Most unnecessarily bad congressional map?

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I know there’s some states like Texas and Illinois who’ve drawn extreme gerrymanders, but what state do you think has the worst map with no real benefit to anyone?

I’d vote for Colorado. It doesn’t really benefit either party that much and makes some pretty weird community splits.

[Roll Roons]

CA has some lines that are unnecessarily ugly (Calvert’s district, the split of Kings County).

NY was just dumb because they went through a whole song-and-dance only to make a map that is mostly the same as the previous one but slightly uglier.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Kansas and Missouri are up there.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I’d say Kansas - the goal was to make David’s vulnerable and yet she just ended up winning by a massive margin anyways.

At least with a map like CA or CO, there are some explanations for the messiness like following municipal boundaries and in CA race considerations.

[CentristRepublican]

CA has some lines that are unnecessarily ugly (Calvert’s district, the split of Kings County).

This for sure.

[kwabbit]

There aren't that many commission states where partisan gerrymanders aren't a factor.

CA has weird lines, with lots of needless county splits, that usually benefit Democrats. Calvert's district is bad.

CO has weird lines, with lots of needless county splits, that usually benefit Republicans. CO-08 is a huge gift to the GOP. They essentially drew the only right-trending/stagnant swing district possible in the Denver metro.

Michigan is mostly fine. Idk about the Muskegon-GR seat. Scholten would've won a cleaner seat taking in Kent + parts of Ottawa.

AZ is fine as well, but too friendly to the GOP. Most complaints revolve around the Native district not having the arm into Maricopa and Pinal, but that district was highly controversial in 2010. The current form is the common sense approach, but also one potentially influenced by partisanship. I don't like the AZ-06. It should've been a Lean D restricted to Cochise and Pima. As it stands it's a forced tossup.

[Mr.Phips]

There aren't that many commission states where partisan gerrymanders aren't a factor.

CA has weird lines, with lots of needless county splits, that usually benefit Democrats. Calvert's district is bad.

CO has weird lines, with lots of needless county splits, that usually benefit Republicans. CO-08 is a huge gift to the GOP. They essentially drew the only right-trending/stagnant swing district possible in the Denver metro.

Michigan is mostly fine. Idk about the Muskegon-GR seat. Scholten would've won a cleaner seat taking in Kent + parts of Ottawa.

AZ is fine as well, but too friendly to the GOP. Most complaints revolve around the Native district not having the arm into Maricopa and Pinal, but that district was highly controversial in 2010. The current form is the common sense approach, but also one potentially influenced by partisanship. I don't like the AZ-06. It should've been a Lean D restricted to Cochise and Pima. As it stands it's a forced tossup.

For AZ, I agree that AZ-06 is really the only stand out.  It was clearly drawn to cut out as many Dems as possible in Pima and even Cochise and then unnecessarily and blatantly grab Republicans from Pinal and Graham.  It should have remained as it was in 2020 (Engel would have won it easily) when it was AZ-02.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

There aren't that many commission states where partisan gerrymanders aren't a factor.

CA has weird lines, with lots of needless county splits, that usually benefit Democrats. Calvert's district is bad.

CO has weird lines, with lots of needless county splits, that usually benefit Republicans. CO-08 is a huge gift to the GOP. They essentially drew the only right-trending/stagnant swing district possible in the Denver metro.

Michigan is mostly fine. Idk about the Muskegon-GR seat. Scholten would've won a cleaner seat taking in Kent + parts of Ottawa.

AZ is fine as well, but too friendly to the GOP. Most complaints revolve around the Native district not having the arm into Maricopa and Pinal, but that district was highly controversial in 2010. The current form is the common sense approach, but also one potentially influenced by partisanship. I don't like the AZ-06. It should've been a Lean D restricted to Cochise and Pima. As it stands it's a forced tossup.

For AZ, I agree that AZ-06 is really the only stand out.  It was clearly drawn to cut out as many Dems as possible in Pima and even Cochise and then unnecessarily and blatantly grab Republicans from Pinal and Graham.  It should have remained as it was in 2020 (Engel would have won it easily) when it was AZ-02.

The 7th is also pretty weird in how it cuts out half of Yuma and stretches into Cochise. It should’ve just taken in more of Maricopa instead of getting all tentacle-y

[Mr.Phips]

There aren't that many commission states where partisan gerrymanders aren't a factor.

CA has weird lines, with lots of needless county splits, that usually benefit Democrats. Calvert's district is bad.

CO has weird lines, with lots of needless county splits, that usually benefit Republicans. CO-08 is a huge gift to the GOP. They essentially drew the only right-trending/stagnant swing district possible in the Denver metro.

Michigan is mostly fine. Idk about the Muskegon-GR seat. Scholten would've won a cleaner seat taking in Kent + parts of Ottawa.

AZ is fine as well, but too friendly to the GOP. Most complaints revolve around the Native district not having the arm into Maricopa and Pinal, but that district was highly controversial in 2010. The current form is the common sense approach, but also one potentially influenced by partisanship. I don't like the AZ-06. It should've been a Lean D restricted to Cochise and Pima. As it stands it's a forced tossup.

