Best gerrymander of all time

[Nichlemn]

It's up to you to decide the criteria for "best", except that the exercise requires you to suspend any qualms you might have about the whole concept of gerrymandering.

Include fantasy maps if you like.

[krazen1211]

How about Florida's current map? At the worst point for the Republicans, it was 15-10 for them in a 50/50 swing state. Now it's 19-6.

The Frostrocity, by FAR.  The Democrats basically tied the State-wide vote, yet won 22 of the 30 Congressional seats in 1992.  On top of that, this was the election where the Democrats had to start making Minority-Majority districts too, which makes it even more impressive.

The Republicans picking up a few of the seats doesn't make it any less of a great gerrymander--Democrats would have lost even more on basically any other lines in the state in the 90s.

Pick 1.

[Miles]

In terms of partisan turnover, probably the Delaymander.

[Nichlemn]

How about Florida's current map? At the worst point for the Republicans, it was 15-10 for them in a 50/50 swing state. Now it's 19-6.

The Frostrocity, by FAR.  The Democrats basically tied the State-wide vote, yet won 22 of the 30 Congressional seats in 1992.  On top of that, this was the election where the Democrats had to start making Minority-Majority districts too, which makes it even more impressive.

The Republicans picking up a few of the seats doesn't make it any less of a great gerrymander--Democrats would have lost even more on basically any other lines in the state in the 90s.

Pick 1.

Oops, I even posted in that thread.

[krazen1211]

How about Florida's current map? At the worst point for the Republicans, it was 15-10 for them in a 50/50 swing state. Now it's 19-6.

The Frostrocity, by FAR.  The Democrats basically tied the State-wide vote, yet won 22 of the 30 Congressional seats in 1992.  On top of that, this was the election where the Democrats had to start making Minority-Majority districts too, which makes it even more impressive.

The Republicans picking up a few of the seats doesn't make it any less of a great gerrymander--Democrats would have lost even more on basically any other lines in the state in the 90s.

Pick 1.

Oops, I even posted in that thread.

Well to be fair the new answer is probably NY State Senate.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Didn't the Georgia Democrats come up with an insane one in 2002?

[JerryArkansas]

It is not a purposeful gerrymander, but arkansas in 2010 is a map which screwed democrates in the state senate, house and congressional districts

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The current North Carolina map deserves a mention, as does Michigan both now and last decade, which was the most effective gerrymander in the country by an objective standard.

[Miles]

It is not a purposeful gerrymander, but arkansas in 2010 is a map which screwed democrates in the state senate, house and congressional districts

That would be under the thread for least effective gerrymander

[minionofmidas]

While in the west of the state the 12th could have been made stronger for Rothfus, the eastern half of Pennsylvania under the new map is definitely up there in the all-time pantheon.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

While in the west of the state the 12th could have been made stronger for Rothfus, the eastern half of Pennsylvania under the new map is definitely up there in the all-time pantheon.

So is the old one. The PAGOP is quite effective in subverting democracy.

[morgieb]

The DeLaymander.

What would the worst one be? The Pennsylvania 2001-2010 comes to mind, as does the Georgia 1991-2000 one.

[minionofmidas]

While in the west of the state the 12th could have been made stronger for Rothfus, the eastern half of Pennsylvania under the new map is definitely up there in the all-time pantheon.

So is the old one. The PAGOP is quite effective in subverting democracy.

The old one somehow managed to overreach (never work fully as intended) without incurring the usual punishment of an overreach. They didn't ever fall below what they could have gotten with a mild, 'harmless' gerry.

[traininthedistance]

I think the 2002-2012 Michigan map has to be my choice, because they were so effective (the 2006/2008 wave basically didn't happen in MI) while *also* being so clean, and constrained by state law.

In terms of brazen unfairness and ugliness, the current PA and NC lines are also contenders.  But give it a couple cycles to see if they hold up.  (Who am I kidding, they'll hold up.)

[Mr.Phips]

The 1981-1991 California map is definately up there.  It turned a 22-21 Democratic delegation into a 28-17 one in a state that hadnt gone Democratic in a Presidential election since 1964. 

The plan was pretty genious and held up extremely well throughout the decade.  Looking at the 1988 Presidential results, there were a bunch of 52%-54% Dukakis districts that were pretty much out of reach for Republicans but efficiantly distributed Democratic voters.  It packed Republicans into about 12 districts that were at least 62% for Bush. 

The 1981-1991 Texas map was also a pretty good Dem gerrymander.  By the end of the decade, Democrats still had a 19-8 edge in a state that Dukakis got just 43% in even when his running mate was the hugely popular senior Senator Lloyd Bentson.  It packed Republicans into three districts that were at least 71% for Bush and made sure that two of the three new seats were Dem. 

[Skill and Chance]

The 1981-1991 California map is definately up there.  It turned a 22-21 Democratic delegation into a 28-17 one in a state that hadnt gone Democratic in a Presidential election since 1964. 

