320
submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The Supreme Court upheld a pro-Republican South Carolina congressional map Thursday, rejecting the argument raised by civil rights groups that lawmakers impermissibly used race as a proxy to bolster the GOP’s chances.

But the high court also said that the civil rights groups that challenged the maps could continue to pursue one part of their claim, a move that will likely delay the battle over the districts for months.

With state election deadlines approaching, a federal court in March had already ruled that South Carolina could use the contested map in this year’s election.

The decision was 6-3 along conservative-liberal lines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 165 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Gerrymandering is despicable, as are the conservative Justices that allow it. Look at this ridiculous map.

It designates one Democratic district and six Republican districts.

Current voter registration is 44.98% Democrat, and 44.62% Republican.

This is exactly how Republicans maintain their control in the House.

[-] wjrii@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Even with the demotivation caused by gerrymandering, the 2020 only election broke about 5:4 in favor of Republicans. In the 2022 midterms, it was 2:1, but only 3:2 when you take out the two districts where the Republican was unopposed.

A huge part of America's problem right now comes from worshipping "Constitutional Democracy v2.0" when many other countries are running version 4 or 5.

First Past the Post, no ranked choice voting, an imbalanced legislature, an Electoral College based on the numbers from that legislature, and contemplating no constitutional role for parties, all that has ossified the political culture. You get parties locking in temporary gains and pushing advantages to the hilt because after all there's no parties in MUH CONSTITUTION. Even if we assume the remaining 9% of voters in SC are all embarrassed republicans, that's still 5:4, like the presidential numbers tend to break. In what fucking world should that result in a 6:1 ratio in the house delegation?

I get that maybe you have to consider letting some people be a bit overrepresented to get them to buy-in, that's at the heart of many federal systems, but the degree and the manner in the US has become full-on toxic.

[-] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago

I wonder to what extent this is driving polarisation. I've been thinking a lot recently about what it would take to be able to break bread with someone who was very right wing politically. I see a lot of right wing people who I have a lot of common ground with, if I recognise that the material conditions they're living under are making them desperate for an alternative. Ofc, I'm not keen on the fact that many of them believe that people like me (queer, leftists at universities) are to blame for those material conditions, but I like to imagine a world where we could work on the same team against the things that are actually to blame.

I think the gerrymandering in the US probably makes it so that each party has less reason to court voters of the other side. I can imagine what it must feel like to be a republican in a super blue state — even if you do vote, it won't matter, and then every choice the elected government makes would perpetuate this idea of the big bad "other". I wonder how much this affects things though, given that the polarisation is driven by many complex factors

[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 17 points 4 months ago

I guess they think some votes are more important than others.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 31 points 4 months ago

Some votes are worth 5/5, and others are worth 3/5.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Well... if the area is ~45% dems and they are represented with 1 district out of 7, then they have ~14% representation.

3/5 of 45% would be ~27% representation, but currently they have just over 3/10

[-] BlazeDaley@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago
[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I didnt whoosh at all, im showing how the dems representation is HALF that of the 3/5 compromise for this given area

[-] wjrii@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

For the non-Americans in the thread, it's worth pointing out that the 3/5 compromise didn't give slaves representation at 3/5 the normal level, it gave the slaveowners overrepresentation in congress based on counting every 5 slaves as 3 additional people for apportioning the House of Representatives by population. The southern states wanted full "representation", while the northern states wanted zero, but the latter would have been better -- allowing that abolition was not on the table -- because it would have diluted southern influence in the lower house of Congress.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Thanks for adding the context, I forget how global this platform is sometimes

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

The crux of this issue (and the Supreme Court identified this while more liberal leaning) is that it's really fucking hard to measure gerrymandering-ness this is a pretty rational question to ask (though we should be bopping obviously gerrymandered districts down in the meantime). There's no obvious natural way to divide a state into districts and while we do have measures we can use to highlight voter disenfranchisement I think it's arguable that the closest we can get to a natural district map isn't really optimized for enfranchisement either. We tend to want districts to compose entire regions (i.e. the Philadelphia metro area) even though those regions introduce disenfranchisement due to previous redlining and other racist policies.

This problem is pretty hard to solve in an unimpeachable manner.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

That’s true, but no matter the outcome, the total district representation should not deviate far from the state party distribution, as it does in this case.

[-] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

The crux of this issue (and the Supreme Court identified this while more liberal leaning) is that it’s really fucking hard to measure gerrymandering-ness

Yup, for anyone who hasn't heard it, I'd highly recommend people listen to FiveThirtyEight's Gerrymandering Project. While this isn't to say that gerrymandering isn't a problem, it's not as simple as many people make it out to be. Especially with the high level of self-sorting which has been going on, packing lots of Democratic votes in a single district tends to happen, even without trying.

[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Current voter registration is 44.98% Democrat, and 44.62% Republican.

I'm not sure where they're getting that information. SC does not have registration by party at all. It's literally not information that the state collects.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The website states they get their voter registration data from L2 Data.

Palmetto State voters don’t register by party, but L2 has you covered. Our party identification modeling in South Carolina is built from both primary ballot selections and academic modeling which has gone through extensive testing. As an early presidential primary state, voters in this state get a lot of attention.

Know who they are by utilizing the detailed demographic and issue data in L2’s enhanced file. L2 data is trusted by campaigns, consultants and political organizations throughout South Carolina, and we’ve built a reputation in the state as having the most up-to-date and cleanest file available.

https://l2-data.com/states/

this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
320 points (99.4% liked)

News

23161 readers
2768 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS