Supreme Court approves South Carolina congressional map previously found to dilute Black voting power
Supreme Court approves South Carolina congressional map previously found to dilute Black voting power
The Supreme Court upheld a pro-Republican South Carolina congressional map Thursday, rejecting the argument raised by civil rights groups that lawmakers impermissibly used race as a proxy to bolster the GOP’s chances.
The Supreme Court upheld a pro-Republican South Carolina congressional map Thursday, rejecting the argument raised by civil rights groups that lawmakers impermissibly used race as a proxy to bolster the GOP’s chances.
But the high court also said that the civil rights groups that challenged the maps could continue to pursue one part of their claim, a move that will likely delay the battle over the districts for months.
With state election deadlines approaching, a federal court in March had already ruled that South Carolina could use the contested map in this year’s election.
The decision was 6-3 along conservative-liberal lines.
You're viewing a single thread.
Gerrymandering is despicable, as are the conservative Justices that allow it. Look at this ridiculous map.
It designates one Democratic district and six Republican districts.
Current voter registration is 44.98% Democrat, and 44.62% Republican.
This is exactly how Republicans maintain their control in the House.
Even with the demotivation caused by gerrymandering, the 2020 only election broke about 5:4 in favor of Republicans. In the 2022 midterms, it was 2:1, but only 3:2 when you take out the two districts where the Republican was unopposed.
A huge part of America's problem right now comes from worshipping "Constitutional Democracy v2.0" when many other countries are running version 4 or 5.
First Past the Post, no ranked choice voting, an imbalanced legislature, an Electoral College based on the numbers from that legislature, and contemplating no constitutional role for parties, all that has ossified the political culture. You get parties locking in temporary gains and pushing advantages to the hilt because after all there's no parties in MUH CONSTITUTION. Even if we assume the remaining 9% of voters in SC are all embarrassed republicans, that's still 5:4, like the presidential numbers tend to break. In what fucking world should that result in a 6:1 ratio in the house delegation?
I get that maybe you have to consider letting some people be a bit overrepresented to get them to buy-in, that's at the heart of many federal systems, but the degree and the manner in the US has become full-on toxic.
I wonder to what extent this is driving polarisation. I've been thinking a lot recently about what it would take to be able to break bread with someone who was very right wing politically. I see a lot of right wing people who I have a lot of common ground with, if I recognise that the material conditions they're living under are making them desperate for an alternative. Ofc, I'm not keen on the fact that many of them believe that people like me (queer, leftists at universities) are to blame for those material conditions, but I like to imagine a world where we could work on the same team against the things that are actually to blame.
I think the gerrymandering in the US probably makes it so that each party has less reason to court voters of the other side. I can imagine what it must feel like to be a republican in a super blue state — even if you do vote, it won't matter, and then every choice the elected government makes would perpetuate this idea of the big bad "other". I wonder how much this affects things though, given that the polarisation is driven by many complex factors
Well, it certainly doesn't help, and to your point, it means there are fewer incentives to overcome it, whatever is driving it.
One of the issues specifically related to your conundrum is that First Past the Post (and I'm speaking pretty generously here and trying to keep a lid on my cynicism) requires that the parties make appeals to very different constituencies in advance, and try to cobble together coalitions that are at least not ideologically ludicrous bedfellows. Serious policy debates do happen in America, but they happen before there is an elected voice advocating for them (which causes its own problems, looking at you, Dems relying on Roe v. Wade to keep the issue settled).
If there are conflicts within your big tent, you have to either accept the cognitive dissonance and hang together to avoid hanging separately, or you simply shout over and over that there's no cognitive dissonance at all, and all these things are part of a cohesive single platform, possibly divinely inspired. Both parties engage in both strategies, though I daresay the Republicans have skewed quite far to the latter, and as their natural power base has aged they've invited people into the tent whom they were previously content to ignore or at least quietly take for granted.
When you declare loudly that all your issues are important, they tend to seep between interest groups, because after all, relatively few people are truly single-issue voters. You can end up with, for example, people who may have little sympathy for LGBTQ+ rights, but no particularly strong animus, actively leaning into opposition they should barely care about, because it is part of "being a Republican," even though what they really fear is the economic anxiety of stagnant wages and perceived inefficient use of government resources, which leads them to think they'd be better off paying less in taxes. Wouldn't it be less bad if they could be part of a right-leaning party with less strident social views who would vote for (unwise, IMHO) tax breaks for the rich but not against gay marriage?
