One of the unintended consequences of mandating "majority-minority" districts as indicated in the 1982 amendment and renewal of the voting rights act, is that it allows Republicans to pack minorities into districts that vote 90% democrat.
So by following the VRA, Republicans (especially in the South) can create 55% Republican 45% Democratic districts across the rest of the state while "packing" Democrats into one or two districts. So in a close election cycle, the Republicans can sweep a lot of these 55R vs 45D districts thus giving them a distorted and lopsided victory. The 2012 elections for the House qualifies as this because the Democrats' 1% greater margin of popular votes could not overcome this disadvantage.
Consider the case of Mississippi. If Mississippi's black population were spread out fairly evenly across all of it's congressional districts, that might mean less black congress-members getting elected from there, but the white representatives would still have to answer to their constituents. Even the Republicans with large black populations in their districts would have to become more moderate in order to peel some of their votes away from the Democrats.
As Cynthia Tucker states:
http://blogs.ajc.com/...
If black voters think they have made substantial gains simply by having more black representatives in Congress, they’re wrong. They’d have more influence if they were spread through several legislative districts, forcing more candidates to court them.
Are the voters from Steve Cohen's district (which is majority black) less represented because he is not black? He even asked for membership in the CBC, but was rejected.
There were a few black Republicans elected in white districts in the 2010 tea party wave election--but nobody would mistake them for being liberals just because they're black. They vote according to the wishes of their constituents.
So who would African Americans feel more represented by? Steve Cohen or Allen West?
I rest my case.