The "Majority-Minority Districting Decision

[Spock]

The partisan breakdown of reaction to the recent supreme court decision on Majority Minority districts have me somewhat confused.

The breakdown seems to be that the Left is upset with the decision and the Right is more in favor of it.

But, the part that has me confused is, as best I can recall from 20 years ago or whenever they really became a thing is that "Majority-Minority"districts were a republican strategy to concentrate as many heavily Democrat minority voters into the districts as possible and thus increasing the likelihood of Republicans carrying the surrounding districts.

In my memory-Democrats were not real happy with this plan.

[jarnon]

I think that what Democrats object to is that the decision makes it harder to invalidate gerrymandering that discriminates against black voters. The particular redistricting scheme isn’t the problem. They also don’t like the use of civil rights laws and amendments to benefit whites, even though the laws were written to protect black civil rights. That trend was started by Clarence Thomas when he was head of the EEOC in the 1980s.

[BackInTex]

I think that what Democrats object to is that the decision makes it harder to invalidate gerrymandering that discriminates against black voters. The particular redistricting scheme isn’t the problem. They also don’t like the use of civil rights laws and amendments to benefit whites, even though the laws were written to protect black civil rights. That trend was started by Clarence Thomas when he was head of the EEOC in the 1980s.

Well, here in Texas blacks are outnumbered by our other "minority", Hispanics. So they should be really pissed. No one is concerned about them. Black, black, black. Than't all everyone talks about.

[Weyoun]

I think that what Democrats object to is that the decision makes it harder to invalidate gerrymandering that discriminates against black voters. The particular redistricting scheme isn’t the problem. They also don’t like the use of civil rights laws and amendments to benefit whites, even though the laws were written to protect black civil rights. That trend was started by Clarence Thomas when he was head of the EEOC in the 1980s.

Well, here in Texas blacks are outnumbered by our other "minority", Hispanics. So they should be really pissed. No one is concerned about them. Black, black, black. Than't all everyone talks about.

I think it’s because of the slavery and the subsequent and Jim Crow was used to oppress them.

I’d like to think we were past that, and white people like you who interact minimally with non-white people I’m sure think that, but it’s curious that, as soon as the opportunity arose, all these states immediately move to ensure that their entire congressional delegations would be white.

[silverscreenselect]

I’d like to think we were past that, and white people like you who interact minimally with non-white people I’m sure think that, but it’s curious that, as soon as the opportunity arose, all these states immediately move to ensure that their entire congressional delegations would be white.

Unlike what Spock said, hyper-gerrymandering today is more a matter of "cracking" rather than "packing." Urban areas like Nashville, TN, which logically should have the same Congressional representative(s) as much as demographically possible are instead broken up into several smaller pieces and lumped in with more rural exurban areas. As a result, Nashville no longer has a member of Congress representing the interests of its constituents.

[flockofseagulls104]

Long overdue

[BackInTex]

I think that what Democrats object to is that the decision makes it harder to invalidate gerrymandering that discriminates against black voters. The particular redistricting scheme isn’t the problem. They also don’t like the use of civil rights laws and amendments to benefit whites, even though the laws were written to protect black civil rights. That trend was started by Clarence Thomas when he was head of the EEOC in the 1980s.

Well, here in Texas blacks are outnumbered by our other "minority", Hispanics. So they should be really pissed. No one is concerned about them. Black, black, black. Than't all everyone talks about.

I think it’s because of the slavery and the subsequent and Jim Crow was used to oppress them.

I’d like to think we were past that, and white people like you who interact minimally with non-white people I’m sure think that, but it’s curious that, as soon as the opportunity arose, all these states immediately move to ensure that their entire congressional delegations would be white.

Well, no. That is exactly what the SC ruled was unconstitutional, race based districts.

But you and I know it's not about race. It's about policy. But the left's policies don't play well with blacks, so to keep them in line, they make it about race.

[Weyoun]

Well, here in Texas blacks are outnumbered by our other "minority", Hispanics. So they should be really pissed. No one is concerned about them. Black, black, black. Than't all everyone talks about.

I think it’s because of the slavery and the subsequent and Jim Crow was used to oppress them.

I’d like to think we were past that, and white people like you who interact minimally with non-white people I’m sure think that, but it’s curious that, as soon as the opportunity arose, all these states immediately move to ensure that their entire congressional delegations would be white.

Well, no. That is exactly what the SC ruled was unconstitutional, race based districts.

But you and I know it's not about race. It's about policy. But the left's policies don't play well with blacks, so to keep them in line, they make it about race.

I’m not really sure what that means. Apparently your Republican colleagues disagree with you. As an example, when they redrew the Tennessee map, they made part of Memphis and part of suburban Nashville the same district in an attempt to split up the black vote as much as possible

[flockofseagulls104]

I think it’s because of the slavery and the subsequent and Jim Crow was used to oppress them.

I’d like to think we were past that, and white people like you who interact minimally with non-white people I’m sure think that, but it’s curious that, as soon as the opportunity arose, all these states immediately move to ensure that their entire congressional delegations would be white.

Well, no. That is exactly what the SC ruled was unconstitutional, race based districts.

But you and I know it's not about race. It's about policy. But the left's policies don't play well with blacks, so to keep them in line, they make it about race.

