If the Democrats won 2010 the gerrymandering would have been as bad the other way. That is how the game is played and always was.
US Elections If Every State Used The Maine/Nebraska System
- Thread starter Star Eater
- Start date
If the Democrats won 2010 the gerrymandering would have been as bad the other way. That is how the game is played and always was.
Apportioning state electoral votes by percentage of state votes won would mean the candidates would pay *less* attention to some (closely contested) small states than they now do.
For example, the major candidates do campaign in New Hampshire (not just in the primaries but in the general election). Why? Because in recent elections it has been reasonably close to the national average, and because in a close race its four electoral votes could be decisive (if Gore had carried it in 2000, he would have won even without Florida; if Kerry had lost it in 2004, he would have lost even if he had carried Ohio, etc.).
But with apportionment of the state's electoral votes, no candidate would pay any attention to New Hampshire once the primary there was over. Except in a a landslide year, the state's electoral votes would always be split 2-2. What would be the point of campaigning there?
Or take Iowa, with six electoral votes. As it is, the major candidates do campaign there (in the general election as well as for the caucuses). In a close race, its six electoral votes could be decisive. Again, it would be totally ignored after the caucus under proportional allocation. Why would a candidate care if she wins the state 53-47 or loses it 53-47? In either case, she will get three electoral votes there and her opponent three. The same analysis applies to Nevada, which also has six electoral votes.
Admittedly, proportional allocation would increase candidate attention to some small states--the "safe" ones. In Utah, the Democrats would try to get two of the state's six electoral votes, while the Republicans would try to hold them to one. But even most "safe" small states would get no more attention than they would today. Today nobody pays any attention to North Dakota because they know in advance that all three of its electoral votes will go Republican. Under proportional allocation, nobody will pay any attention to it because they know in advance that two of its three electoral votes will be Republican and one Democratic. The same applies in reverse to Delaware--everyone knows it will give two electoral votes to the Democrat and one to the Republican, so there would be no more point in campaigning there than there is today.
In short, the current system does *not* shortchange the small states. Rather, it shortchanges (in terms of the time candidates spend in a state except to raise funds) the *safe* states, large and small--in fact, *particularly* the large safe states which would otherwise get a lot of attention. It would after all make a difference whether the Republicans got 25 or only 20 of California's 55 electoral votes; and a similar analysis applies to the Democrats in Texas.
(The comparison with the primaries is flawed because the primaries are not held all at once, and the victories a candidate gains in the early small-state events can translate into momentum for the later, large-state primaries. Giuliani's mistake was to think he could write off everything before Florida--which left him at a fatal disadvantage in Florida itself. Hillary Clinton's mistake was insufficient organization in the *caucus* states, not in the small states as such.)
If the presidential elections were based on votes by districts, then the state legislators would gerrymander the districts even more than they do now.
I suspect that apportioning electoral votes in the electoral college based on the percentage of actual votes would mean the candidates would pay extra attention to votes with odd numbers of electoral votes, and pay less attention to the ones with even numbers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most states are somewhat close to evenly split between democrat votes and republican votes.
I think the most important thing for presidential elections is to reform campaign finance laws, find various means to weaken the power of organizations to acquire money for campaigns and still claim their organizations are independent of the campaigns. I also think we'd be better off if we had non-partisan primary elections, all at the same time. The different timings of elections of course bring an inexplicable amount of power to Iowa and New Hampshire for no apparent reason. And I'd like to take the parties out of the process because parties are independent organizations that have seeped into our system of government. I'm OK with members of parties being politicians. I'm not OK with them controlling every step of the process.
I've studied the issue of gerrymandering, and I've found that some countries already have the perfect solution. Have nonpartisan committees use computer algorithms to generate maps with compact districts, and then the committee members go out to the districts for public hearings where the ordinary people throw in their suggestions, and then the committees edit the maps based on those suggestions. This balances the objectiveness of computers with the wisdom of human beings. It also takes this power out of the hands of the state politicians who want to be congressmen -- the people who literally have the greatest conflict of interest in the matter of congressional districts, and therefore should not be trusted with this task.
