REDMAP : the REDistricting MAjority Project

While Democrats have been focusing on national elections, Republicans have been working elsewhere ...

After the 2008 election, the Republican Party launched a strategy called the REDistricting MAjority Project, or REDMAP. The strategy shifted GOP focus towards state legislative elections in an effort to control the redistricting process following the 2010 census. REDMAP was successful, netting Republicans more than 660 state legislative seats in November 2010.

Heading into the redistricting process, the GOP took over both legislative chambers in 25 states and had control of the legislature and governorship in 21 states. They used this advantage to realign districts in their favor, securing Republican-controlled seats and allowing for some states to elect Republican majorities while losing the popular vote. For example, Democrats in Michigan won more than 54 percent of the vote in state House elections yet ended up with only 51 of the 110 seats.

The GOP control on the state level has also been used to pass voter ID and registration laws that Democrats argue were intended to restrict minority voting. Republicans also made use of their majorities to pass measures limiting abortion, unions and same-sex marriage.

State Legislative Elections 2014 - Balletopedia.com


REDMAP is a blatant effort directed by the Republican State Leadership Committee to gain control of State legislatures in order to control districting at the State level and thereby control State legislatures .

There is an official website for the project: Redistricting Majority Project

This following quote is from the front page of their site, designed to be the welcoming sign and statement of purpose, perhaps ...

Election Day 2010 proved to be an even bigger “wave” election at the state level than anticipated. Republicans flipped at least 19 legislative bodies to Republican control and hold majorities in 10 of the 15 states that will gain or lose U.S. House seats and where the legislature plays a role in redrawing the map.

Republicans have an opportunity to create 20-25 new Republican Congressional Districts through the redistricting process over the next five election cycles, solidifying a Republican House majority.

We could not have succeeded and cannot continue to succeed without your support – Join Us Today.

This was a very successful strategy in 2010, 2012 and now 2014:

Republicans injected $30 million -- much of it from dark money contributions -- into state races in 2010, often targeting vulnerable blue state Democrats in races that wouldn't otherwise draw a lot of national funding. ProPublica reported last month that the Democratic counterpart only raised $10 million. When the midterm elections were done, Republicans had gained unilateral control of 11 state legislatures, upping their total to 25. Between then and the 2012 elections, GOP lawmakers in these states had largely undisputed power over redrawing congressional districts.

Source - Huffington Post

Some are calling the 2014 Election the "Year of Dark Money" pointing to a massive increase in the level of untraceable unreported political contributions ...

In 2014, campaign finance reform has given way to dark money, with unknown sources of indirect campaign spending dropping hundreds of millions of dollars to influence federal races.

“Who are these people, and what do they want with the state’s Senate race? Who are these interests, and what is motivating them?” asked Sheila Krumholz, director of the Center of Responsive Politics, in reference to the burgeoning political fundraising tactic.

Dark money, about $200 million of which has been spent nationally this election cycle, is secretive money generated by nonprofit organizations whose primary purposes are not legally considered "political".

Source - 2014 Dark Money
america.aljazeera.com...

Dark Money ... *shiver* ... sounds scary. But wait, does this dark money only go to Federal elections, like the Senate?

Republicans injected $30 million -- much of it from dark money contributions -- into state races in 2010, often targeting vulnerable blue state Democrats in races that wouldn't otherwise draw a lot of national funding. ProPublica reported last month [Dec. 2012 - note] that the Democratic counterpart only raised $10 million. When the midterm elections were done, Republicans had gained unilateral control of 11 state legislatures, upping their total to 25. Between then and the 2012 elections, GOP lawmakers in these states had largely undisputed power over redrawing congressional districts.

Source - REDMAP Memo Admits Gerrymandering Efforts

So, what say you ATS, does the Republican Win reflect the will of the people at large?

Or a few very rich individuals with money to burn?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDIT: May I request that comments regarding the nature of the sources be kept to a minimum unless there is clear evidence presented that the statements are in factual error? Thanks.

