Monopoly Politics
“The national landscape in 2018 tilts in favor of Republicans with Republicans sitting on 208 safe seats, 10 seats away from a majority, and 22 additional and not projected seats leaning Republican(too close to call).” It would take Democrats casting 55% of the votes in a national two-party election to tip the House majority the other way. It is possible as it did happen in 2008 when there was a 57% turnout.
What makes the following projections disturbing is the accuracy of Fair Vote projections does not take into consideration polls, demographic characteristics of the districts, incumbent’s voting record, any scandals, or money spent. The basis for these projections are the presidential election results (both in the district and nationally) from 2016, and an incumbent’s performance in prior elections. The only changes incorporated are when incumbents announce they will not seek re-election or when a state redraws congressional district lines. The methodology in the report is in detail with the only overwhelmingly important factor being a district’s partisanship measured only by the relative presidential vote in that district.
I have advocated for much smaller congressional districts along the lines of what is in Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution which would remove much of the ability to gerrymander, give greater representation to people, and make Congressional representations responsive to the interests of the district rather than a select group in power. Fair Vote advocates another way worth taking into consideration. Read more of the site for a explanation. The following is how they view the 2018 House election outcome
Rather than follow 538 or Princeton Consortium both of who made a mess out of the 2016 election, I picked up on Fair Vote Organization. With 435 House Seats being elected every two years, one could believe there would be a small number of incumbents reelected each cycle. It is safe to say, the percentage returning to office is projected at 86% by the Fair Vote Org. or 374 seats secured by incumbents. So much for a Blue Wave? Incumbents can feel relatively secure in returning to office regardless of the opponent, how much is spent, or type of partisan wave occurring. The following chart represents 2018 Projections including Toss-Ups.
Supporting their bold projections is a legacy of accuracy in 2012, 2014 and 2016 for 1,062 House races and missing only once (1). 99.9% correct is a good accuracy rate to have. The 2018 report shows the most ossified electoral landscape yet, being the first year we have projected more than 370 seats at this degree of confidence. Fair Vote does have a map on site showing each congressional seat as an equal area and which ones are in play (yellow seats). The purple seats are all safe enough to be projected with high confidence.
In addition to 374 high-confidence projections, Fair Vote also projects favorites for the other 61 seats with a lower level of confidence. 40 of the 61 seats favor one party over the other, not enough to warrant a projection, and leaves only 21 true “toss up” seats leaning slightly lean to one party.
Previous projections for all 435 seats in 2016 were remarkably accurate including those made for the lower confidence seats. Of the 56 seats Fair Vote did not project; but which favored one of the parties, Fair Vote was right in 50 picks or 89.3% correct. Of the 18 seats identified as “toss ups” with a slight lean to one of the parties; Fair Vote was right in 12 or 66.7% correct. In 2016 Fair Votes full projections were correct in 423 of 435 districts or 97.2% correct. The clincher was the projections were made more than two years before the 2016 elections. The following chart represents current projections, favored, and a breakdown of tossups.
Our ’18 House Projections: Monopoly Politics Remains in Place, Fair Vote Organization
@run,
PEC didn’t make a “mess” of the 2016 election. Sam Wang predicted HRC would win and she did, by nearly 3 million votes. PEC failed to predict the directions of the margin-of-errors in three states that allowed the electoral college to appoint Trump over the will of the national vote.
Joel:
One of the purposes of the Electoral College is to prevent regional influences (California) from determining the election of a president which in this case applies to California. If you read my comments carefully, you will see I do advocate for smaller Congressional districts and wrote about such before. And no, HRC my preferred candidate did not win.
The EC worked in the way it was designed to given the aberration of the 1929 Reapportionment Act applied to it. Fix the problem and the solution is not a popular vote. The founding fathers got it right. We changed what they put in place and are reaping the results of that political change.
Millennials are beginning to “feel good”!
Low turnout likely, good for incumbents who are not trying a coup on Trump.
Who is excited about politics?
Many are excited about politics. Who turns out, as opposed to just being excited, is the question. That’s why they hold the election.
Been doing what I can to push the state and local candidates along with my support monetarily and knowledge wise. We need to win.
“Monopoly Politics” is the fact that 534 or so of 535 CONgressional seats are held by Rethuglicans and Dumbocrats who are ALL 100% controlled by Wall Street, the big banks and the military-industrial complex. Your vote only matters if you really give a flying you-know-what who gets to use what public bathroom.
Republicans aren’t sitting on 208 safe seats. That is pure hoot and a con in numbers. Put it this way simply, in Republican leaning indies are the biggest swing group while Democratic leaning indies are the 2nd.
%%% of the electorate can swing like mad sir, especially in this environment. That also tells the story of the 2016 election where Trump kept the bulk of Republican leaning indies why Clinton lost a larger share, setting the stage for the electoral upset. Why that happened is irrelevant. It just describes the electorate.
Things don’t repeat and indeed, if Republican indies don’t come out this election, they are going to take huge losses…….and not in “strong blue” areas.
“If you read my comments carefully . . .”
I read your comments carefully. Here is the comment I replied to, carefully copied and pasted:
“Rather than follow 538 or Princeton Consortium both of who made a mess out of the 2016 election, I picked up on Fair Vote Organization.”
Your reply is a non sequitur. I know and understand how the EC works and its history.
My point stands, unrebutted. PEC didn’t make a mess our the 2016 election. Wang accurately predicted that HRC would win the popular vote and the states that made the difference in the EC were within the margin of error.
1. HRC did not win.
2. “It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug”. Sam Wang did make a mistake in forecasting her win with that statement which usurps any margin of error. Perhaps, you had not heard of his promise? Just by making that statement he destroyed whatever credibility he had.
3. One state casting non represented 2 or 3 million votes in the House or EC is an issue.
4. Quit trying to hijack the thread with your comments.
5. Had to correct how he said it.
Joel:
Take a break for tonight.
Clinton won. Trump cheated.
Nobody cheated. People just did not vote or voted for the Communist Party in Michigan or the Libertarians. It is there the difference lies for Michigan and I believe also for Wisconsin. The Republicans lies certainly did not help as well as people being upset about not being paid attention too which Trump did.