The electoral college is a much smaller problem than these other issues. That said, any change to the electoral college would lead to interesting changes to history. So, it's a fun matter to discuss.
I suspect that apportioning electoral votes in the electoral college based on the percentage of actual votes would mean the candidates would pay extra attention to votes with odd numbers of electoral votes, and pay less attention to the ones with even numbers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most states are somewhat close to evenly split between democrat votes and republican votes.
I think the most important thing for presidential elections is to reform campaign finance laws, find various means to weaken the power of organizations to acquire money for campaigns and still claim their organizations are independent of the campaigns. I also think we'd be better off if we had non-partisan primary elections, all at the same time. The different timings of elections of course bring an inexplicable amount of power to Iowa and New Hampshire for no apparent reason. And I'd like to take the parties out of the process because parties are independent organizations that have seeped into our system of government. I'm OK with members of parties being politicians. I'm not OK with them controlling every step of the process.
I've studied the issue of gerrymandering, and I've found that some countries already have the perfect solution. Have nonpartisan committees use computer algorithms to generate maps with compact districts, and then the committee members go out to the districts for public hearings where the ordinary people throw in their suggestions, and then the committees edit the maps based on those suggestions. This balances the objectiveness of computers with the wisdom of human beings. It also takes this power out of the hands of the state politicians who want to be congressmen -- the people who literally have the greatest conflict of interest in the matter of congressional districts, and therefore should not be trusted with this task.
The electoral college is a much smaller problem than these other issues. That said, any change to the electoral college would lead to interesting changes to history. So, it's a fun matter to discuss.
They're always going to concentrate on big cities, regardless of the method that's used. The electoral college restricts campaigning to big cities in a few swing states. A national popular vote at least opens up campaigning to big cities in all 50 states.
Yes, Alaska's probably screwed either way, but at least under a national popular vote system, a candidate could get some good press AND some votes by campaigning in Anchorage. That's much less likely under the EC since Alaska's 3 electoral votes are a lock for Republicans in all but the biggest Democratic landslides.
You'd think Texas would be all over this -- not much campaigning in Houston, Dallas, Austin, etc., with the electoral college, but with a national popular vote, those would be very big campaign stops.
historynutty
Banned
I do believe 2012 would have changed, maybe 2008, 2000, even 1980.
I am assuming a candidate gets one EV for each Congressional district carried and two for the overall winner in a State.
NamelesStatistic
Banned
It is a bit sad that unless you are in a specific swing state your vote really doesn't count for anything. Hence why the spread of campaigning money is focused especially on some weird places (like New Hamphire)
I know it is Wikipedia, but just look at the graphic here showing how much money and physical time spent by either Kerry or Bush in the final 4 weeks of their campaigns in 2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state#Criticism
A bit sad when winning a national election really comes out to a campaign doling out the vast majority and attention to just a few key areas that represent just a fraction of the total population.
I suppose the root issue behind this is that it seems that pretty much 95% of the people in the US pretty much always vote the same way. In every elections, even if the electoral college is hugely in the favor of 1 party (suggesting a crushing victory) the popular vote is pretty much never wider than 10% difference (at least in the elections in the last decade or so). So when you can count on 45% of the country to oppose you and 45% of the country to support you no matter what you do, all that really matters is getting a bigger chunk of that remaining 10% that puts you over the top. Thus it makes sense to tailor your campaign pretty much entirely to cater to the interests of this key group of undecided voters, since it is pretty much their votes alone that determine the course of the election. It should be noted that this problem would not be solved by simply abandoning the electoral college. It may sound odd but what the US electoral system needs is a bit MORE volatility from voters.
As someone who comes from a Parliamentary country (Canada) the regularity of results in the US seems a bit odd. Here and in a lot of other Parliamentary countries it isn't odd for a party's share of the popular vote (and number of seats in parliament) to vacillate wildly (Just look at the collapse of the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois and the rise of the NDP in the Canadian Federal election in 2011). Anyone know why the voting results are so similar between elections in the US? Is it a function of having a 2 party presidential system or is it something to do with America in particular?
