The South

[JohnFKennedy]

The progression of voting in the South really interests me, it was solidly Democrat for years with the Democrats getting victories into the 90%s yet now it is almost solidly Republican in presidential elections and still mixed in others, how do you see it changing over the next century, more and more Republican? or will it loop back?

[Gustaf]

Unless something spectacular happens, I'd expect Deep South states, such as MS, AL, GA and SC to remain solidly GOP. The others, LA, AR, VA, NC could be battleground states in the future.

[Demrepdan]

Unless something spectacular happens, I'd expect Deep South states, such as MS, AL, GA and SC to remain solidly GOP. The others, LA, AR, VA, NC could be battleground states in the future.

You forgot Texas. I think TX, MS, AL, SC will remain solidly Republican.....and the states of LA, AR, VA, NC, TN, and FL (if you wanna consider it part of the south...its more in a category of itself.) can become battleground states someday.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

See my comments on "Whats with states like OK and LA" and the one about the LA map in 1992.

[Gustaf]

Unless something spectacular happens, I'd expect Deep South states, such as MS, AL, GA and SC to remain solidly GOP. The others, LA, AR, VA, NC could be battleground states in the future.

You forgot Texas. I think TX, MS, AL, SC will remain solidly Republican.....and the states of LA, AR, VA, NC, TN, and FL (if you wanna consider it part of the south...its more in a category of itself.) can become battleground states someday.

I didn't count these...I think the conservatism of Texas is overestimated, remember it's been the home state of someone on the GOP ticket in 5 out of the last 6 elections.

Btw, you left out GA...

[JohnFKennedy]

so you think they will get more and more republican over the next century?

[Gustaf]

so you think they will get more and more republican over the next century?

It's hard to predict century long trends...I think the Deep South will stay the same, basically.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Don't be so sure... of anything.
Politics in the Deep South would be completely changed if more poor whites (who are overwhelmingly Democrats) who are registered to voted actually voted.
Hopefully this would be accompanied by a white-black coalition (not as far fetched as it seems. Jimmy Carter had one, but it died when he left politics )

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In the Deep South this is probably the case.
In the Upper South the Civil War confuses things and in Texas... don't ask.

I'm still hoping for Jimmy Carter II...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I didn't mean it literally...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

BTW, Mississippi's delegation in the US House is split 2-2 in Dems and GOP, and that's with the GOP-slanted gerrymandering.

I remember now... Gene Taylor (D) represents what is normally the most GOP part of MS... ironic, eh?

BTW if MS had a fair map how many seats would each party have?

[7,052,770]

BTW, Mississippi's delegation in the US House is split 2-2 in Dems and GOP, and that's with the GOP-slanted gerrymandering.

I remember now... Gene Taylor (D) represents what is normally the most GOP part of MS... ironic, eh?

BTW if MS had a fair map how many seats would each party have?

Roger Wicker (R-MS1) and Gene Taylor (D-MS4) both represent very conservative districts, while Bennie Thompson (D-MS2) represnents the delta, a 2/3 black and very democratic district.

Without gerrymandering, highly republican Southern Madison County (my home) would have been put in District 2 (not affecting the outcome of that race), rather than 3.  In that case, the imcubent vs incumbent race in Disctrict 3 would have been closer.  Unfortunately it was not and Chip Pickering won without much effort.

If the State House plan (less gerrymandered) had been used rather than the State Senate plan, then we'd have 2 Dem, 1 GOP, and 1 very close--I don't know who would have won.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That confirms what I had guessed the effects of gerrymandering
Anyways the politics of Mississippi has always fascinated me.
Thanks for the info

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

<Sarcasm>  Yes, of course, if a suburban white area isn't placed within a heavily black Democratic district, then it MUST be gerrymandering </Sarcasm>

If a Democratic Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State House, and State Senate can't put out a map that is favorable to the Democrats, don't go blaming us.

