Map of Florida's non-partisan Congressional redistricting amendment

[nclib]

Hyperfast added this to the contributions page.

Certainly Democrats as expected were more in favor of this than Republicans, but how would you explain the other patterns in this map? The Panhandle was far more opposed even compared to other GOP areas.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Kind of amusing since the panhandle is the only part of the state sanely drawn.

Looks like the Cubans ignored Diaz-Balart's fearmongering (logical since drawing three Cuban districts is easy.)

[Hyperfast]

Well, the Panhandle and the outer Jacksonville area are more Republican as a whole than the other Republican areas of the state. Most of the counties that opposed this amendment also voted 70% or more for McCain. Then you have the House Majority Leader Adam Hasner saying this, "It is a stealth agenda funded by the left to do in the courts what they can't do at the ballot box. This is the top priority of Democrats in 2010 and it must be stopped." Opposition was mostly from Republicans and a few elected minorities in gerrymander districts. The Republicans don't want to lose the 19 - 6 majority they have in the House.

The counties that were against the amendment, voted for McCain 69/30/1
The counties that voted for the amendment and also voted for McCain 54/45/1

What it probably all comes down to is how partisan the Republicans in those areas are.

[krazen1211]

Seems to me like that FL-22 backfired.

If they had just cleaned that district up and ceded it (which automatically cleans up a couple other districts), the initiative probably would not have had as much steam.

Still, now that Boyd is gone the Republicans should be able to effectively lock the Democrats out of North Florida, minus a couple districts.

[nclib]

Well, the Panhandle and the outer Jacksonville area are more Republican as a whole than the other Republican areas of the state. Most of the counties that opposed this amendment also voted 70% or more for McCain. Then you have the House Majority Leader Adam Hasner saying this, "It is a stealth agenda funded by the left to do in the courts what they can't do at the ballot box. This is the top priority of Democrats in 2010 and it must be stopped." Opposition was mostly from Republicans and a few elected minorities in gerrymander districts. The Republicans don't want to lose the 19 - 6 majority they have in the House.

The counties that were against the amendment, voted for McCain 69/30/1
The counties that voted for the amendment and also voted for McCain 54/45/1

What it probably all comes down to is how partisan the Republicans in those areas are.

There must have been sizeable support from Republicans, especially considering that Obama-McCain would have tied among FL's 2010 electorate, and some minority Dems voting 'no'. All the 'no' counties went for McCain over 60% (except Escambia which was 59%). The McCain 60% counties that voted 'yes' were:

Collier 60.8%
Wakulla 61.7%
Levy 62.6%
Sumter 63%
Franklin 63.1%
Hardee 64%
St. Johns 65.3%
Columbia 66.2%
Taylor 68.8%

Do you know any other demographic/geographic patterns among Republicans who put practicality above partisanship?

[Hyperfast]

Well, the Panhandle and the outer Jacksonville area are more Republican as a whole than the other Republican areas of the state. Most of the counties that opposed this amendment also voted 70% or more for McCain. Then you have the House Majority Leader Adam Hasner saying this, "It is a stealth agenda funded by the left to do in the courts what they can't do at the ballot box. This is the top priority of Democrats in 2010 and it must be stopped." Opposition was mostly from Republicans and a few elected minorities in gerrymander districts. The Republicans don't want to lose the 19 - 6 majority they have in the House.

The counties that were against the amendment, voted for McCain 69/30/1
The counties that voted for the amendment and also voted for McCain 54/45/1

What it probably all comes down to is how partisan the Republicans in those areas are.

There must have been sizeable support from Republicans, especially considering that Obama-McCain would have tied among FL's 2010 electorate, and some minority Dems voting 'no'. All the 'no' counties went for McCain over 60% (except Escambia which was 59%). The McCain 60% counties that voted 'yes' were:

Collier 60.8%
Wakulla 61.7%
Levy 62.6%
Sumter 63%
Franklin 63.1%
Hardee 64%
St. Johns 65.3%
Columbia 66.2%
Taylor 68.8%

Do you know any other demographic/geographic patterns among Republicans who put practicality above partisanship?

Yes, there was a sizable amount of Republican support for it, in those counties, especially in the Panhandle. Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton and Bay Counties have a large military presence. All of those counties you listed besides Collier, Sumter and St. Johns also have a majority Democratic registration. They'll support conservative Democrats for local office and sometimes statewide. Collier, Sumter and St. Johns Counties have had a large amount of growth and influx of people from out of state, so probably the Republicans from out of state are less partisan? *shrugs*

[jimrtex]

Certainly Democrats as expected were more in favor of this than Republicans, but how would you explain the other patterns in this map? The Panhandle was far more opposed even compared to other GOP areas.

Voters probably thought it was intended to get rid of the ugly VRA districts.

The concept of fairness appeals to Republicans.  The idea that districts should also follow county lines also sounds fair.  Most people don't realize how difficult this is to do in states like Florida which has large populous counties, and a narrow equality requirement.   Those advocating for the amendment never drew any illustrative plans.  And they were very careful to show any of the existing VRA districts.  But I suspect that most voters believe that it will get rid of districts like CD-3.

If voters are even conscious of the relationship between the amendment and the plan that is ultimately drawn, they will think something like: "those politicians up in Tallahassee managed to find some loopholes" or "I read that there was some lawsuit, and so they couldn't actually implement it"

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Most people just hate ugly districts, and don't pay close enough attention to see if it benefits their side or not. That might explain why the least ugly district in the state was most opposed.

[tpfkaw]

Most people just hate ugly districts, and don't pay close enough attention to see if it benefits their side or not. That might explain why the least ugly district in the state was most opposed.

It might be difficult for you to understand, but most people actually don't have the slightest clue what their congressional district looks like.

[minionofmidas]

Kind of amusing since the panhandle is the only part of the state sanely drawn.

It's probably part of the reason. It's not as if anyone would dare molest it with a gerrymander, either, so they voted for extra Republican representatives at other people's expense.

[Linus Van Pelt]

I can't find any exit poll on this to confirm or disconfirm, but what that map says to me is, the old were more for it than other Republican voters. Which wouldn't seem terribly surprising - your stereotypical central Florida retiree is more comfortable with the Republicans but isn't terribly involved in politics and probably has a slightly sentimental image of old-style American fair play.

[krazen1211]

I can't find any exit poll on this to confirm or disconfirm, but what that map says to me is, the old were more for it than other Republican voters. Which wouldn't seem terribly surprising - your stereotypical central Florida retiree is more comfortable with the Republicans but isn't terribly involved in politics and probably has a slightly sentimental image of old-style American fair play.

This. It's kind of the same with photo voter ID, which is a no brainer to most people.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Most people just hate ugly districts, and don't pay close enough attention to see if it benefits their side or not. That might explain why the least ugly district in the state was most opposed.

It might be difficult for you to understand, but most people actually don't have the slightest clue what their congressional district looks like.

Unless there's a big campaign letting people know how horrendously hideous their districts are.

The thing about Florida's map is that it's just not so ugly, it's unnecessarily ugly, as the GOP needs to only draw a few of the really ugly seats that way to win them. What the hell is the point of the old Mark Foley seat for example, it combines points on the opposite ends of the state which have basically nothing in common but probably can't be drawn into a non-Republican district anyway. I suppose it juts down into the Gold Coast a bit maybe to dilute some Democratic voters, but this doesn't really benefit the GOP as otherwise they'd just end up in a Dem pack district, actually if that area was left out the GOP could've actually held the seat in 2006 even with their candidate being forced to run under the name "Mark Foley". And why does Alcee Hastings' seat have to stretch all the way up north to pick up some white rural areas? Why does the 6th have to be as ugly as the 3rd after the 3rd has already picked up not just all the blacks but also Gainesville making it impossible to draw any winnable district next to it?

[minionofmidas]

The same is true of quite a few 90s and also 2000 maps. Think Maryland. Think the 2002 Georgia map. Pointless. The Frostrocity had some way overdone districts, too. It's like legislators had discovered the joys of computerized mapping for the first time and went wild with it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's something else too: The Cuban districts. There is no reason they have to look the way they do when any reasonably drawn map would easily include three Cuban-majority seats.

But yeah, maybe in 2000 redistricters were like preschoolers with a new set of fingerpaints.

[Brittain33]

Here's something else too: The Cuban districts. There is no reason they have to look the way they do when any reasonably drawn map would easily include three Cuban-majority seats.

But yeah, maybe in 2000 redistricters were like preschoolers with a new set of fingerpaints.

They deliberately split Hialeah in two to prevent the Dem mayor from running for one of the seats.

[Verily]

Here's something else too: The Cuban districts. There is no reason they have to look the way they do when any reasonably drawn map would easily include three Cuban-majority seats.

But yeah, maybe in 2000 redistricters were like preschoolers with a new set of fingerpaints.

They deliberately split Hialeah in two to prevent the Dem mayor from running for one of the seats.

Well, that wasn't the only reason to split Hialeah. They also wanted to make sure its Republican votes were amply spread around.