No ranked choice voting, however, means third-party votes are either meaningless or dangerous to your preferred out of the two practical options, and that has the linked effects of directly discouraging your voting for them in general elections, and encouraging the two big parties to find or create or imagine such serious differences between themsleves that anything that helps the other would be disastrous. There are people who, not without some merit, blame Ross Perot for Bush Sr.'s loss to Clinton or blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss to Bush Jr. in Florida. The system is a mess. People should be allowed to vote for whoever they want without feeling like doing so will result in their worst possible option winning out. Shit, that's basically what I'm dealing with this cycle. I'm personally comfortable enough with the Biden platform, given the realpolitik of the US, to vote for him again, but I'm not enthusiastic about supporting him. Still, I'm more passionate than ever that it's the right choice; I'd be a hell of a lot more understanding of people staying home or voting for other candidates if it were Mitt Romney or John McCain on the other side, rather than Donald fucking Trump.
I don’t believe that there are still non-fascist republicans. If the party leader tries to violently overthrow an election and then they nominate the same guy and he does well in the polls and you still don’t want to change your vote then you are definitely a fascist. And you don’t have to dig to deep to see that republican policies are anti working class and that the party only survives by catering to single issue voters.
I hate to break it to you, but there is not a world where you can work on the same team unless they change.
If the party leader tries to violently overthrow an election and then they nominate the same guy and he does well in the polls and you still don’t want to change your vote then you are definitely a fascist.
that didn't happen so you can start treating them like individuals again.
I guess they think some votes are more important than others.
Some votes are worth 5/5, and others are worth 3/5.
Well... if the area is ~45% dems and they are represented with 1 district out of 7, then they have ~14% representation.
3/5 of 45% would be ~27% representation, but currently they have just over 3/10
I didnt whoosh at all, im showing how the dems representation is HALF that of the 3/5 compromise for this given area
For the non-Americans in the thread, it's worth pointing out that the 3/5 compromise didn't give slaves representation at 3/5 the normal level, it gave the slaveowners overrepresentation in congress based on counting every 5 slaves as 3 additional people for apportioning the House of Representatives by population. The southern states wanted full "representation", while the northern states wanted zero, but the latter would have been better -- allowing that abolition was not on the table -- because it would have diluted southern influence in the lower house of Congress.
Thanks for adding the context, I forget how global this platform is sometimes
The crux of this issue (and the Supreme Court identified this while more liberal leaning) is that it's really fucking hard to measure gerrymandering-ness this is a pretty rational question to ask (though we should be bopping obviously gerrymandered districts down in the meantime). There's no obvious natural way to divide a state into districts and while we do have measures we can use to highlight voter disenfranchisement I think it's arguable that the closest we can get to a natural district map isn't really optimized for enfranchisement either. We tend to want districts to compose entire regions (i.e. the Philadelphia metro area) even though those regions introduce disenfranchisement due to previous redlining and other racist policies.
This problem is pretty hard to solve in an unimpeachable manner.
That’s true, but no matter the outcome, the total district representation should not deviate far from the state party distribution, as it does in this case.
The crux of this issue (and the Supreme Court identified this while more liberal leaning) is that it’s really fucking hard to measure gerrymandering-ness
Yup, for anyone who hasn't heard it, I'd highly recommend people listen to FiveThirtyEight's Gerrymandering Project. While this isn't to say that gerrymandering isn't a problem, it's not as simple as many people make it out to be. Especially with the high level of self-sorting which has been going on, packing lots of Democratic votes in a single district tends to happen, even without trying.
Current voter registration is 44.98% Democrat, and 44.62% Republican.
I'm not sure where they're getting that information. SC does not have registration by party at all. It's literally not information that the state collects.
The website states they get their voter registration data from L2 Data.
Palmetto State voters don’t register by party, but L2 has you covered. Our party identification modeling in South Carolina is built from both primary ballot selections and academic modeling which has gone through extensive testing. As an early presidential primary state, voters in this state get a lot of attention.
Know who they are by utilizing the detailed demographic and issue data in L2’s enhanced file. L2 data is trusted by campaigns, consultants and political organizations throughout South Carolina, and we’ve built a reputation in the state as having the most up-to-date and cleanest file available.