Did Republicans take 10 of 13 Congressional seats in the 2018 North Carolina general election with roughly...











up vote
120
down vote

favorite
9












This image has been shared on social media




Gerrymandering in North Carolina




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]



Are these numbers correct?










share|improve this question




















  • 2




    Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
    – Andrew Grimm
    yesterday






  • 2




    You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
    – Bob Jarvis
    23 hours ago










  • Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
    – DJClayworth
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
    – James K Polk
    18 hours ago










  • Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
    – James Jones
    7 hours ago

















up vote
120
down vote

favorite
9












This image has been shared on social media




Gerrymandering in North Carolina




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]



Are these numbers correct?










share|improve this question




















  • 2




    Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
    – Andrew Grimm
    yesterday






  • 2




    You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
    – Bob Jarvis
    23 hours ago










  • Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
    – DJClayworth
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
    – James K Polk
    18 hours ago










  • Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
    – James Jones
    7 hours ago















up vote
120
down vote

favorite
9









up vote
120
down vote

favorite
9






9





This image has been shared on social media




Gerrymandering in North Carolina




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]



Are these numbers correct?










share|improve this question















This image has been shared on social media




Gerrymandering in North Carolina




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]



Are these numbers correct?







united-states politics voting gerrymandering






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 21 hours ago









Andrew Grimm

20.3k24100288




20.3k24100288










asked Nov 12 at 3:46









DJClayworth

39.6k16155161




39.6k16155161








  • 2




    Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
    – Andrew Grimm
    yesterday






  • 2




    You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
    – Bob Jarvis
    23 hours ago










  • Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
    – DJClayworth
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
    – James K Polk
    18 hours ago










  • Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
    – James Jones
    7 hours ago
















  • 2




    Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
    – Andrew Grimm
    yesterday






  • 2




    You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
    – Bob Jarvis
    23 hours ago










  • Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
    – DJClayworth
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
    – James K Polk
    18 hours ago










  • Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
    – James Jones
    7 hours ago










2




2




Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
– Andrew Grimm
yesterday




Asking whether the numbers are correct is a legitimate question, but I'm tempted to ask another question about whether the seats in NC have been gerrymandered. It might be a duplicate of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40256/… though.
– Andrew Grimm
yesterday




2




2




You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
– Bob Jarvis
23 hours ago




You call this "gerrymandered"? Son, you wouldn't know gerrymandering if if jumped up and kicked you in the behind. You want gerrymandered? Look at the Ohio congressional districts, in particular the Ohio 9th and 11th (my district). These are "designer districts", intended to capture many of the Democratic voters in two districts which between them span nearly the width of the state, and keep the surrounding districts "safe" for Republicans.
– Bob Jarvis
23 hours ago












Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
– DJClayworth
22 hours ago




Do you know the total popular vote for Ohio in the House elections?
– DJClayworth
22 hours ago




1




1




Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
– James K Polk
18 hours ago




Maryland is at least as bad as Ohio. Look at almost any Maryland congressional district. Most are not even contiguous.
– James K Polk
18 hours ago












Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
– James Jones
7 hours ago






Just look at the statewide contests. Democrat justice John Arrowood (who is openly gay btw) won by over 50% of the vote. Dems absolutely took the popular vote.
– James Jones
7 hours ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
141
down vote



accepted










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
1 188,074 81,486
2 148,959 167,382
4 242,002 80,546
5 118,558 158,444
6 122,323 159,651
7 119,606 155,705
8 112,971 140,347
9 136,478 138,338
10 112,386 164,060
11 115,824 177,230
12 202,228 74,639
13 128,764 145,962


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.





share



















  • 26




    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
    Nov 12 at 5:30






  • 52




    @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
    Nov 12 at 5:38






  • 47




    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
    Nov 12 at 14:23






  • 71




    @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
    Nov 12 at 16:08








  • 29




    @hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
    – Toast
    2 days ago


















up vote
48
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       Total Votes   Majority %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588 269,560 (D) 69.8%
2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R) 316,341 52.9% (R)
3 * * * (R) 186,353* 100%* (R)
4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456 322,548 (D) 75%
5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R) 277,002 57.2% (R)
6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R) 281,974 56.6% (R)
7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R) 275,311 56.6% (R)
8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R) 253,318 55.4% (R)
9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R) 274,816 50.3% (R)
10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R) 276,446 59.3% (R)
11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R) 293,054 60.5% (R)
12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589 276,867 (D) 73%
13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R) 274,726 53.1% (R)
------------------------------------------------
Total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383




* = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.



Democrat candidates received 104,383 more votes than their Republican opponents. However, Republicans received 81,970 more votes overall (1,830,143 total), when including districts they were unopposed in. (Since the there was no challenger for district 3 it is impossible to calculate a meaningful Democrat-to-Republican margin for the total count. More or fewer people may have voted, some of the cast ballots may have gone to a different party, etc.)



Data from Washington Post.



Raleigh is in district 4.

Charlotte is in district 12.



North Carolina congressional districts






share|improve this answer



















  • 31




    Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
    – PoloHoleSet
    Nov 12 at 18:45






  • 3




    Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
    – fredsbend
    Nov 12 at 23:07






  • 3




    @fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
    – Dunk
    2 days ago






  • 6




    I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
    – Dunk
    2 days ago








  • 4




    @Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
    – Tim B
    yesterday




















up vote
7
down vote













According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, the results of the 2018 election are as follows. (Parties are ordered by number of votes):



District 1

    Democratic Candidate: 188,074

    Republican Candidate: 81,486



District 2

    Republican Candidate: 167,382

    Democratic Candidate: 148,959

    Libertarian Candidate: 9,427



District 3

    Republican Candidate: 186,353



District 4

    Democratic Candidate: 242,002

    Republican Candidate: 80,546

    Libertarian Candidate: 11,947



District 5

    Republican Candidate: 158,495

    Democratic Candidate: 118,593



District 6

    Republican Candidate: 159,651

    Democratic Candidate: 122,323



District 7

    Republican Candidate: 155,705

    Democratic Candidate: 119,606

    Constitution Candidate: 4,599



District 8

    Republican Candidate: 140,352

    Democratic Candidate: 112,736



District 9

    Republican Candidate: 138,381

    Democratic Candidate: 136,591

    Libertarian Candidate: 5,048



District 10

    Republican Candidate: 164,074

    Democratic Candidate: 112,396



District 11

    Republican Candidate: 177,352

    Democratic Candidate: 115,889

    Libertarian Candidate: 6,078



District 12

    Democratic Candidate: 202,228

    Republican Candidate: 74,639



District 13

    Republican Candidate: 146,062

    Democratic Candidate: 128,830

    Libertarian Candidate: 5,443

    Green Candidate: 2,795



Total



    Republicans: 1,830,478

    Democrats: 1,748,227

    Libertarians: 37,943

    Constitution: 4,599

    Green: 2,795






share|improve this answer






























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    This graphic from the question leaves off the results from district 3. District 3 cast 186,353 votes for the Republican candidate and none for a Democrat (the Republican was unopposed). That flips the total to 1,830,219 Republican votes to 1,748,018 Democratic votes (a margin of 82,201). That's 50.5% to 48.2%. Presumably the other 1.3% went to third party candidates.



    Source: Wikipedia.

    Original citation for district 3. As that is the official source, someone could get the rest of the districts from there as well. Javascript required to change districts and view results.



    Remember that the original claim was that Republicans won ten of thirteen races with fewer votes. That's demonstrably untrue, as the graphic only includes the votes from twelve of the districts. If it were leaving off the uncontested races, it should only have been nine of twelve contested races.



    If the claim is instead adjusted so that it only compares the seat proportion to the vote proportion, there are several other states where it's the Democrats who won a higher seat share than their vote share. E.g. three out of four in Iowa with only 50.38% of the vote; five of five in Connecticut with at most 64.4% of the vote; nine of nine in Massachusetts; or California, where Republicans won more than a third of the vote but no more than half as many seats (two still undecided).



    It also may be worth noting that in North Carolina in 2016 and 2014, the Republicans won by about 300,000 rather than less than 100,000. In 2010, Republicans had over 236,000 votes more than the Democrats but only won six of thirteen seats.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 29




      Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
      – KRyan
      2 days ago












    • This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
      – xyious
      2 hours ago










    • @xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
      – Brythan
      22 mins ago











    protected by Mad Scientist Nov 12 at 13:28



    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?














