Re:Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
by stonogo on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @06:16PM
(#17086928)
You are pretending that a 'wave election' is a thing that people decide to do, instead of a label applied after the fact as a descriptive aid after the occurrence of the circumstances you describe. In other words, this is circular logic.
In practice, heavily-gerrymandered districts rarely swing parties, and when they do, they almost always swing back.
Re:Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
by dragonwriter on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @06:26PM
(#17086970)
You are pretending that there aren't circumstances that have an observed relation to systematic deviations from median election results that people can observe to understand that a wave election is more likely to happen in a particular election.
Re:Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
by stonogo on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @10:41PM
(#17088306)
I'm not pretending it: I'm asserting it.
If there is a wave election in November, gerrymandering backfires and ends up losing you more seats than you hope to gain through it. You pack the districts so that you win with 55% to 45%, except for a district here or there which will go 10% to 90%.
In a wave election, it only takes a shift of 5-6% in those gerrymandered districts for them to be lost.