Gerrymandering in Virginia

#951
#951
volfanhill said:
It wasn't changed for racial purposes. It was changed for political ones. If it had been an all white district but was consistently voting D it would have been changed. Still wrong but it's not about race.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, I agree with you. It's about the 9-0. But the lines get blurred real quick for a city that is currently less than 20% white and AA's are 95% D locally. It is hard to separate party and race in Memphis just given those overwhelming numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, Orange_Crush and volfanhill
#952
#952
KB5252 said:
Specifically what part is bull crap? Are you really going to tell me you believe that if Memphians voted Republican Democrats wouldn't seek to break up the district for their benefit?

This is politics. The only thing that matters is power. It's not about race, it's drawing maps that consolidate power for the party with power. Just as it is with Democrat controlled states. There is no difference, the intent is always the same.
Click to expand...
Your hypothetical scenario is too outlandish to even consider.

Do you think the Ford family has had so much political clout in Memphis over the years, including one of the most corrupt politicians the state of Tennessee has ever had (John Ford), because African American voters might one day flip to the Republican side.

Come on, man.
 
#953
#953
Orange_Crush said:
As long as you filter everything through race. A general look at the politics looks like this:




If Memphis was a Republican stronghold, the Rs would have whistled right on by, no matter the racial breakdown. It is politics, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
"If Memphis was a Republican stronghold .... "

There is that ridiculous hypothetical question again. 😂

The fact is, Memphis is very segregated, and black voters in Memphis (who bother to vote at all), vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

Race can't be ignored here .... and the way Republicans draw district maps clearly doesn't ignore it.
 
#954
#954
BowlBrother85 said:
Race certainly does make a difference to Republicans when they are drawing district maps.

I'm not sure if it's been changed or not, but the state of North Carolina once had a district shaped like a 250 mile two-headed snake. It's purpose could not have been any more clear ... Republicans were trying to put as many black voters in North Carolina as they possibly could into a single district.
Click to expand...
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. They aren't looking at races, they are looking at votes. When they look at the map they aren't saying........ "No we don't want those votes, they're black."

They are looking to consolidate power for the party.

For instance when Democrats in power look at a map they aren't saying, you now what, this predominately AA or Hispanic area that votes D borders an area that votes R. Let's keep those areas separate......... No, they combine them so their parties vote drowns out the opposition. The exact same thing Republicans are doing here.

It's always about power, the race is beside the point. It's politics.
 
#955
#955
KB5252 said:
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. They aren't looking at races, they are looking at votes. When they look at the map they aren't saying........ "No we don't want those votes, they're black."

They are looking to consolidate power for the party.

For instance when Democrats in power look at a map they aren't saying, you now what, this predominately AA or Hispanic area that votes D borders an area that votes R. Let's keep those areas separate......... No, they combine them so their parties vote drowns out the opposition. The exact same thing Republicans are doing here.

It's always about power, the race is beside the point. It's politics.
Click to expand...
They are looking at votes .... and they know blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. The ones who vote that is.

Republicans want to marginalize the black vote. I'm looking at reality.
 
#956
#956
BowlBrother85 said:
"If Memphis was a Republican stronghold .... "

There is that ridiculous hypothetical question again. 😂

The fact is, Memphis is very segregated, and black voters in Memphis (who bother to vote at all), vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

Race can't be ignored here .... and the way Republicans draw district maps clearly doesn't ignore it.
Click to expand...
It's ridiculous to think that a political party would do something to build political power?

Your problem is that you are asking us to ignore how American politics work in favor of the unproven belief that Republicans are doing this for racial motives. You are actually arguing against the belief that Rs would preserve a strong Republican district if it was also a black district? Really?


I would propose that you are the one promoting the ridiculous hypothetical.

Again...

Orange_Crush said:
Can you link to that, please? Anything that says they wanted it redistricted based on race as opposed to just their political party advantage. My understanding is that they stated that race is not a legal reason to prevent them from redistricting. Not that they are redistricting based on race. There is a huge difference.
Click to expand...
 
#957
#957
BowlBrother85 said:
They are looking at votes .... and they know blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. The ones who vote that is.

Republicans want to marginalize the black vote. I'm looking at reality.
Click to expand...

Marganilize the black or Democratic vote?

Still think its about the power but yeah, its almost impossible to separate race and party in Memphis...
 
#958
#958
BowlBrother85 said:
Your hypothetical scenario is too outlandish to even consider.

Do you think the Ford family has had so much political clout in Memphis over the years, including one of the most corrupt politicians the state of Tennessee has ever had (John Ford), because African American voters might one day flip to the Republican side.

Come on, man.
Click to expand...
Missing the point entirely. I'm not asking you to consider that Memphis would flip Republican. I'm asking you to honestly answer to yourself the next question.

Do you think Democrats would seek to split the vote in Memphis if they did vote Republican? Be honest. The answer is yes, Democrats don't care about the race of the person voting, neither do Republicans.

It isn't about race at all, it's about consolidating power, it's stretching the party line votes to a maximum. Democrats and Republicans play the same game. The only difference is rhetoric.
 
#959
#959
Orange_Crush said:
It's ridiculous to think that a political party would do something to build political power?

Your problem is that you are asking us to ignore how American politics in favor of the unproven belief that Republicans are doing this for racial motives. I would propose that you are the one promoting the ridiculous hypothetical.

Again...
Click to expand...
I didn't say their motives were racist or illegal. I agree that the motives of Republicans are to win elections, and to have as much power as they possibly can.

However, instead of trying harder to appeal to black voters, Republicans resort to marginalizing the black vote to win elections.

In turn, that eliminates blacks from being represented by anyone from the individual towns in which they live .... and that is racist.
 
#961
#961
KB5252 said:
Missing the point entirely. I'm not asking you to consider that Memphis would flip Republican. I'm asking you to honestly answer to yourself the next question.

Do you think Democrats would seek to split the vote in Memphis if they did vote Republican? Be honest. The answer is yes, Democrats don't care about the race of the person voting, neither do Republicans.

It isn't about race at all, it's about consolidating power, it's stretching the party line votes to a maximum. Democrats and Republicans play the same game. The only difference is rhetoric.
Click to expand...
You're missing a greater point of mine ....

Instead of gerrymandering, why don't Republicans try harder to appeal to black voters?
 
#962
#962
BowlBrother85 said:
I didn't say their motives were racist or illegal. I agree that the motives of Republicans are to win elections, and to have as much power as they possibly can.

However, instead of trying harder to appeal to black voters, Republicans resort to marginalizing the black vote to win elections.

In turn, that eliminates blacks from being represented by anyone from the individual towns in which they live .... and that is racist.
Click to expand...
So, it puts blacks in Memphis on the same playing field as everyone else. Understood.
 
#965
#965
BowlBrother85 said:
You're missing a greater point of mine ....

Instead of gerrymandering, why don't Republicans try harder to appeal to black voters?
Click to expand...
They have been, and it seems like they have made great strides.

They also used the same political tactics that the Dems have been using for decades. That's how politics work.

It's not mutually exclusive.
 
#967
#967
BowlBrother85 said:
"If Memphis was a Republican stronghold .... "

There is that ridiculous hypothetical question again. 😂

The fact is, Memphis is very segregated, and black voters in Memphis (who bother to vote at all), vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

Race can't be ignored here .... and the way Republicans draw district maps clearly doesn't ignore it.
Click to expand...
The way Democrats draw those maps in the states they control is based on votes. Just as it is in Republican controlled states. The race is beside the point. Maximizing control and political power is the purpose always. Neither care about the race of the vote pro or con, the purpose is always the vote.

Occam's Razor
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and Orange_Crush
#969
#969
Orange_Crush said:
The problem with your position is the 14th amendment--the "equal protections under the law" bit. You can't just carve out a race of people to get extra protections under the law.

From SCOTUS on the matter:


LOUISIANA v. CALLAIS background:

The state wanted to (I assume politically) gerrymander the state in Republican favor. They were basically told by a lower court that they couldn't do it because they have to favor the rights of one race above the rights of everyone else. The lower court literally imposed a map based on race. The SCOTUS rightfully ruled that this was unconstitutional and broke the constitutional principal of EQUAL protection under the law.