I’m not really sure what that means. Apparently your Republican colleagues disagree with you. As an example, when they redrew the Tennessee map, they made part of Memphis and part of suburban Nashville the same district in an attempt to split up the black vote as much as possible

Those damn republicans.
Now that the bad supreme court (except for the one who doesn't know what a woman is) has said you can't draw congressional districts based on the color of the people's skin, they figured it's OK to do what has been done in New England, (and other blue machine states) where NO FRICKIN REPUBLICAN - NOT ONE has any representation in congress.

Why ain't you complainin about that, ifonly? When are you going to stop your skin color pandering? You RACIST!
It's very instructive to watch you and your ilk trying to defend the indefensible. Cheating, race pandering and , of course, TDS are the only ways your party remains at all viable.
Your friend (not),
whitefailure

[silverscreenselect]

Vermont and Delaware only have one Congressional district. Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Maine have two, which means that almost any sort of "fair" redistricting would wind up with two Democratic-leaning seats. One of Maine's representatives, is a Democrat (retiring), who won in a district that voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024 and awarded him one electoral vote. Also, Maine currently has a Republican senator. Also, Hawaii has at large voting for both seats, due to the inherent difficulty of dividing a state that comprises a half dozen inhabited islands into separate districts. New Mexico has three seats, one of which was recently held by a Republican.

So, most of your "examples" don't really hold water. Most importantly, none of these states have redistricted since 2021, when rhe results of the last census came out, and none of the redistricting radically changed the previous district lines, other than to account for minor geographic changes in population.

As opposed to the flood of southern states trying to redistrict in the last two weeks.

This is what happens when you rely on the in-depth analysis you usually get from random anonymous Twitter users.

[flockofseagulls104]

Vermont and Delaware only have one Congressional district. Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Maine have two, which means that almost any sort of "fair" redistricting would wind up with two Democratic-leaning seats. One of Maine's representatives, is a Democrat (retiring), who won in a district that voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024 and awarded him one electoral vote. Also, Maine currently has a Republican senator. Also, Hawaii has at large voting for both seats, due to the inherent difficulty of dividing a state that comprises a half dozen inhabited islands into separate districts. New Mexico has three seats, one of which was recently held by a Republican.

So, most of your "examples" don't really hold water. Most importantly, none of these states have redistricted since 2021, when rhe results of the last census came out, and none of the redistricting radically changed the previous district lines, other than to account for minor geographic changes in population.

As opposed to the flood of southern states trying to redistrict in the last two weeks.

This is what happens when you rely on the in-depth analysis you usually get from random anonymous Twitter users.

But let's not consider Massachusetts or Connecticut, shall we? Or Illinois or California, or what Virginia tried to do? Or all the blue states using illegals to prop up their numbers. Defend the indefensible by cherry picking and assuming your audience is as ignorant as the average Democrat voter.

[silverscreenselect]

But let's not consider Massachusetts or Connecticut, shall we? Or Illinois or California, or what Virginia tried to do? Or all the blue states using illegals to prop up their numbers. Defend the indefensible by cherry picking and assuming your audience is as ignorant as the average Democrat voter.

Massachusetts is 68% white and 7% black. Connecticut (which has five districts) is 67% white and 11% black. Whites form a plurality, if not an outright majority in every single district in those states and would likely do so no matter how you sliced up the states. They just don't like Republicans (although Massachusetts had a Republican governor not all that long ago). There's a logical reason for this. Massachusetts has the highest percentage of people over 25 with at least a bachelor's degree (Connecticut is sixth highest) and the highest-rated public school system in the country. Smart people prefer Democrats.

As for "blue states using illegals to prop up their numbers," (which is overblown since many undocumented aliens didn't respond to the Census for obvious reasons), that issue was resolved by that petty document called the Constitution almost 250 years ago.

[flockofseagulls104]

But let's not consider Massachusetts or Connecticut, shall we? Or Illinois or California, or what Virginia tried to do? Or all the blue states using illegals to prop up their numbers. Defend the indefensible by cherry picking and assuming your audience is as ignorant as the average Democrat voter.

Massachusetts is 68% white and 7% black. Connecticut (which has five districts) is 67% white and 11% black. Whites form a plurality, if not an outright majority in every single district in those states and would likely do so no matter how you sliced up the states. They just don't like Republicans (although Massachusetts had a Republican governor not all that long ago). There's a logical reason for this. Massachusetts has the highest percentage of people over 25 with at least a bachelor's degree (Connecticut is sixth highest) and the highest-rated public school system in the country. Smart people prefer Democrats.

As for "blue states using illegals to prop up their numbers," (which is overblown since many undocumented aliens didn't respond to the Census for obvious reasons), that issue was resolved by that petty document called the Constitution almost 250 years ago.

Oh, so you're going with the racism arguments as well. Keep it going for as long as it can to prop up the democrats. Because we all know that black people have no minds of their own, we need to keep them all together because they all want the same things? Right? All of them want to be in the democrat column. So let's keep them on the plantation.

So why don't we just go full steam ahead and carve out majority Asian districts. Majority districts for people with bad eyesight? Or majority illegal alien districts. Or majority trans gender or whatever districts? Maybe even majority Puerto Ricans from Mars districts? Why should this stupid, racist idea be reserved only for people with dark skin color?

"Smart people prefer democrats?" OMG! That is the funniest thing you have ever posted here. I'll have to tell that to Hank Johnson the next time I see him. Or maybe AOC.

Ill-informed and indoctrinated idiots prefer democrats. Have you ever seen any of those 'let's interview college students' videos? I know they're anecdotal, but they are at least indicative of a true segment of the college population that is very dedicated to your party and helps elect idiots like the two quoted above.