The biggest threat from losing the 2010 elections? Losing almost every election after that.

[Dark]

It's called redistricting, and it's done in 2011. After the 2010 elections and http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/112505-gop-could-dominate-state-redistricting-after-election">census.

It's done on the state level. And if the GOP conquers enough state houses, that means GERRYMANDERING.

For those who don't know, that's when a state draws its new districts based on the census. But, instead of simply creating logical districts (i.e., like squares, triangles or other simple shapes), it redraws them in twisting monstrosities that make no sense demographically but makes perfect sense politically. That's because whoever's in power can draw the lines to ensure that only their party wins each election.

It's a complicated maneuver, but it basically makes it impossible for a challenger to knock out the powerful party. It carefully balances conservatives, moderates and liberals so that the district will always slimly elect the Republican (or Democrat, depending on who's doing the redistricting).

And guess what: next year, after this upcoming and supposed huge election of republicans, it'll be time to redistrict. If the GOP is in charge, that means they can alter the power balance of the House for the next 10 years in their favor, as well as a multitude of state house and state senate races.

THAT'S the biggest danger from the Democrats losing the election. Because there's no redos on this until 2021.

[Rowdyboy]

1. Glad someone else sees it....

We've worked for almost a decade to get ready for redistricting and now its all being pissed away.

Maybe in 2020....

[Dark]

6. Problem is, people are threatening to stay home. They don't understand that if they lose this vote,

their other votes down the line could become irrelevant, as the R party will always win.

No matter how much money or time they donate, their side will lose the house election until 2021.

[Rowdyboy]

14. You'd think people would have learned after the debacle of 2000

and how the Rethugs rigged Texas to steal 1/2 dozen house seats or more but the public is incredibly self-centered and rarely considers the results of their actions. Hell I know educated, adult gay men who vote Republican! Hows that for self-centered and out-of-touch.

Never underestimate the power of ignorance. Its a gift that just keeps on giving.

[DJ13]

2. You dont have to convince Dem voters

Its our elected representatives who have dropped the ball by not trying to maintain the confidence of the voters.

[AndyA]

10. +1. We have a winner!

We the people have already done our part. We did it in 2006 and 2008. We worked, donated time and money, and got the Democrats in power with enough of a majority to bring us change we could believe in.

And what did they give us in return for that?

Gay equality. Nope. Still waiting for DADT to be dealt with. No rush, though, it's just careers at stake.

Health care we can all afford. Nope. We wound up with a watered down, mandatory health care bill that does nothing to control costs or provide competition. No public option. And you buy it or you get fined.

Transparency. Not hardly. It was promised, but not delivered.

Yes, the Democrats have done some good things, too. But not enough of the important stuff has been dealt with. And the reasons for not wanting to vote this year are far and wide, and legitimate. Why keep voting when the promises made aren't kept?

The "we're not as bad as they are" theory isn't going to do it. The Democrats have wasted the last four years by taking impeachment of Bush off the table, and giving in to corporate America time after time after time.

The Democrats in Congress have no one to blame but themselves. And the progressive citizens are the ones who will pay the highest price.

Thanks a lot, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Rahm Emanuel, Max Baucus, etc.

[Fumesucker]

13. +10 Exactly, it's not about the voters it's about the politicians..

[Poboy]

12. Our Dem reps have also done NOTHING about the magic box voting, -nt

[OHdem10]

3. Tell the Democrats on the Hill to get out there and fight back.

For once in their political life--sell the Democratic Party
and what it stands for.

[RandomThoughts]

4. The districting should be done double blind.

The data should be correlated, but the people that do the redistricting should not know the location or types of groups.


So some mathematician should get all the statistical data of populations, break them up into same size segments, put them on a linked graph outside of the actual geographic location.

So that the people don't know what district is what, and have to divide them up by population and location, but without knowing the actual geographic location.


It would solve that issue.

Pretty simple to solve that problem for both sides if people wanted to. But would they want to?


To make it more clearer, the first group divides using natural city and geographic boundries to form segmented groups that are smaller then any district. The second group then mixes them up, keeping groups next to each other together, but without knowing where they actually are. So basically making a map that can not tell where the locations are by density.

Then the final group assembles districts from those small parts, and then you have districts only based on non political locations.

[Dark]

5. We had a constitutional amendment here in Ohio in 2004 that would have mandated a bipartisan

commission work on the redistricting to ensure fairness on the ballot in 2004. It failed.

But the gay marriage amendment ban passed. And I think one other amendment did to involving voting absentee.

[RandomThoughts]

7. Even bipartisanship does not work.

On that issue much of it is made to help incumbency, not party. Just remove the ability to make a choice by information that should not matter, by not having that information included when making the districts.

[Dark]

8. I would agree that the double blind is the ideal solution, but this would have improved things

in this battleground state.

Instead, we'll probably have a repub doing the redistricting. which means more repubs from Ohio in the house.

[zipplewrath]

9. They don't have to wait

As Texas demonstrated, anytime the opposition takes over the state house, they can do redistricting. Texas did so to pick up more GOP seats.

[damntexdem]

11. And it's called Diebold and machine voting.

But that danger persists even with a Dem majority nationally.