Author Topic: The fix for gerrymandering  (Read 7812 times)

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
The fix for gerrymandering
« on: May 07, 2016, 11:40:37 AM »
It does not take a Constitutional Amendment, just a change in federal law that  elects Representatives by state and not by individual district.  Next time a party has the Presidency, 60 Senators, and the House of Representatives they could do this.

Quote
The federal law that laid the foundation for this two-party congressional system was first enacted in 1842, pursuant to Article I, section 4, which authorizes Congress to legislate rules governing the “manner” of congressional elections.  According to this statute, House members were to be elected “by districts composed of contiguous territory equal in number to the number of Representatives to which said State may be entitled, no one district electing more than one Representative.”  Over the ensuing century, Congress repeatedly revisited its election laws in connection with the decennial House reapportionment mandated by Article I, section 2.  Most of the time, Congress re-enacted the 1842 statute or some close cousin, but occasionally Congress allowed the single-member-district law to lapse, only to revive the law in a later reapportionment cycle.  Since 1967, the single-member-district statute has been a fixed feature of the U.S. election code, a politically entrenched and politically entrenching provision cementing in place the current two-party system about as effectively and enduringly as any explicit constitutional text could ever hope to do.

Akhil Reed Amar, America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2016, 01:10:54 PM »
As I think about it, something on that order would be somewhat welcome by me at this point. Although I'd like to see them fix House Seat Apportionments while they're at it. More representatives(which also tweaks the electoral college), running for "at large" seats which could be apportioned by who gets the most votes.

Kicking the Senate selection process back to State Governments would be good too. But that is a Constitutional Amendment now.

Let the Federal Reps worry about keeping their respective states happy, rather than focusing on their specific congressional district. Let the State and other local governments worry about the local issues.

Edit to add: Which isn't to say someone couldn't get elected on "local issues" if enough slots are open, and they're popular enough in certain areas.....
« Last Edit: May 07, 2016, 01:14:52 PM by TheDeamon »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2016, 02:28:55 PM »
I (mostly) like it, as well.  One outcome could be that Tip O'Neill's dictum that all politics is local, which has waned lately, disappears altogether.  I doubt that would really happen since hundreds of candidates will run in most states, and most of them will only be known to people in relatively bounded areas of their state.  California could see over 1000 people running for 53 seats, so good luck with that.  Party loyalty will probably weaken and we'll definitely see some loose cannons slip in, but that already happens to some extent and would actually make the house even more representative of the populations of the states.  Make it so, Greg...!

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2016, 05:29:57 PM »
I (mostly) like it, as well.  One outcome could be that Tip O'Neill's dictum that all politics is local, which has waned lately, disappears altogether.  I doubt that would really happen since hundreds of candidates will run in most states, and most of them will only be known to people in relatively bounded areas of their state.  California could see over 1000 people running for 53 seats, so good luck with that.  Party loyalty will probably weaken and we'll definitely see some loose cannons slip in, but that already happens to some extent and would actually make the house even more representative of the populations of the states.  Make it so, Greg...!

Eh, further thought points out issues, like the 53 seats in California, where you start playing candidate roulette to some extent. You'd have to change the voting mechanism in the process, which in some cases could make it worse, as the "easy" solution is you vote for a party ticket rather than an individual. Or the (California) scenario where one candidate makes off with 20% of the vote, meaning you're going to likely end up with candidates getting into the House of Representatives who only garnered 0.05% of the vote in some instances.

Smaller states could probably get away with it easily enough when they're only dealing with 1 to 3 seats, but much beyond that and it starts getting stupid quick using the traditional ballot methods.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2016, 12:38:56 PM »
I think this would makes our system dramatically less representative.  For all the warts of gerrymandering, it really only impacts a small percentage of districts overall.  You'd effectively be terminating local involvement for 90% plus of the country where gerrymandering wasn't a significant issue.  The whole intent on the House of representatives is to ensure a wide representation of people that do in fact have to appeal to a local area of people and thereby can appropriately represent them.  What you propose is little more than letting city dwellers take away the voices of everyone else.