    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    141
    down vote



    accepted










    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
    1 188,074 81,486
    2 148,959 167,382
    4 242,002 80,546
    5 118,558 158,444
    6 122,323 159,651
    7 119,606 155,705
    8 112,971 140,347
    9 136,478 138,338
    10 112,386 164,060
    11 115,824 177,230
    12 202,228 74,639
    13 128,764 145,962


    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.





    share



















    • 26




      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
      Nov 12 at 5:30






    • 52




      @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
      Nov 12 at 5:38






    • 47




      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
      Nov 12 at 14:23






    • 71




      @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
      Nov 12 at 16:08








    • 29




      @hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
      – Toast
      2 days ago















    up vote
    141
    down vote



    accepted










    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
    1 188,074 81,486
    2 148,959 167,382
    4 242,002 80,546
    5 118,558 158,444
    6 122,323 159,651
    7 119,606 155,705
    8 112,971 140,347
    9 136,478 138,338
    10 112,386 164,060
    11 115,824 177,230
    12 202,228 74,639
    13 128,764 145,962


    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.





    share



















    • 26




      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
      Nov 12 at 5:30






    • 52




      @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
      Nov 12 at 5:38






    • 47




      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
      Nov 12 at 14:23






    • 71




      @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
      Nov 12 at 16:08








    • 29




      @hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
      – Toast
      2 days ago













    up vote
    141
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    141
    down vote



    accepted






    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
    1 188,074 81,486
    2 148,959 167,382
    4 242,002 80,546
    5 118,558 158,444
    6 122,323 159,651
    7 119,606 155,705
    8 112,971 140,347
    9 136,478 138,338
    10 112,386 164,060
    11 115,824 177,230
    12 202,228 74,639
    13 128,764 145,962


    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.





    share














    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
    1 188,074 81,486
    2 148,959 167,382
    4 242,002 80,546
    5 118,558 158,444
    6 122,323 159,651
    7 119,606 155,705
    8 112,971 140,347
    9 136,478 138,338
    10 112,386 164,060
    11 115,824 177,230
    12 202,228 74,639
    13 128,764 145,962


    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.






    share













    share


    share








    edited yesterday









    fredsbend

    3,85163361




    3,85163361










    answered Nov 12 at 5:17









    sashkello

    2,91722336




    2,91722336








    • 26




      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
      Nov 12 at 5:30






    • 52




      @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
      Nov 12 at 5:38






    • 47




      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
      Nov 12 at 14:23






    • 71




      @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
      Nov 12 at 16:08








    • 29




      @hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
      – Toast
      2 days ago














    • 26




      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
      Nov 12 at 5:30






    • 52




      @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
      Nov 12 at 5:38






    • 47




      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
      Nov 12 at 14:23






    • 71




      @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
      Nov 12 at 16:08








    • 29




      @hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
      – Toast
      2 days ago








    26




    26




    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
    Nov 12 at 5:30




    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
    Nov 12 at 5:30




    52




    52




    @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
    Nov 12 at 5:38




    @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
    Nov 12 at 5:38




    47




    47




    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
    Nov 12 at 14:23




    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
    Nov 12 at 14:23




    71




    71




    @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
    Nov 12 at 16:08






    @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
    Nov 12 at 16:08






    29




    29




    @hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
    – Toast
    2 days ago




    @hobbs I think you came to almost the exact opposite view as me based on the FiveThirtyEight data. Their simulator shows that this is literally as inequitable of a split as it is possible to make--the current districts represent a more-or-less perfect Republican gerrymander. There is no way to split the districts in a way that gives the Republicans more seats, and literally every way they tested that wasn't an explicit Republican gerrymander gives them fewer seats.
    – Toast
    2 days ago










    up vote
    48
    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       Total Votes   Majority %
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588 269,560 (D) 69.8%
    2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R) 316,341 52.9% (R)
    3 * * * (R) 186,353* 100%* (R)
    4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456 322,548 (D) 75%
    5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R) 277,002 57.2% (R)
    6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R) 281,974 56.6% (R)
    7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R) 275,311 56.6% (R)
    8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R) 253,318 55.4% (R)
    9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R) 274,816 50.3% (R)
    10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R) 276,446 59.3% (R)
    11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R) 293,054 60.5% (R)
    12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589 276,867 (D) 73%
    13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R) 274,726 53.1% (R)
    ------------------------------------------------
    Total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383




    * = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.



