Did the Republicans take 10 of 13 Congressional seats in the 2018 North Carolina US general election with...
up vote
60
down vote
favorite
This image has been shared on social media
Transcription:
Gerrymandering in North Carolina
- 1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats
- 1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats
Example sources: [1], [2], [3]
Are these numbers correct?
united-states politics voting
asked 18 hours ago
DJClayworth
39.3k14155160
add a comment |
up vote
60
down vote
favorite
This image has been shared on social media
Transcription:
Gerrymandering in North Carolina
- 1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats
- 1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats
Example sources: [1], [2], [3]
Are these numbers correct?
united-states politics voting
asked 18 hours ago
DJClayworth
39.3k14155160
add a comment |
up vote
60
down vote
favorite
up vote
60
down vote
favorite
This image has been shared on social media
Transcription:
Gerrymandering in North Carolina
- 1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats
- 1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats
Example sources: [1], [2], [3]
Are these numbers correct?
united-states politics voting
asked 18 hours ago
DJClayworth
39.3k14155160
This image has been shared on social media
Transcription:
Gerrymandering in North Carolina
- 1,747,742 votes for Democrats = 3 Congressional seats
- 1,638,684 votes for Republicans = 10 Congressional seats
Example sources: [1], [2], [3]
Are these numbers correct?
united-states politics voting
united-states politics voting
asked 18 hours ago
DJClayworth
39.3k14155160
asked 18 hours ago
DJClayworth
39.3k14155160
edited 7 hours ago
asked 18 hours ago
DJClayworth
39.3k14155160
asked 18 hours ago
DJClayworth
39.3k14155160
asked 18 hours ago
DJClayworth
39.3k14155160
39.3k14155160
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
71
down vote
Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin - probably due to different sources and time of capture).
According to the 2018 House election results (I used this handy Washington Post page), adding up numbers for NC, will give you the total of 1,748,173 votes for Democrats and 1,643,790 for Republicans - very close to the claim.
Ten of the seats went to Republicans and three to Democrats (Districts 1, 4, and 12), with most Republican wins being quite narrow and Democrats wins overwhelming.
district D R
1 188074 81486
2 148959 167382
4 242002 80546
5 118558 158444
6 122323 159651
7 119606 155705
8 112971 140347
9 136478 138338
10 112386 164060
11 115824 177230
12 202228 74639
13 128764 145962
Note: One caveat is that the Republican representative for District 3 ran uncontested. That is, it would be more appropriate to say that the result is 9 vs 3, as the total numbers don't include the voters in 3rd district.
edited 16 hours ago
Oddthinking♦
98.2k30406512
answered 16 hours ago
sashkello
2,35212136
17
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
16 hours ago
30
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
16 hours ago
16
@jwenting: They're not really "larger" - US Congressional districts (within a given state) all have roughly equal population, or did as of the last census. All we're seeing here is the number of people who voted - that turnout is some fraction of those eligible, which in turn is some fraction of the total population (non-citizens, minors, etc). Those fractions of course can vary between districts.
– Nate Eldredge
15 hours ago
17
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
18
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
13
down vote
This is a community wiki supplement to the other answer, which makes the columns easier to read and shows vote difference for each district. 3rd party or other votes are not included.
district D R margin
------------------------------------------------
1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588
2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R)
3 * * * (R)
4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456
5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R)
6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R)
7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R)
8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R)
9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R)
10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R)
11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R)
12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589
13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R)
------------------------------------------------
total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383
* = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.
Data from Washington Post.
Raleigh is in district 4.
Charlotte is in district 12.
As a supplement, including 3rd party/other votes and District 3 votes would be informative. Unclear why those are left out here.
– chux
5 hours ago
@chux I found the data table difficult to read so reformatted it to make it easier. If you think it should include different data, please engage in the discussion in the original answer which already addresses why at least district 3 numbers are not included.
– BurnsBA
5 hours ago
1
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
3 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by Mad Scientist♦ 8 hours ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
71
down vote
Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin - probably due to different sources and time of capture).
