The RTD’s Bart Hinkle offers a brutal take down of Sen. Dick Saslaw’s contention that Senate Republicans “‘are trying to overrule the will of the people and claim a majority they did not earn'” because “‘half the state voted for Democrats.'” Bart says the opposite is true, and the reason is gerrymandering:
If Senate seats were apportioned according to aggregate vote totals, then Democrats would be entitled to 16, not 20. So how did they get 20? By drawing the new district lines in a manner guaranteed to favor Democratic candidates. Instead of letting voters choose, gerrymandering essentially lets parties assign voters to candidates.
One of the early narratives spun out of the general election was that the GOP wasted mounds of money and a rare opportunity to capture a clear Senate majority. And perhaps, in certain instances, they did. Every campaign does (consider the $222,000 the Democratic party wasted on Brandon Bell’s losing bid against Republican Ralph Smith).
But as I noted during the BD live blog of the election, “Gerrymandering is good, and it did very good for the Dems this year” (and yes, my meager grammar skills fail entirely after 10 PM).
That was the real story coming out of the election, and it wasn’t lost on Bart:
…Democrats redrew Senate district lines to give themselves maximum partisan advantage on Nov. 8 — and still received 232,000 fewer votes than Republicans did. They might have any number of good arguments for insisting that the Senate GOP share power. But “the will of the people” is not one of them.
If chastising Republicans for using the wrong message and blaming them for frittering away money and momentum makes you feel better, then have at it. But never forget that Senate Democrats drew the best lines they could for themselves (just as Republicans did in the House). Their actions helped them avoid a rout, but not enough to avoid losing control of the Senate.
But there’s another bright spot for the Republican faithful: take away the custom-made districts, and Democrats have nothing.
