All errors should be reported to

Tuesday, March 03, 2015

You left out the Voting Rights Act of 1965

As governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry almost vetoed the redistricting plan for congressional districts in 1812. Instead, he let the partisan divide of districts go into law, attaching his name forever to Gerrymandering.

This is what happens when you don't listen to your conscience, kids.

Christopher Ingraham of the Washington Post wrote, "This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see. How to steal an election: a visual guide." He failed to include the effects of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is the main driver of gerrymandering tehse days.

This is what happens when you don't do your homework, kids.

You see, the reason Republicans keep winning at the re-districting game is that federal law requires districts be carved out for black Americans. That's good for most of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus (Republican Mia B. Love and a few others represent majority-white districts) and for Republicans.

Republicans are only too happy to push Democratic voters into a majority-black district. That makes it better for the Republicans in the other districts. Georgia and South Carolina have no white Democratic congressmen. That's funny when you consider white Democrats held the majority of the House and Senate seats in the Old Confederacy up until the watershed 1994 election -- 30 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A link to Christopher Ingraham's poor work.



  1. If they did away with the 1965 act, and created districts based soley upon population, there would be fewer Democrats in congress and, probably more conservative blacks. No longer would there be protectorates for the likes of those whose only claim to fame is the color of their skin.

  2. And some of those black Dimocrats are a hoot, like dumb as a stump Sheila Jackson Lee, Hank "Guam is gonna tip over" Johnson, and impeached federal judge Alcee Hastings. Are those congresscritters the best black voters can elect? Their sole qualification is skin color.

  3. Can you say, "left it out on purpose", boys and girls? Yes, I knew you could.

  4. The NYT had a story last year about a couple of poly sci prefs that did a massive computer simulation of the 2012 national generic Congressional vote. The one where the generic vote was slightly more D than R, but the total House composition was 233 R to 202 D. It ran those raw results nationally through thousands of hypothetical Congressional district maps. It found that only a scant few handful of crazy pro-Democrat maps would have generated a Democrat majority. Almost all pro-Democrat maps, all neutral maps and all Republican maps would have resulted in a Republican majority. Furthermore, the real world map this decade, so derided by the left, created by the process the left demanded, is only a moderately pro-Republican map, which makes sense because not all state legislatures in 2011 were run by Democrats. The study authors concluded that the Democrats' problem with Congressional voters is that their voters are tightly clumped up in certain geographical niches, big cities. Not "gerrymandering."

    There's another way we can put the left wing hoopla over gerrymandering to bed. The national generic two party Congressional popular vote in 2014 was so close to what it was in 2010 that it was for all intents and purposes the same. The 2010 vote was fed into the Congressional district maps that existed from 2001 to 2011, the 2014 results were fed into these evil Republican gerrymanders. The results? 242 Republicans in 2010, 247 Republicans in 2014. A big 5-seat difference. A BIG BIG BIG five seats. Wow, some conspiracy.