The plan was pretty genious and held up extremely well throughout the decade.  Looking at the 1988 Presidential results, there were a bunch of 52%-54% Dukakis districts that were pretty much out of reach for Republicans but efficiantly distributed Democratic voters.  It packed Republicans into about 12 districts that were at least 62% for Bush. 

The 1981-1991 Texas map was also a pretty good Dem gerrymander.  By the end of the decade, Democrats still had a 19-8 edge in a state that Dukakis got just 43% in even when his running mate was the hugely popular senior Senator Lloyd Bentson.  It packed Republicans into three districts that were at least 71% for Bush and made sure that two of the three new seats were Dem. 

The thing with Texas and the rural South in general is that prior to 1994, there were an awful lot of people there who systematically voted R for president and D for all the downballot offices.  Texas in 1991 was an extreme gerrymander, but back in 1981, D's would have taken a majority of the seats with even a neutral map.   

[Mr.Phips]

The 1981-1991 California map is definately up there.  It turned a 22-21 Democratic delegation into a 28-17 one in a state that hadnt gone Democratic in a Presidential election since 1964. 

The plan was pretty genious and held up extremely well throughout the decade.  Looking at the 1988 Presidential results, there were a bunch of 52%-54% Dukakis districts that were pretty much out of reach for Republicans but efficiantly distributed Democratic voters.  It packed Republicans into about 12 districts that were at least 62% for Bush. 

The 1981-1991 Texas map was also a pretty good Dem gerrymander.  By the end of the decade, Democrats still had a 19-8 edge in a state that Dukakis got just 43% in even when his running mate was the hugely popular senior Senator Lloyd Bentson.  It packed Republicans into three districts that were at least 71% for Bush and made sure that two of the three new seats were Dem. 

The thing with Texas and the rural South in general is that prior to 1994, there were an awful lot of people there who systematically voted R for president and D for all the downballot offices.  Texas in 1991 was an extreme gerrymander, but back in 1981, D's would have taken a majority of the seats with even a neutral map.   

Even by 1981, Texas had pretty large swaths of territory(suburban and exurban Houston and Dallas) that were unwinnable for Democrats.  In a fair map in 1981, two of the three Harris county districts would have gone Republican instead of just the one North Dallas GOP vote sink.  Same thing in Harris county, where the Pasadena based 25th was carefully carved to be just out of reach for Republicans(around D+5), while the seventh was a GOP vote sink.  A fair map would have given Republicans at least two more seats here. 

Another pretty good and overlooked Dem gerrymander was the 1981-1991 Oklahoma map.  It was designed to give Democrats a 5-1 edge in the state by creating one GOP vote sink(the fifth district) that carefully excluded the black and working class parts of Oklahoma city(they went to help Glenn English in the Western 6th) and squiggled north all the way to the Kansas border to pick up GOP areas that otherwise would have went into the first(which was held by Jim Jones).  In a addition, the first district dropped heavily Republican Southeast Tulsa to the then safely Democratic 2nd. 

Democrats still had a 4-2 majority in the delegation by 1991 and that was because Jones retired to run for Senate in 1986 and Inhofe narrowly picked up the seat and barely held onto it in the next two elections. 

[freepcrusher]

Even by 1981, Texas had pretty large swaths of territory(suburban and exurban Houston and Dallas) that were unwinnable for Democrats.  In a fair map in 1981, two of the three Harris county districts would have gone Republican instead of just the one North Dallas GOP vote sink.  Same thing in Harris county, where the Pasadena based 25th was carefully carved to be just out of reach for Republicans(around D+5), while the seventh was a GOP vote sink.  A fair map would have given Republicans at least two more seats here. 

If I recall the original redistricting plan made the Frost district something like 47 percent black and the Mattox district would then be shifted north to take in Garland, Richardson, White Rock area and would have been made more republican.

Its hard to really know what would have happened in Houston since the area was extremely politically polarized back then. The Leland seat was like D+30 and the Archer seat was R+25. How do you make a fair map out of that?

[Mr.Phips]

Even by 1981, Texas had pretty large swaths of territory(suburban and exurban Houston and Dallas) that were unwinnable for Democrats.  In a fair map in 1981, two of the three Harris county districts would have gone Republican instead of just the one North Dallas GOP vote sink.  Same thing in Harris county, where the Pasadena based 25th was carefully carved to be just out of reach for Republicans(around D+5), while the seventh was a GOP vote sink.  A fair map would have given Republicans at least two more seats here. 

If I recall the original redistricting plan made the Frost district something like 47 percent black and the Mattox district would then be shifted north to take in Garland, Richardson, White Rock area and would have been made more republican.

Its hard to really know what would have happened in Houston since the area was extremely politically polarized back then. The Leland seat was like D+30 and the Archer seat was R+25. How do you make a fair map out of that?

Yeah, the original plan was actually struck down by the courts for "packing" minorities.  Had it not been, Democrats might have held the more Republican Mattox district in 1982 because it was such a Dem year, but would have likely lost it in 1984 like they did the 26th(Denton county plus a Southern arm to grab Arlington).