Plus, even gerrymandering has and has had its good effects.  Whether you agree with how it's implemented or used, there is absolutely no question that gerrymandered districts have been instrumental in ensuring that minority representatives actually get elected to the House.  Certainly reasonable people can disagree, whether than is best accomplished by having one or two districts that almost completely minority, or 4-5 that are substantial minority minority.

I really don't get why the cognitive angst of seeing a truly bizarre district, should overrule the issue and completely kill local level accountability. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2016, 02:14:57 PM »
Keep in mind, I'm coming from this as someone who generally supports the electoral college, so I understand where the basis for geographical breakdowns has advantages. But at the same time, even in systems where the victor MUST get 50%+1 of the vote to win, that can still potentially result in 49.9~% of the voters not getting the representation that they wanted.

The EC is also different in that it only applies for the President and VP. While when it comes to general representation, I'm not so sure that local politics, even for rural areas, wouldn't still factor in. Because it goes back to that California situation where you could, in theory, end up with being getting elected into Congressional seats with less than a single percentage point of the overall vote--which could just as easily be somebody who focused exclusively on a particular set of rural counties and ignored the more expensive urban markets entirely.

A lot of it comes down to how the balloting would be done.

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2016, 03:31:57 PM »
Seems strange to me that we don't use a simple computer model that divides the states up solely based on geography/registered voters/population.  Rerun it after the census.  That way each district has equal representation outside of politics.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2016, 04:02:55 PM »
As Seriati pointed out, sometimes strict geographical proximity dwarfs other potential interests. There is value in having a certain homogeneity in districts or ridings. A community or group with particular interest is usually better served by being the majority in a single riding rather than being divided among several and drowned out by other interests.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2016, 04:57:15 PM »
Which argues against fixed Congressional districts.  The effort to guarantee representation includes both protecting community interests and protecting party interests.  The community doesn't get to draw the boundaries; the political parties do.  This is another reason why state-wide elections will be good because "like minded" people will form their community at the ballot box on election day.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2016, 09:27:50 PM »
As Seriati pointed out, sometimes strict geographical proximity dwarfs other potential interests. There is value in having a certain homogeneity in districts or ridings. A community or group with particular interest is usually better served by being the majority in a single riding rather than being divided among several and drowned out by other interests.

Generally have to agree with AI on this one. What is a "community interest?" Who gets to define it? Most communities haven't truly been homogeneous since the 19th Century, if not earlier. Many, if not most people, end up moving to where they can find work(and can afford to live), not where they find a community with comparable values to their own(but if they can get that too, that's awesome).

Also, this still comes back around to this is for the federal elections, not the local or state government ones. I don't know about you, but I'm personally a fan of keeping the Federal Government out of "local affairs" which means I'd rather not get my local US Congressional Delegation involved in a purely local issue, it's a waste of time and resources for everyone involved.

Let the state government, or better yet, the government that is actually local to the area in question, address the local issues. If they can't handle it on their own, that's when they start petitioning the next level up the proverbial governmental food chain. In theory, that's generally how it's supposed to work currently, but it doesn't always work that way.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2016, 12:00:59 AM »
California does actually have federal Congressional districts determined by a group of citizens (Democrats, Republicans, and independents), and the process works pretty well.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #11 on: May 10, 2016, 05:32:02 PM »
This is another reason why state-wide elections will be good because "like minded" people will form their community at the ballot box on election day.
I don't see how follows from anything.  Statewide elections will not cause communities to form at the ballot box, if you go to a proportional system we'll be electing parties, not people, and the actual people sent to Washington will be even further removed and protected party elites.

If you use a grand melee, with all the reps on a common ballot, then your almost guaranteed to get such sophisticated representation as people being chosen by where they appear on the ballot.  Any statewide mandate, of necessity ignores local majorities, in favor of increasing the winner take all nature of a state election.

