The Left Exaggerate Republican Gerrymandering of 2011 in Shutdown Role

Gerrymandering is among the weak spots in our constitutional system of government. Although it wasn’t intended or foreseen by the Framers of the Constitution, it popped up pretty early.

Anyway, skipping ahead two centuries, Democrats are understandably annoyed that despite the fact that Dem House candidates nationally received more aggregate votes than Repub candidates, the Republicans maintained a solid 234-201 majority.

Successful Republican gerrymandering had something to do with it, but gerrymandering  alone is not only or primarily in producing that result is often overstated.

During the current shutdown mess, some liberals have embraced a second, related theory suggesting that not only did the Republican gerrymandering manage to cobble together a majority of House seats out of a minority of House votes, but they also managed to create a large number of safe red districts packed with voters who are so far right that they produce congressmen who are either right-wing hardliners or have to act like they are to fend off a Tea Party primary challenge.

The goal of gerrymandering is to maximize the number of districts that are barely safe enough by packing as many of your opponents' voters as you can into a small number of extremely partisan districts while safely distributing the rest throughout your own districts. In this way, gerrymandering may actually increase the number of moderate Republicans.

So there's a problem in believing that gerrymandering inflated the number of House Republicans, while also thinking that gerrymandering increased the number of ultraconservative, Tea Party Republicans. That may seem surprising, but it shouldn’t be. In many respects, the GOP’s divide between relative moderates and ultraconservatives also cuts across geographic and partisan lines. In the fiscal cliff, for instance, northern, blue state Republicans were far more likely to vote for the Senate compromise than their red state, Southern counterparts. And the number of northern Republicans has been meaningfully inflated by GOP-led redistricting efforts in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Ohio. Without GOP-led redistricting in those blue or purple states, the inevitably conservative Republicans in red states, locked into ultraconservative districts by (let's call it like it is) racial polarization and the Voting Rights Act, would constitute an even larger share of a somewhat smaller GOP caucus, making it even more difficult to reach compromises like the fiscal cliff deal for instance. It would be more difficult to resolve the government shutdown or debt ceiling debacle.

It's Time To Do Away With Gerrymandering

Are you frustrated with the political environment we see not only in Georgia but in Washington, D.C?

Looking at the entrenched partisanship and gridlock in our political system, it's easy to become cynical. Year after year, it seems nothing changes. That's because your votes don't really count. One of the reasons is simple: GERRYMANDERING
.

Gerrymandering has effectively disenfranchised the majority of voters - and they don't even know it.

Districts are noncompetitive, so the winners are determined in primary elections, where the turnout is always low (typically about a third of registered voters) and the electorate is dominated by the most extreme and partisan voters. Legislators can only be defeated in the primary and so must become rigidly ideological, since any compromise can (and has) cost members their careers. That has led to legislatures as well as Congress incapable of solving problems.

With the SCOTUS decision to drop section 4 of the VRA, which was a huge mistake, what really needs to be looked at now is the total elimination of Gerrymandering.

In this redistricting process, gerrymandering – the manipulation of district lines for political advantage – has become the political weapon of choice. The two main purposes of gerrymandering are to protect the seats of incumbents and to allow the dominant party in a state to win more seats that it deserves.

A typical example of gerrymandering would be to draw district lines to keep a city with a large African American population out of a white Republican’s congressional district. The politicos would do this because African Americans are more likely to vote Democrat. In exchange for this the Republicans let the Democrats exclude white rural areas likely to vote Republican from their districts.

The result of this gerrymandering is that our politics get artificially polarized along ideological, cultural and racial lines. Republicans can safely ignore the concerns of African American voters because they know they won’t be a factor in their reelection. Democrats can safely ignore the concerns of rural and suburban whites because they know those people don’t vote in their districts. Instead of a healthy two party contest, elections become nasty little battles between different factions of one party. In many cases narrow ideologically focused bands of extremists can dominate the electoral process. Candidates have to pander to these groups rather than address issues of real concern to voters.

