US House Redistricting: Texas (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2024, 01:06:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  US House Redistricting: Texas (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Texas  (Read 134707 times)
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,295
United States


« on: May 31, 2012, 12:50:22 PM »

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

No. The winner had 50.4% of the vote, and a much higher percentage among White voters.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that is the exact opposite of the Truth. The VRA has two key components. First, that Blacks, and other minorities, can vote. And, second, they can vote for whomever they want, and, not just the preferable/least_objectionable White candidate.

Again, the past practise of the DoJ has been to demand that such districts that revert be "packed" with even more minorities so that a minority candidate wins.

I can't find any links to exit polls, but this district is something like 70-80% Hispanic. O'Rourke must have received a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. Even if he didn't receive a majority of the Hispanic vote, I don't think you could really classify this as "racially polarized voting."
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,295
United States


« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2012, 01:46:52 PM »

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

No. The winner had 50.4% of the vote, and a much higher percentage among White voters.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that is the exact opposite of the Truth. The VRA has two key components. First, that Blacks, and other minorities, can vote. And, second, they can vote for whomever they want, and, not just the preferable/least_objectionable White candidate.

Again, the past practise of the DoJ has been to demand that such districts that revert be "packed" with even more minorities so that a minority candidate wins.

I can't find any links to exit polls, but this district is something like 70-80% Hispanic. O'Rourke must have received a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. Even if he didn't receive a majority of the Hispanic vote, I don't think you could really classify this as "racially polarized voting."

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

Again, I'd really like to see the exit polls. I don't know what the margins are in this particular case, but the demographics of the district suggest that O'Rourke received at least a substantial minority of Hispanic voters. I contend that it isn't racially polarized voting on the basis that the Hispanic vote was sufficiently divided in such a way as to allow the white Democrat to emerge victorious. My opinion on this may change when and if I see the exit polls.
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,295
United States


« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2012, 09:16:04 PM »
« Edited: May 31, 2012, 09:19:28 PM by Charles Barton, Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario »

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

The white population in this district is a) small and b) almost certainly Republican-leaning, not participating in the Dem primary.

You have an 80+% Hispanic district in a state where Anglos are overwhelmingly Republican. If this race was 50-50, that means the Hispanic population did not vote uniformly. If the dominant community did not coalesce behind a single candidate, it's impossible to say that they didn't elect the candidate of their choice.

Conseco and O'Rourke won for the same reason: heavy White support combined with a significant minority of Hispanic support. Either something untowards has happened in both cases, or it hasn't.  What he shouldn't happen is that coalition be declared okay for a White Democrat and unacceptable for a Hispanic Republic.

Nothing untoward happened in either case. The way I see it, if there is "significant dissent" within the ranks of the minority voters, then it's okay if the "candidate of choice" of the majority of that minority loses in a VRA district. You don't see me complaining about Quico Canseco or Blake Farenthold, do you?

But 50%+1 majority population isn't enough to force what I'd call "significant dissent." I'd suggest that the "candidate of choice" of a unified white electorate would have to receive about 20-30% of the minority vote in order to win in a VRA district over the "candidate of choice" of the minority. Of course, I'd also prioritize communities of interest and compactness over this criterion. Districts like NC-12 shouldn't exist.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there's anything remotely "untoward" about this race, it would be this. But the fact that I oppose open primaries is another issue.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 11 queries.