For AZ, I agree that AZ-06 is really the only stand out.  It was clearly drawn to cut out as many Dems as possible in Pima and even Cochise and then unnecessarily and blatantly grab Republicans from Pinal and Graham.  It should have remained as it was in 2020 (Engel would have won it easily) when it was AZ-02.

The 7th is also pretty weird in how it cuts out half of Yuma and stretches into Cochise. It should’ve just taken in more of Maricopa instead of getting all tentacle-y

The 7th goes into Cochise for no other reason than to grab Dem areas near the Mexico border.

[Spectator]

I hate Georgia’s map. You could, and frankly should, make congressional districts for each of Gwinnett, Cobb, and DeKalb counties. The map should be 7-7 or 6-6-2, with the tossups being a north Fulton seat and a Savannah River seat. Either that, or an Augusta-Athens seat that is a tossup.

[America needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I hate Georgia’s map. You could, and frankly should, make congressional districts for each of Gwinnett, Cobb, and DeKalb counties. The map should be 7-7 or 6-6-2, with the tossups being a north Fulton seat and a Savannah River seat. Either that, or an Augusta-Athens seat that is a tossup.

Based on my experimentation, an 8-6 Biden map is what you get if you draw a GA map based specifically on COI. 1 of the Biden Districts would have voted Republican in all other races over the 2010s though, including both the 2021 US Senate runoff races, though Warnock would have taken it twice in 2022.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

As a reminder, this isn't a thread to debate gerrymandering or discuss what a fair map would be.  Rather, it's to discuss maps that were unnecessary for accomplishing its intended purpose.

I've always felt that there's a difference in perception between "pretty" and "ugly" gerrymanders, so it's probably worth having that discussion.

[America needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Going back a decade, Maryland had quite the ugly map in the 2010s with partisanship really not the reason for it being as ugly as it was.

[ProgressiveModerate]

As a reminder, this isn't a thread to debate gerrymandering or discuss what a fair map would be.  Rather, it's to discuss maps that were unnecessary for accomplishing its intended purpose.

I've always felt that there's a difference in perception between "pretty" and "ugly" gerrymanders, so it's probably worth having that discussion.

Based on this definition still sticking with KS - much uglier than it had to be yet still kept KS-03 as a left shifting Biden seat, and Davids will probably hold it for the decade. Like it wouldn't be that hard to actually have put her in a Trump seat without making the other seats too vulnerable or drawing something absurd.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

As a reminder, this isn't a thread to debate gerrymandering or discuss what a fair map would be.  Rather, it's to discuss maps that were unnecessary for accomplishing its intended purpose.

I've always felt that there's a difference in perception between "pretty" and "ugly" gerrymanders, so it's probably worth having that discussion.

Anecdotally I think a “pretty” gerrymander is more acceptable because you have to actually look at data to see it. Florida’s is like that.

[Christian Man]

Mississippi is awful. Alabama and North Carolina are honorable mentions, especially at the state level for the later.

[Biden Derangement Syndrome Haver]

Mississippi is awful. Alabama and North Carolina are honorable mentions, especially at the state level for the later.

Whats so bad about Mississippi's?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Mississippi is awful. Alabama and North Carolina are honorable mentions, especially at the state level for the later.

Whats so bad about Mississippi's?

Prolly referring to the state leg maps which do a lot of racial sorting

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How has no one mentioned Massachusetts yet?

Any cleanly drawn map would be 9-0 D and yet we get....that.

[ProgressiveModerate]

How has no one mentioned Massachusetts yet?

Any cleanly drawn map would be 9-0 D and yet we get....that.

Yep, especially because this map somehow makes MA-01 somewhat at risk in the long run (though I don’t expect Dems to have any real struggles here this decade). Classic example of Democrats putting incumbent demands on a pedestal in redistricting, something that has really annoyed me for a while and was arguably a big reason why their NY and MD gerrymanders got overturned.

[Spectator]

How has no one mentioned Massachusetts yet?

Any cleanly drawn map would be 9-0 D and yet we get....that.

Yep, especially because this map somehow makes MA-01 somewhat at risk in the long run (though I don’t expect Dems to have any real struggles here this decade). Classic example of Democrats putting incumbent demands on a pedestal in redistricting, something that has really annoyed me for a while and was arguably a big reason why their NY and MD gerrymanders got overturned.

Yeah, they easily could’ve drawn a clean Maryland where even MD-01 was Biden +9ish. Basically all the Eastern Shore minus Cecil County, crossing the bridge to Annapolis to pick up the heavily Dem northern and western parts of Anne Arundel, and a small sliver of Montgomery and PG. while putting MD-08 and MD-04 all within their respective counties. That MD-01 with Annapolis-Eastern Shore is arguably a COI that makes sense more than wrapping it around to the Baltimore suburbs.