    Democrat candidates received 104,383 more votes than their Republican opponents. However, Republicans received 81,970 more votes overall (1,830,143 total), when including districts they were unopposed in. (Since the there was no challenger for district 3 it is impossible to calculate a meaningful Democrat-to-Republican margin for the total count. More or fewer people may have voted, some of the cast ballots may have gone to a different party, etc.)



    Data from Washington Post.



    Raleigh is in district 4.

    Charlotte is in district 12.



    North Carolina congressional districts






    share|improve this answer



















    • 31




      Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
      – PoloHoleSet
      Nov 12 at 18:45






    • 3




      Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
      – fredsbend
      Nov 12 at 23:07






    • 3




      @fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
      – Dunk
      2 days ago






    • 6




      I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
      – Dunk
      2 days ago








    • 4




      @Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
      – Tim B
      yesterday

















    up vote
    48
    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       Total Votes   Majority %
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588 269,560 (D) 69.8%
    2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R) 316,341 52.9% (R)
    3 * * * (R) 186,353* 100%* (R)
    4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456 322,548 (D) 75%
    5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R) 277,002 57.2% (R)
    6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R) 281,974 56.6% (R)
    7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R) 275,311 56.6% (R)
    8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R) 253,318 55.4% (R)
    9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R) 274,816 50.3% (R)
    10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R) 276,446 59.3% (R)
    11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R) 293,054 60.5% (R)
    12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589 276,867 (D) 73%
    13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R) 274,726 53.1% (R)
    ------------------------------------------------
    Total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383




    * = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.



    Democrat candidates received 104,383 more votes than their Republican opponents. However, Republicans received 81,970 more votes overall (1,830,143 total), when including districts they were unopposed in. (Since the there was no challenger for district 3 it is impossible to calculate a meaningful Democrat-to-Republican margin for the total count. More or fewer people may have voted, some of the cast ballots may have gone to a different party, etc.)



    Data from Washington Post.



    Raleigh is in district 4.

    Charlotte is in district 12.



    North Carolina congressional districts






    share|improve this answer



















    • 31




      Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
      – PoloHoleSet
      Nov 12 at 18:45






    • 3




      Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
      – fredsbend
      Nov 12 at 23:07






    • 3




      @fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
      – Dunk
      2 days ago






    • 6




      I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
      – Dunk
      2 days ago








    • 4




      @Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
      – Tim B
      yesterday















    up vote
    48
    down vote










    up vote
    48
    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       Total Votes   Majority %
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588 269,560 (D) 69.8%
    2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R) 316,341 52.9% (R)
    3 * * * (R) 186,353* 100%* (R)
    4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456 322,548 (D) 75%
    5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R) 277,002 57.2% (R)
    6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R) 281,974 56.6% (R)
    7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R) 275,311 56.6% (R)
    8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R) 253,318 55.4% (R)
    9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R) 274,816 50.3% (R)
    10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R) 276,446 59.3% (R)
    11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R) 293,054 60.5% (R)
    12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589 276,867 (D) 73%
    13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R) 274,726 53.1% (R)
    ------------------------------------------------
    Total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383




    * = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.



    Democrat candidates received 104,383 more votes than their Republican opponents. However, Republicans received 81,970 more votes overall (1,830,143 total), when including districts they were unopposed in. (Since the there was no challenger for district 3 it is impossible to calculate a meaningful Democrat-to-Republican margin for the total count. More or fewer people may have voted, some of the cast ballots may have gone to a different party, etc.)



    Data from Washington Post.



    Raleigh is in district 4.

    Charlotte is in district 12.



    North Carolina congressional districts






    share|improve this answer














    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       Total Votes   Majority %
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 188,074 81,486 (D) 106,588 269,560 (D) 69.8%
    2 148,959 167,382 18,423 (R) 316,341 52.9% (R)
    3 * * * (R) 186,353* 100%* (R)
    4 242,002 80,546 (D) 161,456 322,548 (D) 75%
    5 118,558 158,444 39,886 (R) 277,002 57.2% (R)
    6 122,323 159,651 37,328 (R) 281,974 56.6% (R)
    7 119,606 155,705 36,099 (R) 275,311 56.6% (R)
    8 112,971 140,347 27,376 (R) 253,318 55.4% (R)
    9 136,478 138,338 1,860 (R) 274,816 50.3% (R)
    10 112,386 164,060 51,674 (R) 276,446 59.3% (R)
    11 115,824 177,230 61,406 (R) 293,054 60.5% (R)
    12 202,228 74,639 (D) 127,589 276,867 (D) 73%
    13 128,764 145,962 17,198 (R) 274,726 53.1% (R)
    ------------------------------------------------
    Total 1,748,173 1,643,790 (D) 104,383




    * = uncontested, no votes are listed, same as Washington Post source.