I know it is Wikipedia, but just look at the graphic here showing how much money and physical time spent by either Kerry or Bush in the final 4 weeks of their campaigns in 2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state#Criticism
A bit sad when winning a national election really comes out to a campaign doling out the vast majority and attention to just a few key areas that represent just a fraction of the total population.
I suppose the root issue behind this is that it seems that pretty much 95% of the people in the US pretty much always vote the same way. In every elections, even if the electoral college is hugely in the favor of 1 party (suggesting a crushing victory) the popular vote is pretty much never wider than 10% difference (at least in the elections in the last decade or so). So when you can count on 45% of the country to oppose you and 45% of the country to support you no matter what you do, all that really matters is getting a bigger chunk of that remaining 10% that puts you over the top. Thus it makes sense to tailor your campaign pretty much entirely to cater to the interests of this key group of undecided voters, since it is pretty much their votes alone that determine the course of the election. It should be noted that this problem would not be solved by simply abandoning the electoral college. It may sound odd but what the US electoral system needs is a bit MORE volatility from voters.
As someone who comes from a Parliamentary country (Canada) the regularity of results in the US seems a bit odd. Here and in a lot of other Parliamentary countries it isn't odd for a party's share of the popular vote (and number of seats in parliament) to vacillate wildly (Just look at the collapse of the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois and the rise of the NDP in the Canadian Federal election in 2011). Anyone know why the voting results are so similar between elections in the US? Is it a function of having a 2 party presidential system or is it something to do with America in particular?
Last edited:
In Canada -- a multi-party country with no form of proportional representation, one party does not need nearly the majority of votes to easily win the majority of seats in parliament. Whichever party wins the plurality of votes in the majority of districts will win the majority of districts, even if it didn't win the majority of votes. Because Canada is also a parliamentary country, the politicians in that majority of seats choose their party's top politicians to be ministers, although that party did not get nearly the majority of votes. It's an extremely inaccurate system. High-ranking politicians visit swing districts to get their guy to win, and then get rewarded with a vote for a cabinet position.
However, this is not what makes Canada's ridings swing more than the US's districts. What causes that is that Canada has effective systems in place to prevent gerrymandering, mainly their somewhat independent commissions that draw borders based on citizens' feedback. If Canadian politicians gerrymandered borders as much as the US did, it would have a system that doesn't swing much and is still extremely inaccurate.
In the United States, there are only two parties that have a chance to win in most offices, and the two parties are of similar size. So, an election of a politician in one district will accurately reflect which of the two politicians is more popular. But an election of the entire House of Representatives will not accurately reflect which party is more popular, just which parties won the majorities in the majority of districts. The United States' lack of gerrymandering restrictions means the politicians draw the districts to ensure narrow victories wherever possible, which leads to a less accurate and less swingy election system. However, because the parties happen to be evenly matched, the end result is almost always that the parties are evenly matched in the House. The same is true in the Senate.
The United States' electoral college puts elements of inaccuracy into the presidential election. If the president were directly elected, the end result of the election would be a more accurate reflection of what the people want. If the president were elected based on who wins the majority of districts, the elections would be less accurate, like in a parliamentary system. If he were elected based on who wins the majority of districts, with less gerrymandering, the end results would be inaccurate and swingy.
If the House of Representatives were elected with an effective form of proportional representation, than the end result of House elections would be an accurate reflection of what the people want, no matter how many parties there are. The same would be true if Canada adopted such a system. As it stands, Canada and the US both have inaccurate elections, but Canada's has maximum swinginess and the US has much higher stability. But the US elections don't have maximum stability. That sort of thing only happens in one-party dictatorships.
However, this is not what makes Canada's ridings swing more than the US's districts. What causes that is that Canada has effective systems in place to prevent gerrymandering, mainly their somewhat independent commissions that draw borders based on citizens' feedback. If Canadian politicians gerrymandered borders as much as the US did, it would have a system that doesn't swing much and is still extremely inaccurate.
