I'm not going to change my point to something you're more comfortable arguing with. The point is the discrepancy between a party's popular vote and the percentage of seats it ends up holding in the legislature.

This is not a trivial debating point. It's not an accident that I nicknamed pct_seats/pct_votes the "gimi index", because there's a correlation between the inclusiveness of political institutions and the inclusiveness of economic institutions.

I say that there's a correlation between gimi and the "gini" index of maldistribution of wealth. And exhibit A is what Republicans are choosing to do with their disproportionate political power: Attacking the foundations of economic equality.

Maldistribution of political power leads to maldistribution of economic power.It always has, and it always will.

If you think I'm wrong about that, Tom, please explain how the complementary proposition can be true: That the American way, notably our broadly inclusive political institutions, leads to general prosperity.

Which one is it?

Why stop at Michigan? In the US House, Republicans got 48% of the popular vote, yet ended up with 54% of the seats. You think that might explain the yawning chasm between the extreme positions the House Republicans are taking compared to surveys that consistently show that Americans hold very different views? Notably on the subject of the rich paying a fair share of taxes.

The issue at hand is Republicans gaining disproportionate political power through corrupt means. Not how they did two years ago in Michigan. That red herrings is beginning to smell.