...






Again, you seem to be arguing that one race gets unequal favor under the law due to previous injustices. SCOTUS seems to have taken pains to address that. You can't just play fast and loose in the name of reparations.




The SCOTUS (IMO) correctly interpreted that the intent and text of the law in question was to reiterate and guarantee equal protections under the law. Trying to use it to create some specially protected class is unconstitutional.




(Note that the last sentence also harms your apparent argument that previous inequalities justify creating present inequalities.

...




They seem to have restored it, as section 2 of the VRA states that it exists to:



A: Minority rights to vote are not denied.
B: The law states that it exists to preserve equality for ANY citizen.


Again: If political gerrymandering is legal and allowed, you don't get to just pick a class of people to protect against its effects.
Click to expand...
Why is any gerrymandering legal?
 
#970
#970
BowlBrother85 said:
You're missing a greater point of mine ....

Instead of gerrymandering, why don't Republicans try harder to appeal to black voters?
Click to expand...
They have made some inroads but party line votes are hard to effect.

The left and right have done a masterful job of saying and doing little while blaming the other side. This country is so polarized the majority of Americans absolutely believe there is a wide Gulf between the two political parties but IMO they don't see the forest for the trees, their roots are intertwined to the point I don't see a great difference in either save cheap rhetoric.

Neither one stands for anything, so Americans resort to their comfort votes.
 
Last edited:
#972
#972
McDad said:
The root of the problem is not gerrymandering. The root is there are too few districts and too few reps for constituents. At the establishment of the constitution, there was one rep for about 30,000 citizens. To follow that design, we need about 12,000 congressional reps. There are 435 currently.
Click to expand...

Oh what a great idea
 
  • Like
Reactions: JOEY’S ALL VOL !!!
#973
#973
Orange_Crush said:
Like I said, start a petition and I'll sign it. The fact is, it is legal. The Dems have used it for decades. It'd be suicidal for Republicans to refuse to play by the same playbook when given the same rulebook.
Click to expand...
Well, this is a bit disingenuous since this whole recent Gerrymandering arms race was kicked off by the president demanding that Texas redraw their maps. Yes, both sides have done this intermittently, but the Rs seem to be breaking more precedence and using it as an organized strategy lately (see Ohio). Also, the Republican states doing this are doing it while ignoring the will of their constituents, because they know it’s unethical and unpopular. At least Virginia put it to the people to decide, and then it was still shot down. Don’t pretend all things are equal and exactly the same.
 
#974
#974
volfanhill said:
It wasn't changed for racial purposes. It was changed for political ones. If it had been an all white district but was consistently voting D it would have been changed. Still wrong but it's not about race.
Click to expand...
A 'distinction without a difference' when the desired outcome is the same for both; to diminish voting power of a racial minority.

It's just the veneer of 'plausible deniability' use to justify carving up minority residential concentrations that also don't happen to be particularly fond of Republicans.

Sort of like the USSC telling Alabama they had to create a second minority district under the law in 2023, and then deciding in 2026 in Louisiana v. Callais that their reasoning in Allen vs. Milligan somehow doesn't apply three years later even though the results are the same, the dilution of minority voting power.
 
#975
#975
OHvol40 said:
Well, this is a bit disingenuous since this whole recent Gerrymandering arms race was kicked off by the president demanding that Texas redraw their maps. Yes, both sides have done this intermittently, but the Rs seem to be breaking more precedence and using it as an organized strategy lately (see Ohio). Also, the Republican states doing this are doing it while ignoring the will of their constituents, because they know it’s unethical and unpopular. At least Virginia put it to the people to decide, and then it was still shot down. Don’t pretend all things are equal and exactly the same.
Click to expand...
So, you bascially just agreed that both sides have been doing it. "Recently" and "lately" indicate that the Dems have historically done it, and this may be a response.

Start a petition. I'll sign it. Otherwise, it would be suicidal for the Rs to abstain from the same playbook the Ds have run as well.

It's not important enough for me to search history, but I'll assume you don't have a history here bemoaning the fact that Dems had been doing it. You could probably put as much energy into that as you have put into silly excuses for whey it's more-bad when Rs do it.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top