[RD] "Race"-based Gerrymandering

[Berzerker]

That Illinois district created a Hispanic seat by concentrating Latinos, but that means they diluted Latino power in neighboring districts. They have one voice in the House as opposed to 3-4.

 

[Farm Boy]

Much bigger differences between many neighborhoods in Chicago over the course of a mile or two, depending on where you are, then if I hop in the car and go visit my uncle down near Peoria ~120 or so away.

 

[warpus]

That Illinois district created a Hispanic seat by concentrating Latinos, but that means they diluted Latino power in neighboring districts. They have one voice in the House as opposed to 3-4.

Is it good idea to presume that all people of the same ethnic background are going to have the same political opinions, and to then try to put them all in the same district for that reason? If the districts in my city were re-drawn so that I would end up with all the other Polish people, I think I would go insane.

 

[Celtic Goddess]

What the law actually said, until the 2013 Scotus decision:

1) African Americans (first and foremost) have to be enabled to elect representatives from their communities which supposedly could only be the case when they are as often as sensible and feasable put in the position of making up half of their district or more.
As per the Voting Rights Act.

2) African Americans can't be "packed", or in any way overrepresented, thus possibly rendering their votes less "effecient" for any reason other than compliance with the VRA.
As per the 14th ammendment.​

I see why this law was overturned because it's a contradiction. Black are about 14%-15% of the population in the US. If they weren't "packed" they'd never be able to elect a representative of their choosing.

I'm confused as to what this thread is suggesting... Correct me if I'm assuming wrong, but it seems like you're saying that Blacks would be better off if they were mixed in with the general population so they could give a roughly 15 pt boost to the Democrats chosen candidate, rather than having the option of electing a representative of their choosing. Am I assuming correctly, and if so how would this be better?

 

[Berzerker]

Is it good idea to presume that all people of the same ethnic background are going to have the same political opinions, and to then try to put them all in the same district for that reason? If the districts in my city were re-drawn so that I would end up with all the other Polish people, I think I would go insane.

Much bigger differences between many neighborhoods in Chicago over the course of a mile or two, depending on where you are, then if I hop in the car and go visit my uncle down near Peoria ~120 or so away.

I grew up in San Francisco - 7 sq miles of 6 or 700,000 people with sections/neighborhoods carved up largely by ethnicity (and gays). One of the most 'integrated' cities in the country was largely segregated. Junior and HS is where most of us were introduced to the world.

 

[Berzerker]

I see why this law was overturned because it's a contradiction. Black are about 14%-15% of the population in the US. If they weren't "packed" they'd never be able to elect a representative of their choosing.

I'm confused at to what this thread is suggesting... Correct me if I'm assuming wrong, but it seems like you're saying that Blacks would be better off if they were mixed in with the general population so they could give a roughly 15 pt boost to the Democrats chosen candidate, rather than having the option of electing a representative of their choosing. Am I assuming correctly, and if so how would this be better?

If you draw a district to encompass a concentration of black voters to create a 'black seat', you're diluting the power of black voters in other districts. Wouldn't the ideal district represent the country as it is? Okay, 15% of the population is black. Thats a significant %... Enough to matter in elections, both for primaries and the general. But if that 15% is reduced to 2-5% so that a safe seat is created somewhere else, we've concentrated the black vote into 1 voice and diluted their voice in other districts. Now maybe its more important to have that black voice in Congress for other reasons, but I question the wisdom of concentrating or diluting power based on ideology. People complain about extremism in politics, I think that extremism is the result of gerrymandering safe seats. Competition produces centrism.

 

[Celtic Goddess]

If you draw a district to encompass a concentration of black voters to create a 'black seat', you're diluting the power of black voters in other districts. Wouldn't the ideal district represent the country as it is?.

If you didn't do that then Blacks would be forever unable to ever elect a representative of their choosing. This suggestion to dilute the roughly 15% of the black votes in districts with tighter races sounds great for establishment Democrats, but I'm not sure that it would be the preference of black voters.

Now maybe its more important to have that black voice in Congress for other reasons, but I question the wisdom of concentrating or diluting power based on ideology. People complain about extremism in politics, I think that extremism is the result of gerrymandering safe seats. Competition produces centrism.

If this is one's position then they shouldn't be also trying to justify it by saying that they have the best interests of Black Americans at heart... because they don't. It's purely self-interest and I'm not saying that's what you are doing, btw. I'm just generally speaking.

 

[Berzerker]

If you didn't do that then Blacks would be forever unable to ever elect a representative of their choosing. This suggestion to dilute the roughly 15% of the black votes in districts with tighter races sounds great for establishment Democrats, but I'm not sure that it would be the preference of black voters.