    Democrat candidates received 104,383 more votes than their Republican opponents. However, Republicans received 81,970 more votes overall (1,830,143 total), when including districts they were unopposed in. (Since the there was no challenger for district 3 it is impossible to calculate a meaningful Democrat-to-Republican margin for the total count. More or fewer people may have voted, some of the cast ballots may have gone to a different party, etc.)



    Data from Washington Post.



    Raleigh is in district 4.

    Charlotte is in district 12.



    North Carolina congressional districts







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 21 hours ago


























    community wiki





    7 revs, 4 users 67%
    BurnsBA









    • 31




      Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
      – PoloHoleSet
      Nov 12 at 18:45






    • 3




      Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
      – fredsbend
      Nov 12 at 23:07






    • 3




      @fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
      – Dunk
      2 days ago






    • 6




      I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
      – Dunk
      2 days ago








    • 4




      @Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
      – Tim B
      yesterday
















    • 31




      Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
      – PoloHoleSet
      Nov 12 at 18:45






    • 3




      Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
      – fredsbend
      Nov 12 at 23:07






    • 3




      @fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
      – Dunk
      2 days ago






    • 6




      I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
      – Dunk
      2 days ago








    • 4




      @Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
      – Tim B
      yesterday










    31




    31




    Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
    – PoloHoleSet
    Nov 12 at 18:45




    Wow. That "margin" column paints more of a picture than the actual colored map.
    – PoloHoleSet
    Nov 12 at 18:45




    3




    3




    Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
    – fredsbend
    Nov 12 at 23:07




    Districts 4 and 12 suspiciously look like packing, while district one looks suspiciously like cracking.
    – fredsbend
    Nov 12 at 23:07




    3




    3




    @fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
    – Dunk
    2 days ago




    @fredsbend-Or if you had a clue about the makeup of NC you would say that the districts are divided into very similar regions of concerns. District 12 is the city of Charlotte. Splitting the city of charlotte into any of its surrounding regions would mean that the people in the rural surrounding areas would get zero representation for their particular needs. Region 4 combined Raleigh/Cary/Chapel Hill and then throw in region 1 and you have the research triangle. 5 & 11 covers the mountains...
    – Dunk
    2 days ago




    6




    6




    I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
    – Dunk
    2 days ago






    I'd also add that if one were to split Charlotte which is surrounded by conservative regions then it is quite possible that nobody will end up getting elected to represent Charlotte (proper). And that is the problem that can't be solved without gerrymandering. How do you guarantee minority representation without it?
    – Dunk
    2 days ago






    4




    4




    @Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
    – Tim B
    yesterday






    @Dunk So it's reasonable that the 1.6 million republicans got 10 people to represent them but the 1.7 million democrats got 3?
    – Tim B
    yesterday












    up vote
    7
    down vote













    According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, the results of the 2018 election are as follows. (Parties are ordered by number of votes):



    District 1

        Democratic Candidate: 188,074

        Republican Candidate: 81,486



    District 2

        Republican Candidate: 167,382

        Democratic Candidate: 148,959

        Libertarian Candidate: 9,427



    District 3

        Republican Candidate: 186,353



    District 4

        Democratic Candidate: 242,002

        Republican Candidate: 80,546

        Libertarian Candidate: 11,947



    District 5

        Republican Candidate: 158,495

        Democratic Candidate: 118,593



    District 6

        Republican Candidate: 159,651

        Democratic Candidate: 122,323



    District 7

        Republican Candidate: 155,705

        Democratic Candidate: 119,606

        Constitution Candidate: 4,599



    District 8

        Republican Candidate: 140,352

        Democratic Candidate: 112,736



    District 9

        Republican Candidate: 138,381

        Democratic Candidate: 136,591

        Libertarian Candidate: 5,048



    District 10

        Republican Candidate: 164,074

        Democratic Candidate: 112,396



    District 11

        Republican Candidate: 177,352

        Democratic Candidate: 115,889

        Libertarian Candidate: 6,078



    District 12

        Democratic Candidate: 202,228

        Republican Candidate: 74,639



    District 13

        Republican Candidate: 146,062

        Democratic Candidate: 128,830

        Libertarian Candidate: 5,443

        Green Candidate: 2,795



    Total



        Republicans: 1,830,478

        Democrats: 1,748,227

        Libertarians: 37,943

        Constitution: 4,599

        Green: 2,795






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      7
      down vote













      According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, the results of the 2018 election are as follows. (Parties are ordered by number of votes):