In the United States, there are only two parties that have a chance to win in most offices, and the two parties are of similar size. So, an election of a politician in one district will accurately reflect which of the two politicians is more popular. But an election of the entire House of Representatives will not accurately reflect which party is more popular, just which parties won the majorities in the majority of districts. The United States' lack of gerrymandering restrictions means the politicians draw the districts to ensure narrow victories wherever possible, which leads to a less accurate and less swingy election system. However, because the parties happen to be evenly matched, the end result is almost always that the parties are evenly matched in the House. The same is true in the Senate.
The United States' electoral college puts elements of inaccuracy into the presidential election. If the president were directly elected, the end result of the election would be a more accurate reflection of what the people want. If the president were elected based on who wins the majority of districts, the elections would be less accurate, like in a parliamentary system. If he were elected based on who wins the majority of districts, with less gerrymandering, the end results would be inaccurate and swingy.
If the House of Representatives were elected with an effective form of proportional representation, than the end result of House elections would be an accurate reflection of what the people want, no matter how many parties there are. The same would be true if Canada adopted such a system. As it stands, Canada and the US both have inaccurate elections, but Canada's has maximum swinginess and the US has much higher stability. But the US elections don't have maximum stability. That sort of thing only happens in one-party dictatorships.
As I indicated earlier, 2012 would have changed; Romney won 226 congressional districts to Obama's 209. http://cookpolitical.com/file/2013-04-50.pdf
2008 and 2000 would not have changed. In 2008, Obama carried 242 congressional districts, McCain 193. http://blog.timesunion.com/rogergre...nebraska-rules-would-obama-still-have-won/380 In 2000 Bush won 228 congressional districts to 207 for Gore. http://www.polidata.org/press/wpr1c20z.pdf (Given that Gore actually won the popular vote and came very close to winning the Electoral College in OTL, this relatively comfortable Bush victory in congressional districts shows that a congressional-district method is somewhat weighted toward the Republicans even when they do not have a gerrymandering advantage-- because Democrats are hurt by the "clustering" effect.)
1980 would definitely not have been changed. Reagan carried 308 congressional districts that year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/ar...4484-af99-ce8254ac348a/?resType=accessibility I think the reason you mistakenly thought 1980 would have been changed is that the Democrats won the majority of House seats that year. But in those days there was a big difference between how people voted for president and how they voted for Congress. Especially in the South and border states many people voted for a Republican presidential candidate but for (usually conservative) Democrats for Congress. In Oklahoma, for example, Reagan carried all six congressional districts in 1980, yet the state elected five Democratic congressmen to only one Republican!
Incidentally, the congressional-district method would have elected Nixon in 1960. He carried 228 congressional districts to 206 for JFK and three for unpledged electors. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal64-1302939 (There were temporarily 437 House seats because of the admission of Alaska and Hawaii to the Union.)
The most interesting result would have been 1976. Carter won 220 congressional districts to Ford's 215--but Ford carried 27 states to Carter's 23. Result: a 269-269 tie and the election goes into the House! http://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...kennedy/f4a1ef3a-3df6-4dfd-aa3f-84932a88bd91/
There is just no getting around it: In any reasonably close election in recent decades, a congressional-districts apportionment (plus two votes at-large for the winner in the state) will favor the GOP in the Electoral College (though I think Carter would win in the House in 1976--the Democrats controlled more delegations). Once again, this is not due so much to the Republicans controlling redistricting (though they had an advantage in that respect after the 2010 election and even to a lesser extent after the 2000 one) as it is to the Democrats' "clustering" problem.
(Yes, I know it is unrealistic to assume that everyone would vote exactly as they did in OTL, but that doesn't change the basic point.)
Last edited:
OK. Let's take hypothetical state X. We'll say that it is 25% black and 75% white. We'll also say that the black voters of state X are 100% Democrats while the white voters are 60% Republicans. In state X as a whole, the Democrats would get 55% of the vote.
