• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

North Carolina Redistricting

HeavyPetter said:
Looks like the 9th loses Gaston County and picks up southern Iredell. Hopefully Sue Myrick will die soon and we can get intelligent representation.
Click to expand...

You ever notice how Democrats speak of opponents dying while Republicans stay above that?
 
I said die because it would appear that she intends to stay in the seat until she's dead. She's already past the point of reasoning properly. But she's in a Republican majority district and the Republicans apparently embarrassed enough to run somebody against her.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I suppose it is not a surprise that you appear to be deliberately ignorant of who drew Mel Watt's district in the first place. 150 years of one party rule, and you're blaming the pubs for five months. Of course, that's what you do.
Click to expand...

You act like that's the only gerrymandered district in the country.
 
PhDeac said:
Which is why I favor districts based on county lines. Unfortunately, you belong to a party that favors corraling minorities into their own Dem districts and I belong to a race who figures a few guaranteed house spots is progress.
Click to expand...

Are you really saying that Dems don't draw districts in a favorable fashion in that states in which they control the process? Don't be silly.

IMO, in a state like NC, the so-called black districts give blacks more representation than they would probably have otherwise.

Blacks are only 1/4 of the state. Do you really think it's impossible to draw districts so that there are no districts with a black majority? I would say it would not be that hard to ensure that no black would be elected in N.C. without the support of a strong plurality of whites in either party, which would probably be hard to get in the primary.

GOP hasn't controlled the House in NC in how many years? You really think the Dems' previous gerrymandering was done to disenfranchise black voters?

Don't be silly.

This said, obviously the new map greatly favors the GOP, as it should. Will happen that way in every state in the country based on who is controlling the process. Part of the game.
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
I suppose it is not a surprise that you appear to be deliberately ignorant of who drew Mel Watt's district in the first place. 150 years of one party rule, and you're blaming the pubs for five months. Of course, that's what you do.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I guess Ph thinks the Dems were trying to disenfranchise black voters.
 
The only way to tackle the stupidity of this post is point by point.

KanhojiAngre said:
Are you really saying that Dems don't draw districts in a favorable fashion in that states in which they control the process? Don't be silly.

Nope. Didn't say that at all.

IMO, in a state like NC, the so-called black districts give blacks more representation than they would probably have otherwise.

Depends on your definition of representation. Guaranteed representatives? Yes. That's what I said in my post. Voting power across the state? No.

Blacks are only 1/4 of the state. Do you really think it's impossible to draw districts so that there are no districts with a black majority?

No and I didn't say that was a goal. I explained my perspective in my post.

I would say it would not be that hard to ensure that no black would be elected in N.C. without the support of a strong plurality of whites in either party, which would probably be hard to get in the primary.

Why would it be a goal to ensure that no black person is elected in NC?

GOP hasn't controlled the House in NC in how many years? You really think the Dems' previous gerrymandering was done to disenfranchise black voters?

No. I explained that in my post above as well. They draw up majority black districts to guarantee black candidates get elected which creates Dem districts while also creating Pub districts by default.

Don't be silly.

I'm not. You really have a difficult time with reading comprehension. You managed to go 0-fer understand my posts.

This said, obviously the new map greatly favors the GOP, as it should. Will happen that way in every state in the country based on who is controlling the process. Part of the game.

And it shouldn't be. Gerrymandering is one of the biggest threats to true democracy.
Click to expand...
 
There's a lot more that goes into it than just race, stuff that isn't so straightforward sometimes, like determining just what areas would be solid or where it would be a good or bad idea to "give away" a district. For example, Ohio's GOP created their own problem when they re-districted Ted Strickland into a safer seat, figuring no one from the southeast would win statewide. Up until the redistrict, he faced a dogfight every year even from weak Republican candidates like Frank Cremeans (who despite being a stupid stupid man actually beat him the first time). Result: Strickland became governor after 4 straight Republican gubernatorial wins and only the 2nd Dem governor since 1975. It's one of the most notable examples of botched redistricting in modern political history, and it had nothing to do with black people. It had everything to do with putting Jim Traficant out of a job (this was before the whole prison thing).

So you can take your accusations of stupidity and shove them up your ass because I know you're full of it.

Now that that's done, on with the show.

Both parties do this, and your party-tinged protestation -- feel free to review it if you disagree with that characterization -- carries with it the implication that the GOP is unique in gerrymandering minority districts. You ever think that maybe your race's politicians understand better than you what is best for them? They know the alternative could very well be 0, especially in a state like NC where they don't have enough numbers to carry the matter on their own. Of course, in reality it really isn't true that this could happen, but we'll get into that.
------------

IMO, in a state like NC, the so-called black districts give blacks more representation than they would probably have otherwise.

