What districts would have Dems won back if not for gerrymandering?

[politicallefty]

I can't understand why the minority Dems in PA would put out such a crazy map. At least the OH Dems filed a neutral proposal as an alternative to the GOP gerrymander.

I totally agree. That map was hideous. A minority party with no input has absolutely nothing to lose by proposing a neutral redistricting map. This is the fair Pennsylvania map I would've drawn (or at least something like it):



PA-01: 73.9-25.3 Obama
PA-02: 90.2-9.4 Obama
PA-03: 51.0-47.6 Obama
PA-04: 51.7-47.4 McCain
PA-05: 57.2-41.3 McCain
PA-06: 55.5-43.5 Obama
PA-07: 59.0-40.1 Obama
PA-08: 53.9-45.1 Obama
PA-09: 59.9-38.9 McCain
PA-10: 57.4-41.4 McCain
PA-11: 57.6-41.3 Obama
PA-12: 55.9-43.0 McCain
PA-13: 65.8-33.5 Obama
PA-14: 65.2-33.8 Obama
PA-15: 56.0-42.7 Obama
PA-16: 56.8-42.3 McCain
PA-17: 49.4-49.3 Obama
PA-18: 54.7-44.2 McCain

That's an 11-7 split (barely considering PA-17), which isn't at all unreasonable in a year where Obama won the state by double-digits. The old 19th district is renumbered as PA-12, as the old district was basically eliminated due to population loss. Whereas the current map is 13-5 Republican, I think my map would currently be anything from an even 9-9 to 12-7 Democratic. Holden would easily keep PA-17. I highly doubt Republicans could have held PA-07 and PA-11 in 2012. PA-03 and PA-08 would likely have been very competitive, especially if Patrick Murphy ran again. Apart from that, the most troublesome Obama districts would obviously be PA-06 and PA-08 where Dent and Gerlach are particularly strong incumbents. The only real weak McCain district would be PA-04, where I think Altmire would do quite well. I think this would most likely be a 10-8 Democratic map (net D+3 over the current map).


Btw, I really like the NC map that has been posted in this topic. In a strong Republican year, it could be 9-4 Republican. However, a strong Democratic year could turn that into an 8-5 advantage. Most likely, with McIntyre in NC-07 and Kissell in NC-08, it looks like a 7-6 Democratic map in 2012, which is definitely a reasonable result given the partisan leanings of the state (particularly if one were to consider the presidential results, giving perhaps a one or two seat margin of error). That map is also evidence that Section 2 of the VRA hurts Democrats in the South. Otherwise, Durham would be in NC-04 and NC-01 would be cleaned up (and both would be safe Democratic districts).

[politicallefty]

Was my PA map so good that no one dare comment on it?

As for Ohio, the Columbus-based district should be contained entirely within Franklin County. Cleveland and Cincinnati should also have one district each. I think if a county has the population to support a district, it must have a district. A plurality-Black district entirely within Cuyahoga County leaves a Democratic-leaning West-side district that moves into Lorain County. I think a reasonable map would leave six Democratic districts (Cleveland, Western Cuyahoga+Lorain, Toledo-based district, Summit+Portage district, Youngstown+Warren+Canton district, and Columbus). There are conceivably five toss-up districts (NE Ohio, SE Ohio, Cincinnati, Dayton area, and Columbus suburbs). That would leave five safe Republican districts (NW Ohio, NC Ohio, Columbus suburbs, Cincinnati-Dayton suburbs, and Southern Ohio). Turner is probably safe in his Dayton-based district, but OH-14 is definitely up for grabs now that LaTourette is gone. I think 10R-6D is the absolute worst Democrats can do under a fair and reasonable map. In a neutral year, I'd expect a fair map to split evenly between the two parties.

[politicallefty]

I would much rather that Lackawanna be placed in the 10th like it was for decades until 2001 when it was removed to protect Sherwood from Junior making another attempt at him. When I drew the map like this the 10th came out as 51% McCain and the 11th as 53% Obama. A Casey Dem with a whole Lackawanna as a base could toss Marino in all but the most GOP of years and then produce a series of competative elections until some Republican managed to reign in Lackawanna or some Democrat likewise with Lycoming and thus hold it for a good length of time. Barletta would be able to win such an 11th in all but the most Dem of years. Might sacrifice a bit on the district quality, but Congressman quality would benefit as incumbents in both would be kept on their toes. These solid districts reduce degrade the incumbent over time, and NE PA needs solid representation, not solid districts.

That might be good if you're going for competitive districts as a priority. My primary intent was to keep communities of interest together and have reasonably shaped districts with minimal county splits (and lower municipalities for that matter). I made a point of keeping Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties together as the core of one district, as I think they constitute a strong community of interest. I'll admit that my PA-10 isn't the best district, but I think it's a natural extension to account for population loss. I would like to see the map you've drawn that splits Lackawanna from Luzerne.

That's a very nice map overall. My only real objection is that it doesn't leave a true Southeastern Ohio district and divides the Columbus suburbs somewhat excessively. I'd accept that map over the current in a heartbeat, but I'd probably object to districts 7, 10. and 12. I'm not fond of CD-08, but it's probably acceptable in the grand scheme of things.

[politicallefty]

Muon2 and I have thrown the  communities of interest thing (other than the VRA), into the dustbin. It is just always gamed by partisans - here, there and everywhere. We focus on chops and erosity, although I do bear in mind keeping metro areas together, and I did that. The Columbus burbs are almost all in one CD, and most of the city in another, and the choice involved not splitting the black community where it was contiguous, and trying to keep most of the city together.

On second thought, I don't really have any problems with the Columbus suburbs. I should also clarify that I tend to use community of interest and metro area somewhat interchangeably. I only have two problems with that map, which is otherwise excellent in my view. I'd much rather see the line between your CD-10 and CD-12 transect vertically instead of horizontally. The districts won't be quite as compact, but I think they make more sense that way so you have a rural interior district and an outer SE river district. In other words, a more compact and reasonable version of the old OH-06 and OH-18. The only other change I could see making would be your CD-09. I'd rather see that start from Lucas County and take up the remaining lakeshore west of Lorain County and move inland to grab enough population.

On a related note, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my Pennsylvania map on page 2 (and considering the defense I already made of CD-10).