Establishment Democrats like safe seats, incumbents of both parties like safe seats. And so do the extremists, about the only way they can get elected is to a safe seat. All they gotta do is win the primary and that becomes easier when ideology is concentrated. Obama got elected, the Senate currently has black members from South Carolina of all places and California. Yes, fewer black people would get elected. But we'd have more members of Congress listening to black voters too because they're actual constituents.

If this is one's position then they shouldn't be also trying to justify it by saying that they have the best interests of Black Americans at heart... because they don't. It's purely self-interest and I'm not saying that's what you are doing, btw. I'm just generally speaking.

We dont have to limit this to black voters, the same is true for all groups in the minority. James Madison spoke of factions as a threat to democracy, his concern was factions would push agendas and needed to be held back by other factions. If those other factions have been diluted by 'safe seat' gerrymandering the agenda becomes more extreme. And thats what we're seeing, uncompetitive ideologically concentrated districts being fought over by increasingly extreme candidates.

For example, Kansas could possibly elect a House member who is a moderate Democrat if only the cities counted as the district, but that would leave the rest of the state in the hands of even more conservative Republicans. Concentrating the Democrat or left of center voters in one district makes the other anti-conservative Republican factions in the state weaker. They'll lose the help they need keeping extremely conservative people out of office.

 

[warpus]

I grew up in San Francisco - 7 sq miles of 6 or 700,000 people with sections/neighborhoods carved up largely by ethnicity (and gays). One of the most 'integrated' cities in the country was largely segregated. Junior and HS is where most of us were introduced to the world.

Okay, but what does that have to do with what I wrote? It seems backwards to me to assume that people of the same ethnic background need a "representative" and that they're all going to vote the same way because they look the same.

I mean, I get that the U.S. has a huge problem with segregation based on race, but why try to make it even worse?

 

[Celtic Goddess]

Establishment Democrats like safe seats, incumbents of both parties like safe seats. And so do the extremists, about the only way they can get elected is to a safe seat. All they gotta do is win the primary and that becomes easier when ideology is concentrated. Obama got elected, the Senate currently has black members from South Carolina of all places and California. Yes, fewer black people would get elected. But we'd have more members of Congress listening to black voters too because they're actual constituents

For some reason i don't think many black people would agree with you on that. Many don't believe that the Democrats listen to them now.

We dont have to limit this to black voters, the same is true for all groups in the minority. James Madison spoke of factions as a threat to democracy, his concern was factions would push agendas and needed to be held back by other factions. If those other factions have been diluted by 'safe seat' gerrymandering the agenda becomes more extreme. And thats what we're seeing, uncompetitive ideologically concentrated districts being fought over by increasingly extreme candidates

You're describing identity politics which is a Democrat strategy, which just makes this thing all the more ironic.

 

[Berzerker]

Okay, but what does that have to do with what I wrote? It seems backwards to me to assume that people of the same ethnic background need a "representative" and that they're all going to vote the same way because they look the same.

I mean, I get that the U.S. has a huge problem with segregation based on race, but why try to make it even worse?

I dont know why you're asking me, I want to dilute ideological concentrations and get rid of safe seats when possible.

For some reason i don't think many black people would agree with you on that. Many don't believe that the Democrats listen to them now.

They're taken for granted, thats another symptom of safe seats. I dont expect black voters to agree, if I told conservative Republicans I wanted to redraw their district to increase their opponents they'd balk at it too.

You're describing identity politics which is a Democrat strategy, which just makes this thing all the more ironic.

I'm describing the use of gerrymandering to promote centrist candidates rather than more extreme candidates. I dont know what identity politics is or why centrism caters to it more than extremism.

 

[warpus]

I dont know why you're asking me, I want to dilute ideological concentrations and get rid of safe seats when possible.

Because you replied to me, but what you wrote didn't seem to be a response to what I was saying, so I re-iterated my point so you could clarify what's going on

 

[Cassius Critzer]

First "race" does not exist but is an entirely unscientific paradigm.

How is it logical that skin color and ethnic origin (possibly in excess of 200 years) then results in a litmus test for political representation? Talk about bigotry. Then there is the condescending attitude that this artificial rigamarole is still needed in a country that elected Barack Obama by quite a margin.

If this is so, then are you saying African-Americans solely need this to persist or will refugees also need this for equal representation? How insulting.

If this silly ersatz reasoning is true, then the only person, or at least the best person to represent me should look like me, have the same spiritual beliefs as me, express the same sexuality, have the same gender, and on and on.

