@no1marauder saidGeographic and demographic …aka blacks.
Already explained but let's take Louisiana.
Blacks in the US vote about 90% for Democratic candidates including in Louisiana.
Blacks are about 1/3 of the population in Louisiana and they are highly concentrated in a few urban areas.
Louisiana has 6 seats in the US House Of Representatives.
So a fair Congressional map of that State would tend to produce seats w ...[text shortened]... ely diluting Black voter preferences and reducing Black representation both in violation of the VRA.
What happens to the vote of the other races in these districts created solely because of one race?
@Sleepyguy saidThat's poor reading skills even for a right winger.
Yeah I read it all. Goes like this:
Because blacks vote for Democrats, Democrats are owed two seats.
@no1marauder saidBut it’s the truth isn’t it?
That's poor reading skills even for a right winger.
Its not about blacks, democrats couldn’t care less, its about democrat votes
1 edit
@no1marauder saidNah, that's the gist of it. As long your premise is "blacks vote this way or that, therefore ..." then that is all your argument amounts to.
That's poor reading skills even for a right winger.
9 edits
@Sleepyguy saidThen ignore the Dem/Republican aspect of it.
Nah, that's the gist of it. As long your premise is "blacks vote this way or that, therefore ..." then that is all your argument amounts to.
Simply put, the VRA ensures that blacks are represented at least proportionally to their population. If there's a black majority in area that could reasonably form a district, the VRA ensures that's done.
That's it. Nothing more.
Before the VRA, lawmakers could say "screw that, we're drawing maps to reduce their vote".
Arguing against the VRA means you think states should be allowed to gerrymander in any way lawmakers want, including against minorities. The VRA simply prevents gerrymandering to weaken minorities.
Honestly: is that really so wrong?
@AThousandYoung saidit is not about blacks. people t6hat dont see this also dont understand how democrats use psychology to keep blacks on the plantation
I say we go by prison rules. If the Blacks aren't fighting this (and there are a lot of Black conservatives cheering it on) then it's not anyone else's place to defend them.
You need to show heart before your homeboys step in to back you up.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidIt's about white Republicans minimizing Democrat influence by diluting Democrat votes.
it is not about blacks. people t6hat dont see this also dont understand how democrats use psychology to keep blacks on the plantation
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidThat's the premise of why Republicans are drawing the lines they are in the South and it's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.
Nah, that's the gist of it. As long your premise is "blacks vote this way or that, therefore ..." then that is all your argument amounts to.
That others see through this pretty obvious subterfuge is hardly surprising.
The courts shouldn't allow this attempt at dilution of Black voting strength and representation to succeed in the face of legislation specifically meant to prevent it just because some right wingers want to play dumb.
@vivify saidThe VRA is still an active document. The decision to say "we don't need to abide by equal opportunity based on race" in voting laws anymore should be made by overturning the Act of congress, not by SCOTUS deciding on a whim that it's ok to start writing discriminatory laws again.
Then ignore the Dem/Republican aspect of it.
Simply put, the VRA ensures that blacks are represented at least proportionally to their population. If there's a black majority in area that they could reasonably form a district, the VRA ensures that's done.
That's it. Nothing more.
Before the VRA, lawmakers could say "screw that, we're drawing maps to reduce their ...[text shortened]... The VRA simply prevents gerrymandering to weaken minorities.
Honestly: is that really so wrong?
@no1marauder saidNo, the premise of Republicans is that SCOTUS says they are no longer required to draw boundaries based on racial demographics, so they are free to redraw districts in a nakedly partisan way. Since pretty much all urban centers vote Democratic, regardless of race, it benefits Republicans to break them up. No racial considerations required.
That's the premise of why Republicans are drawing the lines they are in the South and it's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.
@Sleepyguy saidNo, it means they can and will racially discriminate in legislative line drawing so long as they can come up with a plausible excuse that it aids partisan goals (which given the political realities it always will).
No, the premise of Republicans is that SCOTUS says they are no longer required to draw boundaries based on racial demographics, so they are free to redraw districts in a nakedly partisan way. Since pretty much all urban centers vote Democratic, regardless of race, it benefits Republicans to break them up. No racial considerations required.
This makes the VRA, Section 2 a dead letter.
@wildgrass said"we don't need to abide by equal opportunity based on race'
The VRA is still an active document. The decision to say "we don't need to abide by equal opportunity based on race" in voting laws anymore should be made by overturning the Act of congress, not by SCOTUS deciding on a whim that it's ok to start writing discriminatory laws again.
are you fukin crazy...you just described racism to a tee
@AThousandYoung saidshow me the blacks that dont get to vote
It's about white Republicans minimizing Democrat influence by diluting Democrat votes.
@vivify said"Simply put, the VRA ensures that blacks are represented at least proportionally to their population'
Then ignore the Dem/Republican aspect of it.
Simply put, the VRA ensures that blacks are represented at least proportionally to their population. If there's a black majority in area that could reasonably form a district, the VRA ensures that's done.
That's it. Nothing more.
Before the VRA, lawmakers could say "screw that, we're drawing maps to reduce their vote ...[text shortened]... The VRA simply prevents gerrymandering to weaken minorities.
Honestly: is that really so wrong?
whatv about white, asian, hispanic, chinese, ect?