Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Voting Rights Act and Gerrymandering

  1. #1
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,593

    Default Voting Rights Act and Gerrymandering

    In a discussion at another site I go to someone made an interesting claim I'd never seen before that a large part of the reason the Democrats struggle with gerrymandered seats is not simply because of Republican-led gerrymandering but because of the requirement for majority/minority districts set in the Voting Rights Act. This creates districts that are packed with lots of wasted Democrat votes.

    I don't know too much about this topic, is there any truth in that?

    PS is district the right word for American constituencies?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  2. #2
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,468
    The Voting Rights Act is open to interpretation, as is gerrymandering. The whole thing is fairly confusing, which leads to loopholes, and exploiting those loopholes.

    My state of PA has drawn new congressional district lines, after our state supreme court decided the old lines were based on party favor/discrimination.

    Yes, district is the right word. That's what gerrymandering is all about.....

  3. #3
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,613
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    In a discussion at another site I go to someone made an interesting claim I'd never seen before that a large part of the reason the Democrats struggle with gerrymandered seats is not simply because of Republican-led gerrymandering but because of the requirement for majority/minority districts set in the Voting Rights Act. This creates districts that are packed with lots of wasted Democrat votes.
    I don't know about a large part but it is a contributing factor. You have to remember though that the parties do like to do quite a bit of packing to create unassailably safe seats as well. I would say that it's less that it makes things hard for the Democrats as it makes things easier for the Republicans.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  4. #4
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,593
    Given the lack of third parties or independents that looks like a distinction without a difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #5
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,613
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Given the lack of third parties or independents that looks like a distinction without a difference.
    I can only assume that's because you didn't pay attention to the middle sentence.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #6
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,593
    I did pay attention to it, even if they want safe seats that's normally of the 60/40-70/30 variety not 90/10 which is how I believe the African American vote splits. If the Democrats were to do an ideal gerrymander from a blank sheet of paper without restrictions then it may not include majority/minority seats.

    Either way though given that there are only two parties making things easy for one party makes things automatically harder for their opposition and vice-versa, that's a truism unless a third party alternative exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  7. #7
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,613
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I did pay attention to it, even if they want safe seats that's normally of the 60/40-70/30 variety not 90/10 which is how I believe the African American vote splits. If the Democrats were to do an ideal gerrymander from a blank sheet of paper without restrictions then it may not include majority/minority seats.

    Either way though given that there are only two parties making things easy for one party makes things automatically harder for their opposition and vice-versa, that's a truism unless a third party alternative exists.
    Except it would include majority/minority seats since those would be safe seats for the Dems with the way the African-American vote goes. They'd just be aiming for fairly small African-American majorities. They can work around the majority/minority district requirement with only a little bit of difficulty when it comes to redistricting for their benefit, so no, it doesn't make things harder for them. But it does make negative packing easier for the Republicans when they're the ones doing the redistricting.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •