Talk:REDMAP

Before REDMAP section should be deleted

I previously deleted this section, but my edit was quickly undone. This section is riddled with falsehoods, and merely including the disclaimer at the top is insufficient. The idea that Democrats had an advantage prior to REDMAP is not something anyone who studies American politics seriously would agree with. Democrats did have a persistent majority from 1955 to 1995, but that was because the Democratic caucus included anti-civil rights southern Democrats. Those seats were all replaced by Republicans during the southern realignment, ending that era. The claim that Democrats held this majority and held a persistent advantage due to the VRA is an embarrassing falsehood. At most, the VRA prohibits screwing Democrats in a particular way, but even with VRA protections, it is Democrats who have a disadvantage, due to the natural packing of Democratic voters in urban areas. I'm not going to keep deleting this section, but as someone who works as an analyst of congressional elections, I'll just point out here that its inclusion remains an utter embarrassment to this article and to Wikipedia more generally. Banyan (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about deleted, but it's not clear why some of it is DUE or has WEIGHT. for a section titled "Before REDMAP".

I don't see any references to REDMAP here...

• The minority vote protections in the Voting Rights Act resulted in a situation where the party that elected minorities also had an advantage in the House of Representatives.

or here...

• Democrats championed the process, redrawing districts to maintain minority populations.

or here...

• Due in part to this, Democrats largely controlled Congress for 40 years, from 1955 to 1995. Democrats are increasingly winning the majority of the votes in densely populated but small geographic, mostly urban, areas. These urban districts are very hard to gerrymander.

I don't see citations or mention of REDMAP, or, exactly how it pertains to "Before REDMAP"...

• This is because most local governments want House districts that respect local boundaries and that local politicians can defend in the polls, while Democratic city governments can influence Democratic state legislators who might otherwise be tempted to gerrymander.
• GOP drawn boundaries have been seen to overcrowd districts created by Democrats with disproportionate amounts of minority populations. By increasing numbers in a safe Democratic district, Republicans reduce the influence of the liberal voting bloc in both state politics and congressional elections. Republicans controlled the US House from 1995 until 2007.

No mention of REDMAP, and this appears to be a blog piece (opinion by a regular commentator Peter Roff?)

• However, the Republican party regained its power in state legislatures following the losses by the Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms. The Democrats were unpopular with voters at this time, allowing Republicans to implement a political effort called REDMAP that enabled them to redraw favorable maps with the 2010 Census data.

This could be pure opinion from a non-expert that may be UNDUE...

Cheers. DN (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Why mention the 2018 midterms

Hey, it's very strange to mention the part about the 2018 midterms, specifically the senate. REDMAP is entirely non-germane to the Senate as far as I know. The sentence reads as a bit like its trying to justify something, I'm going to take it out if no one responds here. Aurora _{(User:Horkak)} (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Articel Quite Short

Hey, I also wanted to note that the article is quite short for how significant it is, when I have the time I would like to expand it a bit, and otherwise see it expanded. Aurora _{(User:Horkak)} (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)