Ohio redistricting thread

[palandio]

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/07/11/holy-toledo-a-legal-13-2-ohio/

RRH out with their 13-2 gerrymander of Ohio.

Real question -

If put before a judge, which map do you think they'd rule in favor of when considering the provisions within the reform?

https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1282414594875551744

Anyway I drew a "fair" ohio map based on his original map from 2012(before he changed all his districts thx to new partisan numbers which just shows his maps aren't really non partisan)




https://s1131.photobucket.com/user/swolf318/media/Redistricting%2520Maps/Ohio/OHFairmapDoverview_zps3e87b643.png.html
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/4/22/1201551/-Did-Gerrymandering-Cost-Dems-the-House-A-33-State-Look-at-Alternative-Non-Partisan-Maps
For comparison here is his map he drew when he only knew Obama numbers(before Toledo swung to the right and Columbus north zoomed left )

The akron seat is Clinton +1.3 and the Toledo is around Trump +5.5 FWIW, Youngstown is Trump +9.5

Wolf is of course partisan, but your "based on" claim has to be a joke.

The main point where you made his map more Republican is at his 5th, 7th and 9th districts (Toledo, lakeshore, Western Cleveland). These areas had the population for three districts at the time when Wolf drew the map. But first you rightfully took out the areas which are inside the limits of Cleveland to avoid splitting Cleveland. And additionally stagnating population and Ohio (supposedly) falling from 16 to 15 districts further reduces their weight. In the end the remaining areas (district 5, 7, 9, but without the areas in Cleveland) will make up ca. 2.5 districts in 2020, with an average PVI of ca. R+0.5. What you did then was to add areas for ca. a half district with an average PVI of ca. R+20 to shift all three districts into the Republican direction. Even Wolf in 2015 would have recognized this as very pro-R.

[palandio]

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/07/11/holy-toledo-a-legal-13-2-ohio/

RRH out with their 13-2 gerrymander of Ohio.

Real question -

If put before a judge, which map do you think they'd rule in favor of when considering the provisions within the reform?

https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1282414594875551744

Anyway I drew a "fair" ohio map based on his original map from 2012(before he changed all his districts thx to new partisan numbers which just shows his maps aren't really non partisan)




https://s1131.photobucket.com/user/swolf318/media/Redistricting%2520Maps/Ohio/OHFairmapDoverview_zps3e87b643.png.html
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/4/22/1201551/-Did-Gerrymandering-Cost-Dems-the-House-A-33-State-Look-at-Alternative-Non-Partisan-Maps
For comparison here is his map he drew when he only knew Obama numbers(before Toledo swung to the right and Columbus north zoomed left )

The akron seat is Clinton +1.3 and the Toledo is around Trump +5.5 FWIW, Youngstown is Trump +9.5

Wolf is of course partisan, but your "based on" claim has to be a joke.

The main point where you made his map more Republican is at his 5th, 7th and 9th districts (Toledo, lakeshore, Western Cleveland). These areas had the population for three districts at the time when Wolf drew the map. But first you rightfully took out the areas which are inside the limits of Cleveland to avoid splitting Cleveland. And additionally stagnating population and Ohio (supposedly) falling from 16 to 15 districts further reduces their weight. In the end the remaining areas (district 5, 7, 9, but without the areas in Cleveland) will make up ca. 2.5 districts in 2020, with an average PVI of ca. R+0.5. What you did then was to add areas for ca. a half district with an average PVI of ca. R+20 to shift all three districts into the Republican direction. Even Wolf in 2015 would have recognized this as very pro-R.

Since the state loses a district, causing the districts to grow, and the district cut is republican, therefore it makes sense many districts would move right.  

Ah, and it also makes sense that going by whichever numbers you like (e.g. 2016 presidential) lfromnj's "copied" 15-seat map returns (on expectation) more Republicans than Wolfs's original 16-seat map?

I mean, lfromnj can draw whatever he likes, but saying that he basically copied Wolf's map is just intellectually dishonest.

