Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
I've already mentioned that in my first post on this subject earlier today, and I acknowledge the effects. It reinforces my point: that Democrats have deeper problems than gerrymandering. And very specifically, I was responding to iron -- that in a very specific respect, gerrymandering which creates minority-majority districts does a very important, critical thing for black people. The left and Democrats should take that thing seriously even if we acknowledge majority-minority districts are a catch-22 for Democrats; their presence particularly in the south means that lots of Democratic voters are packed into districts to ensure minorities are a critical mass of voters in districts and therefore effectively ensure the election of minorities to legislative bodies. But they ultimately serve as a burden on Democratic electoral power on the whole. If we did away with that prohibition in the Voting Rights Act, and/or existed in some hypothetical world where districts were drawn up in a non-partisan way, where racial minorities aren't packed into districts -- that may very well end up making the Democrats a whiter, less inclusive, more segregated party. Such a hypothetical world means Democrats are going to be competing for southern and rural white sympathies -- consider the effects that would have on candidate recruitment and messaging across the party, and then later on priorities when/if Democrats were successful. Without being Socratic and coy: I think it's almost inevitable and not debatable this would make the Democrats far more racist, far more committed to flattering angry white sensibilities. Democrats have been able to ditch *some* of that reflex on the whole, particularly after the mid 1990s because so many of those voters are lost in hopelessly Republican districts. That wouldn't be the case if we changed the map around. That's not a trivial thing and we need to think critically about it.
This ain't fence jumping to say poconoder is correct that all Democrats need is messaging help; but Democrats have a problem here that's beyond simple fixes. I've made this point before, but the GOP has a very simple job to do on the whole -- keep taxes low and keep whites agitated and anxious. By the fact that Democrats have a bunch of competing virtues and priorities, we have these knotty problems and competing interests. There's no easy way for Democrats to make a bunch of electoral reforms that doesn't jeopardize the character of the party as one even half-heartedly committed to social and racial justice. Gerrymandering I think is on the whole pernicious but that prohibition in the Voting Rights Act to allow for majority-minority districts allows for a substantial number of black legislators in a country still overflowing with angry racists. That's important to me, and rolling it back and leaving everyone to play nice and hope for the best without statutory support may return back to the ante Voting Rights status quo where both parties elected leaders are largely made up of whites and black representation is hard to find. Modern America has proven the absolute durability of white supremacist sympathies; without majority-minority districts, I suspect the Democratic party could easily be overrun by a bunch of Tim Ryan clones running all over the south, the midwest, in rural districts, justified by Welp This is The Only Way to Win mentality. That's a hard outcome to stomach but I find it almost inevitable.
Another spot on post.
Democrats have willingly segregated themselves (for lack of a better term) into urban areas. This leads to even non-gerrymandered HoR district borders to tightly pack the Democratic vote.
For example: Ohio. I live here. It's 4 Dem 12 GOP. And sure, a non-GOP gerrymandered map may not be 4/12, but even a reasonable map that isn't terribly gerrymandered may be 6/10 even though the aggregate vote statewide may be "deserve" to be 7/9. You can draw a district around Toledo, Columbus, Cleveland, Youngstown/Akron and Cincinnati. Makes those blue. But the Democrats vote sink themselves into cities.
And then the Senate. That's something totally else. California has two Senators. Idaho has two. It's always going to be an albatross around the Dems necks.