-26

Is Vote Dilution Necessarily Bad? (www.aei.org)

submitted 1 year ago by PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com to c/politics@lemmy.world

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This article is about Alabama's unconstitutional maps and how it dilutes African American votes by packing the black vote into one district. So the article considers...well...is that really so bad?

The argument is that if there's one big ol' district of black voters, then (it's assumed) Alabama politicians will need to appeal black interests. Whereas if there are multiple districts where black people merely have a majority, say 51%, then an Alabama politician can engage in tactics that reduce African American votes to less than 50%. After all, what is the problem with a one voting booth for a whole district if everyone theoretically gets the opportunity to vote? And so, Alabama politicians can ignore African American interests.

The argument actually makes sense, and if you don't care about the political process, is a good argument. It just assumes...ya know...that the process should constrain the effects of racism in the political process rather than, say, asshole racists not being racist and living up to the principles of American democracy.

all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[Is racism against black people intended to disenfranchise them really such a bad thing?] ~ Right wing propaganda factory with ZERO black people among the thirty current and six emeritus members of their Board of Trustees

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

This article ignores how jerrymandering actually works. It's not segregation. It's about ensuring one party wins more elections.

That means you don't draw lines that put all the people who would vote against you in one place. You, as the article calls it, dilute their power. You put them in with people who will vote for you but in concentrations that ensure your guys win.

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago

Is a policy designed to disenfranchise minorities really a bad thing ?

That’s what you’re arguing, right?

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

The source is a neocon think tank.

[-] ElcaineVolta@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

yes, OBVIOUSLY YES.

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

Right? When I first read the headline, the flash of rage I felt was deep. Then I read it, actually understand the argument, and still felt a deep rage.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Hate when that happens. You want to be wrong, then find out you were right. And now you know it’s far worse than you originally believed.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Lol AEI is right wing garbage

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com -5 points 1 year ago

You know what? AEI and Cato both are actually kinda good in terms of intellectual honesty. They just have a shitty worldview. It's Heritage Foundation that's really trash.

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023

-26 points (11.8% liked)

politics

19033 readers

3136 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News