Now let's say that state X has four congressional districts--all with equal populations. District One is clustered in heavily black "X City" and is 100% black. The other three districts are in the suburban and rural parts of the state and are 100% white. So the Republicans win three of the state's four congressional districts--despite the state's Democratic majority.
In less extreme form, this actually happens.
NamelesStatistic
Banned
Thanks for the reply. I just want to say for the record though I wasn't implying that Canada's system was better than the US (Our Senate appointment system is an embarrassment to the fundamentals of democracy) I just found it interesting how much more volatile our, (and even other countries like the UK) elections are than those in the US. As you pointed out, much of this is do to the structure of the American system, but I wonder if this may have more to do with a stronger degree of loyalty to political parties in the US among voters? I don't really know anything about this, but from all the American News articles i have read over the years that mention the "Polarization" of us politics it seems like voters seem to be more and more entrenched with their unconditional support for one party over the other. I could be completely wrong about this as I have only ever seen the US political system as an outsider so feel free to correct me here.
PS: Obviously I wasn't comparing the US political system to a 1 party dictatorship. I know its fashionable to rag on the US political system now a days but it obviously bears no resemblance to something like China's 1 party system.
Also, you mention that Canada has systems in place to prevent Gerrymandering, while the US does not. Why is it then that the US doesn't also have federal laws to counter this? It doesn't seem like either party gets an especially large advantage from Gerrymandering (aside from the Bush/Gore election I don't think there was any other time in the last century a president got in office without the popular vote). Since neither country seems to get a decisive advantage from it, why don't both parties try to put legislation in place to prevent it? It would obviously look good for PR reasons and if the other party opposed the legislation they would look really dishonest. Is it because there are enough politicians in Washington that depend on Gerrymandering to maintain their seats to prevent this?
Last edited:
historynutty
Banned
bear in mid that most likely the State's black dem political class are A-Ok with this as they would much rather have ONE guaranteed black dem seat as opposed to TWO or THREE where the dem is probably White.
% of the 2012 vote to Obama/Romney against allocation of Congressman in the 2013-15 House of Representatives. I'll use the percentage of the vote won by Romney against the % of House seats won by Republicans in 2012.
This will only include states with 4 or more Representatives, and if the difference is larger than 10 points, I'll note it:
Republican "Gerrymanders"
Alabama: Romney 61%; Republicans 85% of the House seats
Arkansas: Romney 61%, Republicans 100%
Colorado: Romney 46%, Republicans 57%
Florida: Romney 49%, Republicans 62%
Georgia: Romney 53%, Republicans 64%
Indiana: Romney 54%, Republicans 78%
Kansas: Romney 60%, Republicans 100%
Kentucky: Romney 60%, Republicans 83%
Louisiana: Romney 58%, Republicans 83%
Michigan: Romney 45%, Republicans 64%
Mississippi: Romney 55%, Republicans 75%
Missouri: Romney 54%, Republicans 75%
North Carolina: Romney 50%, Republicans 69%
Ohio: Romney 48%, Republicans 75%
Oklahoma: Romney 67%, Republicans 100%
Pennsylvania: Romney 47%, Republicans 72%
South Carolina: Romney 55%, Republicans 86%
Tennessee: Romney 59%, Republicans 78%
Virginia: Romney 47%, Republicans 72%
Wisconsin: Romney 46%, Republicans 63%
Democratic "Gerrymanders"
Connecticut: Romney 41%, Republicans 0% of the House seats
Maryland: Romney 36%, Republicans 13%
Massachusetts: Romney 38%, Republicans 0%
New York: Romney 35%, Republicans 22%
Oregon: Romney 42%, Republicans 20%
So I've got 20 states where Republicans have the advantage, vs. 5 states where Democrats have the advantage. Distribute all these seats relatively proportionately to how each states Presidential vote looked, and suddenly their would have been a different Speaker of the House.
But let's be Politically Correct - both sides are just as bad.
