This Is Interesting - But True

I found this when searching the internet about America dividing into to different sections.

http://www.kenwhite.us/dividing_the_v...

Dividing the Voters

Gerrymandering separates by race or income, yes, but most often by political party, thereby protecting the power of incumbents. Although the most egregious misuse of the power of districting, it is often the least-discussed. Instead, by focusing controversy around race (and, to a lesser extent, class), political solons escape meaningful reform.


However, race and class are important issues in the districting process. As the dramatic and continuing dearth of racial representation in high office attests, true electoral parity remains a distant dream. Efforts to create “majority-minority” districts, with demographics that seem likely to yield representatives of a particular type are the most obvious (and immediately effective) remedy at hand. And, this strategy has worked, increasing the number of non-white representatives in the House, and raising the profile of so-called “minority” political concerns.


However, recent court rulings suggest that “majority-minority” districts may be on their way out. (Alas, districts can still be drawn to protect partisan interests, a curious distinction at a time when party affiliation in many respects matters less than ethnic identity.) This shift provides an opportunity to consider not only appropriate challenges to the existing system, but also to look at the long-term effects of the “majority-minority” strategy.


Viewed in a single dimension, “majority-minority” districts have produced, in most places, the desired effect: racially representative representatives. However, districts based on those characteristics may have unintentional consequences: exacerbated tension and diminished opportunities for interaction, intelligent discussion, and the discovery of shared interests. By reinforcing the culture of physical separation, and decreasing the potential for the common good to take root among near neighbors and far-flung fellow citizens, selective districting reinforces slight geographical distinctions, turning them into social and political boundaries as well.


More perniciously, districting based on a single dimension may marginalize both residents and elected officials of perceived "minority" districts (just as can occur with "farm" or "labor" districts). With separation comes the whiff of segregation…perhaps even inferiority. “Minority” voters and their representatives can be perceived by the “majority” as politically irrelevant, focused only on narrow self-interest as determined by one dimension of their identity.


“Majority-minority” districts may also unwittingly limit the aspirations of the inhabitants and their representatives alike. Does the special status of “minority” districts diminish the standing of district residents as equal citizens, leading to perceptions of inferiority? Does it create the impression of one-dimensional actors linked only by a single characteristic? Does is constrict the political universe to terrain bounded by accidents of birth and geography?


Representatives of these districts face a similar bind. Are they seen simply as water-carriers for narrowly self-interested constituents? Does a perceived close association with “minority” interests limit their horizons and available opportunities? Can they ascend the political ladder, engendering the confidence of a greater spectrum of the population, without losing the trust of their base? (Some might say that this is the wrong question; that we ought to consider how to change the attitudes of the broader constituency to align more closely with the interests of the “minority,” but that’s another argument entirely.)


True, without some reshuffling of districts, most non-white voters would lack representative representation, and many non-white elected officials would still be on the outside looking in. And, although a larger perspective on interests and the common good are desirable, the need for self-interest remains a powerful and appropriate political expediency.


Any change in the districting strategy must confront the history of discrimination and exclusion head-on, and not allow idealism to overrule practicality. Racism will not disappear overnight, and alleviating under-representation requires both a short- and long-term strategy. But to support a diversity of opinion and representation; encourage greater citizen engagement; and break the duopolistic control of political resources, we need to look at the format of the political system, as well as its geography.


For example, some form of proportional representation—one that includes multi-member districts—might help jump us out of the zero-sum logic of districting. Rather than associate single districts with single representatives, or assume that a particular group of voters are classifiable in just one dimension, voters could express their political views more fully, choosing from a spectrum of people who more closely represent their multidimensional lives and aspirations.


More importantly, voters who appear to lack common interests (viewed through dualistic Republican/Democrat, white/non-white, financially elite/financially at risk lenses) might begin to discover shared concerns that cross barriers. The politics of divisiveness are less effective when either/or choices are replaced with yes/and opportunities.


By Ken White Use when helpful…with appropriate reference.

 

United we stand,...divided we fall.

The easiest way to conquer an enemy is to divide them into different groups.

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

redwhite&blue said:

United we stand,...divided we fall.

The easiest way to conquer an enemy is to divide them into different groups.

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This is almost perfect.  Somewhere in there it should day : they came for the stupip, but I was just too lazy to think-or something like that.