What nationwide redistricting rules would benefit Republicans the most?

[lfromnj]

Ya at least for now compactness is the big one. Basically forcing cleaner maps would ensure that commissions have fewer tools to gerrymander in favor of Dems while claiming they are following some neutral principle.

Which btw is basically 100% of the reason Rs are opposed to a national redistricting amendment - Dems have proven significantly more adept at gaming the system on ‘neutral’ commissions and using that as a back door to pass soft gerrymanders that bypass the state legislative system. If you truly don’t like gerrymandering (and no one should), then it is disingenuous to say that Ds ‘want to fix it’ when their proposed fix really just means giving them an advantage everywhere.

Basically, it comes down to people who think we should have a fair way of drawing the lines, and people who think there shouldn’t be any lines at all and therefore any method to draw unfair lines that arrives at a similar result as to no lines is therefore good. I’m personally in the former camp, though I understand the reasoning of the latter camp.

Yup this is basically what would happen with HR1 IMO

In states like MA they would say its impossible for proportionality so they don't try at all. Meanwhile Oklahoma will probably have to have a Norman OKC district or Arkansas with a Little Rock Delta district.

In midwestern states like WI it is possible to draw 4-4 so they would be forced to draw it. Meanwhile in TX/CA they would focus on minority districts before any sense of partisan fairness. Yes I understand proportionality is impossible in CA but one can draw a fairly reasonable map with 14 winnable R seats. All 11 current seats(Garcia should expand into SE Kern County instead of LA Proper) and then Josh Harders seat of course, Ami Bera's can be cherry picked a bit, and finally Mike Levin's. Also Valadao shouldn't have a ridicoulous seat to be as D as possible. It should really only be like Biden +0 to 5ish.


Before someone mentions Colorado having a GOP leaning map. That isn't really true. A true fair map would give the GOP a near certain 4-4 map for 2022 although it is more likely to trend into 5-3 by the end. The actual map gives the Democrats a better chance at 5-3 for 2022 but the 5th seat will probably stay swingy. The CO GOP was also very lucky and had enough design such that there were a few actual GOP partisans along with 1 true independent voter.

[lfromnj]

Given the heavy R lean of the Senate and SC, the real answe is either "SC draws all 435 districts" or "Senate draws all 435 districts"

Scotus is pretty non partisan with redistricting.  See conservstives on scotus striking down the 1990 GOP gerrymander in GA for example on racial grounds while liberals wanted to keep it.

[lfromnj]

Surprised no one's mentioned the shortest splitline aglorithm or maximizing minority influence.  The first naturally cracks populated, D-leaning areas while the second would serve to maximally pack D-leaning non-White voters.  

In both cases though those redistricting procedures can benefit Democrats depending on the situation--they are very high-variance.

Technically shortest split line is no variance

[lfromnj]

Ya at least for now compactness is the big one. Basically forcing cleaner maps would ensure that commissions have fewer tools to gerrymander in favor of Dems while claiming they are following some neutral principle.

Which btw is basically 100% of the reason Rs are opposed to a national redistricting amendment - Dems have proven significantly more adept at gaming the system on ‘neutral’ commissions and using that as a back door to pass soft gerrymanders that bypass the state legislative system. If you truly don’t like gerrymandering (and no one should), then it is disingenuous to say that Ds ‘want to fix it’ when their proposed fix really just means giving them an advantage everywhere.

Basically, it comes down to people who think we should have a fair way of drawing the lines, and people who think there shouldn’t be any lines at all and therefore any method to draw unfair lines that arrives at a similar result as to no lines is therefore good. I’m personally in the former camp, though I understand the reasoning of the latter camp.

The maps produced by commissions almost all have a small R bias.  The only exception I can think of is California.

California is the only map that was produced by a commission that favored Democrats more than their proportion of the statewide vote, and that's really more due to California's geography being terrible for Republicans and California having such a large Democratic lean.

True Compactness wouldn't really favor Republicans all that much anymore, especially in southern states like Georgia or Texas.   Compactness doesn't just mean making small inner city districts and then drawing the suburbs out to the rurals, they'd need to make the suburbs have their own districts which would favor Democrats quite a bit, especially in the long term.

Lol what are you talking about.

Michigan produced a soft D gerrymander. AZ produced a soft D gerrymander last cycle and a middling map this time around. Montana produced a middling map only because the Ds went too hard trying to soft gerrymander it. CO produced a middling map for the same reason.

I can’t think of any state with a commission that hasn’t at least flirted with a soft D gerrymander. This is because in many states trying to achieve proportionality is akin to trying to draw a gerrymander for one side or the other. It just so happens that the states with commissions tend to have geography that benefits Rs (CA being the lone exception).

I absolutely agree that drawing compact districts can help Ds in many states, and may help Ds more and more as time goes on. That’s why compactness is a true neutral redistricting standard. Proportionality is not - proportionality is the act of trying to fit one system to a different system.

Also I just named four or five commissions that drew gerrymanders for Ds overruling a duly elected R legislature. Can you name a single time that has happened in reverse? I sure can’t. It is unarguable that Ds have learned how to game the system with these committees and commissions and that they circumvent the democratic process. That’s why they’re a non-starter as a ‘neutral’ national redistricting bill centerpiece.

Id say AZ went from a moderate Dem gerrymander to a mild R one this time. Namely Rs probably got a few extra points into the East Tucson district. Last time around Dems got a few extra points into the Tucson seat. They also got a lot into the northern seat and they got what they wanted for the White dem Phoenix seat .

Also I think AZ had the same issues that the previous 2 happened. Its easier to push the East Tucson seat. the Final arguments were about a mile or 2 line within the city of Tucson. Democrats mostly focused on rescuing Tom O Hallerhan.  The chairwoman was not interested in that.



Democrats should have just sacrificed him and proposed this. Sacrifices the seat but could give a better Tucson seat.