Sure, after the South had already flipped. If it hadn’t, maybe the Democrats would still have the House.
And pre-clearance isn’t the issue. The effect would happen with or without it.
Of course. But are you satisifed with the progress now? Nothing more need be done? The Republicans are just as good at helping blacks as the Democrats?
Not on in Congress. They have more seats, but virtually all of them are in the minority party in the House. Blacks might be better off having the power to send white Democrats who sympathize with them (and depend on them to win their seats) than sending a few more black representatives to Washington to be completely ignored by a nearly all-white Republican majority.
This isn’t occurring in a vacuum. Representatives get to know their fellow politicians by working with them. A white Rep advancing black issues wouldn’t be any more effective than a black Rep; in fact he might be less likely to be as passionately involved with them.
The “wage gap” is almost entirely explained by female job choices and women taking time off for kids. Given that the map of fertility rates by states is almost perfectly inverse to the pay gap map, it appears that there are more pregnant women in the red states.
The reason that the pay gap increases is that women make the choice to work less and spend more time with their kids. The same outfit that came up with those numbers admits that the pay gap is only 5% after adjusting for hours worked, experience, and type of occupations chosen. That does not mean that the 5% is due to discrimination only that it is unexplained by the factors they have chosen.
In fact in many large cities, when you adjust for parental and marital status women make more than men.
A white rep in the majority party is probably going to be more effective than a black rep in the minority party, at least in the House. That’s my point.
PART of the pay gap is explained by perfectly rational factors such as work experience and just plain hours worked. Of course someone should be paid less if they work less or have less experience, etc.
PART of the pay gap is not explained by those things, meaning it is probably due to sex discrimination.
BOTH sides are right (or both are wrong, depending on how you look at it).
By using the Voting Rights Act to increase their numbers, they may have sacrificed the Democratic majority (which is why the GOP now gleefully sues on the side of the Voting Rights Act in redistricting battles these days, and what can Dems say about it?) Blacks are arguably worse off with the GOP in charge even when they have more black members in Congress.
What part of this are you not getting? Did you think by “rep” I meant “Republican?” I meant “representative.”
The choices are a small number of black reps and a Democratic (mostly white) majority, or a larger number of black reps and a Republican (almost all white) majority. Those are the choices if you accept my theory about the dynamics of redistricting and the Voting Rights Act.
So I say maybe blacks are better off with the former - a smaller number of black reps, but with a Democratic majority to actually do something for them.
As the Atlantic points out, which undermines its premise, was that from 1964 to 1989, black reps increased from 5 to 24. The 88th Congress, which went from January 1963-65, had 258 Democrats to 176 Republicans in the House. The 101st Congress, which went from January 89-91, had 251 Democrats to 183 Republicans in the House. This, even after the Reagan Revolution (which btw, had a massive impact on the Senate - the 88th was 64-34 Dem, while the 101st was 55-45 Dem). And for what it’s worth, the 104th Congress, the one after the 1994 Republican Revolution had 258 Democrats to 176 Republicans in the House - exactly the same makeup as the 88th Congress.
So hypothesize all you want, the facts don’t bear out that increasing black Representatives hurt the Democrats in Congress.
Sure it does. These things take time. Redistricting only happens every ten years. As I noted, while the 1994 turnover to the GOP didn’t involve the South, it might not have happened if the South hadn’t lost a huge number of Democrats previously. Just because it didn’t happen all at once doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Packing black voters into one district is one way their vote was suppressed before the VRA. The fact that its still being done - and the GOP keeps suing to make sure it happens as much as possible - should at least make you think harder about this. What’s wrong with admitting that one part of the VRA has had unintended consequences and may have actually harmed blacks? What’s the goal - improving the lives of black people through politics, or standing up for the VRA as originally written no matter what?
You have your ‘hypothesis’. I have facts. I’ll take my facts. Especially considering that 1970, 1980, and 1990 redistricting efforts, the Democrats were in charge of the House, and their numbers stayed the same. If there was some “take time” effort, you’d see the Democrats’ lead in the House gradually diminish rather than just implode at once. Your hypo doesn’t pass the smell test. At all.
FWIW, there is a reason the South lost a ton of Democrats, and it isn’t because of redistricting. It was because a ton of Democrats switched to the Republican side. Nothing to do with the VRA - it was the same Reps, just decided to go with the party they felt was more ideologically like them (and considering they were still winning by massive margins had nothing to do with the voters.)
Of course it does. Just because it didn’t happen steadily, all at once, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a factor. Lots of variables are involved, and this isn’t the only one. What I’m saying is this variable, combined with others, pushed the GOP over the top. The idea that it had to happen suddenly and completely to make my hypothesis valid is nonsense. I think you know enough about social sciences to understand that.
Actually, in a completely different way, it has EVERYTHING to do with the VRA. As blacks began voting in the Democratic primary and nominating more liberal, black-friendly candidates, conservative whites bolted to the Republicans. But that’s an entirely different issue (and I wouldn’t say it was a bad thing).
But it fits into my hypothesis, because the GOP slowly took over the state legislatures in the South too, and the legislatures rewrite the congressional district lines. Over time (yes, these things don’t happen overnight) the GOP has redrawn the lines to benefit the GOP, and has often used the VRA to protect its maps in court.
Oh, come on. EVERY switch in every election happens overnight, because we have elections on a single day. That’s not the same thing as the conditions that caused them happened overnight.
