Redistricting victims next cycle.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

If I were drawing the MN map D gerrymander for 2020, I would try to pack Republicans into 2 seats, keep seats intact for McCollum, Craig, and Philips, draw away the seats of Omar and Peterson, while creating 2 new open Democratic seats which would be up for grabs for a primary.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I were drawing the MN map D gerrymander for 2020, I would try to pack Republicans into 2 seats, keep seats intact for McCollum, Craig, and Philips, draw away the seats of Omar and Peterson, while creating 2 new open Democratic seats which would be up for grabs for a primary.

That is not possible.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

If I were drawing the MN map D gerrymander for 2020, I would try to pack Republicans into 2 seats, keep seats intact for McCollum, Craig, and Philips, draw away the seats of Omar and Peterson, while creating 2 new open Democratic seats which would be up for grabs for a primary.

That is not possible.

why not?

[Oryxslayer]

If I were drawing the MN map D gerrymander for 2020, I would try to pack Republicans into 2 seats, keep seats intact for McCollum, Craig, and Philips, draw away the seats of Omar and Peterson, while creating 2 new open Democratic seats which would be up for grabs for a primary.

That is not possible.

why not?

Because MN is losing a seat.
Also...

Anyway here's a few maps I messed around with:

5-1 R AL that cuts AL03


A Fair MN map that keeps all PVIs from 2010 intact: MN02 R+1, MN03 D+2, MN07 R+3

A slightly more D Biased MN map, but still fair: MN02 D+1, MN03 D+3.5, MN07 R+3


A Dem Gerry which is only one state senate seat away...  MN02 D+3.5, MN03 D+4, MN07 D+3

All MN maps try to avoid cutting localities - the only one cut by the Gerry is Bloomington for example.

Is purple or yellow ilhan omar. If its purple I'm disappointed that u aren't giving the Racist hicks ilhan omar

Omar is purple in map 1 and yellow in maps 2 and 3. It's key you unpack Omar's seat if you draw a MN Gerry, it allows one to reinforce all the neighbors.

[lfromnj]

Yarmuth is pretty liberal, and if the KY GOP draws the maps well, they can probably get him in a D+2 seat (depending on population growth). He might be able to lose that.

Louisville is trending democrat. Anyway atleast Yarmouth can't be lloyd dog get ed . The Texas gop hated him so much they almost screwed themselves over
D plus 2 would basically be something like hillary plus 7. Unless it's a red wave Yarmuth should be good

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Kentucky's State Constitution bans splintering up KY-03. Yarmuth is complete safe unless somehow the GOP gets another Anne Northup.

[lfromnj]

Kentucky's State Constitution bans splintering up KY-03. Yarmuth is complete safe unless somehow the GOP gets another Anne Northup.

Yeah I wouldn't call it titanium d but unless it's a massive wave he should be good.

[Mr.Phips]

Kentucky's State Constitution bans splintering up KY-03. Yarmuth is complete safe unless somehow the GOP gets another Anne Northup.

Anne Northup would not win KY-03 today.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Kentucky's State Constitution bans splintering up KY-03. Yarmuth is complete safe unless somehow the GOP gets another Anne Northup.

Anne Northup would not win KY-03 today.

what I meant was, a GOPer capable of winning KY-03. Anne Northup was the last Republican to fit in this category.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

MA has pending legislation to get an independent commission. If that happens I think atleast 3 or 4 of the current delegation gets shafted by either double bunking (Kennedy, Lynch, Presley, Trajan?) or being drawn into more competitive districts (McGovern, Keating)

I think the commision might take into account incumbents like NJ does.

That might be difficult since 4 of them are in core Boston (Kennedy, Lynch, Presley, Clark). And the wording says that lines should respect municipal boundaries, and not be drawn to dilute voters of certain parties or race. So the 2 I most likely see are MA-2 becoming primarily a Central MA swing seat by taking Amherst/Northampton out and MA-9 becoming a south shore swing district taking New Bedford and Fall River out and adding The parts of Plymouth/E Norfolk that are in 8

Making a swing seat out of central Massachusetts is a stretch unless it was specifically designed to be a swing district, and the Democratic legislature has no incentive to do so. You have to draw the lines in a very deliberate manner to get a true swing district out of central Mass.

A swing district in the southeast is probably the best that Republicans could hope for.

