Argument for Dem House for a long time

[Gustaf]

The argument is dumb, because there are plenty of conservative leaning districts for the GOP to win back, so they don't really need the Northern suburban ones. It is true that it's a bit of an issue for the GOP, in that they have to work somewhat harder next time, but on the bright side there aren't many seats left that they can lose.

One can of course argue that a general point working against the GOP is Democratic minority strength. If we compare Democratic and Republican strongholds, New England states like Massachusetts or Connecticut are seeing the Republican party almost disappear. We all know the figure, 1 Republican and 21 Democrats in the House right now. In Southern GOP strongholds, on the other hand, there are plenty of Democrats left. Some are vulnerable, but most aren't. Because many of them are Hispanic or Black represenatitives that can not be out-gerry mandered thanks to the whole majority-minority districts rules. So in that sense it is a problem for the GOP. But the advantage of a rural base as compared to an urban one when using FPTP probably still out-weighs that.

[Gustaf]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

[Gustaf]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

I don't get your question.  Im not talking about keeping racial gerrymadering, im talking about abolishing it unless it is geographically compact like in Atlanta, New York City, or Detroit.

You're talking about using racial gerrymandering to create more Democratis districts. You seem to consider this as putting an end to racial gerrymandering.

[Gustaf]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end. 

How can racial gerrymandering put an end to racial gerrymandering?

I don't get your question.  Im not talking about keeping racial gerrymadering, im talking about abolishing it unless it is geographically compact like in Atlanta, New York City, or Detroit.

You're talking about using racial gerrymandering to create more Democratis districts. You seem to consider this as putting an end to racial gerrymandering.

It's not racial gerrymandering if one racial group just happens to live in a compact area. The districts of New York City could be shaped much more logically and would still mostly be majority black or majority Hispanic with a majority white district in Manhattan and another on Staten Island. It would be much worse if we specifically designed all of the New York City districts to match the city's overall demographics.

And I quote: "In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  "

That sounds like a school-book example of racial gerrymandering to me. Saying that it constitutes putting an end to racial gerrymandering seems highly contradictory to me.

[Gustaf]

Ah, so what you really mean is "let's put an end to racial gerrymandering unfavourable to my party and replace it with racial gerrymandering more beneficial to my party"?

I may be wrong but given the level of segregation I would think natural districts would tend to be more unfavourable to Democrats in this aspect than gerrymandered ones. But I could be wrong.