District 2's race was much closer than I would have expected, though I figure there is a "vote ceiling" proportional to the number of blacks in the district.

[zachman]

Does gerrymandering have a major effect outside of large states? Can someone explain whether gerrymandering attempts at creating all one party dominated districts, or to have the ruling party have a significant lead in every district?

I think it is amazing how Mississippi has voted with Alabama in every presidential election except 1840 (Mississippi wasn't readmitted in 1868, but that is too much of an exception).

[zachman]

Also, were None of These Canditates an option in Mississippi and Alabama in 1960? How did people vote for the non voting electors? I'm assuming this was an anti-Catholic protest against Kennedy.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Well Gerrymandering for Congressional districts isn't a big issue in Vermont, South Dakota, North Dakota, etc.  But wherever there is more than one district, it matters.

You have a finite number of voters for your party and for the opposite party.  You first have to gather data to figure out exactly  what precincts (sometimes even down to the block level) your voters and the voters for the opposite party are.   You actually want the opposing party to have higher margins in their districts because that means that you have corralled the other party's voters away from districts that you want to win.   The object is to spread as many of your voters out in as many districts as possible without taking the chance of losing a district you currently hold.

In Tennessee, we have a rather close matchup between Democrats and Republicans.  Before 2002, Republicans held a 5-4 lead in the delegation.  For the 2000 census redistricting, the Democrats moved Republicans out of their target district (4) as well as out of some districts they were worried about, 8 and 6.  Those Republicans were moved mainly to District 7and were exchanged with the minority of Democrats who were in 7.  That means that Dist. 7 went from unlikely to impossible for Democrats to win, but made it possible for them to pick up Dist. 4.

Gerrymandering has always been a problem ever since Gov. Gerry... but nowadays GIS technology makes it far more exact and far more insidious.  Companies make software specifically for political parties to gerrymander to their best advantage without breaking the Voting Rights act.  This takes the burden off the politicans to prove themselves to voters, and protects incumbents from the possibility of answering for their actions.

Does gerrymandering have a major effect outside of large states? Can someone explain whether gerrymandering attempts at creating all one party dominated districts, or to have the ruling party have a significant lead in every district?

I think it is amazing how Mississippi has voted with Alabama in every presidential election except 1840 (Mississippi wasn't readmitted in 1868, but that is too much of an exception).

[Beet]

Why not get rid of Congressional districts altogether and switch to a STV (single transferable vote) system.

1. each party runs # of candidates up to the max across the state
2. cast your vote for a candidate; indicate your top 5 or so choices if you wish
3. candidates to win the top 9 seats (or however many CD's your state has) wins a Congressional seat to represent the whole state, (or unofficially whichever area/constituency he/she gained most votes from, if there is one.)
4. if your candidate doesn't need your vote to get over the election threshold, your vote goes to your #2 choice... and if your #2 choice doesn't need your vote, it goes to the #3 choice, and so on and so on.

Reasons to do this:

1. greater chance of third party candidates to get elected, because it now only needs approx. 1/9 of the statewide vote (or however many CD's your state has)
2. since 3rd parties have more of a chance, give voters more of a choice and increase voter participation and interest
3. realistically, a congressperson's constituency does not have to be focused in a certain geographic area; hog farmers could be spread across the state
4. get rid of gerrymandering
5. get rid of pork barelling
6. save state legislatures and GIS programmers a lot of time and effort that could be spent doing more productive things

[muon2]

Why not get rid of Congressional districts altogether and switch to a STV (single transferable vote) system.

1. each party runs # of candidates up to the max across the state
2. cast your vote for a candidate; indicate your top 5 or so choices if you wish
3. candidates to win the top 9 seats (or however many CD's your state has) wins a Congressional seat to represent the whole state, (or unofficially whichever area/constituency he/she gained most votes from, if there is one.)
4. if your candidate doesn't need your vote to get over the election threshold, your vote goes to your #2 choice... and if your #2 choice doesn't need your vote, it goes to the #3 choice, and so on and so on.

