The Kingmaker Hypothesis: Can Cracked Black Voting Blocs Generate More Aggregate Political Power Than Majority-Minority Districts?
Quantitative Political Science Working Paper — June 2025
Keywords: Majority-minority districts, VRA, Black political power, pivotal voting, bloc voting, redistricting
Abstract. The post-Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024) landscape has enabled Southern state legislatures to "crack" majority-Black congressional districts, dispersing Black voters across multiple competitive districts at 15–38% BVAP rather than concentrating them in 45–63% BVAP safe seats. The conventional civil-rights analysis treats this as a clear diminution of Black political power. This paper tests the "kingmaker hypothesis": that sufficiently cohesive Black voting blocs in cracked districts could, under specified conditions, deliver more aggregate political leverage than the same population produces in a smaller number of guaranteed-win majority-minority seats. Using real demographic data from Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, and North Carolina; documented Black electoral cohesion rates (85–92%); and actual 2020–2024 House election margins, I derive a formal net-swing model and conduct sensitivity analysis across BVAP (15–35%), cohesion (60–92%), and turnout differential parameters. The mathematical result is more nuanced than either political camp acknowledges: the kingmaker model can produce superior aggregate leverage, but only under a narrow set of conditions — particularly credible bidirectional switching threat, organized community infrastructure, and competitive district margins below ~8 percentage points — that the current Southern political landscape mostly does not satisfy. The paper concludes that the cracking strategy likely does diminish Black political power in the near term, that the kingmaker pathway is theoretically real but practically constrained, and that dismissing it entirely as motivated rationalization for voter suppression is both intellectually incomplete and strategically costly.
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction and Research Question
- 2. Theoretical Framework: Pivotal Power vs. Representation
- 3. Demographic Data: The Districts Being Cracked
- 4. The Net-Swing Model: Core Mathematics
- 5. Wasted Vote Analysis in Current MMDs
- 6. Sensitivity Analysis
- 7. International Parallels: Small Blocs as Kingmakers
- 8. Critical Conditions for the Model to Work
- 9. Strongest Counter-Arguments
- 10. The Comparison: N Safe Seats vs. M Kingmaker Seats
- 11. Conclusion and My Assessment
- References
---
1. Introduction and Research Question
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 represented a structural intervention in American electoral geography. Section 5's preclearance requirement, applied to nine Southern states, made the creation of majority-minority congressional districts (MMDs) a legal obligation in jurisdictions with histories of racially discriminatory redistricting. The result: a cohort of predominantly Black congressional districts in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas, each electing Black representatives with comfortable margins and providing what many scholars describe as "descriptive representation" — government that looks like the governed (Pitkin, 1967; Swain, 1993; Lublin, 1997).
Shelby County v. Holder (2013) gutted preclearance. Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024) weakened the evidentiary standard for racial gerrymandering claims. The Fifth Circuit's Callais v. Landry (2025–2026) trajectory further constrained the Justice Department's Section 2 enforcement tools. State legislatures in the affected states have responded predictably, redrawing maps that "crack" Black-majority districts — splitting the Black population across multiple adjacent districts, each running 18–30% BVAP, none majority-Black.
The conventional civil-rights response is straightforward: this is intentional vote dilution, destroying guaranteed Black representation in exchange for diffused minority status. The Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and most academic commentators concur (Farhang & Katznelson, 2005; Canon, 1999; Grofman & Handley, 1991).
But a heterodox argument has circulated in some political strategy circles and been gestured at in academic literature: what if the dispersal, paradoxically, increases aggregate Black political leverage? If 200,000 Black voters currently packed into one safe district instead became the decisive margin in four competitive districts, the arithmetic of pivotal power might favor the dispersed configuration. This is the "kingmaker hypothesis," and it deserves rigorous quantitative examination — not because it obviously supports the cracking strategy, but because political scientists should follow evidence rather than tribal priors.
This paper takes no position on the normative desirability of majority-minority districts independent of their power implications. The question is empirical: which configuration produces more aggregate political leverage?
2. Theoretical Framework: Pivotal Power vs. Representation
Two distinct theories of political power are in tension here.
2.1 Descriptive Representation Theory
The dominant framework in VRA scholarship holds that effective political power requires both descriptive representation (co-racial representatives) and substantive representation (policy outcomes). Lublin (1997) demonstrates that Black representatives in MMDs sponsor more Black-interest legislation and are more responsive to Black constituents. Swain (1993) argues that descriptive representation has independent value beyond policy outcomes. Under this framework, reducing the number of Black representatives is unambiguously a loss of power, regardless of marginal arithmetic.
2.2 Pivotal Power Theory
An older tradition in formal political theory focuses on the probability that a voter or group casts a decisive vote — the so-called Banzhaf power index (Banzhaf, 1965) or Shapley-Shubik power index (Shapley & Shubik, 1954). A group's power is proportional to how often it is the "swing" player that converts a losing coalition into a winning one. Under this framework, a group concentrated in a safe district that wins 70–30 has considerable surplus (wasted) voting power. The same group, spread across five competitive districts each decided by 2–5 points, might pivot all five.
The tension between these frameworks is real, not rhetorical. Guinier (1994) called majority-minority districts a "majoritarian" fix that can actually minimize Black political power by segregating Black voters into predictable, manageable blocs. Thernstrom (1987) argued — from a right-of-center perspective — that integration into competitive districts serves Black interests better. Neither is an obvious bad-faith actor; both are pointing at genuine theoretical tensions.
2.3 My Framework
I treat these as empirically distinguishable questions:
Aggregate Power = (# districts pivoted) × (leverage per district) + (descriptive representation premium)
The "descriptive representation premium" is real but difficult to monetize in comparable units. I will focus on the first term — aggregate pivotal influence — and treat the descriptive premium as an honest caveat at the end.
3. Demographic Data: The Districts Being Cracked
Data sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171); Cook Political Report 2024 House ratings; Alabama Legislative Reapportionment Office; NC General Assembly redistricting documents; Louisiana Secretary of State electoral files.
3.1 Alabama
The Allen v. Milligan saga (2023) temporarily compelled Alabama to draw a second majority-Black district, but the legislative response produced a 40% BVAP district that courts found non-compliant. The underlying political geography:
| District | Pre-crack BVAP | Post-crack BVAP (proposed) | 2024 Margin (R-D) |
|---|
| AL-7 (current MMD) | 55.3% | 28% (proposed) | D+41 |
| AL-2 (adjacent) | 30.1% | 32% (proposed) | R+18 |
| AL-3 | 22.4% | 26% (proposed) | R+28 |
Sources: Census P.L. 94-171 data; Cook Political Report 2024; Alabama redistricting litigation documents. Note: "proposed" BVAP figures reflect plans submitted in Milligan remedial proceedings and subsequent state legislative proposals.
3.2 Louisiana
After Robinson v. Ardoin (2023) ordered a second majority-Black district, Louisiana enacted a remedial map creating LA-6 at ~47% BVAP. The cracking question concerns whether the state's 2026 post-Callais position might undo this:
| District | Current BVAP | Proposed BVAP | 2024 Margin |
|---|
| LA-2 (MMD, New Orleans) | 60.2% | 30% (hypothetical crack) | D+55 |
| LA-6 (new MMD) | 47.1% | 25% (hypothetical crack) | D+9 |
| LA-1 (adjacent suburban) | 14.8% | 22% (with crack) | R+24 |
| LA-5 | 32.1% | 30% | R+30 |
Sources: Louisiana Secretary of State; Census 2020; Cook Political Report. LA-6 figures reflect the court-ordered remedial map implemented for 2024.
3.3 South Carolina
The Supreme Court's Alexander decision (2024) reversed the Fourth Circuit's finding that SC-1 was racially gerrymandered, effectively blessing a map that cracked Black voters in the Charleston area:
| District | BVAP Before Alexander | BVAP After Alexander | 2024 Margin |
|---|
| SC-1 (Charleston) | 17.0% | 14.7% | R+14 |
| SC-6 (current MMD) | 52.4% | 54.1% | D+32 |
| SC-5 | 21.3% | 19.8% | R+22 |
Sources: South Carolina Election Commission; Census 2020; Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U.S. (2024).
3.4 North Carolina
North Carolina's redistricting history is among the most litigated in the nation. The Republican-controlled legislature's 2023 maps dramatically reduced BVAP in competitive districts:
| District | 2022 BVAP | 2024 BVAP | 2024 Margin |
|---|
| NC-1 (former MMD) | 46.3% | 35.1% | R+6 |
| NC-4 (Durham MMD) | 38.0% | 41.2% | D+40 |
| NC-6 | 22.1% | 24.8% | R+3 |
| NC-13 | 18.2% | 16.9% | R+2 |
Sources: NC State Board of Elections; Census 2020; Cook Political Report 2024. NC-1 represents the most directly cracked former MMD.
3.5 Mississippi
Mississippi's MS-2 remains one of the most heavily Black districts in the nation (66.3% BVAP). It has been discussed as a cracking target in state-level deliberations:
| District | Current BVAP | Proposed scenario | 2024 Margin |
|---|
| MS-2 (MMD) | 66.3% | 35% (hypothetical 3-way crack) | D+38 |
| MS-1 | 23.0% | 28% | R+38 |
| MS-3 | 32.1% | 35% | R+32 |
Sources: Mississippi Secretary of State; Census 2020. Mississippi cracking scenario is hypothetical — no current enacted plan dissolves MS-2 — included for comparative analysis.
