• ryathal
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • MinorLaceration@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      Predominantly black would indicate whoever drew the districts was trying to suppress the pull of the black population, no?

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            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.

            • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              22 hours ago

              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.