Eliminating gerrymandering for Congressional & Legislative districts could make our politics more moderate. When elections are held in predetermined geographic regions not drawn up by politicians, American voters tend to elect moderate middle of the road candidates dedicated to compromise. When politicians have to face election outside predetermined regions they tend to move the center. History also proves that candidates will abandon polarizing racial, cultural and ideological politics when their re-election depends on those of another race or culture. Getting rid of gerrymandering wouldn’t be a cure all but it could go a long way to improving our political system. In particular it could give us a House of Representatives that actually looks something like the America it represents.

The Cost of Reapportionment

When trying to redraw a legislative district here in Georgia, if you want to place 55,000 voters into a current rural house district, do not leave out a entire county in the process.

And while redrawing a legislative district, don't split a county in two, three districts

And while redrawing a legislative district, don't dilute minority voting strength in a particular area to ensure the election of certain candidates.

And while the VRA protects Majority-Minority Districts, please do not create anymore of these type of districts. Where would they be located. Democrats,(Black Democrats) in general, the more you push for these type of districts, the more you are ensuring the democratic party of a permanent minority status over the next 10-15 years. So no more deal making with republicans over "GIVE US MORE MAJORITY-MINORITY DISTRICTS & IN RETURN, WE'LL SUPPORT ANY MAP YOU PUT FORWARD".

And plus this only solidify the notion that if you're black, you belong in the Democratic Party & if you're white, you belong in the Republican Party.

A BLACK & BROWN GEORGIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, SPRINKLED WITH WHITE LIBERALS CANNOT WIN IN GEORGIA! ESPECIALLY STATEWIDE!!

No more Racially Gerrymandered Districts (just as they want to do with the 2nd by moving predominently Black, Inner city of Macon into Sanford Bishop's 2nd Congressional District, while leaving the unincorporated areas in the 8th District, held by first term Congressman Austin Scott.

Keep an eye on Gerrymandering over in the 12th Congressional District held by John Barrow, a conservative democrat. Despite Barrow only needing around 660+ more voters to meet the 692,000+ needed, the Georgia Republicans will "likely" alter the district significantly to lessen the chances of Barrow getting re-elected & increasing a prospective republican's chances of GETTING elected.

Dems have complained about being shutout of the process, while some republicans like State Senator Tommie Williams keeps referring to 2001 when Democrats ran the show & kept republicans out as well. Its like republicans such as Tommie Williams are saying, "Now its payback for what you tried to do to us (GOP) 10 years ago".

And lastly, Georgia Republicans are considering instead of going through the DOJ to get approvals of the maps, they might instead go to a court in tryin to get the maps approved because many from what I've heard say the Obama DOJ are very Partisan. You didn't think the Bush DOJ was partisan when they approved a mid-decade 2005 redistricting after the GOP got full control of the State Legislature in which they tried to oust Jim Marshall & John Barrow back in the 2006 elections?

The straight-to-court strategy has another possible drawback: It takes more time & ITS VERY EXPENSIVE. They could do like Louisiana & Virginia & take their maps to both the DOJ & the court for approval. In any event, don't be surprised if the Democrats present legal obstacles to a republican plan that they view as not constitutional or diluting minority or democratic strength in any area of the state.

In the Game of Redistricting, Georgia Republicans Hold all the Cards

Redistricting Gumbo, Georgia Style: I like mine with a 1/2 cup of fact, a 1 whole cup of rumor, and I would add a 2/3 cup full of “what ifs, but I'll leave that out for now.

The partisan struggle over the use of statistically adjusted data from the U.S. Census to avoid "undercounts" was just a warmup for the real game: the redistricting of hundreds of congressional & thousands of legislative districts across the country. Once the census data was provided to the state of Georgia, legislative districts must be redrawn to ensure they are equal in population. With few public interest checks on their near-Godlike power in drawing state legislative and congressional districts, incumbents use increasingly sophisticated computer software and demographic data to literally choose the voters before the voters have a chance to choose them.

Let me take that back, there have been plenty of public interest in this process. The first three held by the joint house & senate reapportionment committees in Athens, Augusta & Savannah were very passionate & lively. So there have been interest in this shady game called redistricting by Georgians.