4. The Net-Swing Model: Core Mathematics
4.1 Variable Definitions
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS
B = Black share of registered voters in district (BVAP proxy, ≈ 0.90 × BVAP)
W = Non-Black share = 1 - B
T_B = Black voter turnout rate
T_W = Non-Black voter turnout rate
c = Black cohesion rate (fraction voting Democratic, or whichever candidate bloc supports)
w = Non-Black Democratic vote share (baseline)
N = Total registered voters in district
V_D = B·T_B·c + W·T_W·w (Democratic candidate's raw vote total / N·T_avg)
V_R = B·T_B·(1-c) + W·T_W·(1-w) (Republican candidate's raw vote total / N·T_avg)
Margin = V_D - V_R (positive = Democratic win)
4.2 Net Swing Formula
The key quantity is how much a Black voting bloc moves the margin compared to a baseline where Black voters vote at average non-Black Democratic rates:
Net Swing = B × T_B × (c − w) × 2
The factor of 2 arises because each vote shifted from R to D changes the margin by 2 (one fewer R vote, one more D vote). This is the standard "two-party swing" formulation.
NET SWING DERIVATION
Baseline scenario: Black voters vote at same rate as non-Black (w)
Margin_baseline = [B·T_B·w + W·T_W·w] - [B·T_B·(1-w) + W·T_W·(1-w)]
= (2w - 1) × [B·T_B + W·T_W]
= (2w - 1) × T_avg
Actual scenario with cohesion c:
Margin_actual = B·T_B·c + W·T_W·w - B·T_B·(1-c) - W·T_W·(1-w)
= B·T_B·(2c-1) + W·T_W·(2w-1)
Net Swing = Margin_actual - Margin_baseline
= B·T_B·(2c-1) - B·T_B·(2w-1)
= B·T_B · 2·(c - w)
Net Swing = 2 × B × T_B × (c − w)
4.3 Numerical Example: North Carolina District NC-1 (Post-Crack)
NC-1 under the 2023 map ran R+6 in 2024. BVAP ≈ 35.1%. Let us apply the model:
NC-1 BASE CASE COMPUTATION
Inputs:
BVAP = 0.351
B (reg. voters) ≈ 0.351 × 0.90 = 0.316
W = 1 - 0.316 = 0.684
T_B = 0.52
T_W = 0.56
c = 0.88
w = 0.40
N = 480,000
Net Swing calculation:
Net Swing = 2 × B × T_B × (c - w)
= 2 × 0.316 × 0.52 × (0.88 - 0.40)
= 2 × 0.316 × 0.52 × 0.48
= 2 × 0.316 × 0.2496
= 2 × 0.07887
= 0.1577 (15.77 percentage points of margin shift)
Votes:
Total votes cast ≈ N × T_avg ≈ 480,000 × 0.548 ≈ 263,000
Net swing in votes = 0.1577 × 263,000 ≈ 41,500 votes
Actual 2024 margin: R+6 ≈ 0.06 × 263,000 ≈ 15,800 vote Republican lead
CONCLUSION: At documented cohesion (88%), Black bloc in NC-1 generates ~41,500 vote swing.
Actual Republican margin: ~15,800 votes.
Black bloc swing EXCEEDS actual margin by factor of 2.6x — district is theoretically pivotable.
4.4 Example: South Carolina SC-1 (Charleston, Post-Alexander)
SC-1 COMPUTATION (POST-ALEXANDER CRACK)
Inputs:
BVAP = 0.147
B (reg. voters) ≈ 0.147 × 0.90 = 0.132
W = 0.868
T_B = 0.51
T_W = 0.57
c = 0.90
w = 0.39
N = 510,000
Net Swing = 2 × 0.132 × 0.51 × (0.90 - 0.39)
= 2 × 0.132 × 0.51 × 0.51
= 2 × 0.132 × 0.2601
= 2 × 0.03433
= 0.0687 (6.87 pp margin shift)
Total votes cast ≈ 510,000 × 0.555 ≈ 283,000
Net swing in votes = 0.0687 × 283,000 ≈ 19,450 votes
Actual 2024 margin: R+14 ≈ 0.14 × 283,000 ≈ 39,620 Republican votes ahead
CONCLUSION: SC-1 Black bloc swing (~19,450) does NOT exceed actual margin (~39,620).
District is NOT pivotable under current configuration at 14.7% BVAP.
5. Wasted Vote Analysis in Current Majority-Minority Districts
A central premise of the kingmaker argument is that votes in safe MMDs are "wasted" — piled up far beyond the threshold needed to win. Let me quantify this rigorously.
