Hey cool, while you're at it, look at the predominantly white districts too!
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
122 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4177 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Predominantly black would indicate whoever drew the districts was trying to suppress the pull of the black population, no?
In this case the article describes the opposite. There was one predominantly black district (out of six, and 1/3 the population are black) that the state was forced essentially forced to split in two. In the article I think they even mention civil rights groups prefer the two districts.
There are two ways of fucking with district maps. The one you are thinking of is "packing," which puts as many voters as possible in one district. Another is "cracking," which spreads a large number of voters (who could win their own district-sized contest) across several other districts. This contested map seems to be undoing a "cracking."
The goal of election map fuckery is to have districts that are all either 100% or 49% opponents, that takes both packing and cracking to make it happen.
Interesting. TIL about cracking.
Correct, they draw crazy maps that try to put as many minorities as possible in as few districts as possible so their votes while concentrated and maybe get a seat or two, prevent getting many more seats that their votes and locations would warrant.
Yep, it's called Gerrymandering.
Edit - The illegal part is when Republicans make less predominantly minority districts than they are required to by the Voting Rights Act.
It's baffling that with todays technology it hasn't gone to mathematically distributed zones with none of the bullshit humans create, which can then be reviewed by a non partisan group to ensure nothing fucked up.
Anyone who gerrymanders (dem or gop) knows they'd lose if it happened.
Yes, keeping the power is the reason both sides do it. And even if a non partisan group were to approve them, the GOP has been messing with them to suppress minorities and then just dragging their feet in changing them, or changing but in the same bad way and then running out the clock until it's "too close to the election to change the maps now". Then if they change afterwards they already got what they wanted, and then just rinse and repeat next time.
This is a good example of why redistricting is hard. Is it fair to intentionally distort things to make majority minority districts? Is it actually distorting to have no majority minority districts? Is discrimination ok when used for what's believed to be positive, or is the act of discrimination always bad? There's also the fairly racist assumption that the only chance a minority candidate has is in a majority minority district.
There also the weird idiosyncrasy where a handful of states were justifiably labeled as extra racist and deserve extra scrutiny. There isn't a way to add or remove state from the list though. This has allowed states not on the list to become just as or more racist and not be subjected to scrutiny.