According to the 2018 House election results (I used this handy Washington Post page), adding up numbers for NC, will give you the total of 1,748,173 votes for Democrats and 1,643,790 for Republicans - very close to the claim.
Ten of the seats went to Republicans and three to Democrats (Districts 1, 4, and 12), with most Republican wins being quite narrow and Democrats wins overwhelming.
district D R
1 188074 81486
2 148959 167382
4 242002 80546
5 118558 158444
6 122323 159651
7 119606 155705
8 112971 140347
9 136478 138338
10 112386 164060
11 115824 177230
12 202228 74639
13 128764 145962
Note: One caveat is that the Republican representative for District 3 ran uncontested. That is, it would be more appropriate to say that the result is 9 vs 3, as the total numbers don't include the voters in 3rd district.
edited 16 hours ago
Oddthinking♦
98.2k30406512
answered 16 hours ago
sashkello
2,35212136
17
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
16 hours ago
30
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
16 hours ago
16
@jwenting: They're not really "larger" - US Congressional districts (within a given state) all have roughly equal population, or did as of the last census. All we're seeing here is the number of people who voted - that turnout is some fraction of those eligible, which in turn is some fraction of the total population (non-citizens, minors, etc). Those fractions of course can vary between districts.
– Nate Eldredge
15 hours ago
17
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
18
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
71
down vote
Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin - probably due to different sources and time of capture).
According to the 2018 House election results (I used this handy Washington Post page), adding up numbers for NC, will give you the total of 1,748,173 votes for Democrats and 1,643,790 for Republicans - very close to the claim.
Ten of the seats went to Republicans and three to Democrats (Districts 1, 4, and 12), with most Republican wins being quite narrow and Democrats wins overwhelming.
district D R
1 188074 81486
2 148959 167382
4 242002 80546
5 118558 158444
6 122323 159651
7 119606 155705
8 112971 140347
9 136478 138338
10 112386 164060
11 115824 177230
12 202228 74639
13 128764 145962
Note: One caveat is that the Republican representative for District 3 ran uncontested. That is, it would be more appropriate to say that the result is 9 vs 3, as the total numbers don't include the voters in 3rd district.
edited 16 hours ago
Oddthinking♦
98.2k30406512
answered 16 hours ago
sashkello
2,35212136
17
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
16 hours ago
30
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
16 hours ago
16
@jwenting: They're not really "larger" - US Congressional districts (within a given state) all have roughly equal population, or did as of the last census. All we're seeing here is the number of people who voted - that turnout is some fraction of those eligible, which in turn is some fraction of the total population (non-citizens, minors, etc). Those fractions of course can vary between districts.
– Nate Eldredge
15 hours ago
17
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
18
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
71
down vote
up vote
71
down vote
Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin - probably due to different sources and time of capture).
According to the 2018 House election results (I used this handy Washington Post page), adding up numbers for NC, will give you the total of 1,748,173 votes for Democrats and 1,643,790 for Republicans - very close to the claim.
Ten of the seats went to Republicans and three to Democrats (Districts 1, 4, and 12), with most Republican wins being quite narrow and Democrats wins overwhelming.
district D R
1 188074 81486
2 148959 167382
4 242002 80546
5 118558 158444
6 122323 159651
7 119606 155705
8 112971 140347
9 136478 138338
10 112386 164060
11 115824 177230
12 202228 74639
13 128764 145962
Note: One caveat is that the Republican representative for District 3 ran uncontested. That is, it would be more appropriate to say that the result is 9 vs 3, as the total numbers don't include the voters in 3rd district.
edited 16 hours ago
Oddthinking♦
98.2k30406512
answered 16 hours ago
sashkello
2,35212136
Yes, the numbers are correct (within an error margin - probably due to different sources and time of capture).
According to the 2018 House election results (I used this handy Washington Post page), adding up numbers for NC, will give you the total of 1,748,173 votes for Democrats and 1,643,790 for Republicans - very close to the claim.