It really boils down to whether you believe the House should be made up of an aggregation of local representatives or not.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2016, 11:23:41 PM »
I agree, I state-wide either leads to a parliamentary election or some other proportional representation.  A better method IMO would be to have one rep for about every 10,000 people.  With district lines drawn by wonks at the census using no demographic or political data, just population density and geographical boundaries.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2016, 09:07:44 AM »
That is what we have today except for the word "wonk".  As we see even here on Ornery, whose members are all reasonable people, there is plenty of disdain for the objectivity of people who would be described as "wonks" or synonyms.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2016, 10:28:03 AM »
The main advantage of geography based representation seems to be that everyone is pre-sorted into groups with at least some common interests. While I'm inclined to think communities of choice would allow for better representation, it would be difficult to get more than a nominal number of people to choose a community to vote for.

The ballot box is too late for forming a community, it needs to be associations that people live with every day. If it's just lists of people, then the election distills down to picking a party without any requirement that the representative respond to a particular group's interests.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2016, 10:13:19 AM »
In many cases the geographic boarder is cut arbitrarily through neighborhoods with the intended outcome being partisan advantage. 

Quote
In 2012, the first congressional election after the last round of gerrymandering, Democratic House candidates won 50.59 percent of the vote — or 1.37 million more votes than Republican candidates — yet secured only 201 seats in Congress, compared to 234 seats for Republicans.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-republican-advantage/

And one of the strong drivers of this outcome was the very large amounts of dark money that flowed to state legislative races in the 2010 election. Dollar-for-dollar, those are good investments in terms of buying preferential influence.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2016, 07:16:01 PM »
In many cases the geographic boarder is cut arbitrarily through neighborhoods with the intended outcome being partisan advantage.
I think that's probably true, but it's not as clear cut a problem as you seem to believe.  Concentrating voters to create "safe" districts of necessity opens open other districts either to go safely the other way or to be more disputable.  It certainly favors incumbents.
Quote
In 2012, the first congressional election after the last round of gerrymandering, Democratic House candidates won 50.59 percent of the vote — or 1.37 million more votes than Republican candidates — yet secured only 201 seats in Congress, compared to 234 seats for Republicans.
I'm not seeing the issue here.  The point of using a local test means that if you concentrate you get less seats, and that is exactly what happens, having overwhelming majorities in every city district and most CA/NY districts creates "wasted" votes.  Of course, so does being a Republican in CA.

Again, it seems just to be an argument against local representation, or alternatively, for giving even more weight to large state delegations.  If you're a fan of unfettered federal power I can see why you'd think that's "fairer".
Quote
And one of the strong drivers of this outcome was the very large amounts of dark money that flowed to state legislative races in the 2010 election. Dollar-for-dollar, those are good investments in terms of buying preferential influence.
Lol, dark money complaints again.  Couldn't just be that Republicans are spread out and have higher concentrations in areas other than cities, and that generally rural Democrats vote conservative and/or Republican.  It is always seems to me that Democratic analysis is premised on a belief that they are entitled to win and that the only way that don't is because of foul play or dirty tricks.

It couldn't possibly be because they believe that vast tracks of the country are filled with people clinging to their guns, or because notwithstanding that they live and die based on union support they'd say they were going to close coal mines and put miners out of work.  It's hard to appeal to "fly over" country when you have nothing in common with them and you insult at every turn.  I get why you'd advocate for "national" election of reps rather than local, it'd turn NY and CA into the prime focus of every campaign, but's it not consistent with the idea of a republic. 

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2016, 09:54:53 PM »
Why should power be based on land?

