Gerrymandering

[memphis]

Which state's gerrymander produces results most different than what would result if the state had proportional voting? Discuss.

[Q]

I think it's hard to say.  I mean, you could say that Tennessee shouldn't have a Democratic majority in its House delegation and that the Republicans would win a majority in some sort of statewide election process for the House, because Tennessee has recently voted Republican for president.  But on the other hand, if you look at the states with 3 EV's, all of them have this kind of process for choosing their U.S. Rep., and yet the outcome of these contests doesn't always reflect the traditional wisdom about the lean of the state: the Dakotas both have a Democratic Rep., and Delaware has a Republican.  It's not gerrymandering that has resulted in these "surprising" outcomes in these states, so who's to say that gerrymandering in other states is necessarily the best explanation for the balance of their House delegations.

[muon2]

Even if there were no gerrymandering and a computer created the districts, the representative composition could be quite different. The geographic concentration of each party is a significant factor in determining their strength under a proportional vs. single member system.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Probably Florida or Pennsylvania.

[memphis]

Probably Florida or Pennsylvania.

Yeah, those two are pretty bad, as is Massachusetts (not that I mind that one so much).

[Q]

Yeah, those two are pretty bad, as is Massachusetts (not that I mind that one so much).

But the Mass map doesn't have appreciable impact on the partisan makeup of the state's congressional delegation.  There is no area of more than half a million people who would be likely to elect a GOP Rep.

[muon2]

Yeah, those two are pretty bad, as is Massachusetts (not that I mind that one so much).

But the Mass map doesn't have appreciable impact on the partisan makeup of the state's congressional delegation.  There is no area of more than half a million people who would be likely to elect a GOP Rep.

Cape Cod (Barnstable) and Plymouth would make a district that was about 54% for Kerry in 2004. That would give it some competitive ability for a GOP candidate.

[Dave from Michigan]

a quick look at Wikipedia shows that Massachusetts had two republicans before the 1996 election and they weren't elected in the republican landslide of 1994 either. I checked both were defeated. Both were elected in 1992 and throughout the 80's they also had 2 republicans. the districts republicans were elected in were  in the 80's it was the 1st and 8th districts, and in the 90's they were the 3rd and the 6th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congressional_Delegations_from_Massachusetts


so does anyone know how Massachusetts was redistricted after census 2000, obviously i assume the democrats have veto proof majorities in Mass.  Did they make all the districts safe democrat.  The republicans were odf course moderates and liberal ones, but if one of the democrats retired I wonder of the republicans would have a chance.  Unless the democrats changed all the districts.

[ag]

a quick look at Wikipedia shows that Massachusetts had two republicans before the 1996 election and they weren't elected in the republican landslide of 1994 either. I checked both were defeated. Both were elected in 1992 and throughout the 80's they also had 2 republicans. the districts republicans were elected in were  in the 80's it was the 1st and 8th districts, and in the 90's they were the 3rd and the 6th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congressional_Delegations_from_Massachusetts


so does anyone know how Massachusetts was redistricted after census 2000, obviously i assume the democrats have veto proof majorities in Mass.  Did they make all the districts safe democrat.  The republicans were odf course moderates and liberal ones, but if one of the democrats retired I wonder of the republicans would have a chance.  Unless the democrats changed all the districts.

Mass. was much more competitive back then in general.  The boundaries might have been changed, but this would only affect things in a bad year for the Dems. As they say, Cape Cod (!) might be slightly more competitive than the rest - but this ownly says how uncompetitive the rest of the state is.  One might try to draw another somewhat less Dem district also somewhere in the middle of the state, but even that would be tough. The western (rural!) part of the state is now likelier to elect the Antichrist than a Republican (most locals would profess not to know the difference), and Boston is Boston.  Add to this an extremely short bench of prominent Republicans in the state. Perhaps, if Romney ran for Congress (before he started abusing Mass in public) he could have had a chance, though he'd still, probably, loose, unless he came out running against the national party and the president.

Think of it this way: the legislature districts are small, and if you tried to gerrymander most of them safe for Dems you'd actually have to create some Republican districts if there were any Rep. concentrations. In addition, voters are likelier to overlook the national party issues (unfavorable to Reps in Mass) in a state election. Still, out of 160 assembley seats you now have 137 Dems, 20 Reps and 3 Independents, and in the state Senate they have 34 Dems for 6 Reps (and these numbers become more and more skewed nearly at each election). The only state with a similar party balance in the legislature is Rhode Island. Even Idaho has a greater proportion of Democrats than there are Republicans in Mass. Unless these Rep districts are clustered together, there isn't much chance you could draw a congressional district that would elect a Republican, except as a fluke. That's FPTP for you - yes, there are some Reps in Mass., but they won't be represented. The real danger for Reps in Mass. is that another party might take their place as the second party in the state (being affiliated with a national Republican party is a real drag for their Mass brethren).

[Dave from Michigan]

wow 139 out of 160 according to wikipedia thats insane.  Have the republicans ever controlled the state house or senate in the last 50 years.

I see what you mean according to my math each state senate seat is only 165,000ish people so it's not enough to make a house district with them.