Reasons to do this:

1. greater chance of third party candidates to get elected, because it now only needs approx. 1/9 of the statewide vote (or however many CD's your state has)
2. since 3rd parties have more of a chance, give voters more of a choice and increase voter participation and interest
3. realistically, a congressperson's constituency does not have to be focused in a certain geographic area; hog farmers could be spread across the state
4. get rid of gerrymandering
5. get rid of pork barelling
6. save state legislatures and GIS programmers a lot of time and effort that could be spent doing more productive things

Before 1980 IL used multi-member districts for the State House of Reps. Republicans even came out of Chicago on occasion. The voters chose to get rid of the system by referendum in favor of single member districts and the Legislature is arguably more partisan now than then.

One problem in using a whole state for a single district is that you can get a concentration from one area that fails to represent constituencies. We see that in many small cities that elect their councils at large. A well organized campaign ends up selecting a majority of members from one neighborhood (often where the "old-timers" live). Other parts of town complain but can't break the voting bloc in the key neighborhoods, who can turn out more vote.

[minionofmidas]

Elections at large with everybody having as many votes as there are seats are the least democratic system of representation available...tellingly they are the most commonly used alternative to single member districts in the US.
STV is something quite different. It's currently used in Ireland, Northern Ireland and (with single member districts) Australia. I think there are a handful of cities in the US that currently use it, fairvote.org probably has a complete list...
If the districts are large enough (5 is a bare minimum) it's the most democratic system available, because unlike normal PR, it takes into account that parties are not equidistant.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most local elections in the U.K are done like that...

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most local elections in the U.K are done like that...

But with two or three member districts if I remember right, so it's not an absolute catastrophe...

PS Realpolitik, we need YOU to join the Constitutionalist Party!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But with two or three member districts if I remember right, so it's not an absolute catastrophe...

Usually. But not in Birmingham... [shudders]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Going into fantasy mode:
I'm going to make the Constitutionalist Party an affiliate of the Democratic Party in West Virginia (kinda like the Co-op party in the U.K and used to be common in the U.S when there were powerful third parties). That way I (er... I mean the Citizens of West Virginia) can have my (er... their) cake and eat it.

Senator Al Realpolitik
Chair: UMW
Chair: AFWVDP

[minionofmidas]

But with two or three member districts if I remember right, so it's not an absolute catastrophe...

Usually. But not in Birmingham... [shudders]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Going into fantasy mode:
I'm going to make the Constitutionalist Party an affiliate of the Democratic Party in West Virginia (kinda like the Co-op party in the U.K and used to be common in the U.S when there were powerful third parties). That way I (er... I mean the Citizens of West Virginia) can have my (er... their) cake and eat it.

Senator Al Realpolitik
Chair: UMW
Chair: AFWVDP

Now wait a second...The WV Constitutionalists as well as the WV Democrats will have to decide on that...
So you'll have to join us for a minute (you can do that by osting in the conststitutional party thread), affiliate yourself with yourelf and then you can go back to being a Democrat...
UMW is United Mine Workers?

[dunn]

But with two or three member districts if I remember right, so it's not an absolute catastrophe...

Usually. But not in Birmingham... [shudders]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Going into fantasy mode:
I'm going to make the Constitutionalist Party an affiliate of the Democratic Party in West Virginia (kinda like the Co-op party in the U.K and used to be common in the U.S when there were powerful third parties). That way I (er... I mean the Citizens of West Virginia) can have my (er... their) cake and eat it.

Senator Al Realpolitik
Chair: UMW
Chair: AFWVDP

Now wait a second...The WV Constitutionalists as well as the WV Democrats will have to decide on that...
So you'll have to join us for a minute (you can do that by osting in the conststitutional party thread), affiliate yourself with yourelf and then you can go back to being a Democrat...
UMW is United Mine Workers?

Lewis ,you made our point