Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Azathoth

(4,677 posts)
24. I don't entirely agree
Thu Nov 16, 2017, 03:26 AM
Nov 2017

First, they aren't gerrymandered strictly along racial lines; they're gerrymandered primarily along voting tendency lines. The goal is to dilute Democratic voters (including white Democrats) in Republican districts, not completely eliminate minority groups. So there are still minority voters in many gerrymandered GOP districts, just not enough to swing a general election. In fact, there are minority voters in many deep red districts as well, again just not enough to matter in the general. This means that African-Americans can still run as Democratic delegates in many gerrymandered districts, even if the majority of Democrats that remain in those districts are white. Which brings me to my second point...

... which is the underlying implication here, that white Democrats will follow the same voting patterns as Republicans and vote for white delegates over black delegates. This is the raw, identity-politics message here. White Democrats are being told, "Thanks for supporting our issues, but you vote for your people and we'll vote for ours. We want primaries where black delegates are elected by black Democrats."

Third, all of this ignores the existence of at-large delegates, who are drawn from across the state and who are usually required to be chosen so as to balance the representation of various minority groups. Here's the rule that most state parties use:

In the selection of the at-large delegation, priority of consideration shall be given to African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and women.


Moreover, rules already specify that state delegations be balanced according to gender. If the CBC were merely interested in guaranteeing proportional AA representation at the convention, they could request rule changes mandating that all state delegations be balanced according to state party composition (eg: if African-Americans comprise 20% of the state party, then they should be 20% of the state delegation).

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

2016 articles elleng Nov 2017 #1
I said that. And their position hasn't changed one iota. n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #2
It would be better to get rid of the undemocratic caucus system 4now Nov 2017 #3
Yes it would. comradebillyboy Nov 2017 #5
I agree. n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #12
"although it has never changed the outcome of a primary" loyalsister Nov 2017 #4
It is silly to think that Barbara Lee, for instance, influences her voters pnwmom Nov 2017 #10
Seriously? loyalsister Nov 2017 #27
Yes. She has loyal constituents by virtue of her being a good representative -- pnwmom Nov 2017 #28
It's not because she's a super delegate loyalsister Nov 2017 #29
No, you've got it backwards. She's a superdelegate so she can have more influence pnwmom Nov 2017 #30
I support this candidate and you should too loyalsister Nov 2017 #31
This message was self-deleted by its author David__77 Nov 2017 #6
I wish the GOP had a superdelegate system EffieBlack Nov 2017 #7
I agree with CBC Gothmog Nov 2017 #8
This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard Azathoth Nov 2017 #9
Black people are gerrymandered out of fair representation in the House pnwmom Nov 2017 #11
GOP gerrymandering only applies to general elections Azathoth Nov 2017 #13
And getting minority Democrats in the House requires them winning in the General. moriah Nov 2017 #19
Her point doesn't remain because it has absolutely nothing to do with convention delegates Azathoth Nov 2017 #20
If the issue is that Dems in the House and Senate... moriah Nov 2017 #22
I think you're misunderstanding what she's saying Azathoth Nov 2017 #25
Not true. The same district lines that pack African Americans into certain districts pnwmom Nov 2017 #23
we choose our delegates based on those districts dsc Nov 2017 #37
So if I'm reading the CBC statement correctly, the only reason they want to keep the superdelegate PatsFan87 Nov 2017 #14
An even better question is why should they have a right to shape the convention at all? Azathoth Nov 2017 #15
Because otherwise African Americans would be grossly underrepresented in the convention pnwmom Nov 2017 #17
You have posted this more than once, and you still haven't justified it Azathoth Nov 2017 #18
You don't understand. Districts are gerrymandered along racial lines to reduce pnwmom Nov 2017 #21
I don't entirely agree Azathoth Nov 2017 #24
Because African Americans are so heavily Democratic, gerrymandering along party lines pnwmom Nov 2017 #26
only democrats vote in primaries. to do otherwise is to commit suicide nt msongs Nov 2017 #16
IMO the super delegate system is inherentily undemocratic. CentralMass Nov 2017 #32
+1000 Kentonio Nov 2017 #33
Okay JustAnotherGen Nov 2017 #35
I rbink caucuses should be replaced with primaries and the superdekegates should be scrapped.. . CentralMass Nov 2017 #36
Agree. Caucuses have no place in our party octoberlib Nov 2017 #40
I stand with the CBC mcar Nov 2017 #34
2 things 1 in my state any way... congressperson is automatic super delegate. They don't have to dembotoz Nov 2017 #38
So do I. SO DO I!! NurseJackie Nov 2017 #39
Break down by the former DNC chair... disillusioned73 Nov 2017 #41
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Congressional Black C...»Reply #24