Redistricting North Carolina

[muon2]

Swing State Project continues it's redistricting exercise.
This time it's North Carolina:



http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=076CDC3F17482C8ABA37DC5FCFA089A8?diaryId=4965

I hate to nag, but it would be helpful if the redistricting threads were kept together at the Political Geography / Demographics board.

[muon2]

Swing State Project continues it's redistricting exercise.
This time it's North Carolina:



http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=076CDC3F17482C8ABA37DC5FCFA089A8?diaryId=4965

I hate to nag, but it would be helpful if the redistricting threads were kept together at the Political Geography / Demographics board.

While that might be more appropriate, this is also a much higher traffic forum. Maybe we could have one designated redistricting thread for one of the forums.

I completely agree. I have made that proposal, and I've volunteered to moderate it as well. With 2010 and 2011 approaching this will happen more often. Unfortunately, I have been referred to the aforementioned Political Geography / Demographics forum, so I am left passing the buck to this board to at least attempt to keep the related threads together.

[muon2]

The SSP motive is somewhat baffling. They are working hard on gerrymanders to favor Dems, while Dems in places like OH are working hard to create a more neutral set of redistricting rules. The OH Dems had their own experience with a Rep gerrymander this decade, but don't seem to look for retaliation. In many ways the extreme Dem gerrymanders in TX and GA became the basis for midterm redistricting once the GOP took over at the state level.

Why don't both sides admit that the practice of extreme gerrymanders can backfire later in the decade as much as it succeeds in the first election out of the box?

[muon2]

Why don't both sides admit that the practice of extreme gerrymanders can backfire later in the decade as much as it succeeds in the first election out of the box?

How often does a gerrymander actually backfire? What we saw in Georgia in '02, Pennsylvania in '06, and Michigan, Ohio, and central Florida in '08 is that a gerrymander can't stand up to an overwhelming wave moving in the opposite direction. That's not the same as backfiring. In my opinion, the only ways a gerrymander backfires is by investing too much in the strength of a flawed incumbent (George Gekas, Phil Crane, Tom Delay) or by creating districts so safe that the incumbent or pseudo-incumbent self-destructs from lack of quality control (Don Sherwood, "Champ" Walker in GA-12).

The Maryland gerrymander, the Texas Perrymander, even most of the Florida gerrymander still stand. The most interesting fact to me is that while the Pennsylvania delegation has swung heavily Democratic, the two Republican legislative architects of the map, Gerlach and Murphy, are the rare survivors. 

Given the record and human nature, I think it will always be the tendency for legislators to overreach, and so it is reasonable for SSP to assume maximal conditions.

My observation is that the partisan gerrymanders are more susceptible to a wave election. This is usually because the party in control tries to eke out every possible seat, but assumes votes from the previous election. GA had the problem after both 1990 as well as 2000. The incumbent protection gerrymander is generally stronger, as is seen in CA this decade.

[muon2]

muon's point makes sense, gerrymanders (Florida's being the perfect example) are typically based off lots of 53-54% for the party districts, with not super-solid vote margins resulting in voters being "wasted". But one assumes that 53-54% will hold. It won't in a wave. That was what was brutal for Pennsylvania and Florida Republicans. The Georgia Democrats made a bit of the same mistake.

brittain's point is also valid, but you can get that just as easily with safe seats in a fair map. Colorado wasn't a GOP gerrymander, but the GOP still managed to blow it by nominating people like Musgrave, and nominating people who could never get elected statewide in its safest seats.

Exactly. You can have a good map for your party, but blow it by putting out candidates who aren't competitive for the district.

Movements for more competitive seats, like is happening in OH can be seen as an antigerrymander. For their redistricting competition my map (in the sig) has 12 of 18 seats with less than 5% margin based on 2000 presidential results. In principle those seats should swing back and forth unless one has a strong incumbent whose popularity crosses party lines.