 "Proportional Representation"


1. D+18 (Springfield, Amherst) NEAL
2. R+1 (Fitchburg, Ludlow) OPEN SEAT
3. D+15 (Worcester, Waltham) MCGOVERN
4. D+19 (Quincy, Newton) KENNEDY
5. D+13 (Malden, Lynn) MOULTON vs CLARK
6. D+7 (Lowell, Lawrence) TRAHAN
7. D+34 (Boston, Cambridge) PRESLEY vs LYNCH (Lynch retires or runs for Senate)
8. EVEN (Weymouth, Taunton) OPEN SEAT
9. D+6 (New Bedford, Plymouth) KEATING

"PRIORITIZE COMPETITION"


1. Springfield, Amherst (D+18) NEAL
2. Worcester, Gardner (D+2) MCGOVERN (way too liberal for this MA-2)
3. Lowell, Fitchburg (D+3) TRAHAN
4. Quincy, Newton (D+19) KENNEDY
5. Framingham, Waltham (D+17) CLARK
6. Lawrence, Lynn (D+10) MOULTON
7. Boston, Cambridge (D+34) PRESLEY vs LYNCH (again, Lynch probably retires or runs for Senate)
8. Fall River, New Bedford (D+4) OPEN
9. Weymouth, Plymouth (D+2) KEATING

Districts 2, 3, 8, and 9 could be highly competitive seats

Like I said, you have to deliberately draw the maps with maximizing competition in mind. Getting 4 competitive seats for Republicans is a pipe dream in reality.

This why we need an expanded House. A 12 or 13 seat MA, makes drawing three or four lean seats for the GOP very easy.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

MA has pending legislation to get an independent commission. If that happens I think atleast 3 or 4 of the current delegation gets shafted by either double bunking (Kennedy, Lynch, Presley, Trajan?) or being drawn into more competitive districts (McGovern, Keating)

I think the commision might take into account incumbents like NJ does.

That might be difficult since 4 of them are in core Boston (Kennedy, Lynch, Presley, Clark). And the wording says that lines should respect municipal boundaries, and not be drawn to dilute voters of certain parties or race. So the 2 I most likely see are MA-2 becoming primarily a Central MA swing seat by taking Amherst/Northampton out and MA-9 becoming a south shore swing district taking New Bedford and Fall River out and adding The parts of Plymouth/E Norfolk that are in 8

Making a swing seat out of central Massachusetts is a stretch unless it was specifically designed to be a swing district, and the Democratic legislature has no incentive to do so. You have to draw the lines in a very deliberate manner to get a true swing district out of central Mass.

A swing district in the southeast is probably the best that Republicans could hope for.

 "Proportional Representation"


1. D+18 (Springfield, Amherst) NEAL
2. R+1 (Fitchburg, Ludlow) OPEN SEAT
3. D+15 (Worcester, Waltham) MCGOVERN
4. D+19 (Quincy, Newton) KENNEDY
5. D+13 (Malden, Lynn) MOULTON vs CLARK
6. D+7 (Lowell, Lawrence) TRAHAN
7. D+34 (Boston, Cambridge) PRESLEY vs LYNCH (Lynch retires or runs for Senate)
8. EVEN (Weymouth, Taunton) OPEN SEAT
9. D+6 (New Bedford, Plymouth) KEATING

"PRIORITIZE COMPETITION"


1. Springfield, Amherst (D+18) NEAL
2. Worcester, Gardner (D+2) MCGOVERN (way too liberal for this MA-2)
3. Lowell, Fitchburg (D+3) TRAHAN
4. Quincy, Newton (D+19) KENNEDY
5. Framingham, Waltham (D+17) CLARK
6. Lawrence, Lynn (D+10) MOULTON
7. Boston, Cambridge (D+34) PRESLEY vs LYNCH (again, Lynch probably retires or runs for Senate)
8. Fall River, New Bedford (D+4) OPEN
9. Weymouth, Plymouth (D+2) KEATING

Districts 2, 3, 8, and 9 could be highly competitive seats

Like I said, you have to deliberately draw the maps with maximizing competition in mind. Getting 4 competitive seats for Republicans is a pipe dream in reality.

This why we need an expanded House. A 12 or 13 seat MA, makes drawing three or four lean seats for the GOP very easy.

I think a 12 or 13 seat map would probably still have no more than 2 Republican leaning seats, though I have not made an attempt to draw such a map recently.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I were drawing the MN map D gerrymander for 2020, I would try to pack Republicans into 2 seats, keep seats intact for McCollum, Craig, and Philips, draw away the seats of Omar and Peterson, while creating 2 new open Democratic seats which would be up for grabs for a primary.

That is not possible.

why not?

Because any district that includes Minneapolis is by default Omar's sear. And if you split Minneapolis, Omar just gets the district that doesn't go to someone else (probably Dean Phillips)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If I were drawing the MN map D gerrymander for 2020, I would try to pack Republicans into 2 seats, keep seats intact for McCollum, Craig, and Philips, draw away the seats of Omar and Peterson, while creating 2 new open Democratic seats which would be up for grabs for a primary.