The concentration of African Americans in cities is not a historical accident, it is the result of decades of the American variant of pogroms starting one generation after the Civil War.  James Leeuwen has analyzed census data from across the country, and for almost 40 years after the 1880 census, the African American population declined in virtually every rural county in the country.  For the next almost 50 years, explicit and implicit racial covenants blocked minority access to a wide range of suburban communities. 50 years later, history still results in a disproportionate share ofthe African American population living in urban areas.  What is the principle of justice that argues that their votes should  count less?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2016, 11:16:23 PM »
Greg, why do you suppose that black people at that time moved to urban centers because of pogroms? Is it not possible that suburban living was more expensive and thus less likely to be affordable to them?

On a separate note, I read a brief history of human labor being made obsolete by technology, and there was a striking section explaining how black people en masse were forced to leave rural setting due to the advent of mechanical devices such as cotton picking machines, and thus the need for employment drove them to urban centers where there was more possibility for jobs.

I'm sure there was more than one thing operating at the same time, but it seems unrealistic to think that people mass migrated due to pogroms when we see in history that people tend to have a predisposition not to move even in the face of actual pogroms if their lives there are still otherwise viable.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2016, 09:53:09 AM »
Why should power be based on land?
What would you replace it with? I think without some identified community behind them, representatives will find themselves to be even more beholden to the parties than they are now. At least bound by geography, there's a discrete and identifiable group of people they need to avoid pissing off. That the system has been (or can be) hijacked by the parties and the benefits undermined by voter apathy and fundraising issues doesn't mean going to state-wide elections will be an improvement. If you're going to remove physical communities as the basis for representation, they need to be replaced with something. I just don't know what that something is.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2016, 11:24:04 AM »
Greg, why do you suppose that black people at that time moved to urban centers because of pogroms? Is it not possible that suburban living was more expensive and thus less likely to be affordable to them?

Are you familiar with redlining?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2016, 11:33:54 AM »
Greg, why do you suppose that black people at that time moved to urban centers because of pogroms? Is it not possible that suburban living was more expensive and thus less likely to be affordable to them?

Are you familiar with redlining?

Just a little. But even if 100% of black people were forced into urban centers because of racism, that doesn't conversely suggest what percentage wouldn't have if they were given the option. It seems to me that people will largely converge close to where job for them are, and those weren't in the suburbs.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2016, 12:13:38 PM »
You've twice referred to blacks moving to the cities from the suburbs, but the movement from the south to the northern cities was from rural areas.  The suburbs were populated by people wanting to escape the cities, mostly because of urban decay, racial biases and expanding incomes.  Blacks have never had a high percentage of the population in (especially northern) suburban areas. Whites are the dominant racial group in all non-rural areas with low population densities; surprisingly, Asians have the highest concentration in urban areas.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2016, 12:40:21 PM »
You've twice referred to blacks moving to the cities from the suburbs, but the movement from the south to the northern cities was from rural areas.

Who, me? I think you'd better reread the comments.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2016, 12:43:12 PM »
You're right, I read too hurriedly.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2016, 08:14:19 PM »
Greg, why do you suppose that black people at that time moved to urban centers because of pogroms? Is it not possible that suburban living was more expensive and thus less likely to be affordable to them?

On a separate note, I read a brief history of human labor being made obsolete by technology, and there was a striking section explaining how black people en masse were forced to leave rural setting due to the advent of mechanical devices such as cotton picking machines, and thus the need for employment drove them to urban centers where there was more possibility for jobs.

This is in line with the history and demographic trends I recall reading about regarding the late 19th and most of the 20th century. Mechanization of agriculture resulted in less labor being required at most farms, and actually made many of the smaller farms non-viable(such as likely would have been the case for the "share-croppers" which were overwhelmingly former slaves working land often leased to them by the land owner(who may have even owned them/their parents at one point in time in the past). There was a large influx of rural populations shifting to urban areas during the first half of the 20th century, and it tracked across all racial types. It wasn't until after WW2 that sub-urbanization started to become a thing, and one that was predominately White in nature for a number of various reasons.  (see also "White flight" in urban centers during the 20th century)