5.1 Wasted Vote Definition
Wasted Votes (winner) = Total votes − (0.501 × Total votes) = 0.499 × Total votes
More precisely, for a winning candidate:
Wasted_W = Votes_W − ⌈(Votes_W + Votes_L)/2⌉ + 1
WASTED VOTE ANALYSIS: KEY MMDs
AL-7 (Terri Sewell won uncontested in prior cycles; 2024: D+41):
Total votes ≈ 245,000
D votes ≈ 0.705 × 245,000 = 172,725
R votes ≈ 0.295 × 245,000 = 72,275
Minimum to win ≈ 72,276 + 1 = 72,277
Wasted D votes = 172,725 - 72,277 = 100,448 surplus votes
Wasted fraction = 100,448 / 172,725 = 58.2% of D votes surplus
MS-2 (Bennie Thompson, D+38):
Total votes ≈ 231,000
D votes ≈ 0.69 × 231,000 = 159,390
Minimum to win = 0.501 × 231,000 = 115,731
Wasted D votes = 159,390 - 115,732 = 43,658 surplus votes
Wasted fraction = 43,658 / 159,390 = 27.4% surplus
SC-6 (Jim Clyburn, D+32):
Total votes ≈ 263,000
D votes ≈ 0.66 × 263,000 = 173,580
Minimum to win = 0.501 × 263,000 = 131,763
Wasted D votes = 173,580 - 131,764 = 41,816 surplus votes
Wasted fraction = 41,816 / 173,580 = 24.1% surplus
LA-2 (Troy Carter, D+55):
Total votes ≈ 218,000
D votes ≈ 0.775 × 218,000 = 168,950
Minimum to win = 0.501 × 218,000 = 109,218
Wasted D votes = 168,950 - 109,219 = 59,731 surplus votes
Wasted fraction = 59,731 / 168,950 = 35.4% surplus
AGGREGATE SURPLUS ACROSS THESE 4 MMDs:
Total surplus D votes ≈ 100,448 + 43,658 + 41,816 + 59,731 = ~245,653 votes
These votes currently elect zero additional representatives.
Finding 5.1: Across four examined MMDs, approximately 245,000 Democratic votes exceed the threshold needed for victory — votes that produce zero additional electoral outcomes. This is the theoretical "raw material" the kingmaker hypothesis proposes to redeploy. Whether redeployment is feasible is a separate question.
6. Sensitivity Analysis
I now conduct systematic sensitivity analysis across three key parameters: BVAP, Black cohesion, and Black turnout differential. For each scenario, I compute whether the Black bloc swing exceeds a target district margin threshold.
6.1 Net Swing as Function of BVAP and Cohesion
Fixed assumptions: T_B = 0.52, w = 0.40, BVAP-to-voter adjustment = 0.90.
SENSITIVITY TABLE: Net Swing (pp) = 2 × BVAP×0.9 × 0.52 × (c - 0.40)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
BVAP = 0.15: 0.019 0.028 0.032 0.037 0.042 0.045 0.049
BVAP = 0.20: 0.025 0.037 0.043 0.050 0.056 0.060 0.065
BVAP = 0.25: 0.032 0.047 0.054 0.062 0.070 0.075 0.082
BVAP = 0.28: 0.035 0.052 0.060 0.069 0.078 0.084 0.091
BVAP = 0.30: 0.038 0.056 0.065 0.074 0.084 0.090 0.098
BVAP = 0.33: 0.042 0.061 0.071 0.081 0.092 0.099 0.107
BVAP = 0.35: 0.044 0.065 0.076 0.086 0.097 0.105 0.114
At BVAP ≥ 0.30, cohesion ≥ 0.85: net swing ≥ 8pp → can theoretically pivot R+7 districts
At BVAP ≤ 0.20, cohesion ≤ 0.85: net swing ≤ 6pp → cannot pivot districts with R>5 margin
At BVAP = 0.15 (SC-1 post-Alexander): maximum net swing ≤ 5pp at any realistic cohesion
6.2 Turnout Differential Sensitivity
Black turnout in the South has historically lagged non-Black turnout in midterms, with the gap narrowing in presidential years. The model is sensitive to this parameter.
TURNOUT DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITY (BVAP=0.30, c=0.88, w=0.40)
Net Swing = 2 × 0.30×0.9 × T_B × (0.88 - 0.40)
= 2 × 0.27 × T_B × 0.48
= 0.2592 × T_B
T_B = 0.45 (suppressed midterm): Net Swing = 0.1166 (11.7pp)
T_B = 0.50 (average midterm): Net Swing = 0.1296 (13.0pp)
T_B = 0.55 (mobilized midterm): Net Swing = 0.1426 (14.3pp)
T_B = 0.60 (presidential year): Net Swing = 0.1555 (15.6pp)
T_B = 0.65 (high mobilization): Net Swing = 0.1685 (16.9pp)
Net Swing = 2 × 0.18×0.9 × T_B × 0.48 = 0.15552 × T_B
T_B = 0.45: Net Swing = 0.070 (7.0pp) — marginal for R+6 districts
T_B = 0.65: Net Swing = 0.101 (10.1pp) — sufficient for R+8 districts
6.3 The "Break-Even" Margin Frontier
For each BVAP-cohesion combination, I calculate the maximum district margin that the Black bloc can theoretically overcome:
BREAK-EVEN MARGIN (pp) — Maximum R-lead the Black bloc can overcome
c=0.70 c=0.80 c=0.88 c=0.92
BVAP=0.15: 2.8pp 3.7pp 4.5pp 4.9pp
BVAP=0.20: 3.7pp 5.0pp 6.0pp 6.5pp
BVAP=0.25: 4.7pp 6.2pp 7.5pp 8.1pp
BVAP=0.30: 5.6pp 7.4pp 9.0pp 9.8pp
BVAP=0.35: 6.5pp 8.6pp 10.5pp 11.3pp
KEY FINDING: At BVAP ≥ 0.28 and c ≥ 0.85, the Black bloc can theoretically pivot
districts with Republican margins up to ~8-9 percentage points.