Depends on your definition of representation. Guaranteed representatives? Yes. That's what I said in my post. Voting power across the state? No. ---------
WTF are you talking about? Voting power across the state isn't changed by Congressional districts. Your vote for statewide offices theoretically counts the same no matter the district in which you live.

I guess you want districts where every district has 25% black voters and 30% liberal whites so you can win them all? Sorry, doesn't work like that. Never has, never will. Didn't when the Dems were in power for 100 years either. Wouldn't regardless of what system you used. What if some districts had 35% black voters but the other 65% were solidly Republican? Would you regard that as "right" or "fair"? The black voters would actually be overrepresented in that district, but would have very little chance to win ANYTHING. They could create districts that would be favorable for white Democrats, but unfavorable for black ones. Be careful what you wish for.

It could be argued that your idea of NOT gerrymandering would be considered a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Something pretty similar to it was actually ruled a violation by the USSC in Henry Bonilla's district, where it was ruled by the USSC that Latino voting power was diluted by adding more non-Latinos to his district and creating a proportion closer to that of the statewide population!

Basically there is absolutely no way to make everyone happy on this. If you make minority-majority districts, you're penning all the minority votes. If you create more balanced districts, you're diluting the minority vote. It's going to be a politically charged process no matter what.

---------
GOP hasn't controlled the House in NC in how many years? You really think the Dems' previous gerrymandering was done to disenfranchise black voters?

No. I explained that in my post above as well. They draw up majority black districts to guarantee black candidates get elected which creates Dem districts while also creating Pub districts by default.
---------

Not by default at all. Even in NC, not all white people are Republicans. It's a lot more complicated than that, and as I anticipated, you don't understand that. Martin Frost, a white Democrat, lost a redistricted seat in 2004 after the Delay redistricting in Texas. The USSC ruled that was not an unconstitutional gerrymander. The previous district was 25% black, Frost is white and had represented the district for 25 years as a Democrat. The court affirmed the district panel's conclusion that since Frost was a white representative, the redistricting didn't dilute black voting power. I personally find it ridiculous that it matters what color he was, but according to the Supreme Court, you are wrong. Moving more non-Latinos in the district represented by Bonilla (a Republican Latino) = a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Breaking up a white Democrat-held seat in a racially mixed district = not a violation. This case would seem to affirm gerrymandering as not only a legal but a required practice to increase minority representation.

----------
And it shouldn't be. Gerrymandering is one of the biggest threats to true democracy.
------

I didn't think you were this stupid, so maybe you're just trying to look that way? Do you know how old that term is, and how long this country has survived and thrived since its coining (and hence, since the practice began)?

I can think of a bunch of things happening right now that are bigger threats to "true democracy" -- whatever that is, we live in a representative republic, not a democracy and thank goodness for it, there's no way I want mob rule -- than how some house districts are drawn (corporate lobbyists and their role in campaign finance, the Federal Reserve, government action by "executive order", executive branch "posts" not subject to Congressional oversight, government organizations' ability to raise "fees" which are really hidden taxes with no approval from the legislature, just to get started).

A lot of House members are pretty useless anyway, and anything they do effectively has to be approved by 3/5 of the Senate, so a few wackjobs that don't really deserve to be there aren't really hurting much, and occasionally we get humorous Youtube fodder like Floridian Corrine Brown.

The Delay decision goes even further than traditionally has been, setting no limits at all for how often redistricting can be done and again, comes much closer to requiring gerrymandering than striking it down. The only part of the Texas plan that was struck down was done on a 5-4 vote despite five of the justices not even being able to define what constitutes an unconstitutional gerrymander (which makes me wonder how one of them managed to vote for something they can't define; maybe it's like the definition of pornography?).

So stupid, aren't I?

Hope you learned something.

If you're really interested in this stuff as opposed to just bellyaching about North Carolina's redistricting, you might be interested in what is happening in the state legislature districts in West Virginia, where there's a move afoot to get rid of multi-member districts. Right now the 4th largest city in the state has effectively no representation because of this -- the 3 representatives from the multi-member district all are from outside the city limits. I believe one district in Charleston has 9 representatives. GOP supporters in the state believe going to single-rep districts favors them, particularly in Huntington and Charleston. Oddly, the high ups in the Dem party, including the governor, appear at least publicly to favor the idea as well.
 
Why is there controversy over this only now? I remember very much a certain NC district that was a joke because of the way it was gerrymandered. But now to un-gerrymander it or gerrymander in a way that is more politically advantageous to the party in power is suddenly a controversy.
 
