538.com: Why Are There No Black Senators?

[RiverStone]

This is an interesting read, would be interested if DUers agree...

Nate Silver
1/5/09

When the House of Representatives convenes tomorrow, it will contain 39 African-American members, not including non-voting delegates in places like the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. This number, representing about 9 percent of the Congress, falls somewhat short of the fraction of African-Americans in the population as a whole -- a truly representative House would have about 55 black members -- but perhaps not dramatically so. The situation at first glance would appear to be much better than it was prior to 1990, when there were generally only about 20 black members in the House at any given time.

The districts these 39 Congressmen serve, however, are not very representative at all. All 39 contain a higher percentage of African-Americans than the population as a whole, ranging from Keith Ellison's district in Minneapolis, which is just barely more black than the national average, to Jesse Jackson Jr.'s on the South Side of Chicago, which is 68 percent African-American. About 64 percent of the members -- 25 of 39 -- come from districts that contain an outright black majority. The districts are also much more Democratic than the country as a whole, with an average PVI of D +25; only Sanford Bishop's district in Georgia, which has a PVI of D+2, is anywhere close to the national average.

The chart below estimates the percentage chance that the Representative in a given Congressional District is black given the African-American population in that district, as based on a logistic regression. The chances of having a black Representative are virtually nil until the African-American share of the population hits 25 percent, at which time it begins to accelerate rapidly until the black population hits 60 percent, after which point having a black congressman is virtually certain.

<snip>

If one looks at the composition of the House of Representatives, then, one shouldn't be surprised that there are so few black senators and black governors, because states are far more heterogeneous (racially and otherwise) than individual Congressional Districts, and African-Americans are by and large not getting elected to the House outside of a certain number of highly black, largely homogeneous, and often heavily gerrymandered Congressional Districts in the urban North and the rural South.

The question, of course, is why African-Americans aren't getting elected in these districts. Racism is undoubtedly part of the answer, but it probably can't be a complete one now that the country has just elected Barack Obama to the White House.


more:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/why-are-there-no-black-senators.html

[wyldwolf]

1. Perhaps not as many are running?

[lame54]

2. because we elected him president

[Blue_Tires]

3. maybe i can run someday

if i ever get some $$$$ behind me...

[terisan]

4. Why are women only 17% of the Senate? Are Hispanic people underrepresented also?

[ColbertWatcher]

9. Good question.

Just over half the population and only 17% of the Senate?

[terisan]

12. correct. I think the under representation hurts. Males may tend to be more corporate, big

business, high finance-related and this is reflected in legislation that comes out of committee and gets passed.

I had checked out the gender numbers during the election cycle and was surprised they were so out of line with population. By contrast Rwanda is now doing proportional representation for women-they are 54% of parliament. Turkey has also greatly increased the number of female representatives. There seems to be a movement worldwide.

There seems to be a new women's movement building that addresses the imbalance.

[terisan]

13. correct. I think the under representation hurts. Males may tend to be more corporate, big

business, high finance-related and this is reflected in legislation that comes out of committee and gets passed.

I had checked out the gender numbers during the election cycle and was surprised they were so out of line with population. By contrast Rwanda is now doing proportional representation for women-they are 54% of parliament. Turkey has also greatly increased the number of female representatives. There seems to be a movement worldwide.

There seems to be a new women's movement building that addresses the imbalance.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. I've read that Rwanda's population ...

... became predominantly women after the genocide, because more men were killed.

Nonetheless, it is good to see more women represented around the world.

But, if that means we will have more women like Sarah Palin, forget it.

Oh, BTW, here is a pic I collected for the Truthiness Encyclopedia ...



... showing dipshit posing with 43 women involved in elections in their home countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Classy guy will be leaving in 12 days.

[kevsand]

5. Because Illinois only gets to pick two.

I mean, hey, we can only do so much, ya know? Time for some other states to start pulling their weight. Then maybe we wouldn't have to be the "designated" black seat. ;-)

[RiverStone]

6. Y'all did damn good picking a Pres too!

:hi:

Even with the corruption in Ill, one Obama is worth at least 100 Blagos.

[kevsand]

7. We have our moments every now and then.

And even Blagojevich can run circles around Reid.

[SoCalDem]

8. In every 6 year cycle each state only gets to vote for 2 senators..

and only one at a time, at that.. The law of averages favors the entrenched politicians and incumbents.. who just happen to be white..

Any minority has a problem with those odds.. there are not all that many women either..even though they are 50 percent (give or take)..and the women who are there tend to be re-elected incumbents or "legacies" of former male family member-senators/governors/presidents(1 so far)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

He makes a persuasive case. I don't know if he's right, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

His data presentation is good, too.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. He makes a persuasive case. I don't know if he's right, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

His data presentation is good, too.

[pnwmom]

11. In the House, why are women so poorly represented compared to African Americans?

If you add the numbers in the House and Senate together, African Americans are better represented than women.

Of the 535 combined members, 91 are women and 47 are black. But since women are 52% of the population and African Americans about 12, A.A.'s have a much greater representation.

In the House alone, 74 are women and 47 black. But there are more than four times as many women in the general population as there are African Americans. Blacks are represented in numbers close to their percentage of the larger population, but women are greatly underrepresented.

[dsc]

15. His theory would help explain that

women can't be given gerrimandered districts as blacks can. That hurts women when it comes to winning house races but helps them when it comes to winning governor's races and senate seats.

[pnwmom]

16. Doesn't help them in winning Presidential elections -- is that because of

the electoral college set up?

[dsc]

17. actually Hillary would have won this time but for Obama

and only one other woman with any real organization shot ever ran that was Dole in 2000 who got steamrolled by Bush. I think women got set back at least 8 years by this race but in 8 years I could see a woman coming to the fore. Biden almost surely won't run. On edit I think the unfortunate bizarre hate filled obcession that so many supposed liberals have with Bill Clinton hurt Hillary a great deal and led to much of the sexist behavior that MSNBC engaged in during the primary season. That surely didn't help Hillary but likely won't be lodged nearly as much against any other woman.

[pnwmom]

18. "bizarre hate filled obsession" -- you nailed it.

I don't get it either, considering the twelve years of Bush and Reagan that preceded Clinton.