This will only include states with 4 or more Representatives, and if the difference is larger than 10 points, I'll note it:
Republican "Gerrymanders"
Alabama: Romney 61%; Republicans 85% of the House seats
Arkansas: Romney 61%, Republicans 100%
Colorado: Romney 46%, Republicans 57%
Florida: Romney 49%, Republicans 62%
Georgia: Romney 53%, Republicans 64%
Indiana: Romney 54%, Republicans 78%
Kansas: Romney 60%, Republicans 100%
Kentucky: Romney 60%, Republicans 83%
Louisiana: Romney 58%, Republicans 83%
Michigan: Romney 45%, Republicans 64%
Mississippi: Romney 55%, Republicans 75%
Missouri: Romney 54%, Republicans 75%
North Carolina: Romney 50%, Republicans 69%
Ohio: Romney 48%, Republicans 75%
Oklahoma: Romney 67%, Republicans 100%
Pennsylvania: Romney 47%, Republicans 72%
South Carolina: Romney 55%, Republicans 86%
Tennessee: Romney 59%, Republicans 78%
Virginia: Romney 47%, Republicans 72%
Wisconsin: Romney 46%, Republicans 63%
Democratic "Gerrymanders"
Connecticut: Romney 41%, Republicans 0% of the House seats
Maryland: Romney 36%, Republicans 13%
Massachusetts: Romney 38%, Republicans 0%
New York: Romney 35%, Republicans 22%
Oregon: Romney 42%, Republicans 20%
So I've got 20 states where Republicans have the advantage, vs. 5 states where Democrats have the advantage. Distribute all these seats relatively proportionately to how each states Presidential vote looked, and suddenly their would have been a different Speaker of the House.
But let's be Politically Correct - both sides are just as bad.
Gerrymandering isn't really for Presidential elections, it instead gives control of Congress by shaping the district vote. However, another problem is the GOP is made up of groups that are more likely to vote in Congressional elections period.
Also, yes, Americans do identify very strongly with their political parties. Many progressives and Tea Partiers see the other party as a social menace. Since 2000, Republlicans and Democrats seem to be forming different cultures of sorts; they live in different states, drive different cars, watch different TV shows, view things with different perspectives. There are multiple pop-psychology articles stating that conservatives and liberals view things in different ways. People want to believe they're different from what they hate, so they make sure about it.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Yes, but if every state used the Maine/Nebraska system to apportion their electoral votes, it would be.
Those are all even-number of EV states, which are also close to 50-50. Thus it is unlikely for the split to change. But a 50-50 state with three or five EV has an EV in play.
In fact, the key factor is whether the typical split of the popular vote would fall in the middle of an EV bound.
For three (or five, seven, or nine) seats, 50-50.
For four seats, 63-37.
For six seats, 58-42.
For eight seats, 56-44.
For ten seats, 55-45.
But this raises the question of whether this sort of playing for single EVs is worthwhile.
% of the 2012 vote to Obama/Romney against allocation of Congressman in the 2013-15 House of Representatives. I'll use the percentage of the vote won by Romney against the % of House seats won by Republicans in 2012.
This will only include states with 4 or more Representatives, and if the difference is larger than 10 points, I'll note it:
Republican "Gerrymanders"
Alabama: Romney 61%; Republicans 85% of the House seats
Arkansas: Romney 61%, Republicans 100%
Colorado: Romney 46%, Republicans 57%
Florida: Romney 49%, Republicans 62%
Georgia: Romney 53%, Republicans 64%
Indiana: Romney 54%, Republicans 78%
Kansas: Romney 60%, Republicans 100%
Kentucky: Romney 60%, Republicans 83%
Louisiana: Romney 58%, Republicans 83%
Michigan: Romney 45%, Republicans 64%
Mississippi: Romney 55%, Republicans 75%
Missouri: Romney 54%, Republicans 75%
North Carolina: Romney 50%, Republicans 69%
Ohio: Romney 48%, Republicans 75%
Oklahoma: Romney 67%, Republicans 100%
Pennsylvania: Romney 47%, Republicans 72%
South Carolina: Romney 55%, Republicans 86%
Tennessee: Romney 59%, Republicans 78%
Virginia: Romney 47%, Republicans 72%
Wisconsin: Romney 46%, Republicans 63%
Democratic "Gerrymanders"
Connecticut: Romney 41%, Republicans 0% of the House seats
Maryland: Romney 36%, Republicans 13%
Massachusetts: Romney 38%, Republicans 0%
New York: Romney 35%, Republicans 22%
Oregon: Romney 42%, Republicans 20%
So I've got 20 states where Republicans have the advantage, vs. 5 states where Democrats have the advantage. Distribute all these seats relatively proportionately to how each states Presidential vote looked, and suddenly their would have been a different Speaker of the House.
But let's be Politically Correct - both sides are just as bad.
Obviously, the Republcans had the advantage in redistricting after 2010--and used it. For every Illinois or Maryland, there was a Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc.
But it is quite wrong to classify Colorado as a Republican gerrymander. The Colorado Supreme Court in fact adopted a plan backed by the Democrats! http://www.denverpost.com/ci_19473229 Obama carried four of the seven congressional districts in 2012. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...RMSuxbaOBdg/pub?single=true&gid=0&output=html However, although Republican Congressman Michael Coffman was greatly weakened in the 6th Congressional District by the inclusion of all of Aurora in the district--and Obama in fact carried the district--Coffman managed to be narrowly re-elected. (In spite of his having said that Obama was "not an American" at heart, though he later apologized. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_20642001/mike-coffman-says-obama-not-an-american-at http://www.denverpost.com/ci_20694265/mike-coffman-comment-was-inappropriate-boneheaded?source=pkg) The Democrats just performed below their potential in the Colorado congressional races; they were not "gerrymandered."
One other detail: Nixon would still have gotten an Electoral College majority under the Maine/Nebraska system in 1968. Nixon carried 225 congressional districts, Humphrey 163 plus the District of Columbia, Wallace 47. Adding the bonus electors for states won, Nixon would get 289 electoral votes, Humphrey 192, and Wallace 57. https://news.google.com/newspapers?...o9YAAAAIBAJ&sjid=F_gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7414,4073442
I don't know how partisan American people are compared to Canadian people. What I do know is that all the statistics I hear say that 40% of Americans are independent, 30% are democrats, and 30% are republican. I don't know how this compared to the Canadian system. I also heard on the radio about a study that indicated that the American people are not growing more polarized, though the American politicians are.
One of the reasons the United States doesn't reform its gerrymandering system is that the constitution puts that power in the hands of the states, rather than the federal government. One reason is just what you said about politicians benefiting from it. The state legislators in power are benefiting from it, some of them hope to continue benefiting by taking office in the House of Representatives, and the Representatives also benefit from it very much. just as you said.
Two of the reasons are by the presidential structure.
1) It's difficult to get a majority in the House and Senate and a President who are all willing to change one particular thing. This poses a problem when trying to make the country better, but it also protects us from people who try to make the country worse.
2), because power is divided between two houses, and the president and Supreme Court, you can't get people to agree to which one is most in need of reforming. Some people say the electoral college is in most need of reforming. Some say the districting system is in most need of reforming. So, they talk about the issues for a while and can't come to an agreement to write to the their congresspeople about. Also, most people dramatically underestimate the power of the House of Representatives and the state legislators, and overestimate the president. So, talks of redistricting tend to turn into talks about the Electoral College, and then reach the conclusion that the Electoral College almost always produces the president the majority voted for, and then the people drop the issue. In Canada, almost all the power is in the House of Commons, so the people all agree that it's important to make the House elections more fair.
So, I suppose an advantage of giving the Maine/Nebraska system to the whole country is that after a few presidential elections that are rigged by the people who drew the districts, eventually there will be enough political will to reform the system of drawing districts. But that may not be the case, either. Some people will be more interested in bringing the Electoral College back to its former state, some people will be more interested in getting rid of the Electoral College, and a lot of them won't care how unfair the elections are in the House of Representatives.
PS, does anyone have any data on how many people voted for the politicians in the House of Representatives, by party? It's not exactly fair to use the presidential votes in a state to measure how accurate the elections for the House are. They're two different elections.