Ten of the seats went to Republicans and three to Democrats (Districts 1, 4, and 12), with most Republican wins being quite narrow and Democrats wins overwhelming.
district D R
1 188074 81486
2 148959 167382
4 242002 80546
5 118558 158444
6 122323 159651
7 119606 155705
8 112971 140347
9 136478 138338
10 112386 164060
11 115824 177230
12 202228 74639
13 128764 145962
Note: One caveat is that the Republican representative for District 3 ran uncontested. That is, it would be more appropriate to say that the result is 9 vs 3, as the total numbers don't include the voters in 3rd district.
edited 16 hours ago
Oddthinking♦
98.2k30406512
answered 16 hours ago
sashkello
2,35212136
edited 16 hours ago
Oddthinking♦
98.2k30406512
edited 16 hours ago
Oddthinking♦
98.2k30406512
edited 16 hours ago
Oddthinking♦
98.2k30406512
98.2k30406512
answered 16 hours ago
sashkello
2,35212136
answered 16 hours ago
sashkello
2,35212136
answered 16 hours ago
sashkello
2,35212136
2,35212136
17
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
16 hours ago
30
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
16 hours ago
16
@jwenting: They're not really "larger" - US Congressional districts (within a given state) all have roughly equal population, or did as of the last census. All we're seeing here is the number of people who voted - that turnout is some fraction of those eligible, which in turn is some fraction of the total population (non-citizens, minors, etc). Those fractions of course can vary between districts.
– Nate Eldredge
15 hours ago
17
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
18
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
17
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
16 hours ago
30
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
16 hours ago
16
@jwenting: They're not really "larger" - US Congressional districts (within a given state) all have roughly equal population, or did as of the last census. All we're seeing here is the number of people who voted - that turnout is some fraction of those eligible, which in turn is some fraction of the total population (non-citizens, minors, etc). Those fractions of course can vary between districts.
– Nate Eldredge
15 hours ago
17
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
18
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
5 hours ago
17
17
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
16 hours ago
According to ncsbe.gov/ncsbe, the unopposed Republican candidate in District 3 (Walter Jones) received 186,353 votes. So perhaps one ought to say that the total was 1748173 votes for Democrats and 1830143 for Republicans. Excluding the unopposed seat and calling the total 9 vs 3 seems a little bit like cherry picking.
– Nate Eldredge
16 hours ago
30
30
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
16 hours ago
@NateEldredge I don't see it as cherry picking - "unopposed" means we can't really compare numbers properly, as we have no reference to what would a Dem candidate get there. In ideal world, in a randomly split 50/50 territory, we'd expect to get an equal number of representatives for each party. We just select a smaller territory, excl. district 3. Nothing wrong with that. You are welcome to introduce an edit with a possible alternative take on this, it doesn't change the answer in essence really, I don't mind...
– sashkello
16 hours ago
16
16
@jwenting: They're not really "larger" - US Congressional districts (within a given state) all have roughly equal population, or did as of the last census. All we're seeing here is the number of people who voted - that turnout is some fraction of those eligible, which in turn is some fraction of the total population (non-citizens, minors, etc). Those fractions of course can vary between districts.
– Nate Eldredge
15 hours ago
@jwenting: They're not really "larger" - US Congressional districts (within a given state) all have roughly equal population, or did as of the last census. All we're seeing here is the number of people who voted - that turnout is some fraction of those eligible, which in turn is some fraction of the total population (non-citizens, minors, etc). Those fractions of course can vary between districts.
– Nate Eldredge
15 hours ago
17
17
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
It's more than just size. The Democrat-held districts all had massive majorities, with almost all the votes going Democrat. The Republican held districts had comfortable but much smaller majorities. That's exactly the sort of textbook distribution you try for in a Gerrymandering scheme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
– DJClayworth
7 hours ago
18
18
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
5 hours ago
@fredsbend: There's nothing to prove. They openly admit to gerrymandering, and even made it part of their public election strategy. It's not illegal, despite nearly everyone on both sides agreeing it should be, because the people who vote on the laws are the ones who directly benefit from it.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
13
down vote
This is a community wiki supplement to the other answer, which makes the columns easier to read and shows vote difference for each district. 3rd party or other votes are not included.
district D R margin
------------------------------------------------
1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588
2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R)
3 * * * (R)
4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456
5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R)
6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R)
7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R)
8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R)
9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R)
10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R)
11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R)
12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589
13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R)
------------------------------------------------
total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383
* = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.
