Skip to main content

View Diary: What if legislators didn't have to draw majority-minority districts? Democrats would lose big (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you giving the numbers that prove a point (7+ / 0-)

    I've tried to make for a long time. Unfortunately many liberals haven't had experience in the racially polarized deep South, and so they get drawn into ideas like the VRA hurts Democrats. The former Confederacy still has racially polarized voting unlike most of the rest of the country, without the VRA they could easily eviscerate Southern Democrats.  

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)! Follow on Twitter @dopper0189

    by dopper0189 on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 02:58:01 PM PDT

    •  As an interesting follow up I would like to see (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jyrki

      the same map with a Democratic gerrymander of the South.

      -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)! Follow on Twitter @dopper0189

      by dopper0189 on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 02:59:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not just the south (0+ / 0-)

        but also OH, PA, VA, NC, WI, MI, NJ and NY.

        I bet if the Dems were to gerrymander these states to their liking they would pick up more than 20 seats to flip the House

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 03:11:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Far more than that even with the VRA requirement (6+ / 0-)

          going down the list you could easily get:
          OH +7
          PA +8
          VA +4-5
          NC +4-5
          WI +3-4
          MI +5
          NJ +4
          NY +3-4
          That comes out to 38-42 seats in just those states! In those 6 Deep South states Democrats could draw themselves 3 in Alabama, 8-9 in Georgia, 3 in Louisiana, 2 in Mississippi, 3 in South Carolina, and at least 19 in Texas. That would be a cumulative gain of 17-18 which is the house right there.

          I've previously drawn out all of the above except for Ohio and Michigan, but I know those two could easily be done.

        •  I agree... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dopper0189, Newt, GradyDem

          The entire premise of this article is based upon the GOP held legislatures were the ones doing the reapportionment the last time around.  This is not a valid reason to keep the status quo.  Yes, if the GOP controls enough states and controls reapportionment, they do get the US House.  However, if the Dems are in the driver's seat, we would certainly benefit.  

          Also, the result of this past reapportionment is that there are many far-right leaning districts.  Without majority minority districts, the individual  districts would have less of a partisan lean, and the legislators in many instances would have to be a little more cooperative.  

          I thoroughly enjoyed reading this entire in-depth analysis, and there sure was a lot of research put into it.  However, the conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans have died out because the new districts are mostly more in the extreme of one party or the other.  

          I know the advent of unlimited spending by outside groups has also taken over, but, district that were based upon regions, and not based upon the needs of individual legislator, for example in Maryland, the legislators would have to work harder to meet the needs of more diverse districts.  

    •  An argument could be made (7+ / 0-)

      That creating more biracial swing districts in the South is a way to force some politicians to try strategies that don't rely so heavily upon racial polarization.  Or it could force racial tension to be more explicit in its expression, shining a brighter light on the South.

      I've wondered if majority minority districts create problems of monoculture and if their resistance is related to opposition towards net neutrality coming from the Congressional Black Caucus.

      •  Not a bad argument... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Newt, Odysseus

        CA's "model" was mentioned in the diary. That model begins with the 2010 census redistricting. In 2000 the state was gerrymandered not for partisan advantage, but to preserve whatever incumbents were in place at the time (the D governor at the time, Gray Davis, was astonishingly weak - I voted against the recall of course but his recall should not be surprising). This resulted in some very bizarre boundaries, given the "need" to exclude Hispanic voters from Republican districts in the Central Valley, which overall is heavily Hispanic. And even then, thankfully, the execrable Richard Pombo was still tossed out on his ass.

        My original observation was MI - I remember Dems objecting to GOP "arguments" that the VRA required two Detroit-area Majority-Minority districts, despite the fact that Detroit itself doesn't fully merit a single district. Of course the claim was horseshit, as the entire point was: "the two majority black districts in Detroit already being optimally drawn for packing in Democrats", thereby excluding Democrats from any neighboring districts.

      •  I think we would just get VA style competitive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus

        races between a hard right conservative and a liberal Democrat. I don't think we would get more centrist, at least in the South.

        -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)! Follow on Twitter @dopper0189

        by dopper0189 on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 05:51:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site