Opinion of Racial Gerrymandering

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think this is the stupidest idea, the districts should make some sort of geographical sense and usually winds up producing people like Hastings, Rangel, and McKinney

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Agree. WE need to get rid of the idea of congressional districts and have simply 1000 representatives elected from 100 districts of 10 representatives by proportional representation. The districts would be made according to population without regard to state borders.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Seeing as racial gerrymandering also gives some very, very right-wing Republicans safe seats, I don't see why you're complaining, Down.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I think the concept of drawing districts solely on the basis of racial composition for a specific political purpose is despicable.  However, you could certainly make the case that common ethnic, cultural, and class distinctions should be considered when drawing districts.  As wierd as TN-7 is, it is certainly true that people in the Memphis suburbs have more in common with people in the Nashville suburbs than anyone else, and therefore deserve distinct representation for their interests.  The same could be said of inner-city Congressional districts or districts that connect rural African-Americans... it may look strange on a map, but its just linking a group of people with common interests.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Racial Gerrymandering certainly has been beneficial for the GOP in the south.  Indeed, the districts drawn in South Carolina in 1991 passed because of a combination of Republicans and Black Democrats working together to increase the number of majority black districts.  Of course, since the 1992 election the GOP has controlled the General Assembly and our House Delegation thanks in part to the rope the Black Democrats provided to hang the prospects for the Democrats to have a realistic shot at controlling the General Assembly.

[Colin]

Rangel

I'd like to see how you could draw a non-majority black district in the middle of Harlem. Rangel, if you didn't know this, is elected from a district representing Harlem in New York City. I don't believe its a racial gerrymander, since I believe the Voting Rights Act which designates some districts as black districts, does not apply in New York. I believe that even if you got rid of racial gerrymandering you probably couldn't get rid of Charlie Rangel or his district.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Rangel

I'd like to see how you could draw a non-majority black district in the middle of Harlem. Rangel, if you didn't know this, is elected from a district representing Harlem in New York City. I don't believe its a racial gerrymander, since I believe the Voting Rights Act which designates some districts as black districts, does not apply in New York. I believe that even if you got rid of racial gerrymandering you probably couldn't get rid of Charlie Rangel or his district.

Your right, but I'm just making a point of what kind of ppl get elected in districts that are too heavily slanted toward one race

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Does that condemnation extent to the right-wing white Republicans who get elected in lily-white districts created as a (hah!) by-product of racial gerrymandering?

[John Dibble]

I dislike all gerrymandering, so...

[MaC]

How do you redistrict without gerrymandering?  I doubt it's possible these days.  However racial gerrymandering is as stupid as gerrymanderingfor any other purpose-special interest groups, economic status, ect..

[Frodo]

Extremely negative. 

Black Democrats (particularly in the South) would be better served if their districts were made less black, and incorporated more white moderates and conservatives to make their districts at least more competitive, and forcing them to moderate themselves.  By doing so, it would improve their chances at winning statewide by displaying a more moderate voting record, and I am not just talking about gay marriage, abortion, gun control, and/or affirmative action.  Most importantly, by forcing them to represent those who are not black or liberal, it would help persuade white voters in a statewide race that a black Democrat running for a statewide office will not merely be a shill for blacks or liberals only.

[John Dibble]

How do you redistrict without gerrymandering?  I doubt it's possible these days.

Find a mafia buddy, convert him to libertarianism, and use him to coerce the hell out of some politicians.

[dazzleman]

Extremely negative. 

Black Democrats (particularly in the South) would be better served if their districts were made less black, and incorporated more white moderates and conservatives to make their districts at least more competitive, and forcing them to moderate themselves.  By doing so, it would improve their chances at winning statewide by displaying a more moderate voting record, and I am not just talking about gay marriage, abortion, gun control, and/or affirmative action.  Most importantly, by forcing them to represent those who are not black or liberal, it would help persuade white voters in a statewide race that a black Democrat running for a statewide office will not merely be a shill for blacks or liberals only.

I agree, Frodo.

I think we have to move past thinking that people have common interests based solely on their race/ethnicity.  This type of thinking perpetuates our problems.  We have to forge common interests between people of different races who live in the same areas under the same or similar conditions, and stop making people think that defining their interests begins and ends with race.

[Beet]

Extremely negative. 

Black Democrats (particularly in the South) would be better served if their districts were made less black, and incorporated more white moderates and conservatives to make their districts at least more competitive, and forcing them to moderate themselves.  By doing so, it would improve their chances at winning statewide by displaying a more moderate voting record, and I am not just talking about gay marriage, abortion, gun control, and/or affirmative action.  Most importantly, by forcing them to represent those who are not black or liberal, it would help persuade white voters in a statewide race that a black Democrat running for a statewide office will not merely be a shill for blacks or liberals only.

