Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although 20 African American men served in congress from 1870 (all as Republicans), from 1900 to 1926 no African Americans were elected to congress. From 1928 to 1960 African American congressmen had captured 4 districts centered on Chicago, Harlem, Detroit, Philadelphia. In 1962 an African American who was 25% British and could pass for white (but never did so), won in Los Angeles.
The number of African Americans in House of Representatives (including delegates) climbed very slowly up until 1990 election. From 1966 to 1968 there was an increase of 5 congressmen, but after that all increases were no higher than 3.
1960 4
1962 5
1964 6
1966 5
1968 10
1970 13
1972 16
1974 17
1976 17
1978 17
1980 19
1982 21
1984 21
1986 23
1988 24
1990 27
1992 39
1994 39
In the 1992 the largest number of AA were elected, 16 to to the House and 1 to the Senate. With 4 who retired or one who was promoted to Secretary of Agriculture, the total in the House went up by 12. The dramatic change was due to the deliberate creation of minority majority districts for 1992 elections based on the 1990 census. Today there are 47 African American representatives (including 2 delegates) including Republicans and AA who represent majority white districts.
But at what price was these gains to the Democratic party? From 1990 to 1994 the Republican congressmen increased by 64 members giving them control of the House. Minority-majority districts are like a gift to gerrymanders, as they permit Democratic votes to be crowded and wasted in a limited number of districts.
My question is was it worth it to gain those 12 AA representatives and lose control of the House?
Please restrict answer to politics, and not wander into social rants.
Last edited by PacoMartin; 09-28-2018 at 10:47 PM..
Southern white Republicans worked with black Democrats in state legislatures to create black majority congressional districts in accordance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But in addition to creating a few minority districts, they created many more safe white conservative districts. It was one step on the road to the demise of the Southern white Democratic Congressman. The last was John Barrow of Georgia. His district was realigned @ second time when he managed to survive the first gerrymander.
Your premise is flawed. Majority minority districts aren't the reason Dems lost the house . Those same districts all existed in 2008 when there were 255 Dems in the House . Gerrymandering would be used against Dems no matter what, race is just one factor of many .
As you know Republicans had only controlled the House twice after 1932 and before 1994. You are correct that in the 2006 and 2008 elections there was a backlash that restored control of the House to the Democrats.
Politics is complex, and there are multiple reasons for everything. But the unprecedented 17 elections in 1992 of African American congressmen and senators was the result of a historic shift in congressional district boundaries. The creation of so many majority-minority districts at once was undoubtedly a major factor in the shift in partisan control.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,560,540 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
As you know Republicans had only controlled the House twice after 1932 and before 1994. You are correct that in the 2006 and 2008 elections there was a backlash that restored control of the House to the Democrats.
Politics is complex, and there are multiple reasons for everything. But the unprecedented 17 elections in 1992 of African American congressmen and senators was the result of a historic shift in congressional district boundaries. The creation of so many majority-minority districts at once was undoubtedly a major factor in the shift in partisan control.
Cracking and packing black people into districts indeed hurts democrats, but Democrats didn't create that nor did the civil rights act/VRA
that's simply the act of gerrymandering and Republicans choosing to gain the system.
its the main reason there aren't more Democrats in Texas, North Carolina, and Florida or the South in general.
For example. The District that Bobby Bright once represented in Alabama was never majority minority, but it was majority Democratic until 2011, that's when the Republicans split Montgomery and its suburbs into 3 different congressional districts.
Cracking and packing black people into districts indeed hurts democrats, but Democrats didn't create that nor did the civil rights act / VRA
that's simply the act of gerrymandering and Republicans choosing to gain the system.
I agree that it would be difficult to prove a direct connection.But it is hard to believe that the system that allowed the house to go from 27 to 39 African American representatives in one election (plus one senate seat) was not also used to increase Republican seats by 63 in two elections.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,560,540 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
I agree that it would be difficult to prove a direct connection.But it is hard to believe that the system that allowed the house to go from 27 to 39 African American representatives in one election (plus one senate seat) was not also used to increase Republican seats by 63 in two elections.