Moreover, the political party with full control of the process in the state: Georgia Republicans can seek to cement their power. By using techniques like "packing," whereby lines are drawn to concentrate many supporters of political opponents into a few districts, and "cracking," where opponents' supporters are split among several districts, they can dramatically heighten their chances for the next decade.

With so much at stake, Ga Democrats and Ga Republicans, (especially democrats) are preparing to claw like cats and dogs, possibly in the courts. There maybe hearings, more lawsuits, more investigations. Sound familiar? In redistricting, anything can happen.

But who gets ripped off by this process? The voters, of course. As a result of the redistricting process, most voters become locked down into noncompetitive one-party districts where their only real choice at election time is to ratify the incumbent or heir apparent of the party controlling that district.

Redistricting, or shall we say the "incumbent protection process" is the leading cause of uninspiring, choice-less elections. If you are a Democrat in a solidly Republican district, or a Republican in a solidly Democratic district, or a supporter of a minor party, you don't have a chance of electing your candidate. Demography is destiny, it turns out.

In a vastly conservative state like Georgia and given the rise of the Republican Party during the Perdue years, having a possible redistricting plan so liberally drawn so as to protect incumbent republican & democratic legislators is an affront to every citizen in Georgia, whether Democrat or Republican, since the primary goal of redistricting is to ensure the ideal of one man, one vote. Party aside, redistricting is about giving citizens a voice and ensuring access to government; it’s about the people in these districts who expect and deserve a like minded representative in the legislature or congress

The recipe for redistricting under a true two party system can be like making gumbo (of course, politics in Georgia has often been likened to the same Southern concoction). The public only gets so much of the facts, a whole lot of rumors, sprinkled with alot of what ifs, but you have to admit that would make one heck of a redistricting pot of gumbo.

I've heard rumors of the possible elimination of either Richmond or Chatham County from John Barrow's 12th Congressional District, to the removal of Bibb County from Austin Scott's 8th Congressional District to improve his chances of re-election in 2012, to the new 14th Congressional District being located around the north Atlanta area to NW Georgia, with Hall County being the population center

The removal of Bibb from the 8th to the 2nd doesn't make any sense. The second is already around 50% African-American, so why pack the 2nd with all these democratic.....Black voters?

This is called Gerrymandering!

Bibb is a central Georgia county & should be located in a central Georgia district, not a SW Georgia or even a east central Georgia district like the 12th.

Gerrymandering is a conspicuous, irregular manipulating of electoral district boundaries to advantage one political party or candidate which is a distasteful, if not downright corrupt, practice.

Through gerrymandering, incumbent politicians seek to choose their voters rather than vice versa, packing their legislative or congressional districts with enough like-minded constituents to make re-election almost effortless. So do you get the picture, if Bibb is moved into the Sanford Bishop's 2nd District, away from Austin Scott's 8th District, that helps Scott & solidify Bishop's district as a Majority-Minority District. Its more of a help to Scott that it is to Bishop

The same goes for Barrow over in the 12th. Decrease the democratic strength in the 12th to make it more favorable for a GOP candidate to win, if not in '12, then in '14. Chatham & Richmond are two democratic strongholds & if you add in the Black Belt Counties located in the northern end of the district, that makes it a democratic lean seat. Eliminate one of the big counties, then it goes from lean democratic to tossup.

Redistricting is a dirty game & someone is going to get left out & someone is going to get screwed in the process. Oh and let's not forget about the special interest groups who may have their hands in the process. Boy, this is going to be interesting!

Majority-Minority Voting Districts and Their Role in Politics

Do two rights ever make a wrong? When it comes to two important aspects of voting rights, the answer may be yes.

The first is the use of majority-minority districts. These are political districts in which members of a racial minority make up an effective voting majority. This gives them the ability to participate and elect representatives of their own choosing, and has been the solution of choice in situations where there is, or could be, racial vote dilution.

But majority-minority districts give rise to a dynamic that undercuts the very goal they are designed to achieve. While they improve the ability of minority voters to elect a candidate of their choice in a particular district, they also cost their preferred political party other valuable seats in the legislature.