I agree, Frodo.

I think we have to move past thinking that people have common interests based solely on their race/ethnicity.  This type of thinking perpetuates our problems.  We have to forge common interests between people of different races who live in the same areas under the same or similar conditions, and stop making people think that defining their interests begins and ends with race.

^ ^ ^ ^

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How do you redistrict without gerrymandering?  I doubt it's possible these days.  However racial gerrymandering is as stupid as gerrymanderingfor any other purpose-special interest groups, economic status, ect..

See Iowa and Arizona.

[dazzleman]

Extremely negative. 

Black Democrats (particularly in the South) would be better served if their districts were made less black, and incorporated more white moderates and conservatives to make their districts at least more competitive, and forcing them to moderate themselves.  By doing so, it would improve their chances at winning statewide by displaying a more moderate voting record, and I am not just talking about gay marriage, abortion, gun control, and/or affirmative action.  Most importantly, by forcing them to represent those who are not black or liberal, it would help persuade white voters in a statewide race that a black Democrat running for a statewide office will not merely be a shill for blacks or liberals only.

I agree, Frodo.

I think we have to move past thinking that people have common interests based solely on their race/ethnicity.  This type of thinking perpetuates our problems.  We have to forge common interests between people of different races who live in the same areas under the same or similar conditions, and stop making people think that defining their interests begins and ends with race.

^ ^ ^ ^

We actually agree on something, Beet?  Shocking...

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Proportional representation is the way to go.

[Colin]

Proportional representation is the way to go.

Well duh, that's why almost every other first world country has it except for the United States. Just wait a few decades and Britain should have it as well.

[dazzleman]

Proportional representation is the way to go.

Well duh, that's why almost every other first world country has it except for the United States. Just wait a few decades and Britain should have it as well.

Proportional representation by race is a horrible idea.

[Colin]

Proportional representation is the way to go.

Well duh, that's why almost every other first world country has it except for the United States. Just wait a few decades and Britain should have it as well.

Proportional representation by race is a horrible idea.

Yes, yes it is. We are talking about preportional representation for the entire House, ie if the Democrats win 45% of the vote they win 45% of the seats. Not proportionality for race, that's even worse than racial gerrymandering.

[MaC]

How do you redistrict without gerrymandering?  I doubt it's possible these days.  However racial gerrymandering is as stupid as gerrymanderingfor any other purpose-special interest groups, economic status, ect..

See Iowa and Arizona.

Iowa is rather nicely cut-but Arizona??  Have you seen AZ-2?

[ottermax]

How do you redistrict without gerrymandering?  I doubt it's possible these days.  However racial gerrymandering is as stupid as gerrymanderingfor any other purpose-special interest groups, economic status, ect..

See Iowa and Arizona.

Iowa is rather nicely cut-but Arizona??  Have you seen AZ-2?

Arizona's districts are decided by a bipartisan group I believe, similar to Washington. There is reasoning for the way the district is shaped, but I am not very sure right now. Washington's are much nicer looking.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How do you redistrict without gerrymandering?  I doubt it's possible these days.  However racial gerrymandering is as stupid as gerrymanderingfor any other purpose-special interest groups, economic status, ect..

See Iowa and Arizona.

Iowa is rather nicely cut-but Arizona??  Have you seen AZ-2?

The reason for that is to keep a Navajo reservation seperate. The districts are pretty fair and sensible otherwise (look at the rest of the map), and partisanship is no issue.

[dazzleman]

Proportional representation is the way to go.

Well duh, that's why almost every other first world country has it except for the United States. Just wait a few decades and Britain should have it as well.

Proportional representation by race is a horrible idea.

Yes, yes it is. We are talking about preportional representation for the entire House, ie if the Democrats win 45% of the vote they win 45% of the seats. Not proportionality for race, that's even worse than racial gerrymandering.

That's also a poor idea, IMO.

[Colin]

Proportional representation is the way to go.

Well duh, that's why almost every other first world country has it except for the United States. Just wait a few decades and Britain should have it as well.

Proportional representation by race is a horrible idea.

Yes, yes it is. We are talking about preportional representation for the entire House, ie if the Democrats win 45% of the vote they win 45% of the seats. Not proportionality for race, that's even worse than racial gerrymandering.

That's also a poor idea, IMO.

What is? Equal representation or the various systems that achieve it?