If we ever got fair maps should VRA districts be abolished?

[jimrtex]

I think it’s a necessary condition of getting a truly fair system - or at least relax the requirements a bit. For example in Alabama you could get a single heavily gerrymandered district which is 65% black and the rest of the districts would be Republican or you could get two Dem-voting districts which are about 50-50 and much more compact and therefore fair.

Or like in Chicago where the current map is one of the ugliest in the country. Just because the neighborhoods there are segregated doesn’t mean congressional maps should be.

What is a fair system?

[jimrtex]

Not if the Pubs control where the lines go, no, particularly for blacks, but still also for Hispanics in most places. Pubs like Hispanic precincts in Pub districts in just the right amount, because the Dem margins divided by the total population in many Hispanic precincts is so low. A perfect example of that is my TX-07 that I drew in my Pubmander. I sought them out such precincts like a ravenous wolf.

Back when it was the Dems who screwed minorities in many places by spreading them around in just the right amount to elect white Dems. But that can't happen any more politically. Their black and Hispanic base won't stand for it.

Fair to me means minorities can elect candidates of their choice in this context.

I perceive what you are saying is that COI are not always defined by geography, and that distinct COI should have representation chosen by the community.

This can be achieved by permitting voters to enroll in a community, and weight the vote of the community's representative by the size of the community.

[jimrtex]

No, of course not.  Minority representation should be a huge consideration for any truly *fair* map.

The point of VRA districts is to allow minority communities adequate representation.  That will always be a valid criterion, no matter how (un)polarized racial voting patterns become. 

Can you define what you mean by a community?

Presumably a community is a group of persons who have some shared characteristics. What characteristic do you consider salient?

[jimrtex]

No, of course not.  Minority representation should be a huge consideration for any truly *fair* map.

The point of VRA districts is to allow minority communities adequate representation.  That will always be a valid criterion, no matter how (un)polarized racial voting patterns become. 

Can you define what you mean by a community?

Presumably a community is a group of persons who have some shared characteristics. What characteristic do you consider salient?

I’m not well-versed in what the courts have ruled in regards to this question.  But my layman’s principle is basically that no racial, ethnic or linguistic minority (given it is compact enough) should be drawn into districts in such a way that unnecessarily dilutes their ability to vote as a bloc.  In places where these minorities are large and compact enough, this can mean the creation of opportunity districts to allow the election of candidates of choice.

If what makes an individual a member of a community is not their place of residence but rather other characteristics, such as their race or ethnicity, why base electorates solely on place of residence?

If the black community is choosing their representative, why let other persons who live in proximity interfere in their choice of representative?

[jimrtex]

No, of course not.  Minority representation should be a huge consideration for any truly *fair* map.

The point of VRA districts is to allow minority communities adequate representation.  That will always be a valid criterion, no matter how (un)polarized racial voting patterns become. 

Can you define what you mean by a community?

Presumably a community is a group of persons who have some shared characteristics. What characteristic do you consider salient?

I’m not well-versed in what the courts have ruled in regards to this question.  But my layman’s principle is basically that no racial, ethnic or linguistic minority (given it is compact enough) should be drawn into districts in such a way that unnecessarily dilutes their ability to vote as a bloc.  In places where these minorities are large and compact enough, this can mean the creation of opportunity districts to allow the election of candidates of choice.

If what makes an individual a member of a community is not their place of residence but rather other characteristics, such as their race or ethnicity, why base electorates solely on place of residence?

If the black community is choosing their representative, why let other persons who live in proximity interfere in their choice of representative?

Hmmm let me think...

Maybe because that’s SEGREGATION and it’s BAD? Ever thought of that?

You state, "that is segregation." It is unclear what the pronoun "that" refers to.

Del Tachi wrote that the purpose of VRA is to "allow minority communities adequate representation." What did he mean by "minority community", or if you believe there are such things as "minority communities" what are they?

[jimrtex]

Del Tachi wrote that the purpose of VRA is to "allow minority communities adequate representation." What did he mean by "minority community", or if you believe there are such things as "minority communities" what are they?

To revisit this, my initial post made the point that minority communities "compact enough" are deserving of protection.  Geographic compactness is obviously a (major) aspect of what defines a community or place.

Do we agree that a community is comprised of a group of individuals?

In mathematical terms, if the universal set is all eligible voters in a state (if we are discussing a state legislature) how are you defining subsets that are communities?

Why not just let each voter choose their community? Each community could then choose their own representative, and exercise a vote proportional to the size of their community.

If a community were too large it would be divided. If a community were too small its members could choose a new community.