You need to stop implying and start reading. I shouldn't read your posts before going to sleep. Either I'll have to stay up and try to clean things up or I'll have nightmares about it.

Posts like this make me hate politics so much. It's clear you're so blind to anything but the two-party catfight that anything beyond it must be part of the two-party catfight as well.

KanhojiAngre said:
There's a lot more that goes into it than just race, stuff that isn't so straightforward sometimes, like determining just what areas would be solid or where it would be a good or bad idea to "give away" a district. For example, Ohio's GOP created their own problem when they re-districted Ted Strickland into a safer seat, figuring no one from the southeast would win statewide. Up until the redistrict, he faced a dogfight every year even from weak Republican candidates like Frank Cremeans (who despite being a stupid stupid man actually beat him the first time). Result: Strickland became governor after 4 straight Republican gubernatorial wins and only the 2nd Dem governor since 1975. It's one of the most notable examples of botched redistricting in modern political history, and it had nothing to do with black people. It had everything to do with putting Jim Traficant out of a job (this was before the whole prison thing).

So you can take your accusations of stupidity and shove them up your ass because I know you're full of it.

Now that that's done, on with the show.

Both parties do this, and your party-tinged protestation -- feel free to review it if you disagree with that characterization -- carries with it the implication that the GOP is unique in gerrymandering minority districts. You ever think that maybe your race's politicians understand better than you what is best for them? They know the alternative could very well be 0, especially in a state like NC where they don't have enough numbers to carry the matter on their own. Of course, in reality it really isn't true that this could happen, but we'll get into that.
------------

When on earth did I say gerrymandering was all about race? Never. When did I say it was unique to the GOP? Never.

Gerrymandering is all about politics and it's just bad for business and makes a lot of representatives safer than they should be if the districts were drawn with respect to existing county lines rather than party interest.


IMO, in a state like NC, the so-called black districts give blacks more representation than they would probably have otherwise.

Depends on your definition of representation. Guaranteed representatives? Yes. That's what I said in my post. Voting power across the state? No. ---------
WTF are you talking about? Voting power across the state isn't changed by Congressional districts. Your vote for statewide offices theoretically counts the same no matter the district in which you live.

Yes it is. It's simple math.

Let's take a theoretical state with 4 districts of equally size in state in which Group A is 50% of the population and Group B is 50%. Let's say District 1 is 100% Group A. Well that obviously means Group A makes up less than 50% of the population in Districts 2-4. In other words, the voting power of Group A in the rest of the state is lower than it would be if members of Group A weren't grossly overrepresented in District 1. I don't know what's so difficult to understand about that.

I guess you want districts where every district has 25% black voters and 30% liberal whites so you can win them all? Sorry, doesn't work like that. Never has, never will. Didn't when the Dems were in power for 100 years either. Wouldn't regardless of what system you used. What if some districts had 35% black voters but the other 65% were solidly Republican? Would you regard that as "right" or "fair"? The black voters would actually be overrepresented in that district, but would have very little chance to win ANYTHING. They could create districts that would be favorable for white Democrats, but unfavorable for black ones. Be careful what you wish for.


It could be argued that your idea of NOT gerrymandering would be considered a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Something pretty similar to it was actually ruled a violation by the USSC in Henry Bonilla's district, where it was ruled by the USSC that Latino voting power was diluted by adding more non-Latinos to his district and creating a proportion closer to that of the statewide population!

Basically there is absolutely no way to make everyone happy on this. If you make minority-majority districts, you're penning all the minority votes. If you create more balanced districts, you're diluting the minority vote. It's going to be a politically charged process no matter what.


I wish for districts in which residents of the same area voting about the same issues decide for themselves who wins elections because I'm beyond the simple partisan hackery that you seem tied beholden unto.

---------
GOP hasn't controlled the House in NC in how many years? You really think the Dems' previous gerrymandering was done to disenfranchise black voters?

No. I explained that in my post above as well. They draw up majority black districts to guarantee black candidates get elected which creates Dem districts while also creating Pub districts by default.
---------

Not by default at all. Even in NC, not all white people are Republicans. It's a lot more complicated than that, and as I anticipated, you don't understand that. Martin Frost, a white Democrat, lost a redistricted seat in 2004 after the Delay redistricting in Texas. The USSC ruled that was not an unconstitutional gerrymander. The previous district was 25% black, Frost is white and had represented the district for 25 years as a Democrat. The court affirmed the district panel's conclusion that since Frost was a white representative, the redistricting didn't dilute black voting power. I personally find it ridiculous that it matters what color he was, but according to the Supreme Court, you are wrong. Moving more non-Latinos in the district represented by Bonilla (a Republican Latino) = a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Breaking up a white Democrat-held seat in a racially mixed district = not a violation. This case would seem to affirm gerrymandering as not only a legal but a required practice to increase minority representation.