[palandio]

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/07/11/holy-toledo-a-legal-13-2-ohio/

RRH out with their 13-2 gerrymander of Ohio.

Real question -

If put before a judge, which map do you think they'd rule in favor of when considering the provisions within the reform?

https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1282414594875551744

Anyway I drew a "fair" ohio map based on his original map from 2012(before he changed all his districts thx to new partisan numbers which just shows his maps aren't really non partisan)

[snip]


https://s1131.photobucket.com/user/swolf318/media/Redistricting%2520Maps/Ohio/OHFairmapDoverview_zps3e87b643.png.html
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/4/22/1201551/-Did-Gerrymandering-Cost-Dems-the-House-A-33-State-Look-at-Alternative-Non-Partisan-Maps
For comparison here is his map he drew when he only knew Obama numbers(before Toledo swung to the right and Columbus north zoomed left )

The akron seat is Clinton +1.3 and the Toledo is around Trump +5.5 FWIW, Youngstown is Trump +9.5

Wolf is of course partisan, but your "based on" claim has to be a joke.

The main point where you made his map more Republican is at his 5th, 7th and 9th districts (Toledo, lakeshore, Western Cleveland). These areas had the population for three districts at the time when Wolf drew the map. But first you rightfully took out the areas which are inside the limits of Cleveland to avoid splitting Cleveland. And additionally stagnating population and Ohio (supposedly) falling from 16 to 15 districts further reduces their weight. In the end the remaining areas (district 5, 7, 9, but without the areas in Cleveland) will make up ca. 2.5 districts in 2020, with an average PVI of ca. R+0.5. What you did then was to add areas for ca. a half district with an average PVI of ca. R+20 to shift all three districts into the Republican direction. Even Wolf in 2015 would have recognized this as very pro-R.

Since the state loses a district, causing the districts to grow, and the district cut is republican, therefore it makes sense many districts would move right.  

Ah, and it also makes sense that going by whichever numbers you like (e.g. 2016 presidential) lfromnj's "copied" 15-seat map returns (on expectation) more Republicans than Wolfs's original 16-seat map?

I mean, lfromnj can draw whatever he likes, but saying that he basically copied Wolf's map is just intellectually dishonest.

I mean u aren't allowed to split Cleveland anymore so that's just habit usually. He might have had some problems with my suburban Cleveland district in 2012 but the lake shore was still obama +4.5 and he wouldn't have a problem with that one.  All of the districts that voted for obama still voted for obama.

Yes, you're not allowed to split Cleveland anymore which makes the attempt to translate this 16-seat map into a 15-seat map even more futile. Wolf might have had some problems with your Western/Southern Cleveland suburban district, but you're to some degree right that if something like that occurrs in one seat, it's ok, because it's one seat less overall and everyone has to lose something. Your lakeshore district was less than Obama+1.

It's very difficult to say in hindsight if Wolf would have endorsed your 15-seat map in 2015. Yours would actually have been an interesting contribution if you would have said something like "Hey folks, I created a map that in 2012 would have been 9-6 Obama, but where with 2016 numbers Democrats would be hopelessly under water in 11 districts with another district being a toss-up." The question that remains is of course if Republicans would actually like to draw a map like yours, because in 2018 it might have become them to go below the waterline.

[palandio]

[...]
Sure but my main point of the post was to reply to Nyvin to show Wolf doesn't actually draw non partisan maps, he just drew whatever was better for Democrats each year. If he didn't have a problem with this map based on 2012 numbers but then has a problem based on 2016 numbers he doesn't actually draw non partisan maps but he keeps trying to claim that and switches around his maps accordingly, he literally screamed about NC splitting the sandhills in 2019 but did the same thing to get 1 Safe D and a tossup seat in 2012. He complained about the GOP MI 5 pack seat but then kept that seat in his 2016 version of the map. Im just pointing out how a non partisan mapper should be willing to accept trends from an original map instead of messing it up to shore up certain areas. The Toledo seat was still a very Solid Obama +14 in 08 however it was like Trump +6.