I guess to me this matters about as much as the Dems pushing for a black vote and using a black presidential candidate to win it. Both sides do the same things to win.....doesn't make either correct, but they use what they can to win a majority. Why do you think the immigration laws are being pushed so hard by Dems...they put all their eggs into the minority basket, and while in the short term that worked, it largely cornered them and now they have no way out.

Oh, and yes, I think the Republican win reflects the will of the people that actually got out to vote....hence the majority. Sitting back and complaining about them winning, because Dems didn't get out to vote, makes it a majority win for them.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Thanks, Vasa Croe for your comments!

Would you say then that race is only an valid political issue when Republicans want to make it one? Because it seems to me that anytime a Democrat or moderate brings it up, they're always charged with "playing the race card."

Different strokes for different folks, is it? LOL.

Was the choice of Presidential candidate in 2008 was dictated by the DNC, and not actually voted on by the People in the nationwide primary process?

And this is, of course, the same as an OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN massive nationwide effort to throw dark money at State legislative elections in ORDER TO CONTROL CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING.

The Republican wins represent a victory margin of about 5 - 8% nationwide. Hardly a landslide or a mandate, in most considerations, and no more than 2-3% at best of registered voters.

And given the goal of gerrymandering and political redistricting plainly admitted by the REDMAP effort ... coupled with the huge influx of Dark Money into Republican campaigning efforts?

It seems like comparing apples and artichokes to me, Vasa C, but thanks for your input!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Thanks, Vasa Croe for your comments!

Would you say then that race is only an valid political issue when Republicans want to make it one? Because it seems to me that anytime a Democrat or moderate brings it up, they're always charged with "playing the race card."

Different strokes for different folks, is it? LOL.

Was the choice of Presidential candidate in 2008 was dictated by the DNC, and not actually voted on by the People in the nationwide primary process?

And this is, of course, the same as an OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN massive nationwide effort to throw dark money at State legislative elections in ORDER TO CONTROL CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING.

The Republican wins represent a victory margin of about 5 - 8% nationwide. Hardly a landslide or a mandate, in most considerations, and no more than 2-3% at best of registered voters.

And given the goal of gerrymandering and political redistricting plainly admitted by the REDMAP effort ... coupled with the huge influx of Dark Money into Republican campaigning efforts?

It seems like comparing apples and artichokes to me, Vasa C, but thanks for your input!

Actually I hate political discussions. I will say that, historically, the Democratic party has done more to push racial divide. Their long term goal has always been divide and conquer, though they can't figure out how to get their half to the polls.

I would say that the numbers you quote truly don't matter as far as polls go and who supports who. What matters is how many people on either side vote......looks like for midterms it was Republicans who did....we will see for 2016.

Either way.....I like who I like and it really doesn't matter to me who opposes who I like. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I see more advantages to Republican than Democrat and am not really into giving my money away to those that choose not to try.

If you ask me, both parties do shady crap to win elections and neither party represents the majority will of the American people.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
If you ask me, both parties do shady crap to win elections and neither party represents the majority will of the American people.

The Red pigs and the Blue pigs feed from the same trough.
Too bad they are feeding on us.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I certainly cannot see the evidence for Democrats "pushing the racial divide" at least in a negative way; I don't consider standing up for equality, including racial equality, as divisive, or if it is, it needs to be.

I believe that every vote counts, Vasa Croe, not just the ones that go to the "winner" particularly considering the massive amounts of money, both dark and otherwise, that are brought to bear on campaigns.

I think there are a lot of reasons that the vast majority of the American people (more than 70%) did not vote in this election, distrust of those governing (or not governing as the case may be) being a primary reason.

And that distrust is hardly directed only at one of the two political parties.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
If you ask me, both parties do shady crap to win elections and neither party represents the majority will of the American people.

And I think that is the real politcal challenge of our time, Krazysh0t. How do we get the actual will of the People applied in our politics?