[ag]

wow 139 out of 160 according to wikipedia thats insane.  Have the republicans ever controlled the state house or senate in the last 50 years.

I see what you mean according to my math each state senate seat is only 165,000ish people so it's not enough to make a house district with them.

50 Years is a lot of time. If we follow your original link we'd see that 50 years ago Dems barely managed for the first time to tie the Mass. House delegation (7:7). Less than 10 years previous it had been 10 Reps and 4 Dems. While I can't find the data on the state legislature, I'd conjecture it was still overwhelmingly Republican back then.

The real problem for the Republican party in New England is that it has the albatross of the national party to deal with.  As governor elections show, there is a desire for a local two-party system, but national Reps are not acceptable. A popular NE Republican governor could create a supporting block in the state legislature by withdrawing his supporters from the national party into a "Progressive Republican" party (as dixiecrats did a long time ago in the South). Of course, that would loose whatever impact they have on presidential election, and, as long as they have any hopes of being nominated for the national office they wouldn't think of it.  But local governance would have become much healthier  with a two-party legislature. 

As is, there is a real danger of Republican obsolescence in New England (or even in New York). While the South is sprinkled with Dem enclaves which are not going anywhere (black counties, university towns, state capitals), there isn't an equivalent in much of the Northeast. The few Reps there are are increasingly not concentrated enough to make any impact on anything.  If New Hampshire goes the way of Vermont, there won't be much of a Republican party in New England to speak about.  At best, it will be like the NYC GOP: a vehicle for ambitious locals who don't want to bother with the local Dem machine to run for office. At worst, it won't be much heard from. And once it becomes sufficiently obscure for a sufficiently long period, chances are it will be replaced as the local opposition with a new entity, without a national party (Greens, Conservatives, Libertarians, Sociallists, Monarchists, Hippies - something will have to take the vacant spot).

[Platypus]

wow 139 out of 160 according to wikipedia thats insane.  Have the republicans ever controlled the state house or senate in the last 50 years.

I see what you mean according to my math each state senate seat is only 165,000ish people so it's not enough to make a house district with them.

50 Years is a lot of time. If we follow your original link we'd see that 50 years ago Dems barely managed for the first time to tie the Mass. House delegation (7:7). Less than 10 years previous it had been 10 Reps and 4 Dems. While I can't find the data on the state legislature, I'd conjecture it was still overwhelmingly Republican back then.

The real problem for the Republican party in New England is that it has the albatross of the national party to deal with.  As governor elections show, there is a desire for a local two-party system, but national Reps are not acceptable. A popular NE Republican governor could create a supporting block in the state legislature by withdrawing his supporters from the national party into a "Progressive Republican" party (as dixiecrats did a long time ago in the South). Of course, that would loose whatever impact they have on presidential election, and, as long as they have any hopes of being nominated for the national office they wouldn't think of it.  But local governance would have become much healthier  with a two-party legislature. 

As is, there is a real danger of Republican obsolescence in New England (or even in New York). While the South is sprinkled with Dem enclaves which are not going anywhere (black counties, university towns, state capitals), there isn't an equivalent in much of the Northeast. The few Reps there are are increasingly not concentrated enough to make any impact on anything.  If New Hampshire goes the way of Vermont, there won't be much of a Republican party in New England to speak about.  At best, it will be like the NYC GOP: a vehicle for ambitious locals who don't want to bother with the local Dem machine to run for office. At worst, it won't be much heard from. And once it becomes sufficiently obscure for a sufficiently long period, chances are it will be replaced as the local opposition with a new entity, without a national party (Greens, Conservatives, Libertarians, Sociallists, Monarchists, Hippies - something will have to take the vacant spot).

My bet is on the Moonarchists-a coalition of the last two.

[TeePee4Prez]

As for MA, I think the best chance for the GOP is the 10th District, but you'd surely have to run a libertarian Republican a la Jim Greenwood or a pro-choice Ron Paul.  From my brief stint at Lehigh a lot of rich snobs with very conservative economic views were from the South Shore of Boston, but they were also pretty socially liberal.

Yeah, I'd say PA is pretty horrible in terms of unfair Gerrymandering.  The GOP has a geographic advantage in that they cover more land area statewide and they know how to pack the Democrats into few areas.  Despite having a 500,000 voter registration advantage, the Democrats only have 3 opportunities for pickups for the State House in the Philly suburbs and even they are questionable.  The Congressional delegation is looking a little more promising with 2 possibilities, but one of the Republicans knows how to butter up labor and some Philly labor fools are rushing up to support him.  Hell, it's Mike Fitzpatrick. 

[jimrtex]

so does anyone know how Massachusetts was redistricted after census 2000, obviously i assume the democrats have veto proof majorities in Mass.  Did they make all the districts safe democrat.  The republicans were odf course moderates and liberal ones, but if one of the democrats retired I wonder of the republicans would have a chance.  Unless the democrats changed all the districts.

I think they did it in the 1980s when Massachusetts lost a seat.  That is why you have a district that is one town wide running from Brookline towards the southwest and then going south to Fall River.