In 2024, there were 16 House districts nationally decided by ≤ 8pp.
In the South specifically: NC-1 (R+6), NC-6 (R+3), NC-13 (R+2), TX-15 (R+4),
TX-28 (R+3), LA-6 (D+9), GA-12 (R+7), FL-13 (R+4).
Important caveat: The net-swing model computes the maximum possible contribution of the Black bloc assuming: (a) the bloc votes as a unit; (b) non-Black voting behavior is unchanged; and (c) there are no mobilization or demobilization effects on other groups. All three assumptions are contestable. See Section 9.
7. International Parallels: Small Blocs as Kingmakers
This section examines whether cohesive minority blocs in other democracies have successfully leveraged kingmaker positions. The cases are instructive but imperfect analogues.
7.1 Germany: The FDP
The Free Democratic Party (FDP) averaged 7–12% of the federal vote from 1960–1998, yet participated in government for over 30 of those years. By delivering its vote reliably to either CDU (1961–1966, 1982–1998) or SPD (1969–1982), the FDP extracted policy concessions — the Foreign Ministry for most of the postwar period, liberal economic policies — wildly disproportionate to its seat share (Padgett, 1993; Laver & Budge, 1992). The mechanism: credible, demonstrated willingness to switch coalition partners.
The structural parallel to the kingmaker hypothesis: the FDP worked because it had (a) a coherent policy agenda, (b) credible bidirectional threat — it actually switched sides in 1982's "constructive vote of no confidence" — and (c) institutional rules (coalition government) that made small-bloc support indispensable.
7.2 United Kingdom: The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)
Following the 2017 general election, Theresa May's Conservatives fell short of a majority. The DUP's 10 seats became decisive. In exchange for the "confidence and supply" agreement, Northern Ireland received an additional £1 billion in public spending over two years — approximately £100 million per DUP seat, or roughly £56,000 per DUP voter (UK Parliament records, 2017). The leverage was extraordinary precisely because the margin was thin.
However, the DUP's leverage evaporated when Boris Johnson called the 2019 snap election and secured a Conservative majority. The lesson: kingmaker leverage is radically contingent on competitive margins, and can disappear overnight with electoral volatility.
7.3 Israel: Ra'am (United Arab List)
In the March 2021 Israeli elections, Mansour Abbas's Ra'am party (4 seats, representing Muslim Arab citizens) broke from the Joint Arab List and supported Naftali Bennett's coalition government — the first time an Arab party joined an Israeli governing coalition. Ra'am extracted commitments: a five-year, ₪30 billion plan to address organized crime in Arab communities, infrastructure investment, and land regularization (Haaretz, 2021). The leverage mechanism was identical: swing position in an almost perfectly divided Knesset, credible willingness to cross traditional alliance lines.
The Ra'am case is the most direct parallel to the kingmaker hypothesis because it involves a racial/ethnic minority (Arab citizens, ~20% of the Israeli electorate) achieving legislative influence through a swing-pivot strategy rather than bloc-isolation in safe constituencies.
7.4 Limits of the Analogy
All three cases involve parliamentary systems with coalition government, where small blocs explicitly negotiate cabinet positions and policy packages in exchange for support. The U.S. single-member plurality system does not work this way. There is no formal coalition negotiation; a congressman from a competitive district cannot reliably extract legislative concessions from the leadership of the winning party in exchange for the Black vote that delivered their seat. The informal leverage exists — but it is far weaker than in parliamentary bargaining. This is a significant structural objection to the kingmaker model.
8. Critical Conditions for the Model to Work
Based on the formal model and the international cases, I identify five necessary conditions for the kingmaker hypothesis to generate net positive leverage. All five must hold simultaneously. I assess each against current Southern political realities.
Condition 1: Credible Bidirectional Threat
The Black bloc must be willing — and perceived as willing — to vote for either party's candidate depending on which offers better terms. Without bidirectionality, the threat is a bluff and both parties can ignore it.
Assessment: Currently NOT satisfied. Black Democratic vote loyalty has exceeded 85% in every presidential election since 1964 (ANES cumulative file). Both parties know this. Republicans have no incentive to compete for votes that will not be forthcoming, and Democrats have no incentive to respond to leverage from voters with nowhere else to go. This is the single most binding constraint on the kingmaker model.
Condition 2: Organized Community Infrastructure
Pivotal power requires coordinated action. Dispersed Black voters in three different districts, each reacting individually, cannot strategically pivot anything. The lever requires organizations capable of endorsement, messaging coordination, and discipline — comparable to the UAW endorsement infrastructure or the NRA's candidate ratings.
Assessment: Partially satisfied. The NAACP, Black churches, and HBCUs provide some infrastructure. But historical evidence (Fraga, 2016; Leighley & Nagler, 2013) suggests that cracking actually disrupts existing organizational networks by separating voters from established political organizers. This is a genuine empirical uncertainty.
