Does increased urbanization hurt the Democrats in the House?

[krazen1211]

That depends if one man one vote is adhered to or not. Democrats in some places such as PA had heavily gerrymandered plans in their favor because one man one vote was not adhered to during the 2012 elections.

[krazen1211]

That depends if one man one vote is adhered to or not. Democrats in some places such as PA had heavily gerrymandered plans in their favor because one man one vote was not adhered to during the 2012 elections.

Come again?  2010 I could get, as that was pre-redistricting, although as with Michigan the Republicans who drew the maps would have only themselves to blame for that (not that Republicans in Michigan were complaining about the Democratic vote sinks having too few people at the end of the decade when several other, overpopulated Republican districts had loads of wasted (cracked) Democratic voters).

The 2012 Pennsylvania elections were held under the 2000 maps that gave the Democrats extra seats in Western Pennsylvania as determined by 2010 census figures. The Democrats were upset about losing seats in Western Pennsylvania in the 2012 redistricting and jammed the plan in court.

Of course, the 9% population contraction in Pittsburgh and similar contraction in the surround areas essentially mandated that the Democrats lose seats. They didn't win either chamber even with the bonus seats. They tried to jam the 2014 plan in court as well but failed.

[krazen1211]

It depends.  Democrats seem to do better in the House in rural swing states (IA, NH, NM) than in more urbanized swing states (OH, VA, CO).  This would be true even without gerrymandering.  So urbanization in the context of small to moderate sized cities seems to hurt Democrats by concentrating their votes.

On the other hand, you have states like CA, NY, CT and MA that are so urban that the cities and inner suburbs completely run the show.  In all of these states, Republicans get far fewer seats than their statewide vote share would suggest.  None of them are particularly gerrymandered.  And even in MD, the poster-child of self-packed Democrats, the suburbs have swung so far that a neutral map would probably still be 6D/2R there.  Republicans have a downballot advantage in all but the most rural swing states, but it's also fundamentally easier for Democrats to shut Republicans out in their safe states than vice-versa.  KY Republicans still have to concede Louisville and TN Republicans Memphis and Nashville.  NY and MA Democrats don't have any uber-Republican areas to worry about.        

That's interesting. Before the Democrats Gerrymandering of Maryland in 2002, the Republicans held 4 seats. The map present then could be considered neutral or not neutral. But, as it existed, it would have given the Republicans 3 likely seats, all with PVIs of R+7 or higher.

Link

1 in Western Maryland + Howard County
1 in Baltimore + Harford County
1 in the Eastern Shore + Anne Arundel County.

[krazen1211]

It depends.  Democrats seem to do better in the House in rural swing states (IA, NH, NM) than in more urbanized swing states (OH, VA, CO).  This would be true even without gerrymandering.  So urbanization in the context of small to moderate sized cities seems to hurt Democrats by concentrating their votes.

On the other hand, you have states like CA, NY, CT and MA that are so urban that the cities and inner suburbs completely run the show.  In all of these states, Republicans get far fewer seats than their statewide vote share would suggest.  None of them are particularly gerrymandered.  And even in MD, the poster-child of self-packed Democrats, the suburbs have swung so far that a neutral map would probably still be 6D/2R there.  Republicans have a downballot advantage in all but the most rural swing states, but it's also fundamentally easier for Democrats to shut Republicans out in their safe states than vice-versa.  KY Republicans still have to concede Louisville and TN Republicans Memphis and Nashville.  NY and MA Democrats don't have any uber-Republican areas to worry about.        

That's interesting. Before the Democrats Gerrymandering of Maryland in 2002, the Republicans held 4 seats. The map present then could be considered neutral or not neutral. But, as it existed, it would have given the Republicans 3 likely seats, all with PVIs of R+7 or higher.

Link

1 in Western Maryland + Howard County
1 in Baltimore + Harford County
1 in the Eastern Shore + Anne Arundel County.

Ignore MD if you wish.  It's not important.  The point still holds for all the other states.  Commissions/courts gave Democrats more than proportional representation in CA, NY, and CT because of the geography of those states. 

Partially. Connecticut had less to do with the geography and more to do with the Democrats pushing the redistricting plan to the courts.

The bigger culprit is the 20 point margin in those states. If the states were more competitive the GOP would get a fair share of the seats. George W. Bush won 24 California seats out of 53.

[krazen1211]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

But the counties that hold Kalamazoo, South Bend, and Lansing are all held entirely intact in Congressional redistricting. Such 'dilution' is mandatory unless of course you go chopping cities up like Peoria and Rockford. The Michigan mapping scheme generally does not chop up cities.