      District 1

          Democratic Candidate: 188,074

          Republican Candidate: 81,486



      District 2

          Republican Candidate: 167,382

          Democratic Candidate: 148,959

          Libertarian Candidate: 9,427



      District 3

          Republican Candidate: 186,353



      District 4

          Democratic Candidate: 242,002

          Republican Candidate: 80,546

          Libertarian Candidate: 11,947



      District 5

          Republican Candidate: 158,495

          Democratic Candidate: 118,593



      District 6

          Republican Candidate: 159,651

          Democratic Candidate: 122,323



      District 7

          Republican Candidate: 155,705

          Democratic Candidate: 119,606

          Constitution Candidate: 4,599



      District 8

          Republican Candidate: 140,352

          Democratic Candidate: 112,736



      District 9

          Republican Candidate: 138,381

          Democratic Candidate: 136,591

          Libertarian Candidate: 5,048



      District 10

          Republican Candidate: 164,074

          Democratic Candidate: 112,396



      District 11

          Republican Candidate: 177,352

          Democratic Candidate: 115,889

          Libertarian Candidate: 6,078



      District 12

          Democratic Candidate: 202,228

          Republican Candidate: 74,639



      District 13

          Republican Candidate: 146,062

          Democratic Candidate: 128,830

          Libertarian Candidate: 5,443

          Green Candidate: 2,795



      Total



          Republicans: 1,830,478

          Democrats: 1,748,227

          Libertarians: 37,943

          Constitution: 4,599

          Green: 2,795






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        7
        down vote










        up vote
        7
        down vote









        According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, the results of the 2018 election are as follows. (Parties are ordered by number of votes):



        District 1

            Democratic Candidate: 188,074

            Republican Candidate: 81,486



        District 2

            Republican Candidate: 167,382

            Democratic Candidate: 148,959

            Libertarian Candidate: 9,427



        District 3

            Republican Candidate: 186,353



        District 4

            Democratic Candidate: 242,002

            Republican Candidate: 80,546

            Libertarian Candidate: 11,947



        District 5

            Republican Candidate: 158,495

            Democratic Candidate: 118,593



        District 6

            Republican Candidate: 159,651

            Democratic Candidate: 122,323



        District 7

            Republican Candidate: 155,705

            Democratic Candidate: 119,606

            Constitution Candidate: 4,599



        District 8

            Republican Candidate: 140,352

            Democratic Candidate: 112,736



        District 9

            Republican Candidate: 138,381

            Democratic Candidate: 136,591

            Libertarian Candidate: 5,048



        District 10

            Republican Candidate: 164,074

            Democratic Candidate: 112,396



        District 11

            Republican Candidate: 177,352

            Democratic Candidate: 115,889

            Libertarian Candidate: 6,078



        District 12

            Democratic Candidate: 202,228

            Republican Candidate: 74,639



        District 13

            Republican Candidate: 146,062

            Democratic Candidate: 128,830

            Libertarian Candidate: 5,443

            Green Candidate: 2,795



        Total



            Republicans: 1,830,478

            Democrats: 1,748,227

            Libertarians: 37,943

            Constitution: 4,599

            Green: 2,795






        share|improve this answer














        According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, the results of the 2018 election are as follows. (Parties are ordered by number of votes):