This, however, is less the fault of the majority-minority districts than of the second aspect of voting rights: the strict application of the one person, one vote standard.

Majority-minority districts have at least one very curious effect: they help Republicans. This is curious because minority voters, especially blacks, vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers.

The theory goes like this. When creating a majority-minority political district, the additional minority voters must come from somewhere. That somewhere is adjoining districts, which are drained of their minority voters. Those voters, though, are not merely minority voters-they are also reliably Democratic voters. And this makes it more likely that the Republican candidates will prevail in those adjoining districts.

Would this actually happen in practice? It's well-documented that it already has. Now, after the 1990 census, scores of majority-minority districts were created in order to comply with the mandates of the Voting Rights Act. For example, thirteen additional majority-black Congressional districts were created. They, in turn, produced thirteen additional black representatives. Majority-minority districting did, indeed, lead to the election of the candidates of the minorities' choosing.

Unfortunately, a large number of studies of the 1992 and 1994 Congressional elections revealed that this additional representation came at a cost. As a result of majority-minority districting, Democrats lost at least ten seats to Republicans. When minority voters were drained out of adjoining districts, Republican majorities were the result.

Both parties apparently notice that majority-minority districts tend to help Republicans overall, and hurt Democrats overall. In the early 1990s, the Republican National Committee pushed for the creation of more black and Hispanic districts as part of a strategy to win additional seats in the House. And in states like here in Georgia, Democrats sought to reduce the number of safe minority districts in order to improve the party's chances overall. In doing so, both parties were acting contrary to their general positions on race-conscious lawmaking.

Minority voting rights advocates, then, was faced with a choice between pushing districting plans that increase the number of minority representatives and those that increase the number of Democratic representatives. This is a real dilemma, since, of the two major parties, Democrats are generally more sympathetic to minority interests (hence the overwhelming support).

And this raises several important questions. First, we've seen that, as a result of majority-minority districting, minority voters ,who overwhelming vote Democratic, end up with fewer Democratic Congressmen & women.

But remember, the key to fulfilling the mandates of the Voting Rights Act involves ensuring effective minority participation. Democrats would be helped but would they be helped unfairly?

I think the answer is a clear no! Given that most minority groups overwhelmingly support Democrats, it makes some sense that if minorities' ability to participate truly does improve, Democrats would benefit. At least it makes more sense than what's currently happening.

What does all of this mean for this and future elections? Well, given the margins enjoyed by Republicans in Congress and many state legislatures, it reminds us that some of those Republican victories may be a result of majority-minority districting, not any genuine change in the country's political views.

To see what I'm talking about, just keep an eye on the 2nd Congressional District, as well as the 8th Congressional District where Republicans would probably look one of their own, Austin Scott by making the 2nd more democratic friendly by packing more African-American Voters into Bishop's District, while making Scott's 8th more white & republican. This is called Gerrymandering & this has hurt democrats more than it has hurt republicans, on the congressional & local level as well.

Gerrymandering Hurts Potential Black Candidates with Aspirations for Higher Office Here in Georgia.

YES!!!!!!!!!


The idea of creating majority-minority districts came from the thought that blacks (or other minorities) would have a better chance of being elected and thus be better represented in a district where the majority of the voters in the district are black. The 4th District is a prime example where more than 60% of the voters are African American. In SW Georgia, Sanford Bishop district has changed numerous times. Bishop first won the 2nd when it was a majority white district. In the other two districts, the 4th & 13th, those districts have over 50% African American Population. So does that prove the system works?