Edit to add: The big draw in the early 20th Century for urban area wasn't Government Programs, in the US, those didn't really exist until the second half of the century. It was jobs, both in manufacturing and administration. Back in an area before Xerox machines that can create copies nearly indistinguishable from the original, fax machines, computers and digital record keeping with the ability to effortlessly move information over large distances with little trouble. And also before the advent of the interstate highway system, or the regular US Highway system even really being fully built out(which didn't really come near completion until after WW2). Pre-1950 would have also been an era where air-express mail may have been a thing, but it was almost a novelty more than anything else. It was faster, but not anywhere close to as fast as it is now(probably closer to ground transport option available today in some cases), and very expensive. If you wanted proper oversight of a facility, you had to be near the facility, or at least have an army of staffers nearby.

The 1950's  also would have been well before most automation, or even larger scale mechanization of loading docks.  There are auto plants in Michigan that can bear witness to this. Plants that used to employ literally 10's of thousands of people 60 years ago now only employ a couple thousand workers. Production capacity is roughly the same, or even higher, despite that significant cut in the workforce. Some of it was due to outsourcing(auto industry learned to play politics too), so they're not doing the same range of assembly and production as they did before, but a lot more of it was due to robots taking the place of workers.

Quote
I'm sure there was more than one thing operating at the same time, but it seems unrealistic to think that people mass migrated due to pogroms when we see in history that people tend to have a predisposition not to move even in the face of actual pogroms if their lives there are still otherwise viable.

Oh, like welfare programs and unemployment benefits that can run for years on end? It may not be a great life, but it lets you stay in your comfort zone for so much longer.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2016, 08:25:57 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2016, 08:49:58 PM »
You've twice referred to blacks moving to the cities from the suburbs, but the movement from the south to the northern cities was from rural areas.  The suburbs were populated by people wanting to escape the cities, mostly because of urban decay, racial biases and expanding incomes.  Blacks have never had a high percentage of the population in (especially northern) suburban areas. Whites are the dominant racial group in all non-rural areas with low population densities; surprisingly, Asians have the highest concentration in urban areas.

The south to north migration of Blacks was, and still is, popularly blamed on wide spread racism in the south. The reality is a little more complicated, but the racism in the south during that time period was considerably worse than what they encountered in the north(which wasn't all rainbows, flowers, and unicorns either. It just happened to be an improvement over the south). What the bigger driver of that was that the north continued to industrialize after the Civil War, and further, they urbanized much more rapidly than the mostly agrarian south did, even after reconstruction. The urbanization of the south, outside of a handful of cities(almost literally!) has largely been a phenomenon of the late 20th century/early 21st century. Industrial need for workers in the north, paired with the ready supply of labor in the south that was practically being run out of their home states, morphed into that migration.

Another thing in the mix, which also skews numbers is the advent of the Pullman Cars, which often played to a sterotype(and took advantage of the lower wages they could get away with paying blacks), results in a large redistribution of blacks across the country(which is how that follow-on migration to the north actually started, IIRC; some blacks went to work for the railroad, were relocated to the north, found out there was all kinds of work available up there, and wrote home about it...).

But sticking with the railroad/Pullman Car workers(again, the workers in the Pullman Car's being an overwhelming majority black), this resulted in Black communities cropping up in practically every significant Railroad town in the United States, and those communities existed so long as the Railroad remained the king of transportation.

Once you get into the 1950's, and in particular the 1960's, the railroads start bailing on passenger transportation as the Automobile and Air Travel starts killing their market. The Pullman Cars, as a consequence, get pulled out of service, those (again, overwhelming majority Black) workers are then without work, and have a skill set that probably isn't in high demand in most of those small to medium sized(rural) railroad towns, which may also have been hurting from the railroad cutbacks themselves. So they move to somewhere that they can find work at, and collectively, this resulted in many railroad towns going from having substantial Black populations to having a virtually non-existent  Black population just a couple decades later(and getting "reputations" as well).

