Are you sure you want to delete this post?
The case the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on came from Wisconsin, a state where Democrats won the popular vote in state elections by 167,797 in 2012, but only got 39 seats in the Wisconsin General Assembly compared to the Republicans 60 seats. In other words, the loser "won" 21 more seats than the winner.
And Wisconsin is not alone. Neighboring Michigan saw Democrats win over 18,000 more votes than Republicans for the Michigan State House, but Republicans have a 63-47 advantage in that chamber.
Nation wide, in 2016 Republicans won 49.11% of the popular vote in House elections to the Democrats 48.03%, but yet have a 55.4% to 44.6% majority. And that's in a year where many so called Democrats stayed home and boycotted because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary.
I can go on and on and on, but simply blaming the Democrats for being an ineffective party just glosses over a much bigger story, which is hyper partisan gerrymandering thwarts the will of the people in this supposed democracy.
When more people vote for one party, but still "lose" bigly (as Donald likes to say) then something is wrong. I fear it will tear the country apart if it is allowed to continue unabated. How many more elections where Democrats win more of the popular vote but still "lose" in the end do you think it'll take before people say enough is enough?