It seems unlikely that the House could move before 2022, which is when the new districts will be in effect from the 2020 census. Hopefully by then some normalcy will have returned to state politics, so there will be an equal-ish number of states gerrymandered in each direction, as opposed to the craziness that reigns now. If the House is even in contention by then, it would mean that Dems were picking up like 60% of the vote nationwide; that seems impossible. Remember, the Dems won more of the popular vote for the House in 2012, and didn't lose by that much in 2014 (a historically low turnout for a midterm), and they got routed in terms of number of seats. The "mandate" that Boehner/Ryan created exists only on paper, but the law exists on paper, too, so...
Rather than shaking spittle off your lips and crying "a plague on both your houses!" do you have a cogent argument for this? I really don't like beating you about the head and shoulders constantly for your political opinions but your knee-jerk thoughtlessness is beneath you. I mean, let's assume we've got two imaginary political parties: the Fucknuts and the Dipshits. Both of them are driven purely by the desire to smear feces on each other but in order to gain the opportunity to do so, they have to meet with each other in public and decide who changes the lightbulbs. Things are fine so long as there's no lightbulbs being changed. Gridlock is fine. The Fucknuts and the Dipshits can hang out and paint each other with poop with no harm done to the republic whatsoever. But every now and then, a lightbulb goes out. When the Dipshits are in power, the Fucknuts have to change it. When the Fucknuts are in power, the Dipshits have to change it. And when there's "gridlock" we all sit around in the dark. You presume that there are fundamentally NO tasks requiring governance in a complex global empire with 300 million citizens and holy shit, son, you're not that stupid. Know what gridlock means? it means no money for fucking Zika. The CDC has issued its first domestic travel warning IN HISTORY and here you are going "yay gridlock." You know what? You can hate the process all you want. You can resent all politicos of all stripes, fuel a deep and abiding resentment of all aspects of legislation and decry every elected official in the land. But don't do it like a troglodyte. An educated hater is a gadfly. An ignorant hater is this guy.
The guy in that second picture is more politically involved that I am, that's for sure. I bet he votes in every election he can. Our next president is going to be a Dem. I don't want a Dem president having the backing of a Democratic House and Senate, and would prefer staunch opposition. Consider that offhand comment the shitty and un-nuanced version of mk's much more reasonable point. I'm mad, I'm going to be mad for a long time I suspect. The Democrats are not categorically good guys, the Republicans are not categorically bad (Though this election cycle is really pushing that to the absolute brink). A 'Democrat Victory' is the same in my mind as a 'Republican Victory' unless you're talking about a specific issue and even then, I oppose most of the actions of both parties, except where they serve to stop the other from doing something EVEN WORSE. Republicans stopping Democrats from taking guns as an example. Democrats trying to stop Republicans from blocking access to abortion and contraceptives. But both parties support the TPP. Both parties are in favor of more war. Both parties are in bed with wall street. I keep reading, I keep learning more and it keeps making me more and more bitter.
mk said that efficient government can be a bad thing. This is a pretty easy point to make - pick your totalitarian favorites, which mk alludes to. That's a very different argument than that efficient government is a bad thing - mk's point is that centrality blinds the process to opposing perspectives, which is an argument for an adversarial process. Note that "an adversarial process" means "I oppose your nominee for Supreme Court Justice because I am troubled by his interpretation of the constitution as it relates to the right to privacy" not "I oppose your nominee because fuck you." THAT is the definition of gridlock: I oppose your right to legislate because I fundamentally oppose your right to govern. Your argument for gridlock is fundamentally an argument that all members of all political parties do their jobs best by thwarting all other members of all other political parties, which is pretty much the opposite of the legislative process. Be mad. That's fine. But also be effective. I'll bet you can't even list "most of the actions of both parties." And remember that "wall street" is the way people who don't understand economics describe "capitalism." There are all sorts of problems with the system but "its fundamental existence" is not one of them.