        District 1

            Democratic Candidate: 188,074

            Republican Candidate: 81,486



        District 2

            Republican Candidate: 167,382

            Democratic Candidate: 148,959

            Libertarian Candidate: 9,427



        District 3

            Republican Candidate: 186,353



        District 4

            Democratic Candidate: 242,002

            Republican Candidate: 80,546

            Libertarian Candidate: 11,947



        District 5

            Republican Candidate: 158,495

            Democratic Candidate: 118,593



        District 6

            Republican Candidate: 159,651

            Democratic Candidate: 122,323



        District 7

            Republican Candidate: 155,705

            Democratic Candidate: 119,606

            Constitution Candidate: 4,599



        District 8

            Republican Candidate: 140,352

            Democratic Candidate: 112,736



        District 9

            Republican Candidate: 138,381

            Democratic Candidate: 136,591

            Libertarian Candidate: 5,048



        District 10

            Republican Candidate: 164,074

            Democratic Candidate: 112,396



        District 11

            Republican Candidate: 177,352

            Democratic Candidate: 115,889

            Libertarian Candidate: 6,078



        District 12

            Democratic Candidate: 202,228

            Republican Candidate: 74,639



        District 13

            Republican Candidate: 146,062

            Democratic Candidate: 128,830

            Libertarian Candidate: 5,443

            Green Candidate: 2,795



        Total



            Republicans: 1,830,478

            Democrats: 1,748,227

            Libertarians: 37,943

            Constitution: 4,599

            Green: 2,795







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited yesterday

























        answered 2 days ago









        DavePhD

        73.3k18314341




        73.3k18314341






















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            This graphic from the question leaves off the results from district 3. District 3 cast 186,353 votes for the Republican candidate and none for a Democrat (the Republican was unopposed). That flips the total to 1,830,219 Republican votes to 1,748,018 Democratic votes (a margin of 82,201). That's 50.5% to 48.2%. Presumably the other 1.3% went to third party candidates.



            Source: Wikipedia.

            Original citation for district 3. As that is the official source, someone could get the rest of the districts from there as well. Javascript required to change districts and view results.



            Remember that the original claim was that Republicans won ten of thirteen races with fewer votes. That's demonstrably untrue, as the graphic only includes the votes from twelve of the districts. If it were leaving off the uncontested races, it should only have been nine of twelve contested races.



            If the claim is instead adjusted so that it only compares the seat proportion to the vote proportion, there are several other states where it's the Democrats who won a higher seat share than their vote share. E.g. three out of four in Iowa with only 50.38% of the vote; five of five in Connecticut with at most 64.4% of the vote; nine of nine in Massachusetts; or California, where Republicans won more than a third of the vote but no more than half as many seats (two still undecided).



            It also may be worth noting that in North Carolina in 2016 and 2014, the Republicans won by about 300,000 rather than less than 100,000. In 2010, Republicans had over 236,000 votes more than the Democrats but only won six of thirteen seats.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 29




              Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
              – KRyan
              2 days ago












            • This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
              – xyious
              2 hours ago










            • @xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
              – Brythan
              22 mins ago















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            This graphic from the question leaves off the results from district 3. District 3 cast 186,353 votes for the Republican candidate and none for a Democrat (the Republican was unopposed). That flips the total to 1,830,219 Republican votes to 1,748,018 Democratic votes (a margin of 82,201). That's 50.5% to 48.2%. Presumably the other 1.3% went to third party candidates.



            Source: Wikipedia.

            Original citation for district 3. As that is the official source, someone could get the rest of the districts from there as well. Javascript required to change districts and view results.



            Remember that the original claim was that Republicans won ten of thirteen races with fewer votes. That's demonstrably untrue, as the graphic only includes the votes from twelve of the districts. If it were leaving off the uncontested races, it should only have been nine of twelve contested races.



            If the claim is instead adjusted so that it only compares the seat proportion to the vote proportion, there are several other states where it's the Democrats who won a higher seat share than their vote share. E.g. three out of four in Iowa with only 50.38% of the vote; five of five in Connecticut with at most 64.4% of the vote; nine of nine in Massachusetts; or California, where Republicans won more than a third of the vote but no more than half as many seats (two still undecided).



            It also may be worth noting that in North Carolina in 2016 and 2014, the Republicans won by about 300,000 rather than less than 100,000. In 2010, Republicans had over 236,000 votes more than the Democrats but only won six of thirteen seats.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 29




              Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
              – KRyan
              2 days ago












            • This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
              – xyious
              2 hours ago










            • @xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
              – Brythan
              22 mins ago













            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            This graphic from the question leaves off the results from district 3. District 3 cast 186,353 votes for the Republican candidate and none for a Democrat (the Republican was unopposed). That flips the total to 1,830,219 Republican votes to 1,748,018 Democratic votes (a margin of 82,201). That's 50.5% to 48.2%. Presumably the other 1.3% went to third party candidates.



