Did Republicans take 10 of 13 Congressional seats in the 2018 North Carolina general election with roughly the same number of votes as Democrats?

134

This image has been shared on social media

Transcription:

Gerrymandering in North Carolina

1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats

1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats

Example sources: [1], [2]

Are these numbers correct?

edited Nov 15 '18 at 3:00

Andrew Grimm

21.7k26104296

asked Nov 12 '18 at 3:46

DJClayworth

41.1k17158163

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 '18 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 '18 at 0:32

Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?

– DJClayworth
Nov 15 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 22:38

|
show 5 more comments

134

This image has been shared on social media

Transcription:

Gerrymandering in North Carolina

1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats

1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats

Example sources: [1], [2]

Are these numbers correct?

edited Nov 15 '18 at 3:00

Andrew Grimm

21.7k26104296

asked Nov 12 '18 at 3:46

DJClayworth

41.1k17158163

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 '18 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 '18 at 0:32

Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?

– DJClayworth
Nov 15 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 22:38

|
show 5 more comments

134

This image has been shared on social media

Transcription:

Gerrymandering in North Carolina

1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats

1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats

Example sources: [1], [2]

Are these numbers correct?

edited Nov 15 '18 at 3:00

Andrew Grimm

21.7k26104296

asked Nov 12 '18 at 3:46

DJClayworth

41.1k17158163

This image has been shared on social media

Transcription:

Gerrymandering in North Carolina

1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats

1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats

Example sources: [1], [2]

Are these numbers correct?

united-states politics voting gerrymandering

edited Nov 15 '18 at 3:00

Andrew Grimm

21.7k26104296

asked Nov 12 '18 at 3:46

DJClayworth

41.1k17158163

edited Nov 15 '18 at 3:00

Andrew Grimm

21.7k26104296

asked Nov 12 '18 at 3:46

DJClayworth

41.1k17158163

edited Nov 15 '18 at 3:00

Andrew Grimm

21.7k26104296

edited Nov 15 '18 at 3:00

Andrew Grimm

21.7k26104296

edited Nov 15 '18 at 3:00

Andrew Grimm

21.7k26104296

asked Nov 12 '18 at 3:46

DJClayworth

41.1k17158163

asked Nov 12 '18 at 3:46

DJClayworth

41.1k17158163

asked Nov 12 '18 at 3:46

DJClayworth

41.1k17158163

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 '18 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 '18 at 0:32

Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?

– DJClayworth
Nov 15 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 22:38

|
show 5 more comments

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 '18 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 '18 at 0:32

Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?

– DJClayworth
Nov 15 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 22:38

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 '18 at 21:29

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 '18 at 0:32

Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?

– DJClayworth
Nov 15 '18 at 1:16

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 '18 at 5:20

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 '18 at 22:38

|
show 5 more comments

4 Answers
4

active

oldest

votes

160

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.

edited Nov 18 '18 at 3:11

Nat

2,93311533

answered Nov 12 '18 at 5:17

sashkello

3,10522336

32

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 '18 at 5:30

65

@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 '18 at 5:38

60

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 '18 at 14:23

81

@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 '18 at 16:08

39

@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 '18 at 2:50

|
show 35 more comments

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

edited Nov 15 '18 at 2:45

community wiki

7 revs, 4 users 67%
BurnsBA

38

Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.

– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 '18 at 18:45

3

Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.

– fredsbend
Nov 12 '18 at 23:07

5

@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 '18 at 18:54

8

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 '18 at 19:04

13

@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 '18 at 22:50

|
show 21 more comments

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)

edited Nov 17 '18 at 19:23

answered Nov 13 '18 at 23:42

DavePhD

78.5k19330358

add a comment |

This graphic from the question leaves off the results from district 3. District 3 cast 186,353 votes for the Republican candidate and none for a Democrat (the Republican was unopposed). That flips the total to 1,830,219 Republican votes to 1,748,018 Democratic votes (a margin of 82,201). That's 50.5% to 48.2%. Presumably the other 1.3% went to third party candidates.

Source: Wikipedia.

Original citation for district 3. As that is the official source, someone could get the rest of the districts from there as well. Javascript required to change districts and view results.

Remember that the original claim was that Republicans won ten of thirteen races with fewer votes. That's demonstrably untrue, as the graphic only includes the votes from twelve of the districts. If it were leaving off the uncontested races, it should only have been nine of twelve contested races.

If the claim is instead adjusted so that it only compares the seat proportion to the vote proportion, there are several other states where it's the Democrats who won a higher seat share than their vote share. E.g. three out of four in Iowa with only 50.38% of the vote; five of five in Connecticut with at most 64.4% of the vote; nine of nine in Massachusetts; or California, where Republicans won more than a third of the vote but no more than half as many seats (two still undecided).