Data from Washington Post.
Raleigh is in district 4.
Charlotte is in district 12.
As a supplement, including 3rd party/other votes and District 3 votes would be informative. Unclear why those are left out here.
– chux
5 hours ago
@chux I found the data table difficult to read so reformatted it to make it easier. If you think it should include different data, please engage in the discussion in the original answer which already addresses why at least district 3 numbers are not included.
– BurnsBA
5 hours ago
1
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
This is a community wiki supplement to the other answer, which makes the columns easier to read and shows vote difference for each district. 3rd party or other votes are not included.
district D R margin
------------------------------------------------
1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588
2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R)
3 * * * (R)
4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456
5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R)
6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R)
7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R)
8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R)
9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R)
10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R)
11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R)
12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589
13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R)
------------------------------------------------
total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383
* = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.
Data from Washington Post.
Raleigh is in district 4.
Charlotte is in district 12.
As a supplement, including 3rd party/other votes and District 3 votes would be informative. Unclear why those are left out here.
– chux
5 hours ago
@chux I found the data table difficult to read so reformatted it to make it easier. If you think it should include different data, please engage in the discussion in the original answer which already addresses why at least district 3 numbers are not included.
– BurnsBA
5 hours ago
1
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
up vote
13
down vote
This is a community wiki supplement to the other answer, which makes the columns easier to read and shows vote difference for each district. 3rd party or other votes are not included.
district D R margin
------------------------------------------------
1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588
2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R)
3 * * * (R)
4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456
5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R)
6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R)
7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R)
8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R)
9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R)
10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R)
11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R)
12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589
13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R)
------------------------------------------------
total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383
* = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.
Data from Washington Post.
Raleigh is in district 4.
Charlotte is in district 12.
This is a community wiki supplement to the other answer, which makes the columns easier to read and shows vote difference for each district. 3rd party or other votes are not included.
district D R margin
------------------------------------------------
1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588
2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R)
3 * * * (R)
4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456
5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R)
6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R)
7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R)
8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R)
9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R)
10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R)
11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R)
12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589
13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R)
------------------------------------------------
total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383
* = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.
Data from Washington Post.
Raleigh is in district 4.
Charlotte is in district 12.
edited 7 hours ago
community wiki
2 revs
BurnsBA
As a supplement, including 3rd party/other votes and District 3 votes would be informative. Unclear why those are left out here.
– chux
5 hours ago
@chux I found the data table difficult to read so reformatted it to make it easier. If you think it should include different data, please engage in the discussion in the original answer which already addresses why at least district 3 numbers are not included.
– BurnsBA
5 hours ago
1
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
3 hours ago
add a comment |
As a supplement, including 3rd party/other votes and District 3 votes would be informative. Unclear why those are left out here.
– chux
5 hours ago
@chux I found the data table difficult to read so reformatted it to make it easier. If you think it should include different data, please engage in the discussion in the original answer which already addresses why at least district 3 numbers are not included.
– BurnsBA
5 hours ago
1
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
3 hours ago
As a supplement, including 3rd party/other votes and District 3 votes would be informative. Unclear why those are left out here.
– chux
5 hours ago
As a supplement, including 3rd party/other votes and District 3 votes would be informative. Unclear why those are left out here.
– chux
5 hours ago
@chux I found the data table difficult to read so reformatted it to make it easier. If you think it should include different data, please engage in the discussion in the original answer which already addresses why at least district 3 numbers are not included.
– BurnsBA
5 hours ago
@chux I found the data table difficult to read so reformatted it to make it easier. If you think it should include different data, please engage in the discussion in the original answer which already addresses why at least district 3 numbers are not included.
– BurnsBA
5 hours ago
1
1
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
3 hours ago
Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
– PoloHoleSet
3 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by Mad Scientist♦ 8 hours ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