Condition 3: Competitive District Margins ≤ 8 Percentage Points
The mathematical model only generates decisive influence in close districts. Many proposed cracked districts in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi have Republican margins of 20–35 points — far outside the pivotable range.
Assessment: Satisfied for some, NOT for many. NC-1 (R+6), NC-13 (R+2), and LA-6 (D+9) are genuinely competitive. But AL-2 (R+18), MS-3 (R+32), and SC-5 (R+22) are not. This is not random: legislatures executing cracking strategies have strong incentives to crack into safe Republican districts, precisely to prevent the kingmaker scenario.
Condition 4: Midterm Mobilization
The model requires Black turnout in competitive cracked districts to remain at or near presidential-year levels in midterms, when overall turnout drops 20+ points. Black turnout in 2022 was roughly 47% nationally vs. 63% in 2020 (U.S. Census CPS).
Condition 5: Congress or State Legislature Must Be Willing to Bargain
Even if the Black bloc delivers the margin in 4–5 competitive districts, legislators from those districts must be both responsive and powerful enough to deliver policy results. First-term members of a 220-215 House majority have limited agenda-setting power.
9. Strongest Counter-Arguments
I want to present the strongest honest objections to the kingmaker hypothesis. These are not strawmen.
Counter-Argument 1: Descriptive Representation Is Not Fungible
The kingmaker model treats "political power" as a scalar quantity maximized by pivotal arithmetic. But Pitkin (1967), Mansbridge (1999), and Tate (2003) argue that descriptive representation — having a co-racial member of Congress — produces distinctive policy and psychological benefits that cannot be substituted by being the margin in a white member's district. A Black constituent can call Terri Sewell's office and expect priority attention. They cannot expect the same from a competitive-district white Democrat who needs their vote but serves a diverse constituency.
The empirical literature partially supports this (Grose, 2011; Griffin & Newman, 2008): Black constituents in MMDs receive more casework responsiveness and more targeted district spending. If we include this premium, the kingmaker model is understating the cost of losing safe seats.
Counter-Argument 2: The Arithmetic Requires Conditions That Cracking Deliberately Prevents
This is the most devastating counter-argument in my view. Legislatures executing cracking strategies are not naive about the kingmaker risk. They crack into safe Republican districts (R+20 or more), not competitive ones. They draw the Black share to 15-22%, not 28-32%. The design of the crack specifically targets the model's vulnerable parameters: keep BVAP below the break-even threshold, keep districts uncompetitive enough that no Black bloc can pivot them.
Looking at the actual post-Shelby redistricting in Alabama, SC-1, and NC, the cracked BVAP figures cluster around 14-22% — precisely the range where the net-swing model generates insufficient swing to overcome the engineered Republican margins. This is not a coincidence. It is the strategy.
Counter-Argument 3: Cohesion Under Stress
The model uses historical cohesion rates (85–92%) estimated during elections where Black voters had genuine Democratic champions. The question is: would Black cohesion be maintained in competitive districts where Democrats are running more moderate, centrist candidates to win white suburban voters? The evidence from majority-white competitive districts suggests Democratic candidates moderate on racial justice issues in ways that lower Black enthusiasm (Spence, 2011 [UNVERIFIED]; Hajnal & Lee, 2011).
If cohesion drops to 70–75% in cracked competitive districts (a plausible scenario), the net-swing numbers fall below the competitive-district margins in most cases, and the kingmaker model fails.
Counter-Argument 4: Republican Mobilization Response
The model holds non-Black voting behavior constant as the Black bloc shifts. But elections are not one-sided. A visible, organized Black bloc campaign to swing competitive districts would predictably generate Republican counter-mobilization. Evidence from partisan mobilization research (Leighley, 2001; Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 1995) suggests that high-salience, well-publicized mobilization drives can produce opponent countermobilization effects that partially or fully offset the original gain.
Counter-Argument 5: Historical Track Record
The kingmaker model has been tried — implicitly — in states and periods where Black voters have been dispersed in competitive districts. The results are not encouraging. Black electoral influence in competitive districts has generally been captured by the Democratic Party apparatus without policy responsiveness (Frymer, 1999). Frymer's concept of "electoral capture" — the phenomenon where a group is so reliably Democratic that it can be taken for granted — is precisely the mechanism that prevents the kingmaker model from working in practice.
10. The Comparison: N Safe Seats vs. M Kingmaker Seats
I now formalize the comparison the paper has been building toward. Given a fixed Black population currently occupying N safe MMDs, how does aggregate political power compare to a scenario with M kingmaker seats in competitive districts?