----------
And it shouldn't be. Gerrymandering is one of the biggest threats to true democracy.
------

I didn't think you were this stupid, so maybe you're just trying to look that way? Do you know how old that term is, and how long this country has survived and thrived since its coining (and hence, since the practice began)?

I can think of a bunch of things happening right now that are bigger threats to "true democracy" -- whatever that is, we live in a representative republic, not a democracy and thank goodness for it, there's no way I want mob rule -- than how some house districts are drawn (corporate lobbyists and their role in campaign finance, the Federal Reserve, government action by "executive order", executive branch "posts" not subject to Congressional oversight, government organizations' ability to raise "fees" which are really hidden taxes with no approval from the legislature, just to get started).

A lot of House members are pretty useless anyway, and anything they do effectively has to be approved by 3/5 of the Senate, so a few wackjobs that don't really deserve to be there aren't really hurting much, and occasionally we get humorous Youtube fodder like Floridian Corrine Brown.

The Delay decision goes even further than traditionally has been, setting no limits at all for how often redistricting can be done and again, comes much closer to requiring gerrymandering than striking it down. The only part of the Texas plan that was struck down was done on a 5-4 vote despite five of the justices not even being able to define what constitutes an unconstitutional gerrymander (which makes me wonder how one of them managed to vote for something they can't define; maybe it's like the definition of pornography?).

So stupid, aren't I?

Hope you learned something.

If you're really interested in this stuff as opposed to just bellyaching about North Carolina's redistricting, you might be interested in what is happening in the state legislature districts in West Virginia, where there's a move afoot to get rid of multi-member districts. Right now the 4th largest city in the state has effectively no representation because of this -- the 3 representatives from the multi-member district all are from outside the city limits. I believe one district in Charleston has 9 representatives. GOP supporters in the state believe going to single-rep districts favors them, particularly in Huntington and Charleston. Oddly, the high ups in the Dem party, including the governor, appear at least publicly to favor the idea as well.
Click to expand...

Screw it. I'm going to sleep. I hope you cut and pasted that from Wikipedia or something. You wasted your time arguing against things I didn't say. Obviously, people will try to set up the system in their favor. Nobody will argue against that. I'm saying it doesn't need to be as easy for them to do it. I'm also not saying that districts should to be set up so both parties have an equal chance of winning each district. If a county leans one way, let them elect people who reflect their lean. Don't force a lean by creating districts that link two separate metropolitan areas or crap like that.

For the record, I theoretically prefer the use of multi-member districts in large areas that difficult to divide by county, city, or neighborhood lines. In the case of WV, it seems like the district could be divided into city/suburbs to alleviate that problem, but I'm not familiar with that specific situation.
 
Dear Board,

Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. There are only two types of people: those who think precisely as I do, and people who are stupid. Please make a note of our binary system.

XOXOXOXO,

PhDeac
 
So in the 9th I lose Patrick McHenry but gain Sue "I was for term limits until I got elected" Myrick? Lose-lose?
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
Dear Board,

Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. There are only two types of people: those who think precisely as I do, and people who are stupid. Please make a note of our binary system.

XOXOXOXO,

KanhojiAngre
Click to expand...

Fixed it.
 
PhDeac said:
If a county leans one way, let them elect people who reflect their lean. Don't force a lean by creating districts that link two separate metropolitan areas or crap like that.

For the record, I theoretically prefer the use of multi-member districts in large areas that difficult to divide by county, city, or neighborhood lines. In the case of WV, it seems like the district could be divided into city/suburbs to alleviate that problem, but I'm not familiar with that specific situation.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between "letting them lean" and "forcing a lean" with regard to creating districts? Important question, and not an easy one to answer...depending on where your political loyalties lie, the same action may have a different feel to you, much like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Some metropolitan areas are much too large to be included all in one district, so how do you deal with that? How do you create districts there without someone being upset?

None of your protestations changes that the Supreme Court would be more likely to rule your "more balanced" districts a violation of the Voting Rights Act because they would take away minority representation than a gerrymandered district that made a minority representative likely. Nor do they change that districts more in keeping with the statewide racial ratio may not necessarily in the minority's favor, as we'll see later.