Ok, but then why do you need to draw your own map, tie it to Wolf ("In 2012 he would have been ok with that map.") and then use your invented map to illustrate your point? Wolf has drawn so many maps and has redrawn them that there are enough maps that he actually drew himself that fully illustrate your point without having to recurr to tricks. Just use his actual 16-seat map from 2012 and calculate the numbers for 2016.

[palandio]

Is this a "good government" map? Because if it is, it shouldn't separate Youngstown and Warren.

Not separating Youngstown and Warren can make drawing the map a bit complicated. There seem to be several options:
a) Mahoning + Trumbull + Portage + Ashtabula + Columbiana
often combined with a Cleveland suburban/exurban district that goes from Lake to Medina and often includes some of Cleveland's D-trending eastern suburbs, forcing a triple-split of Cuyahoga and generally one of the more D-friendly designs
b) Mahoning + Trumbull + Ashtabula + Lake + parts of Geauga
goes nicely with a Summit + Portage + Geauga seat
c) Mahoning + Trumbull + Stark

All these districts have in common that they have a 2012/2016 PVI close to EVEN and that they were won by Trump in 2016 by 8-10 points and were comfortably won by Sherrod Brown in 2018. Ryan would probably have lost these districts in 2020 by about 5 points, but it would have been a fair fight.

There is of course another option:
d) Mahoning + Trumbull + Columbiana + Carroll + Jefferson + Harrison + Belmont + Guernsey + Noble + Monroe
This has a 2012/2016 PVI of about R+3 or R+4 and voted for Trump by ca. 19 points.

[palandio]

A general question to Torie regarding his 2020 census projections:

What is the source for them? How do they diverge so drastically from DRA's 2018 extrapolations? I mean it's clear that from 2018 to 2020 demographic trends would continue for another two years, but to get from DRA's 2018 numbers to your 2020 numbers you would need an annual population decrease of 1-2% in Northeastern Ohio (or a 1-2% increase in the rest of the state). Or was there a systematic bias in the 2018 extrapolation?

[palandio]

To illustrate what I wrote about the options for keeping Youngstown and Warren together I drew the following maps. My 2020 population projections seem to differ slightly from Torie's because I extrapolated from 2010-2019 trends.

The Dayton-Springfield seat is drawn relatively D-friendly, but that's not my point and it could be easily changed by exchanging areas between the Dayton-Springfield seat, the Cincinatti ex-urban seat and the Southern Ohio seat.

My main point is the different arrangements in NE Ohio.

[palandio]

Which would turn the Western Cleveland seat into ca. Trump +5.

Seems still fair for Democrats:
3 safe D seats
1 seat in Northern Columbus that voted for Biden in 2020 and is clearly trending D
Several more seats within striking distance:
Toledo
Akron/Canton
Western Cleveland
Eastern/Southern Cleveland (actually not trending away from Democrats)
Youngstown (a bit of a stretch now)
Dayton (without Springfield a longshot, but could be in play in a favorable environment)

If Democrats continue to lose by 8 points, then they don't deserve more than 4 seats, but if they make a comeback (similar to Sherrod Brown's performance in 2018), half of the map is in play.

[palandio]

Just to pull it all all together to complete this little exploration into partisan options, below is a Pub gerrymander light map  (i.e., a map that represents a reasonable choice in drawing the lines based on accepted metrics (other than of course competitiveness and proportionality), but the choice made always favors one party), that yes, I understand, will satisfy the "go for the throat" types about as much as watered down beer, but whatever. Gerrymander light maps are less likely to generate blow-back, and often will get the party drawing the lines about three quarters of what they want, but why should they play the long game, when one pines for instant gratification?

Seems mostly realistic and shows how easy it is to deny Democrats the chance at a second seat in Columbus. And you could go even further by not combining Delaware with any areas of Franklin.