That is not possible.

why not?

Because any district that includes Minneapolis is by default Omar's sear. And if you split Minneapolis, Omar just gets the district that doesn't go to someone else (probably Dean Phillips)

Wouldn't MN Ds be punished if they passed an overly obvious gerrymander?

[Mr.Phips]

If I were drawing the MN map D gerrymander for 2020, I would try to pack Republicans into 2 seats, keep seats intact for McCollum, Craig, and Philips, draw away the seats of Omar and Peterson, while creating 2 new open Democratic seats which would be up for grabs for a primary.

That is not possible.

why not?

Because any district that includes Minneapolis is by default Omar's sear. And if you split Minneapolis, Omar just gets the district that doesn't go to someone else (probably Dean Phillips)

Wouldn't MN Ds be punished if they passed an overly obvious gerrymander?

Were Republicans punished for doing this in Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Georgia?

[Brittain33]

The problem with a “Republican leaning” seat in MA is that there are too few Republicans to actually run for them.

[Strudelcutie4427]

The problem with a “Republican leaning” seat in MA is that there are too few Republicans to actually run for them.

Under my Prioritize Competition map, i could see the following Reps running:

District 2: (Worcester) Sheriff Lew Evangelidis or Lt Gov. Karyn Polito
District 3: (Merrimack Valley): Sen. Dean Tran
District 8: (Bristol) Sheriff Thomas Hodgson
District 9: (South Shore) Mayor Bob Hedlund or Geoff Diehl

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If I were drawing the MN map D gerrymander for 2020, I would try to pack Republicans into 2 seats, keep seats intact for McCollum, Craig, and Philips, draw away the seats of Omar and Peterson, while creating 2 new open Democratic seats which would be up for grabs for a primary.

That is not possible.

why not?

Because any district that includes Minneapolis is by default Omar's sear. And if you split Minneapolis, Omar just gets the district that doesn't go to someone else (probably Dean Phillips)

Wouldn't MN Ds be punished if they passed an overly obvious gerrymander?

Were Republicans punished for doing this in Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Georgia?

Question: is MN the same as MI, NC, OH, and GA?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

A 5-2 Dem map in MN is pretty easy to make. But if you refuse to split Minneapolis/St. Paul, then you will inevitably end up with at least 1 or 2 of the Dem seats being fairly weak (D+2 or D+3 or so). There is a simple solution to this, which is to just not worry about it and split them. You can sort of get away without splitting St. Paul, but at least splitting Minneapolis makes a big difference.

This way the districts are all actually safe and can even end up looking more compact as compared to the thin tentacles on the map that Oryxslayer posted. The average person looking at a map will think that something like this looks better (or at least not worse) than having thin tentacles, despite splitting up the city centers:

MN-01: D+6.4
MN-02: D+6.1
MN-03: D+6.4
MN-04: D+5.9
MN-05: D+7.2
MN-06: R+13.4
MN-07: R+12.9







And yeah, I probably could have avoided splitting Minneapolis 3 ways and St. Paul 2 ways (maybe only 2 or 3 splits are really needed), but why not just give everyone a slice? Makes everyone safe and happy in all 5 districts, and protects all of the districts in case suburban areas eventually swing a bit R in the post Trump era but Minneapolis St. Paul themselves remain strongly D, as opposed to having some of the districts be 100% suburban.

[Zaybay]

A 5-2 Dem map in MN is pretty easy to make. But if you refuse to split Minneapolis/St. Paul, then you will inevitably end up with at least 1 or 2 of the Dem seats being fairly weak (D+2 or D+3 or so).

If the Dems choose not to split the Twin Cities, what would you see as the most D friendly map possible?

[Mr.Phips]

If I were drawing the MN map D gerrymander for 2020, I would try to pack Republicans into 2 seats, keep seats intact for McCollum, Craig, and Philips, draw away the seats of Omar and Peterson, while creating 2 new open Democratic seats which would be up for grabs for a primary.

That is not possible.

why not?

Because any district that includes Minneapolis is by default Omar's sear. And if you split Minneapolis, Omar just gets the district that doesn't go to someone else (probably Dean Phillips)

Wouldn't MN Ds be punished if they passed an overly obvious gerrymander?

Were Republicans punished for doing this in Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Georgia?

Question: is MN the same as MI, NC, OH, and GA?

Yeah they are all states.