Should we take census data and therefore apply those demographics to ensure a.balanced Congress? Oh brother.

Witness how half-baked leftist thought becomes when exposed.

So we don't want ghettos in the historic sense of self-segregation even though that allowed for electing immigrants to local, state, and national politics, but instead should override every other citizen who lives within these gerrymandering regions, effectively denying their right to equal representation, so that more African-Americans will be represented in Congress?

I openly ridicule this old failed chestnut. If anything some of the most soul crushing poverty can be found with Democratic leadership by African-Americans....it is broken as a failed concept.

How about we elect the best person regardless of skin color, spiritual belief, gender, and so on? Is that idea too modern?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, I'd thought it a bit dry, and I certainly would welcome if somebody better at translating law to English like Sommer wanted to paraphrase - but in the interest of exposing the details, I should probably just go ahead and link the sausage that makes the district I've been talking about it. Bear in mind, I was pointing it out mainly because I think the sausage is worth inspecting critically.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/777/634/2259862/

 

[Berzerker]

Because you replied to me, but what you wrote didn't seem to be a response to what I was saying, so I re-iterated my point so you could clarify what's going on

I was agreeing with your comment (and FBs) with my own anecdote

 

[metalhead]

How is it logical that skin color and ethnic origin (possibly in excess of 200 years) then results in a litmus test for political representation? Talk about bigotry. Then there is the condescending attitude that this artificial rigamarole is still needed in a country that elected Barack Obama by quite a margin.

Ah yes, the old "We elected Barack Obama so there is no more racism" claim. I love this one. It's been so long since I've heard it, thanks!

 

[Broken_Erika]

Ah yes, the old "We elected Barack Obama so there is no more racism" claim. I love this one. It's been so long since I've heard it, thanks!

I thought there was no racism of any kind in America before Obama showed up?

 

[Cassius Critzer]

So black folks must have black politicians. Wow, that is really logical. And apparently only them but throw a bone to the Hispanics. Note that both of these are incredibly diverse as to be nearly meaningless categories. Someone from Cuba can be as dark as an eggplant, think of himself as a Hispanic particuarly Cubano, but of entirely mixed parentage over the last hundred years. And the opposite is true with the whitest Rubia, with blue eyes and natural blonde hair.

Oh brother.

Do you presume for a second that a Sudanese Dinka immigrant and newly made a citizen has much in common with an American who happens to be black and Jewish and has no idea if their ancestors were slaves or freemen?

What regressive thinking. You would suppose that there has been no change in the last 200 years and that African Americans were sharecroppers.

It is so paternalistic and worthy of mockery. Do Asians need this? To what degree? Must we have Hmong gerrymandering too? Laotian? Shall we split Communist Chinese from Han Taiwanese?

Sometimes I wonder if some liberals actually know any minorities and have befriended them and are genuinely connected to them as they speak of some, say "black" people which is insulting and generic, as if detached save for the concept of an oppressed variety of urban folks who live in Democrat strangleholds.

 

[rah]

In Illinois for almost every election our citizens try to get two issues on the ballot. Non partisan redistricting and term limits. And every election the politicians figure out a way to keep both items off. So regardless that a good majority of people in the state support this, it isn't ever going to happen. Just who is representing the interest of the state?

 

[metalhead]

So black folks must have black politicians. Wow, that is really logical. And apparently only them but throw a bone to the Hispanics. Note that both of these are incredibly diverse as to be nearly meaningless categories. Someone from Cuba can be as dark as an eggplant, think of himself as a Hispanic particuarly Cubano, but of entirely mixed parentage over the last hundred years. And the opposite is true with the whitest Rubia, with blue eyes and natural blonde hair.

Oh brother.

Do you presume for a second that a Sudanese Dinka immigrant and newly made a citizen has much in common with an American who happens to be black and Jewish and has no idea if their ancestors were slaves or freemen?

What regressive thinking. You would suppose that there has been no change in the last 200 years and that African Americans were sharecroppers.

It is so paternalistic and worthy of mockery. Do Asians need this? To what degree? Must we have Hmong gerrymandering too? Laotian? Shall we split Communist Chinese from Han Taiwanese?

Sometimes I wonder if some liberals actually know any minorities and have befriended them and are genuinely connected to them as they speak of some, say "black" people which is insulting and generic, as if detached save for the concept of an oppressed variety of urban folks who live in Democrat strangleholds.

Well this was certainly an impressive rant!

Are you interested in any kind of actual discussion, or just a bunch of virtual people you can talk your opinions at?