It also may be worth noting that in North Carolina in 2016 and 2014, the Republicans won by about 300,000 rather than less than 100,000. In 2010, Republicans had over 236,000 votes more than the Democrats but only won six of thirteen seats.

edited Nov 15 '18 at 1:03

answered Nov 13 '18 at 2:35

Brythan

8,79053750

31

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 '18 at 4:50

6

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 '18 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 '18 at 23:51

3

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
Nov 16 '18 at 8:50

1

District 3 isn't a race, if there is only one contestant. Hard to say someone won against someone else, when there wasn't a someone else.

– Edwin Buck
Nov 17 '18 at 18:09

|
show 3 more comments

protected by Mad Scientist♦ Nov 12 '18 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

160

Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin – probably due to different sources and time of capture).

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% | |
+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+

edited Nov 18 '18 at 3:11

Nat

2,93311533

answered Nov 12 '18 at 5:17

sashkello

3,10522336

32

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 '18 at 5:30

65

@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 '18 at 5:38

60

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 '18 at 14:23

81

@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 '18 at 16:08

39

@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 '18 at 2:50

|
show 35 more comments

160

Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin – probably due to different sources and time of capture).

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% | |
+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+

edited Nov 18 '18 at 3:11

Nat

2,93311533

answered Nov 12 '18 at 5:17

sashkello

3,10522336

32

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 '18 at 5:30

65

@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 '18 at 5:38

60

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 '18 at 14:23

81

@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 '18 at 16:08

39

@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 '18 at 2:50

|
show 35 more comments

160

Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin – probably due to different sources and time of capture).

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% | |
+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+

edited Nov 18 '18 at 3:11

Nat

2,93311533

answered Nov 12 '18 at 5:17

sashkello

3,10522336

Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin – probably due to different sources and time of capture).

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% | |
+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+--------+

edited Nov 18 '18 at 3:11

Nat

2,93311533

answered Nov 12 '18 at 5:17

sashkello

3,10522336

edited Nov 18 '18 at 3:11

Nat

2,93311533

edited Nov 18 '18 at 3:11

Nat

2,93311533

edited Nov 18 '18 at 3:11

Nat

2,93311533

answered Nov 12 '18 at 5:17

sashkello

3,10522336

answered Nov 12 '18 at 5:17

sashkello

3,10522336

answered Nov 12 '18 at 5:17

sashkello

3,10522336

32

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 '18 at 5:30

65

@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 '18 at 5:38

60

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 '18 at 14:23

81

@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 '18 at 16:08

39

@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 '18 at 2:50

|
show 35 more comments

32

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 '18 at 5:30

65

@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 '18 at 5:38

60

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 '18 at 14:23

81

@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 '18 at 16:08

39

@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 '18 at 2:50

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 '18 at 5:30

@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 '18 at 5:38

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 '18 at 14:23

@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 '18 at 16:08

@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 '18 at 2:50

|
show 35 more comments

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.

Data from Washington Post.

Raleigh is in district 4.

Charlotte is in district 12.

North Carolina congressional districts

edited Nov 15 '18 at 2:45

community wiki

7 revs, 4 users 67%
BurnsBA

38

Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.

– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 '18 at 18:45

3

Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.

– fredsbend
Nov 12 '18 at 23:07

5

@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 '18 at 18:54

8

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 '18 at 19:04

13

@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 '18 at 22:50

|
show 21 more comments

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.

Data from Washington Post.

Raleigh is in district 4.

Charlotte is in district 12.

North Carolina congressional districts

edited Nov 15 '18 at 2:45

community wiki

7 revs, 4 users 67%
BurnsBA

38

Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.

– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 '18 at 18:45

3

Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.

– fredsbend
Nov 12 '18 at 23:07

5

@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 '18 at 18:54

8

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 '18 at 19:04

13

@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 '18 at 22:50

|
show 21 more comments

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.

Data from Washington Post.

Raleigh is in district 4.

Charlotte is in district 12.

North Carolina congressional districts

edited Nov 15 '18 at 2:45

community wiki

7 revs, 4 users 67%
BurnsBA

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.

Data from Washington Post.

Raleigh is in district 4.

Charlotte is in district 12.

North Carolina congressional districts

edited Nov 15 '18 at 2:45

community wiki

7 revs, 4 users 67%
BurnsBA

edited Nov 15 '18 at 2:45

community wiki

7 revs, 4 users 67%
BurnsBA

community wiki

7 revs, 4 users 67%
BurnsBA

community wiki

7 revs, 4 users 67%
BurnsBA

38

Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.

– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 '18 at 18:45

3

Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.

– fredsbend
Nov 12 '18 at 23:07

5

@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 '18 at 18:54

8

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 '18 at 19:04

13

@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 '18 at 22:50

|
show 21 more comments

38

Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.

– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 '18 at 18:45

3

Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.

– fredsbend
Nov 12 '18 at 23:07

5

@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 '18 at 18:54

8

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 '18 at 19:04

13

@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 '18 at 22:50

Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.

– PoloHoleSet
Nov 12 '18 at 18:45

Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.

– fredsbend
Nov 12 '18 at 23:07

@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 '18 at 18:54

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 '18 at 19:04

@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 '18 at 22:50