[Oryxslayer]

A 5-2 Dem map in MN is pretty easy to make. But if you refuse to split Minneapolis/St. Paul, then you will inevitably end up with at least 1 or 2 of the Dem seats being fairly weak (D+2 or D+3 or so). There is a simple solution to this, which is to just not worry about it and split them. You can sort of get away without splitting St. Paul, but at least splitting Minneapolis makes a big difference.

This way the districts are all actually safe and can even end up looking more compact as compared to the thin tentacles on the map that Oryxslayer posted. The average person looking at a map will think that something like this looks better (or at least not worse) than having thin tentacles, despite splitting up the city centers:

MN-01: D+6.4
MN-02: D+6.1
MN-03: D+6.4
MN-04: D+5.9
MN-05: D+7.2
MN-06: R+13.4
MN-07: R+12.9







And yeah, I probably could have avoided splitting Minneapolis 3 ways and St. Paul 2 ways (maybe only 2 or 3 splits are really needed), but why not just give everyone a slice? Makes everyone safe and happy in all 5 districts, and protects all of the districts in case suburban areas eventually swing a bit R in the post Trump era but Minneapolis St. Paul themselves remain strongly D, as opposed to having some of the districts be 100% suburban.

Yeah if you crack the twin cities then a whole lot more becomes available. I'm not sure in the end that either will be able to be cracked to hell and back: since both incumbents have their bases in the urban centers which are less then 1CD. I doubt they would love potential primary losses. Hell, if you take ST. Paul and then pair it only with really red territory like I did in map three, you get something like D+8 which is the perfect gerrymander safe seat. At best, it will probably be Minneapolis who is cut, and probably not by much.

[Virginiá]

Wouldn't MN Ds be punished if they passed an overly obvious gerrymander?

Were Republicans punished for doing this in Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Georgia?

Question: is MN the same as MI, NC, OH, and GA?

No one will care. Most people don't even know what gerrymandering is, aside from maybe hearing the word and vague descriptions occasionally.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

A 5-2 Dem map in MN is pretty easy to make. But if you refuse to split Minneapolis/St. Paul, then you will inevitably end up with at least 1 or 2 of the Dem seats being fairly weak (D+2 or D+3 or so).

If the Dems choose not to split the Twin Cities, what would you see as the most D friendly map possible?

Probably something like Oryxslayer's map. However, I don't really see how it is preferable in terms of "communities of interest" or whatever to have MN-07 looping around all the way to Fargo (I am totally fine with that in a gerrymander whose purpose is election rigging, of course, but it is not really more community-of-interest-ish than drawing Dem seats in the Minneapolis metro). It is not cleaner really than just splitting the twin cities as needed, which at least allows one to make 5 coherent and safely Dem districts that are generally within the greater Minneapolis-St.Paul Metro area.

I would be interested in what is possible in a modified version of something like Oryxslayer's map that leaves St. Paul un-split and splits Minneapolis only once. For example, can one get all districts to at least +4 PVI (or maybe even +5?) by just splitting Minneapolis once?

[Tartarus Sauce]

Like I said, you have to deliberately draw the maps with maximizing competition in mind. Getting 4 competitive seats for Republicans is a pipe dream in reality.

This why we need an expanded House. A 12 or 13 seat MA, makes drawing three or four lean seats for the GOP very easy.

As somebody who usually draws 13 seat Massachusetts maps, it really isn’t without blatant gerrymandering. In fact, it’s nearly impossible to get an even slightly R leaning seat outiright without gerrymandering even with 13 seats. The Republicans are simply too inefficiently distributed throughout the state outside of the southeast and Democrats have respectable floors just about everywhere, falling below 40 percent of the vote in only a handful of towns. I tend to draw my districts with compactness in mind, attempt to group together logical communities of interest, and try not to split towns, all of which actually leads me to make districts less Democratic than they potentially could be, especially outside the core Boston metro. It is not even close to enough on its own to make a seat actually lean right even slightly. Southeast comes closest, but still usually ends up between D+1-2.5

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If I were drawing the MN map D gerrymander for 2020, I would try to pack Republicans into 2 seats, keep seats intact for McCollum, Craig, and Philips, draw away the seats of Omar and Peterson, while creating 2 new open Democratic seats which would be up for grabs for a primary.

That is not possible.

why not?

Because any district that includes Minneapolis is by default Omar's sear. And if you split Minneapolis, Omar just gets the district that doesn't go to someone else (probably Dean Phillips)

Wouldn't MN Ds be punished if they passed an overly obvious gerrymander?

Were Republicans punished for doing this in Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Georgia?

Question: is MN the same as MI, NC, OH, and GA?

Yeah they are all states.

http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/minn3.htm