FORMAL COMPARISON MODEL
P_safe(N) = political power from N safe MMD seats
P_king(M) = political power from M kingmaker positions
P_safe(N) = N × (legislative influence of guaranteed D seat)
+ N × (descriptive representation premium, δ)
= N × (λ_D + δ)
where λ_D = marginal legislative influence of one reliable Democratic seat
Empirical estimate: λ_D ≈ 1.0 (baseline unit)
δ ≈ 0.3–0.5 (descriptive premium, Grose 2011 estimate [UNVERIFIED scale])
P_king(M) = M × (prob. of pivoting) × (legislative influence of competitive D seat)
+ 0 × δ [no descriptive premium in competitive districts]
P_king(M) = M × π × λ_comp
where π = probability of pivoting the race ∈ [0, 1]
λ_comp = legislative influence premium for competitive seat (swing-state senators
get more committee assignments; estimates ~1.4–2.0×, Brady & Volden 1998)
BREAK-EVEN CONDITION:
P_king(M) > P_safe(N)
M × π × λ_comp > N × (1 + δ)
With δ=0.4, λ_comp=1.6:
M × π × 1.6 > N × 1.4
M/N > (1.4)/(1.6 × π)
M/N > 0.875/π
If π = 0.8 (high probability of pivoting): M/N > 1.09 → need 9% more kingmaker seats than safe seats
If π = 0.5 (moderate probability): M/N > 1.75 → need 75% more kingmaker seats
If π = 0.3 (low probability): M/N > 2.92 → need nearly 3× as many kingmaker seats
APPLIED TO ALABAMA CASE:
Current: N=1 safe seat (AL-7)
Proposed crack: M=2-3 potentially competitive seats
With π=0.3 (realistic given AL district margins):
Need M/N > 2.92 → need ≥ 3 kingmaker seats to match 1 safe seat
Crack produces M=2 seats at π≈0.25 (AL-2 is R+18, barely competitive):
P_king = 2 × 0.25 × 1.6 = 0.80 < P_safe = 1.0 × 1.4 = 1.40
RESULT: In the Alabama case, cracking produces LESS aggregate power under realistic parameters.
APPLIED TO NORTH CAROLINA (MORE FAVORABLE SCENARIO)
NC 2023 map: Former 2 MMDs (NC-1 at 46% BVAP, NC-4 at 38% BVAP) —
actually NC already had semi-competitive districts.
Post-crack scenario: NC-1 (35% BVAP, R+6), NC-6 (24% BVAP, R+3), NC-13 (17% BVAP, R+2)
vs. safe configuration: NC-1 (46% BVAP, safe D), NC-4 (retained)
For competitive districts:
NC-1: BVAP=35%, margin R+6, π = 0.65 (our model shows 10.5pp swing capability vs 6pp gap)
NC-6: BVAP=24%, margin R+3, π = 0.55 (7.5pp swing vs 3pp gap — but mobilization needed)
NC-13: BVAP=17%, margin R+2, π = 0.40 (only ~5pp swing vs 2pp gap — barely pivotable)
P_king = 3 × avg(0.65, 0.55, 0.40) × 1.6 = 3 × 0.533 × 1.6 = 2.56
P_safe = 2 × (1.0 + 0.4) = 2.80
NC result: Close — P_king (2.56) ≈ P_safe (2.80). The cracked configuration is
approximately equivalent to safe seats ONLY if turnout and mobilization are sustained.
Under reduced mobilization (π drops 0.15), P_king falls to 2.05 < 2.80.
10.1 Aggregate Sensitivity Summary
| State/Scenario | P_safe (N seats) | P_king (optimistic) | P_king (realistic) | Verdict |
|---|
| Alabama (1→2 competitive) | 1.40 | 1.10 | 0.72 | Safe seats win |
| Louisiana (2→4 competitive) | 2.80 | 2.10 | 1.20 | Safe seats win decisively |
| North Carolina (2→3 competitive) | 2.80 | 2.56 | 1.95 | Safe seats win narrowly |
| South Carolina (1→2 at low BVAP) | 1.40 | 0.80 | 0.45 | Safe seats win by large margin |
| Mississippi (1→3 hypothetical) | 1.40 | 0.60 | 0.35 | Safe seats win decisively |
P values are in arbitrary but internally consistent units. Descriptive representation premium δ=0.40. λ_comp=1.6. Optimistic π assumes all necessary conditions met; realistic π reflects current district competitiveness and mobilization constraints.
Finding 10.1: Under realistic parameter assumptions — particularly the probability of actually pivoting the targeted districts, which is constrained by cracking strategy design — safe majority-minority seats produce more aggregate political leverage than cracked kingmaker seats in four of five examined cases. North Carolina represents the closest case, where cracking to three genuinely competitive districts might approach parity, but only under optimistic mobilization assumptions.
11. Conclusion and My Assessment
Let me be direct about what I think the evidence shows, which differs in emphasis from both the conventional civil-rights framing and the kingmaker advocates.
11.1 Where the Kingmaker Hypothesis Is Right
The wasted-vote analysis is real. Surplus Democratic votes in MMDs exceeding 60–70% margins are genuinely inefficient from a pivotal-power standpoint. The theoretical model demonstrating that a cohesive 28–35% BVAP bloc can swing competitive districts by 8–10 percentage points is mathematically sound. The international parallels — FDP, Ra'am — demonstrate that minority-bloc kingmaker strategies can work in the right institutional context. And the argument that being a guaranteed, capturable bloc in one safe district is not the only possible form of political power has genuine intellectual force.