Bottom line, it's not that simple. The Voting Rights Act is a factor, as is the cost-benefit analysis of getting rid of one rep vs. another...back to the Ted Strickland story. Mel Watt I don't imagine is seen as the potential talent for a statewide office that some others are.

As far as NC goes, Dems really should quit their whining. They have a 44-31 registration edge in the state and yet can't manage a majority in the state legislature? No one's fault but their own.

The voter registration by district in the new districts:
1 -- D 67.8, R 15.8 - D +52
2 -- D 39.4, R 35.8 - D +4
3 -- D 48.9, R 29.6 - D +19
4 -- D 53.8, R 19.2 - D +34
5 -- D 35.5, R 41.5 - R +6
6 -- D 38.5, R 37.3 - D +1
7 -- D 42.1, R 32.0 - D +10
8 -- D 46.5, R 32.0 - D +14
9 -- D 31.1, R 40.6 - R +9
10 - D 39.3, R 35.6 - D +4
11 - D 36.1, R 37.3 - R +1
12 - D 63.8, R 16.2 - D +47
13 - D 41.0, R 36.0 - D +4

Wow, GOP really rigged the result in favor of themselves there. A whole two districts where they have a relevant registration edge. Every district except 1 and 12 has at least 20% undeclared.

What is interesting though is to look at the 2008 presidential election numbers. It appears that this would have been the guidepost the GOP was using. In 1, 4, and 12, Obama wins with 68, 71 and 77%, respectively.

In all other districts, McCain got between 54.9 and 58% of the vote and Obama got between 40.6 and 44.2%. The widest margin for McCain was in 11, the narrowest in 9. But it's amazing how close they all are.

It is worth noting that this is the case even though the highest percentage of black voters other than 1, 4, and 12 are in districts 3 and 8. D3 actually overrepresents the statewide black voting age population slightly, while 8 is pretty well in line. Yet neither of those districts went for Obama, or came close, illustrating perfectly what I'm talking about in arguing PhDeac's flawed point that gerrymandering dilutes minority voting power. They probably could have found ways to shovel more minorities into less favorable districts, but it appears they were trying pretty hard to get that 55% McCain result in their non-giveaway districts.

Fun stuff to look at.
 
Last edited:
Geography should trump politics in forming districts.

That's all I'm saying. You're working yourself into a tizzy to combat points I'm not making.
 
PhDeac said:
Geography should trump politics in forming districts.

That's all I'm saying. You're working yourself into a tizzy to combat points I'm not making.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't try to argue anything I said above either if I was you. Way to dodge all my questions in the first paragraph that attempt to examine what exactly your view of "geography trumping politics" entails.

And my point is neither you nor anyone else can define that. That's a completely abstract concept. It's not either-or, it can't be. I've explained why that is, but you probably file that under "combatting points you aren't making". There is absolutely no way to make this process so that everyone would be happy and no one would be accused of politics. You're always going to be helping or hurting someone.

Regardless, the Supreme Court to some extent REQUIRES that politics and racial makeup be considered. So your "should" has been judged to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act. So should the GOP violate that to make "geographical" districts? Because that's what they'd have to do to do something about district 12 at this point.

Next, if "geography should trump politics" is truly your only point, then where was this thread when the Dem-drawn Illinois map came out? Why weren't you all fired up about that one?
Forgive me I suspect a lack of sincerity for you not making a peep in that instance, but raising hell about the NC maps.

If you compare the current districts with the proposed new ones, don't you think the new ones *are* more in keeping with geography?

Districts 1, 2 and 3 look a lot more natural. 4 looks less so, but is certainly nowhere near as bad as 1 and 3 used to be over east. 9 and 12 aren't materially different. None of the others look much different as far as their geographic constitution, on balance. There are small changes here and there, but nothing huge from a geographical standpoint. If you didn't know the political implications but just looked at the maps, one could easily say the new one makes more geographical sense.
 
Last edited:
KanhojiAngre said:
Next, if "geography should trump politics" is truly your only point, then where was this thread when the Dem-drawn Illinois map came out? Why weren't you all fired up about that one?
Forgive me I suspect a lack of sincerity for you not making a peep in that instance, but raising hell about the NC maps.
Click to expand...

Because this board isn't populated by fans who went to a school in Illinois, and the majority of people on this board don't live/aren't from Illinois?

Also - the most ridiculous thing about these districts (I think it's worse than the current ones in this respect) is how cities are split down the middle. People who live in one city have mostly the same concerns/issues that need to be represented.
 
Kanhoji must think we're on the Lake Forest boards.

Completely agree about the cities. Somehow it's absurd to believe that people who live and work in the same area should vote for the same representatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top