Yes and no. Yes, Rep. John Lewis, Hank Johnson & David Scott will get re-elected in 2012 and every year after and chances are when they retire a black Democrat will succeed them. Sanford Bishop's 2nd District has a great shot of being represented by a white democrat once he retires from office more so than the other more liberal districts in the state. But, could a Scott, Johnson, Lewis ever win statewide? No. They are simply too liberal. They are fine for their liberal, cut out district which they need to be, but that would not fly in the state as a whole. Before I thought Bishop had best chance of all of the black Georgia Democrats to win statewide because he represented a rural district in which he got a substantial number of white votes, but all that went out the window with his support for the unpopular Heathcare Bill & his close ties to President Obama. Each with the exception of Bishop can win re-election without a single white vote


The problem with them (xcept Bishop) is that their districts are not representative of the state as a whole because of the deliberate elimination of all those who are not traditional liberal, democratic voters. The same point could be made for most districts in the state House and state Senate. If African-Americans from the state legislature want to win a statewide election, they are simply going to have to moderate their positions on a host of issues. Of course, they risk losing the black vote when doing so, but that's a risk they are going to have to take.

Race to Defeat: Simple Subtraction of Down State Democrats

Once, not so long ago, they roamed in great herds. They controlled the landscape, and the alpha males among them ruled with certainty and swagger. But now, after generations of dominance, they've been reduced to endangered species and their natural enemies have marked them for extinction.

There are 0 White Senate Democrats outside of the Metro Area
There are only 7 White Rural House Democrats left out of 65 Democrats in the house.

Where'd all the white Democrats go?

What's it all mean? I don't know; go ask a wise man. I'm just doing math. But it seems a party's claim to diversity can't be helped when its roster of legislators is increasingly low on one of the state's major demographics : white people!

Do Georgia Democrats have to crank up a white outreach program (maybe at the local Rodeo or Gun Shows)?

Of course they do!

You can't form a party and write off the white vote. That's no way to come back into power!

I see the dwindling white Democratic caucus as further certification that when, and if, Georgia Democrats return to power (or at least relevance) "it's not going to be your granddaddy's Democratic Party. Not only will it be majority minority (mostly Black) it will be "predominantly minority. Any Democratic resurgence could be 10 to 15 years away if Black voter turnout doesn't improve.

Also the lack of highly visible white Democrats hurts the party's effort to lure white folks back into the fold. People do respond best to people that look like them. They feel good about casting a vote for somebody who looks like them, THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE!

But the main reason democrats are in such dire straits is due to Racial gerrymandering.

Democrats have lost as many seats here in the because of majority black redistricting." Remember when Floyd Griffin forst won a seat to the State Senate from a majority-white district, defeating the incumbent democrat Wilbur Baugh back in 1992.

Those days are long gone..........for now!

But no more. What enabled record numbers of blacks to win election to the House, also planted the seeds for their political disenfranchisement. Congressional redistricting after the 1990 Census saw federal courts and state lawmakers create new majority black districts, mainly by snatching black voters from existing districts and stuffing them into new ones. This essentially guaranteed the election of black Democrats to the new seats, but it also "whitened" neighboring districts and made them more Republican.

Redistricting after the census lifted the number of blacks elected to the General Assembly here in the state. There's no doubt that race-driven redistricting was a windfall to the GOP in Georgia, which helped them make significant gains here in the peach state. The GOP worked in cahoots with civil rights leaders such as State Rep Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta) to create majority black districts. The Republican appointees in the Bush administration's Justice Department regularly harassed state reapportionment committees and forced them to set aside special districts for blacks.

These redistricting schemes ultimately stem from the Voting Rights Act, first passed in 1965 to ensure black voters full participation in electoral politics--something they had been denied, especially in the South. But over the past 30 years it has slowly transformed into something quite different: A mechanism that not only guarantees equal access to the ballot box for blacks, but also virtually requires racially proportionate election outcomes. Democrats have aided and abetted this development, essentially underwriting the GOP's cynical exploitation of their politically foolish act. They will now pay for it with years in the wilderness.

A more liberal Democratic Party.............. Blacks now mostly control majority of the seats held by Democrats in the State House & the State Senate. Many of them are on the far-left fringes of the party, while most are just plain liberal. With the exception of a handful, the majority of the black legislators are basically seat warmers, having no influence in debates, legislation, etc.

Without white democrats who are more in the center, tilting toward the reight, the party will have a tough row to hoe if it ever want to really get back in the ballgame anytime soon.