2020 Redistricting in Pennsylvania

[ProgressiveModerate]

Given that redistricting is divided this time in PA between the parties... and that Dem areas increased in population and GOP areas lost population.  Shouldn't we expect Dems to at least maintain their districts in 2022 or possibly even gain 1?  Am I missing something here?

Cause that's generally not how population growth works.

Population growth can shake things up heavily on the local level, but on the federal level, you need rather drastic changes in order to have major effects. Not only that, but also pop growth needs to be put into context by what's going on in the state, and in almost all instances, said context is way, way, way more important than pop growth.

For instance, with PA. The state is losing a CD, one that likely has to come from the GOP areas that lost population. Now, I know what you're thinking, "Isn't that good? The GOP lose a seat!". Sure, at first it sounds good...until you get into the domino effect. Cause of the population loss, suddenly a bunch of marginal seats have to take in new territory, territory that is heavily R. This outright endangers and probably kills those in the marginals: Cartwright, Lamb, and Wild. This also takes the competitive PA-10 off the table once more.

In summary, just cause the D areas gained in pop doesn't mean it automatically translates to greater electoral prospects.

One good thing could be that Alleghany did pretty well and outperformed expectations on the most recent census meaning we could get a bluer PA-17, or at least, it's unlikely to get significantly redder.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Given that redistricting is divided this time in PA between the parties... and that Dem areas increased in population and GOP areas lost population.  Shouldn't we expect Dems to at least maintain their districts in 2022 or possibly even gain 1?  Am I missing something here?

Cause that's generally not how population growth works.

Population growth can shake things up heavily on the local level, but on the federal level, you need rather drastic changes in order to have major effects. Not only that, but also pop growth needs to be put into context by what's going on in the state, and in almost all instances, said context is way, way, way more important than pop growth.

For instance, with PA. The state is losing a CD, one that likely has to come from the GOP areas that lost population. Now, I know what you're thinking, "Isn't that good? The GOP lose a seat!". Sure, at first it sounds good...until you get into the domino effect. Cause of the population loss, suddenly a bunch of marginal seats have to take in new territory, territory that is heavily R. This outright endangers and probably kills those in the marginals: Cartwright, Lamb, and Wild. This also takes the competitive PA-10 off the table once more.

In summary, just cause the D areas gained in pop doesn't mean it automatically translates to greater electoral prospects.

One good thing could be that Alleghany did pretty well and outperformed expectations on the most recent census meaning we could get a bluer PA-17, or at least, it's unlikely to get significantly redder.

Unless Alleghany gained a sh**t ton of people, it won't matter at all. Fundamentally, the seats have to greatly expand, including the Pittsburgh seat. For the Pittsburgh seat, the only territory it can really take is the blue suburbs that are currently in PA-17. For PA-17, the only territory it can take is the super R territory in Butler and Lawrence.

Fair enough. It'd have to grow faster than jsut positive growth to actually pull in. Seems like SEPA will prolly be a wash in terms of seats being pulled in as many of these counties grew more or less in line with the 5% increase they need to take in if that makes sense.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Yeah I don't think Amanda's Holt map is an intentional GOP gerrymander, I think it's more a consequence of geography and a few lucky decisions that benefited the GOP.

Gotta say though for someone who is very against gerrymandering and was disgusted by dirty districts, a lot of her districts are rough around the edges, though not really with partisan intention.

It's not that these maps are unfair, moreso they're just bad, but could be an interesting starting point.

[ProgressiveModerate]

If PA Dems want to replace Boyle with Street, it's pretty easy to make both Philly districts Black influence without all the other ugliness (and honestly they should--pretty messed up currently to be honest).

Well that would mean outer Montco goes with Berks making a swing seat. It seems the main goal is more to protect Houlahan while giving up Lambs seat(which would sorta happen anyway in a fair map but with certain preferences from Mike Kelly.) However in exchange for those preferences they place Indiana college instead to keep it at the same partisan level.  After that Perry just gets to stay secure.

Also Fitz gets a marginally better district I guess but the shift is quite small.

Uh this map shifts literally every remotely competitive district towards the GOP. To some degree this was kinda expected as Philly burns would have to be pushed further out, but still stuff like that Harrisburg chop is inexcusable. Just generally the map is really ugly and weird even where there isn’t partisan intent

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-draft-pa-congressional-map-could-boost-the-philly-democrat-helping-draw-it-e2-80-94-but-hurt-his-party/ar-AAREIPv?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Street criticized those in the party who want to split Pittsburgh to draw two safe Democratic seats. Street said that would lower the chances that a progressive like state Rep. Summer Lee — the first Black woman elected to the legislature from Western Pennsylvania who is now running for Congress — could win a congressional seat.

“Black women, we say, are the backbone of the Democratic Party,” Street said. But some Democrats, he said, “want me to make changes to a district in a way to disempower the most successful Black female politician in the history of Western Pennsylvania. They want me to disempower her.”

Honestly this is one of the dumbest things I've heard. Firstly pairing downtown Pitts with redder suburbs around it would actually increase the chances of a progressive black Dem winning a primary because more suburban white voters would vote in the R primary. Secondly if you can't win a Biden + 20 seat that means you have a serious issue. Also I don't think most Dems are saying to create 2 Biden + 15 seats that split Pittsburg down the middle, but rather to do 1 safe D seat and 1 narrow Biden seat. Surely Biden + 30 PA-15 has votes to give.

This feels like Maryland 2.0 where individual politician wants get in the way of doing for the "greater good of the party". I suspect this won't fly well with national Dems.

[ProgressiveModerate]

My attempt at a fair PA map. Pretty least change and I made small decisions in favor of Dems to cancel out geography disadvantages

[ProgressiveModerate]

My attempt at a fair PA map. Pretty least change and I made small decisions in favor of Dems to cancel out geography disadvantages

As I’ve said before Dems would be wise to throw Cartwright to the wolves in order to protect Wild.  His seat is not holdable for Dems long term anyway.

Ye that's what this map tries to do. Putting Scranton in PA-07 though is a step too far and makes the map a whole lot uglier and less representative in temrs of COIs without much partisan gain.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Wish there was a more Harrisburg centered district but not a bad map.

That PA-17 seems to intentionally take in reddest rural areas possible which seem kind of disconnected

[ProgressiveModerate]

Interesting looking at the various configuration replacements of 4/6/10/11. Some maps seem to keep the status quo. Others attempt to make 10 and/or 11 more exurban Philly seats, sometimes taking in significant portions of Chester and Montgomery rather than a Harrisburg based 10. Ultimately any fair map would prolly keep 4 and 6 D leaning and 10 and 11 R leaning, but still interesting

[ProgressiveModerate]

Can someone explain why there’s such a stigma around splitting Bucks, when other counties around Philly that are simillar in size can be split like 3 ways no problem? One could argue that the Northern and South end of Bucks are very different.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Can someone explain why there’s such a stigma around splitting Bucks, when other counties around Philly that are simillar in size can be split like 3 ways no problem? One could argue that the Northern and South end of Bucks are very different.

There's actually like 3 layers of Bucks. Overall any split of Bucks in most cases would just split other counties and everyone likes their county lines over there. So ergo little reason to split Bucks. As it stands most maps would probably start from SEPA  as PA01 anyway.

There is a Minnesota style map argument to split Bucks in the 3 ways similar to how Anoka county gets split 3 ways for example but it doesn't work well for PA overall.

 

Here's a map that doesn't fully ignore county lines but places flavor of a district ahead of that.
Chester goes with Upper Delaware which is mostly just an upscale district Dem trending district.  After that lower Delaware goes with West Philly for a 47% black VAP district. Then Philly gets another 46% black VAP district. Anyone from PA forgive me if I split Philly wards in a terrible manner I just did this map as a thought experiment . Not actually proposing this.

The remainder of East Philladelphia goes with Lower bucks for an interesting "urban" WWC swing district. Biden +8.1 down from Clinton +8.8. After that Middle Bucks goes with most of Lower Montgomery for a white liberal district along with that part of NW philly which seems to go well with the district? Anyone forgive me if that area is not like Lower merion. Lastly a Biden +0 district with Upper Bucks, Upper Montgomery County and Berks. Probably an Obama district in 2012 as well. Basically partisanwise it doesn't switch to much overall but everyone would scream anyway.

Both the Delaware Philly district and Bucks Philly do include a few upscale suburbs in each of their districts although they mostly seem working class.

Ye I feel with some fine tuning this map could be really good from a COI  and VRA standpoint. I feel like people just think of Bucks as a giant politically even suburban brick throughout, when really it goes from WWC to Wealthy Suburbs to exurbs. Kinda gets me annoyed that no one is at least willing to play around more to just see what would happen if Bucks were split, but we prolly gonna end up with soemghing like the current map

[ProgressiveModerate]

What about something like this pertaining to our Philly convo from earlier?



3 way Bucks split:

[ProgressiveModerate]

What about something like this pertaining to our Philly convo from earlier?



3 way Bucks split:

Explain why what the Ohio GOP did with Cincinatti(city of 300k ) and placing it with its conservative exurbs instead of inner ring suburbs is a gerrymander but what you did with pittsburgh(city of 300k) is fair?

About Philly, Its a thought experiment, just use county lines, I guess the first one doesn't add any extra splits though.

Yeah Pittsburg I kinda rushed but I feel like there's no ideal solution. Pittsburg Proper + Suburban is almost exactly the right size for 2 districts. I didn't want to split Pittsburg so my options is I have to put it with one "side" metro district. The other option is to just pack downtown Pittsburg and pair suburbs with rurals which doesn't seem right either.

I would say it's different than Cinci because in Cinci you can create a downtown Cinci district and a suburban Cinci district far more naturally without needing any weird arms since Cinci is literally in a corner. Pittsburg has pretty even suburbs on all sides of it. I think about it more like Columbus

[ProgressiveModerate]

What about something like this pertaining to our Philly convo from earlier?



3 way Bucks split:

Explain why what the Ohio GOP did with Cincinatti(city of 300k ) and placing it with its conservative exurbs instead of inner ring suburbs is a gerrymander but what you did with pittsburgh(city of 300k) is fair?

About Philly, Its a thought experiment, just use county lines, I guess the first one doesn't add any extra splits though.

Yeah Pittsburg I kinda rushed but I feel like there's no ideal solution. Pittsburg Proper + Suburban is almost exactly the right size for 2 districts. I didn't want to split Pittsburg so my options is I have to put it with one "side" metro district. The other option is to just pack downtown Pittsburg and pair suburbs with rurals which doesn't seem right either.

I would say it's different than Cinci because in Cinci you can create a downtown Cinci district and a suburban Cinci district far more naturally without needing any weird arms since Cinci is literally in a corner. Pittsburg has pretty even suburbs on all sides of it.

This is what happens if Pittsburg is paired with the NorthWestern district instead. I like this map better I think.

[ProgressiveModerate]

When is the court picking a map?

Yesterday

[ProgressiveModerate]

Prolly end up with a MI style map. Relatively compact and clean lines with small decisions made to help Dems overcome geography

[ProgressiveModerate]

Doesn't federal law literally prohibit that?

It does based on passed SC rulings

[ProgressiveModerate]

IMO Woof's map is the best.

Every other map is either weird and/or has clear partisan intent.

The Carol Ann map seems like a nice least change of sorts.

[ProgressiveModerate]

IMO Woof's map is the best.

Every other map is either weird and/or has clear partisan intent.

The Carol Ann map seems like a nice least change of sorts.

The judges seemed pretty skeptical of maps that split Pittsburgh. My prediction is the Carter map but we'll see. I expect a decision in the next week or two at most.

You have a livestream?

[ProgressiveModerate]

IMO Woof's map is the best.

Every other map is either weird and/or has clear partisan intent.

The Carol Ann map seems like a nice least change of sorts.

The judges seemed pretty skeptical of maps that split Pittsburgh. My prediction is the Carter map but we'll see. I expect a decision in the next week or two at most.

I think the Carter map is the best overall so I'd be happy to see it picked.

Screws over Wild but PA-17 gets a bit better; though tbh seats are gonna have to be pushed out of Philly.

I'm not a fan of long PA-04 either but it's better than a lot of other options

[ProgressiveModerate]

IMO Woof's map is the best.

Every other map is either weird and/or has clear partisan intent.

The Carol Ann map seems like a nice least change of sorts.

Splitting Pittsburgh totally isn't for partisan purposes. Now if you want to speak of partisan fairness or symettry it doesn't even acheive that because in the 2016 election it was 9D 8 R. I think it was also 9d 8r in the 2020 treasurer/auditor races which Rs' won. Really surprised that hasn't been mentioned.

What Tom Wolf did with Pittsburgh is the same thing DeSantis did to Jacksonville.

Ye Median seat test on Woof’s map is slightly D favorable but there are naturally more marginal D seats so it sorta cancels out, kinda an inverse of the new MI map; the median seat is to the right of the state but there’s more marginal seats slightly to the right of the state Dems can win.

A lot of fair maps would break 9R-8D on 2020 Pres numbers, like I think that’s just nitpicking at that point. Now if it were 10D-7R, that’s where you start to have a problem.

Also, I don’t think you can compare the Pittsburg to Jacksonville. Firstly, Pittsburgh metro is slightly bigger than Jacksonville. 2ndly, Pittsburg geography is extremely different.

If you create a Pittsburg “Pack”, you’re either gonna need a weird C shaped or doughnut suburban seat or 2 suburban seat that connects suburbs to areas they have nothing to do with. While I agree that Pittsburg split isn’t ideal and is a flaw of Wolfs map, I don’t see why it’s a make or break as Pittsburg metro should have 2 seats anyways. The best way to handle Jacksonville imo would be a seat purely in Duval that’s like 35% black, and a seat that connects the more conservative white suburbs around it. While the Black community in Pittsburg should be kept whole, it isn’t enough to guide the shape of an entire seat by itself.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Tbf, the Gressman map isn't that bad outside of Pittsburg, but ye that Pitts config is disgusting.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Tbf, the Gressman map isn't that bad outside of Pittsburg, but ye that Pitts config is disgusting.

The splitting of Dauphin and the draw of the Bucks seat are pretty awful.

Fair enough they didn't handle Harrisburg area the best, but I think the Bucks County being kept whole rule is overrated. To me, it seems like the 1rst becomes more higher education suburban district while a lot of the Working Class parts closer to Philly are put into the 2nd. What's more of an issue IMO is how long the 4th district is but a lot of maps have the long 4th.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I like Torie's map; if I were on the court I'd def push for smtg like that.

All the maps submitted have at least 1 weird thing about them that I (and much of atlas) struggle to get over, namely how Pittsburg and Harrisburg are handeled.

However, I think that map has 18 districts

[ProgressiveModerate]

Nice! Carter was def one of the best options