The chop 12th's chop into Franklin from two sides is ugly, though. I would move the 3rd slightly to the SW (only slightly), leaving two chops of Franklin: A bigger one in the Sough and West that goes to the 15th and a smaller one in the NE that goes to the 12th.

Did you calculate numbers for the 12th? I wonder how it voted in 2020, although that's probably difficult to calculate at the moment.

[palandio]

Attempt at a rule-conforming R Gerrymander assuming all R incumbent run again:

Since Cuyahoga will contain the Cleveland-based D sink and R incumbents Joyce and Gonzalez both live in Cuyahoga, the map's only tri-partition will occurr there and not in Franklin.

Districts by 2016 results:
1 (Chabot, Wenstrup): Clinton +11.9
2 (Wenstrup would have to move there): Trump +32.4
3 (Beatty): Clinton +42.7
4 (Jordan): Trump +31.4
5 (Latta, Kaptur): Trump +6.0
6 (Johnson): Trump +34.7
7 (Gibbs): Trump +10.0
8 (Davidson): Trump +42.8
9 (Gonzalez): Trump +9.4 [Includes Rocky River]
10 (Turner): Trump +11.1
11 (Fudge): Clinton +60.7
12 (Balderson): Trump +27.6
13 (Ryan): Trump +15.5
14 (Joyce): Trump +9.5 [Includes Richmond Heights]
15 (Stivers): Trump +11.6

Chabot and Ryan are in big trouble, Latta and Kaptur must fight with Latta favored. Possible weak spots for the Republicans are in the 14th and particularly the 15th.

[palandio]

If you draw R gerrymanders, shouldn't you all try to keep one R seat per R incumbent instead of double-bunking them. They won't be happy!

For an overview on the locations of their homes take a look at my map obove with the red and blue stars.

[palandio]

The most common conception of a performing Black VRA district seems to be that
1. Black voters need to be a clear majority in the D primary (or hypothetically the R primary) so that they can elect a (Black or non-Black) candidate of their choice in the primary,
2. together with non-Black D voters the district has to be likely/safe D (or R) in a general election as long as Black voters vote overwhelmingly D.

A district that fulfills both conditions can be drawn entirely within Cuyahoga county and including all of Cleveland. Therefore there is no need to violate the Ohio redistricting rules cited by Torie, in particular the one that says that a district should either include at least one whole county or be contained in one county.

[palandio]

If you draw R gerrymanders, shouldn't you all try to keep one R seat per R incumbent instead of double-bunking them. They won't be happy!

For an overview on the locations of their homes take a look at my map obove with the red and blue stars.

Two of the three Pub incumbents can be accommodated without messing up the map much (assuming the guy in Holmes is near the OH-05 line). The double bunk with the guy in Muskegon cannot, so that guy needs to move to Canton. Messing up a map to accommodate an incumbent  because he or she won't move their sorry butt is a no go in my world.

Messing up a map to accomodate an incumbent
1. is a no go from a "good government" perspective,
2. is not ideal from a partisan perspective. State parties that have drawn their gerrymanders without too much respect for their own incumbent have often been more successful in the past.
3. is something that occurs often enough and state parties have to find their way to deal with their incumbents' demands.

By the way I think that it should be enough if a representative lives near his/her district and wins the primary and the general election. No need to live in the district.

[palandio]

Inspired by Torie I did a real extrapolation of population trends until 2019 towards 2020 and this is what came out using 2020 population numbers:


I'm not too happy about Union County. When I draw the 8th and 9th I used all of Franklin and Delaware, which is the logical option regarding settlement patterns (and relatively D-friendly) and tried to make the 8th relatively Republican (staying inside Franklin and Delaware). I then needed another ca. 22k from another county. Sadly this wasn't doable going into Union without a very ugly cut into Marysville (not sure if in reality development in the county's SE could deliver ca. 20k). Hence I went into Licking county, which is probably not the worst choice.