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #27 on: May 14, 2016, 06:00:13 AM »
I hadn't thought about the Pullman aspect, but it would typify the process where as decent paying jobs began to increase for whites in urban (industrial) areas, lower paying jobs went to whoever would take them.  We call that the service industry today, but as it began it was the sub-servient workspace for domestics, janitors and purely muscle-laborer jobs.  It was a step up from slavery and share-cropping for blacks in the south and the northern cities didn't have the overtly harsh bigotry of the south, so blacks migrated to the northern places with better opportunities. 

As states now enact right-to-work laws and emasculate the labor unions the better paying jobs that haven't moved overseas are disappearing even when there is no direct competition.  That means that whites (men and women) are more available to fill menial jobs and are once again being favored over blacks.

That means that blacks are pushed out of the labor market but have nowhere to go, so they remain where they are to become chronically unemployed and welfare-bound.  No wonder there is so much anger in the inner cities.

But whites aren't too happy about it either.  Knowing that they have been pushed down a rung on the economic ladder and have to take a job that they would ordinarily sneer at breeds its own kind of resentment.  I'm not really sure why this anger seems to be disproportionately directed at Democrats, since almost all social programs that benefit unemployed, underemployed and poor elements of the population are embraced by Democratic politicians and rejected by Republican ones.

Rather than try to help alleviate the problems, Republicans (especially in the south) seek instead to disenfranchise angry voters would vote for Democrats.  Florida is a good example of that, where the Governor rejected the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare and the state has the highest proportion of qualified but ineligible voters, who happen to be disproportionately black and poor.  Virtually every state with the highest proportions of ineligible voters have Republican legislatures and not coincidentally the highest incidence of rejection of the Medicaid expansion.

What should be a national bipartisan cultural issue is instead a chronic partisan disgrace.  Obviously there is a lot more to be said about this, but perhaps in another thread.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The fix for gerrymandering
« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2016, 02:00:06 AM »
The issue I was describing is unrelated to Pullman trains or economic development, James Loewen's thesis is outlined in Chapter 1 of his book Sundown Towns which is available online at http://sundown.afro.illinois.edu/content/sundown-introduction.pdf. I strongly recommend it.

Here are a couple of key quotes:

Quote
So sundown towns are not only widespread,but also relatively recent.Except
for a handful of places such as Wyandotte and Waverly, most towns did
not go sundown during slavery, before the Civil War, or during Reconstruction.
On the contrary, blacks moved everywhere in America between 1865
and 1890. African Americans reached every county of Montana. More than
400 lived in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. City neighborhoods across the
country were fairly integrated, too, even if black inhabitants were often servants
or gardeners for their white neighbors.
      Between 1890 and the 1930s, however, all this changed. By 1930, although
its white population had increased by 75%, the Upper Peninsula was
home to only 331 African Americans, and 180 of them were inmates of the
Marquette State Prison.Eleven Montana counties had no blacks at all.Across
the country, city neighborhoods grew more and more segregated.Most astonishing,
from California to Minnesota to Long Island to Florida, whites mounted little race riots against African Americans, expelling entire black communities or intimidating and keeping out would-be newcomers.
   

Quote
Many people wonder why African Americans have made so little
progress, given that 140 years have passed since slavery ended.They do not
understand that in some ways,African Americans lived in better and more integrated
conditions in the 1870s and 1880s, that residential segregation then
grew worse until about 1968,and that it did not start to decrease again until
the 1970s and 1980s, well after the Civil Rights Movement ended

It's late and I can't find my copy of the book - Chapter 3 was on the census data, and I found that to be most compelling and comprehensive illustration.  There was incredibly widespread and pervasive reduction in the population of African Americans across rural counties in the U.S. through four decades of censuses.  I compare this to pogroms because it was widespread campaign of violence to promote ethnic cleansing across much of American. And those responsible largely succeeded, and there are some ramifications to this day.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2016, 02:04:28 AM by Greg Davidson »