but still lost the game somehow. Anytime you have a representative (vs direct vote) system, you'll always end up with accusations of that sort. No matter how you look at it, it's definitely a flaw in the system; no one side should get 75% of the representation with only 49% of the votes. It's simply something that doesn't make sense to normal, reasonable people.
            – phyrfox
            2 days ago





            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?



            Popular posts from this blog

            AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

            How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

            QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater