Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas re-redistricting Part IV: The State Senate (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're kidding right? (0+ / 0-)

    Because there isn't polarization along religious lines like there is along racial lines.

    The substantial academic literature in this area shows not only that, but that descriptive representation (I.E. a black person representing a black constituency, etc.) actually comes along with substantial substantive representative benefits as well. I.E. besides the symbolic nature of black representation, blacks actually represent on a whole host of things blacks better than do whites.

    Take, for example, Michael Minta's work Oversight where he finds very rigorously that minority legislators attend legislative oversight functions to do with racial issues at a far higher rate, participate when they're there at a far higher rate, and push for implementation in specific beneficial ways for strategic group uplift in such a way that white members (even white members who represent heavily black districts) do not.

    Another work in this area is David Lublin's The Paradox of Representation, who found that black representatives substantively represent their constituencies better than do whites (though this isn't the dominant finding in the work).

    Or take another work by Hero and Preuhs, Black Latino Relations, which found that for both minority groups descriptive representation actually comes with tangible substantive representation benefits as well, but that any substantive representation done by whites is mediated through ideological concerns not personal experience. They also find that the personal experience adds another layer of representation that is valuable for minority groups in constituency concerns and casework.

    I.E. Descriptive representation matters to a degree in order to get substantive representation at all for minorities, and because of racial polarization (which I won't even delve into the literature on this subject because it is quite clearly a fact) it would be exceedingly difficult for any minority candidate to get elected in all but a few of your districts, thus weakening the standard of representation (a standard that is still below par in Texas given that it is a minority majority state) that minorities have even just become accustomed to.

    Maps like these are directly injurious to large swaths of voters because white incumbents largely ignore minorities' interests and, more directly, do not engage in constituency concerns from minority constituents at largely disparate and dispiriting rates.

    THAT is why the Voting Rights Act, even though it does not according to both the Senate debate record for the 1980s amendments and 1990s SCOTUS rulings does not force approximations of proportionality or even maximization that was pushed by the Bush I DOJ, is important: because it matters substantively for how these people are represented.

    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

    by wwmiv on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:57:27 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  its not a white nonwhite issue in Texas (0+ / 0-)

      it's a rich poor dichotomy.

      RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

      by demographicarmageddon on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:12:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ... (0+ / 0-)

        Wow, that betrays a complete lack of knowledge on your part regarding how race operates in the south.

        And actually, the Lublin work above controls for district level data including, but not limited to, multiple measures of income and economic equality and finds that even then black members represent black interests better than do white members. In other words, race adds a benefit for minorities above and beyond what class would dictate and here's the big kicker: according to work done by David Canon, shifting to a minority representative does absolutely no harm to the level of representation and constituency work that whites experience on all issues (including class based concerns).

        In other words, minorities represent whites just as good as whites do, but represent minorities better than do whites.

        It also betrays a complete disregard for the degree that class and race intersect in the south, especially in the unique multi-racial setting that is present in Texas.

        In other words, if you want class to be preeminent in the south, you need to elect minority representatives, because whites - especially elected whites - do not care about the poor as they're all rich.

        23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

        by wwmiv on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:23:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Furthermore (0+ / 0-)

          If it were a rich/poor dichotomy, Democrats would still be winning East Texas rural whites.

          The fact that we are not provides enough evidence to disregard that preposterous thesis.

          23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

          by wwmiv on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:25:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Also (0+ / 0-)

            Poole/Rosenthal have routinely found in all of their works that there has consistently been two issue dimensions which bisect the American polity: the traditional left/right axis and the specific issue of race. The idea that class is the only thing that matters is on its face absurd.

            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

            by wwmiv on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:26:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  read Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State (0+ / 0-)

            by Andrew Gelman. He talks a lot about this.

            RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

            by demographicarmageddon on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:37:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What??? (0+ / 0-)

              Could you please combat me on the merits instead of sending me to a work which is widely read (yes, I've read it) that has only minimal to do with the debate that we've having?

              Sure, class matters, but because class matters does not mean that race doesn't matter also. Nor does Gelman ever really delve deeply into the descriptive v. substantive academic debate that has been waging for twenty plus years. His analysis is strictly an individual level analytics to explain why people vote the way that they do and how that manifests itself into election outcomes. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about here and seems to simply serve the purpose of throwing up an academically accepted work to keep up your appearance after my barrage of relevant literature above.

              And even Gelman has written about the importance of minority redistricting in a compilation by Paul Peterson. His chapter is calld "Racial Fairness in Legislative Redistricting".

              23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

              by wwmiv on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:47:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Just in case it isn't clear what we're arguing (0+ / 0-)

                about:

                We are not arguing about why people vote the way they do either along class or race lines (although that - either class or race, because of overlap in the south - does underpin the racial polarization and actually bolsters my point that minorities will not get elected to any of these districts.

                We are arguing about whether it is desirable to explicitly draw districts that can elect a minority candidate. Your maps and argument say "no", whereas the literature says a resounding "yes". I have provided evidence to you time and again showing why minority representatives matter, but you have never once explained why they don't matter. You keep trying to point me to individual level voter analysis that are at best tangential and at worst completely irrelevant and oftentimes without even explaining how they fit in to your worldview (I can't bring myself to call it an argument, because simply supplying a link and saying "read this" isn't anywhere close to being an argument).

                23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                by wwmiv on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:07:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  And even then (0+ / 0-)

              You can't simply state a piece of literature without explaining how it applies and what they say that backs your argument. For all the people who might read this who haven't read that work it comes across as you just roadblocking.

              23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

              by wwmiv on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:48:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  As a Texan (0+ / 0-)

        I can assure you. It's white/non white as soon as you get out of the urban centers.

        SSP alumni, 28, Male, Democrat, TX-22 ('10); TX-14 ('12)

        by trowaman on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:24:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Even in the urban centers its white/nonwhite (0+ / 0-)

          But less uniformly so than rural areas.

          23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

          by wwmiv on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:29:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site