I can't see, personally, that allowing a few super-rich donors to throw billions of dollars at the process, or working to unfairly marginalize some voters (gerrymandering) contribute to that effort though.

What do you think we can do to move toward greater involvement in the process from a larger proportion of Americans?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

And I think that is the real politcal challenge of our time, Krazysh0t. How do we get the actual will of the People applied in our politics?

We cannot without fundamentally changing our funding and voting mechanisms.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66

And I think that is the real politcal challenge of our time, Krazysh0t. How do we get the actual will of the People applied in our politics?

We cannot without fundamentally changing our funding and voting mechanisms.

I absolutely agree! Do you think we should start at the Federal, State or local level, or is that just buying into the same tired paradigm that is currently failing?

And is it really the system itself that is failing, or is it rather the people involved in the system.

a reply to: Gryphon66

End lobbying or highly curtail it.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

eh you could argue that the republicans market themselves towards rural white voters... It's simple demographics.

What we're seeing here is what we've always seen in the US.

a divide between the urban and the rural.

(note rural includes "Small Town America").

this divide can be seen in the passing of prohibition, the main support/base of which came out of "dry counties", many of which were/are "Dry"
long after prohibition was repealed.

The American Civil War... (Rural/Agricultural south, vs Industrial/Urban North).

I Can't understand why the Democrats let this happen?

How come this wasn't a big campaign issue?

Very odd.

a reply to: Gryphon66

First past the post voting has more of an impact at the state and federal levels with the electoral college. The trade off is the chance for much higher levels of gridlock as smaller parties, with proportional representation, extort larger parties to form coalitions and the chance for much more frequent government breakdowns as these coalitions collapse and reform.

Even with proportional representation you still tend to get two larger parties a la the United Kingdom.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

End lobbying or highly curtail it.

That and legislation on funding parties.

A politician can not serve his or her electorate if they are financially owned and supported by certain factions and interests.

The lobbyists and campaign funders seriously pollute the democratic process and ethical government.

a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

For my part, I absolutely agree with both of your positions.

I am also very interested in being able to have some sort of National ID to make certain that there are as few bad votes as there can possibly be. A National ID, available to all legitimate citizens, would avoid any question of suppression at the State level.

If we're going to use electronic voting, there should be a way, in addition to the ID, to verify that a person is the person they claim to be ... fingerprint or retinal scans, etc.

Illinois may have been an exception to this rule.

Democrat Governor and Legislature for years.

Big victories for Republicans the other day without influence.

Illinois is a big RED map now !!

Obama's fault.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

For my part, I absolutely agree with both of your positions.

I am also very interested in being able to have some sort of National ID to make certain that there are as few bad votes as there can possibly be. A National ID, available to all legitimate citizens, would avoid any question of suppression at the State level.

If we're going to use electronic voting, there should be a way, in addition

to the ID, to verify that a person is the person they claim to be ... fingerprint or retinal scans, etc.

Except, voter ID wasn't the problem here. The Democrats obviously didn't think it important enough to either mail in their ballots or vote at the polls. The reason they don't think it's important????? Maybe they don't believe it makes any difference, yet it may in the future.

So many people claim two party system but they're both the same. If that's true then it REALLY doesn't matter who's in office. Regardless, If you look at past elections, many more democrats voted than this recent time, and it's not because they lost their ID. We do NOT need a national ID. So far, we have to have a Social Security ID, a state drivers license or ID, now a third form of ID? No thank you.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The operative word here is "REalign". They are simply putting the districts back to where they were before the blue side changed them to favor them. Both parties do it. What is your point, exactly? That sour grape taste lingering?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Illinois may have been an exception to this rule.

Democrat Governor and Legislature for years.

Big victories for Republicans the other day without influence.

Illinois is a big RED map now !!

Obama's fault.

Most states are red except for the urban centers where the low-IQ voters live. There are enough of them that they taint the whole state. Kinda like a turd in a punch bowl.

Too harsh? Too bad.