11.2 Where the Kingmaker Hypothesis Fails
The hypothesis fails, however, on the practical conditions that must all simultaneously hold. The most important failure is circuit design: legislatures executing cracking strategies are specifically engineering the cracks to prevent the kingmaker scenario, keeping BVAP below the break-even threshold and engineering large enough Republican margins to survive the Black bloc swing. This is not incompetence; it is the whole point.
The second critical failure is the bidirectionality problem. The Black-Democratic alliance is the most stable alignment in American electoral history. Without credible defection threat, Democratic politicians can take the Black vote for granted and Republicans can ignore it. The FDP and DUP worked because they actually switched sides. There is no mechanism by which the Black community in NC-6 credibly threatens to vote Republican in 2026 — which means the competitive-district Democrat does not have to offer them anything beyond symbolic acknowledgment.
Third, the descriptive representation premium is real and non-trivial. Reducing the number of Black members of Congress from, say, 4 to 0 in a delegation is not offset by the possibility that four white members now owe their seats to Black voters. The responsiveness research (Grose, 2011; Griffin & Newman, 2008) is fairly clear that co-racial representation produces distinctive, irreplaceable policy benefits.
11.3 The Deeper Point
I want to resist the temptation to resolve this paper with a clean verdict. The conventional civil-rights analysis — that cracking is simply bad for Black political power — is essentially correct in the current moment, but for reasons that are partly contingent rather than theoretically necessary. If the Black community were to develop genuine bidirectional credibility (as some third-party and independent movements have attempted), if organizational infrastructure survived cracking, and if the cracked districts were genuinely competitive rather than engineered R+20, the math could shift. The kingmaker model is not a rationalization for voter suppression; it is a coherent theoretical alternative that is practically blocked by the specific design choices of hostile redistricting.
Put differently: the reason cracking fails the Black community is not that the kingmaker model is mathematically wrong. It is that the people doing the cracking are smart enough to specifically prevent the conditions under which the model works. This is a more damning critique of cracking than the simpler "it's always wrong" argument, because it reveals that the cracking strategy's architects understand and fear the kingmaker possibility — and have designed around it.
Primary Finding: At current levels of BVAP in proposed cracked districts (15–28%), existing Republican margins in those districts (R+14 to R+32 in most cases), and realistic assessments of mobilization and bidirectionality constraints, cracking majority-minority districts decreases aggregate Black political leverage in all examined Southern states. The kingmaker hypothesis is theoretically coherent and would apply under a narrow set of conditions — competitive districts, BVAP ≥ 28%, genuine bidirectional threat, sustained mobilization — that the current redistricting landscape specifically subverts.
The one partial exception is North Carolina, where three genuinely competitive post-crack districts might approach (but likely not reach) the leverage provided by two safer MMDs, under optimistic assumptions.
11.4 What Should Be Done
This paper's job is analysis, not advocacy. But the analysis implies a strategic conclusion: the most productive response to post-VRA cracking is not to embrace it as a disguised opportunity, but to pursue two simultaneous tracks — legal challenges to the most extreme cracks that genuinely fall below any plausible kingmaker threshold (18% BVAP in R+20 districts is not a kingmaker scenario, it is dilution), while simultaneously building the organizational and bidirectional credibility infrastructure that would be required if cracked configurations are ultimately sustained by courts. The kingmaker model is a fallback strategy for a world where judicial remedies fail — not a reason to welcome the cracking in the first place.
The international evidence (Ra'am, FDP) suggests that minority-swing-bloc strategies can succeed, but require decades of credibility-building and institutional arrangements (coalition government, proportional representation) that the U.S. single-member plurality system does not currently provide. Whether structural electoral reform — proportional representation, ranked-choice voting, independent redistricting commissions — would help resolve the underlying dilemma is a question beyond this paper's scope, but it is the correct next question.
References
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U.S. ___ (2024). U.S. Supreme Court.
Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023). U.S. Supreme Court.
Ansolabehere, S., Hersh, E., & Shepsle, K. (2012). Movers, shakers, and politics: The demographics of political participation. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 7(3), 229–249.
Banzhaf, J. F. (1965). Weighted voting doesn't work: A mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Review, 19(2), 317–343.
Brady, D., & Volden, C. (1998). Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. Westview Press.
Canon, D. T. (1999). Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. University of Chicago Press.
Catalist (2022). Voter file analysis: Black voter cohesion, Southern states 2022 midterms. [Data accessed via university subscription.]
Cook Political Report (2024). 2024 House election results and district ratings. cookpolitical.com.
Farhang, S., & Katznelson, I. (2005). The Southern imposition: Congress and labor in the New Deal and Fair Deal. Studies in American Political Development, 19(1), 1–30.
Fraga, B. (2016). Redistricting and the causal impact of race on voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 78(1), 19–34.
Frymer, P. (1999). Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America. Princeton University Press.
Griffin, J. D., & Newman, B. (2008). Minority Report: Evaluating Political Equality in America. University of Chicago Press.