Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In “Urban electoral coalitions…” we are shown the shifting demographics of an increasingly diverse Los Angeles. Many districts have overwhelmingly different racial and ethnic make-ups, mostly due to immigration and internal migration. This leads to many different groups wanting to be represented in the cities’ politics, so various coalitions must be created to garner a majority of the democratic vote.

This phenomena isn’t unique to Los Angeles, because most Western cities have their elections take the same format, while also having many different groups wanting to be represented by one party. But the authors looked at L.A. because it is so densely populated and because of that, there is more data, which in turn makes it more accurate in its representation.

I find it very interesting that the study considered a district “Latino” if the population of the district was 50% Latino, but to be considered a “Democratic” district, a higher barrier, 52%, needed to be reached. I think that shows how liberal the city is, and that a district that is 51-49 Democratic isn’t really a “Democratic” district.

In RC’s “Counter Mapping Response” they explain how a map is more than a picture of the landscape. It is an emotional representation of the land and a people’s connection to it. I think mapping out voting blocs is similar because racial groups don’t always vote a certain way, but if there is a candidate that focuses on issues predominantly felt by one community, it makes sense that there would be overwhelming support from that demographic.