            Source: Wikipedia.

            Original citation for district 3. As that is the official source, someone could get the rest of the districts from there as well. Javascript required to change districts and view results.



            Remember that the original claim was that Republicans won ten of thirteen races with fewer votes. That's demonstrably untrue, as the graphic only includes the votes from twelve of the districts. If it were leaving off the uncontested races, it should only have been nine of twelve contested races.



            If the claim is instead adjusted so that it only compares the seat proportion to the vote proportion, there are several other states where it's the Democrats who won a higher seat share than their vote share. E.g. three out of four in Iowa with only 50.38% of the vote; five of five in Connecticut with at most 64.4% of the vote; nine of nine in Massachusetts; or California, where Republicans won more than a third of the vote but no more than half as many seats (two still undecided).



            It also may be worth noting that in North Carolina in 2016 and 2014, the Republicans won by about 300,000 rather than less than 100,000. In 2010, Republicans had over 236,000 votes more than the Democrats but only won six of thirteen seats.






            share|improve this answer














            This graphic from the question leaves off the results from district 3. District 3 cast 186,353 votes for the Republican candidate and none for a Democrat (the Republican was unopposed). That flips the total to 1,830,219 Republican votes to 1,748,018 Democratic votes (a margin of 82,201). That's 50.5% to 48.2%. Presumably the other 1.3% went to third party candidates.



            Source: Wikipedia.

            Original citation for district 3. As that is the official source, someone could get the rest of the districts from there as well. Javascript required to change districts and view results.



            Remember that the original claim was that Republicans won ten of thirteen races with fewer votes. That's demonstrably untrue, as the graphic only includes the votes from twelve of the districts. If it were leaving off the uncontested races, it should only have been nine of twelve contested races.



            If the claim is instead adjusted so that it only compares the seat proportion to the vote proportion, there are several other states where it's the Democrats who won a higher seat share than their vote share. E.g. three out of four in Iowa with only 50.38% of the vote; five of five in Connecticut with at most 64.4% of the vote; nine of nine in Massachusetts; or California, where Republicans won more than a third of the vote but no more than half as many seats (two still undecided).



            It also may be worth noting that in North Carolina in 2016 and 2014, the Republicans won by about 300,000 rather than less than 100,000. In 2010, Republicans had over 236,000 votes more than the Democrats but only won six of thirteen seats.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 23 hours ago

























            answered 2 days ago









            Brythan

            8,65053550




            8,65053550








            • 29




              Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
              – KRyan
              2 days ago












            • This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
              – xyious
              2 hours ago










            • @xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
              – Brythan
              22 mins ago














            • 29




              Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
              – KRyan
              2 days ago












            • This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
              – xyious
              2 hours ago










            • @xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
              – Brythan
              22 mins ago








            29




            29




            Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
            – KRyan
            2 days ago






            Answers should stand alone, so the explanation that the Republican in District 3 ran unopposed is crucial and absent here. Whether or not, and how, the votes in District 3 should be counted for this comparison is debatable, but let’s give readers all of the information required to understand what is happening and make their own judgments.
            – KRyan
            2 days ago














            This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
            – xyious
            2 hours ago




            This non-answer is misleading at best. It's literally impossible for democrat votes to be counted in a district that didn't have a democrat running. So you're just assigning 100% of the votes to republicans. I assume that there are many democrats that voted, but didn't give a vote in that race. Are you going to count non-votes for democrats ? Otherwise you're just falsifying statistics. You're counting 100% of republican votes in that district but discard 100% of democrat votes.
            – xyious
            2 hours ago












            @xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
            – Brythan
            22 mins ago




            @xyious But that's what the graphic claims: that Democrats beat Republicans in thirteen districts (not the twelve competitive districts). And nationally, there are more races with only Democrats, including races in California with only Democrats. Even in races that have both Democrats and Republicans, many aren't actually competitive. People often don't bother to vote if they know it won't affect This makes the national popular vote misleading at best in evaluating who would have won a proportional election.
            – Brythan
            22 mins ago





            protected by Mad Scientist Nov 12 at 13:28



            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?



            Popular posts from this blog

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Mont Emei