I disagree, look at the districts lost in 2010
Alabama -5
Arizona 1,5
Arkansas 1, 2
Colorado 3, 4
Idaho 1
Illinois 8, 11,14, 16
I could go in and on, but these districts all have small numbers of minorities and aren't affected by redistricting near their borders to pack or crack black people into or out of districts.
There are some 2014 districts that indeed were lost because of or a lot of the black vote was shifted from one district or another, but most , but looking at a glance, you could probably count those districts on one hand .
Great example of a majority-minority district is SC-6. Jim Clyburn has held that district for ~25 years. He won that seat from Robin Tallon when SC-6 was redrawn to include heavy minority areas of SC. This includes downtown Charleston, North Charleston and then it stretches 100+ miles to Columbia to include the minority districts there as well. It is a clever gerrymander. Take the two largest cities in SC filled with minorities (Democratic voters) and pack them in. The district is 57% African American.
Clyburn wins these districts usually about 70-30 give or take a few points.
The remaining 6 districts have roughly a 20% African American population. And the Republican candidates tend to win these districts about 60-40 (give or take).
What the majority minority districts have done in SC is give the state unbalanced representation in Congress in two different ways.
1. SC is 30% African American. There are 7 districts - you'd think that 2 of those 7 would be represented by African-Americans. No. only 1. So, on that front, the excuse of gerrymandering to give minorities accurate representation has failed.
2. The other side effect of majority-minority districts is unbalanced representation of the population of the state on the whole. SC in 2016 voted 60-40 Republican to Democrat. You'd think a 60-40 vote would reflect our congressional delegation. We'd expect roughly 4 Republican and 3 Democrat representatives. No, it is 6-1.
Most states have this exact problem. Hence why if you've heard the concept of this Blue Wave, you may also realize that on the whole, Democrats need to win nationally by something like 7 points simply to overcome the political gerrymander. In other words, for Democrats to win the House by 1 seat, they'd need approximately 8 million more votes nationally. For the record, about 125M people voted in 2016. A 51/49 split in Republican to Democrat supporters results in roughly a 240-195 split in the House. What kind of sense does that make? Republicans win 51% of the vote but get 55% representation in the House?
So keep that in mind come November. The nation could vote 53-47 nationally for Democrats and Republicans would likely still hold the House. And their justification for "victory" would simply be gerrymandering.
Why don't Democrats mix with Republican areas then? There are electoral consequences to only living in one small area of a state like most Democrats do.
1994 was a confluence of multiple factors. The minority districts had just gone into affect giving suburban voters in the South (typically R) more power as opposed to urban or rural voters- at that point most rural southerners still leaned D. 1994 was also when some campaign finance laws were kicking in and many Reps were retiring to pocket their campaign loot since they were losing this option. You also had a fair number of incumbents retiring because they read the tea leaves and realize 1994 was going to be a backlash against Clinton who had entered the presidency by winning a 3 way race with a little over 40%. The South was already trending R at the top of tickets so it was only a matter of time before this showed up in Senate and Gubernatorial races across the south as opposed to only certain instances.
As others have pointed out- the minority districts have become a pretty useful tool in packing districts. And modern mapping allows for people to slice and dice district maps down to the level of neighborhoods. Someone mentioned my state of SC that is solidly R but nowhere near the 6-1 split you see among our US House Reps. I know in some instances Rs and AA legislators have banded together to protect AA districts at all costs- but that was pretty short sighted as it made the AA reps safe seats in likely minority status.
At this point I think the minority districts are more of a hindrance than an aid to the AA community. It means most of the AA reps have mainly AA constituents as opposed to representing a broader array. It also means they are seen as AA reps first in the same way that others are seen as rural or urban. Also we've come to a point where you do not need to be in the racial majority to get elected form a district. Watts and Scott spring to mind among Rs and Cohen and previously Boggs come to mind as whites in majority AA districts. One Louisiana minority district was briefly held by an Asian Congressman.
In theory all an AA would need in the South for an advantage would be A district that was 25-30% AA and 55% Dem. That would make AA voters the majority in the Dem primary and the Dem the majority in the General Election. Someone mouthed off about Clyburn's district last year and he wrote a response begging them to make it more compact and competitive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