In the NE I draw a very Democratic 11th that pushes the surrounding districts to the right.
Compared to WIResident's map my map has one district more on the Pennsylvanian border that is marginally competitive (Sherrod Brown won it). On the other hand my Akron district is 4 points more to the right than WIResident's and my Lorain/Western suburbs district is 9 points to the right which is maybe a bit excessive.

Overall this still seems about fair:
3 safe/likely D seats
1 Trump +0 tossup (by 2016 numbers) that swung to Biden
2 tilt R districts in Toledo and Akron/Canton
2 seats that voted exactly like Ohio as a whole to the East and West of Cleveland
1 seat that was slightly to the right of Ohio as a whole in 2016 and exactly like Ohio as a whole in 2020 and was a about even in Brown vs. Renacci in Dayton
1 seat around Youngstown that has moved away from the Democrats rapidly, but was won by Brown by ca. six points as late as 2018
5 safe R seats

[palandio]

[...]
I think its fine to do a  mild triple split of Franklin if you want the Union +Delaware mashed together . Just remove the SW part of Franklin which is probably the most exurban and least developed part. Give it to the district to the south etc. FWIW I don't think it would affect partisanship too much. Either way Union doesn't have to be with Delaware I just think it should be if its reasonably possible. Also I would try to keep Holmes county together. Its such a unique area that it should be in one district although I think you kept most of the Amish parts together.

I think that for the moment I will leave it as it is. It seems that the SE corner of Licking county that I included in the 8th has some suburban development as well, so that's not a completely bad choice.

Thank you for suggesting the Holmes County Amish CoI. I will respect it in future maps. What I did was really just a micro-chop at a random corner of the map to come closer to population equality, but that could be done at any other place as well. It's just not worth it to post a new map because it has basically no influence on the big picture.

By the way, a slightly disconnected observation, and you may have to excuse me for my stupid un-American perspective. I tried to figure out where the suburban and exurban areas are in NE Ohio and in Central Ohio. And in NE Ohio I really had a lot of difficulties because there is a lot of ugly suburban sprawl going on that sets in gradually. Whereas around Columbus there is a much clearer line between suburban areas on the one hand and rural areas with small cities, towns, villages, settlements and farms on the other hand. (It's clear that these "rural" areas are not really rural, but they're not devoured by the sprawl either.)

[palandio]

"3-1-11 is not a fair map lol"

I mean based on neutral redistricting principles where dividing the CD spoils is not based on the overall percentage share of the vote between the parties. In some states to make "fair" maps as you define it, would require them to be hideously erose, if not impossible (the VRA can make it even harder in some places), even if one uses the Muon2 formula where you double the percentage points that one party has over the other in the state, so if a party has 55% of the vote statewide, they get 60% of the seats. If the party has 60% of the state vote, they get 70% of of the CD seats.

You're making several choices that put your map on the R-friendly end of the spectrum of "nice, compact" maps:
- Metro Columbus has a quite compact built-up area that would nicely fit into two districts, one urban D sink and one suburban toss-up. Combining Columbus suburbs with rurals up to the Kentucky border is a deliberate choice to favor Republicans. Also while it's clear that you have to cut off some less densely populated areas in South and West Columbus, the lines you draw, seem to closely follow partisan strength.
- Regarding the Toledo district it is clear that the further it goes west, the more R it becomes and the further it goes east, the more D. Now it's understandable that you would put the counties in the NW corner (Fulton, Williams, Defiance, Henry) with Toledo for compactness reasons, but Putnam and Van Wert clearly gravitate towards Lima and putting them with Toledo instead of Ottawa and Sandusky is clearly an R-friendly choice.
- The lines between the 11th and 15th look like they were drawn in order to put the (white) D-trending areas in Eastern Cuyahoga into the D sink while the 11th gets much further to the city to its South.

On the flip-side the Cincinatti, Columbus and Cleveland districts are absolute no-brainers, which leaves the Akron district that is probably close to the middle of the spectrum of all Akron districts, maybe slightly D-friendly.