Los Angeles County Redistricting

[Napoleon]

Yours is 24.8% Black, and mine is 24.2% Black. And it's 25.2% VAP. Not a big difference. Long Beach is actually 13.5% Black, which is above the county average of 8% Black.

I think mine was over 27% VAP. And Long Beach is becoming less and less black I took in most of the black population in Long Beach

[Napoleon]

Also the black district was the first one I drew so I could make sure to get as many black areas as possible but looking back there is no reason to keep it other than the Supervisors needing 4 out of 5 votes to pass a map.

[Sbane]

I just chopped Long Beach in half, and tried to pick up as much marginal Black area as I could, but barely moved it to 25.5% VAP. On the other hand you chopped up the Hispanic population in the SGV, which is similar to what is happening with the current map in the SFV, which is what all the protesting is all about.

[Sbane]

Yours is 24.8% Black, and mine is 24.2% Black. And it's 25.2% VAP. Not a big difference. Long Beach is actually 13.5% Black, which is above the county average of 8% Black.

I think mine was over 27% VAP. And Long Beach is becoming less and less black I took in most of the black population in Long Beach

But if that requires chopping up the Hispanic population in the SGV, it's not worth it. You map really makes no one happy. Hispanics usually want at least 60-65% VAP, and Blacks aren't going to be happy having to compete with Latinos. And you dilute the Hispanic vote in the SGV at the same time.

Also the area where the Black population is declining, and fast, isn't Long Beach (which has some middle class Blacks moving in as well), but rather those marginal areas south of downtown. Wouldn't be surprised if they were all Latino a few years from now. Not to mention the Mexican Mafia makes the process only faster.......

[Napoleon]

Blacks will have a harder time competing with Latinos on your map though. I'd say this would be about as happy as they could get.

Now, if I eliminate the Black district I can follow the I-10 corridor from Koreatown to Pomona and get a fair fight between Asians and Latinos.

But again I'm not trying to please radical minority groups so much as I want to keep places together that seem like they should go together: Santa Monica & The Westside, Burbank & Glendale & Pasadena, Los Feliz/Silverlake/Echo Park, Chatsworth & Northridge, Torrance & The Beach Cities, and East LA-  El Monte.The SGV is hard because the Foothills go with Pasadena and Diamond Bar etc. fits with La Mirada. Because if drawing a finger to Pomona is the only way to avoid diluting Hispanics then it shouldn't be done. Pomona goes with Claremont IMO. And La Verne.

[Sbane]

Pomona goes with Ontario, but it does not go with La Verne or Claremont. It just does not. Don't say it front of some real estate agent, lest you get beaten up.

Pomona and Long Beach are the problem children here. I don't really disagree with your list otherwise, and I have kept those areas together. Maybe not the city of East Los Angeles itself with El monte, but I did keep the vast majority of the Latino areas in the Southeast part of LA county with the SGV. Yes, the finger to Pomona is ugly, but it's really the best place to put it. Pomona not being in a Latino district just doesn't feel right.

And I'm not just talking race (though Latino is really an ethnicity, LA county is 50% "white" actually), Pomona is very dissimilar in every way to basically all the areas that surround it in LA county. It is the same as areas to it's east in SBD county.

[Napoleon]

I figured because of the univerisities and proximity they would be a good fit. But yes, on my CD map I have Pomona with Ontario.

[Sbane]

I figured because of the univerisities and proximity they would be a good fit. But yes, on my CD map I have Pomona with Ontario.

Cal Poly Pomona does not equal the city of Pomona as a whole. Actually in my first map I did have Cal Poly in the 5th, as well as the Philips ranch neighborhood which is right adjacent to Diamond Bar. The rest of the city is working class.

[Napoleon]

Phillips Ranch is only like 4 precincts I think. LA is so weird. A lot of these border towns (no pun intensest of course) should technically fit better with SB or OC. Alas that is not how the world works, and makes for awkward maps at times. To be honest I probably would have supported A3.

[Sbane]

Yup, it's only 4 precincts and yet it's very different from the rest of the city. Same goes with the Cal Poly area. In the end though I did put those areas with the 4th. I split West Covina too, which has the south hills neighborhood, which is outright upper middle class, in a lower middle class city. I still kept it like that in the second map since that area also has a good amount of Asians, and finding Asians for the 5th was a goal since they were complaining. Philips Ranch has more than the rest of the city of Pomona, but not as much.

I doubt either of the maps you or I drew would get passed because the two Republicans would not vote for it. That is another dimension we are not taking into account, and why all the maps proposed are so odd. They would really hate your plan, though mine reduces them down to 1 as well. But your plan has two districts that can possibly elect Republicans. I have one that almost guarantees them a seat. Seemingly Republicans do much better at the local level than at the state or federal level, though it's not too surprising.

[Napoleon]

With people like Molina it is easy to see why! And Don Knabe sounds like someone I could vote for for any office that isn't federal...the Asians and Latino officials in his district even came to his defense when they tried to undo the $4th as is. So he wins like that and the other crank just has a favorable district, which isn't really the case in my plan.

[Sbane]

Well, it's possible he could win in the 4th district even if it is Latino, right? After all it is a non-partisan race, so Democrat vs Republican really shouldn't come in the equation. The people should be allowed to elect who they want, which is the point of the VRA anyways. The candidate doesn't necessarily have to be a Latino, but should be their choice, and as a result will care for their concerns.

[Napoleon]

Yeah maybe. If it were 66% Latino a candidate wouldn't need to cater to other races though. That is why I like how rmy map is drawn, there are a few "racially competitive" seats that reflect the county's diversity better than a couple overwhelmingly Latino districts would.

[Sbane]

Yeah maybe. If it were 66% Latino a candidate wouldn't need to cater to other races though. That is why I like how rmy map is drawn, there are a few "racially competitive" seats that reflect the county's diversity better than a couple overwhelmingly Latino districts would.

Actually, in terms of voters, a 66% district would likely be about 60-61% VAP which translates to about 50% or slightly less CVAP. In terms of actual voter turnout, I doubt it would be majority Latino. But they would likely be the most influential group, yes. Though other groups would be represented as well. Whites probably only need to be 20-25% of the population to be about 40-45% of voters. This is why California is only about 43% White but 60-65% of voters are White. And this is in general elections. Think how it is during primary elections. 

[redcommander]

Nice job with the districts. Is there any way for a McCain and Whitman majority district to be drawn?

[Napoleon]

Nice job with the districts. Is there any way for a McCain and Whitman majority district to be drawn?

Definitely not McCain but I could probably draw a Whitman district. It would be ugly though, snaking around Pomona to Diamond Bar from the Antelope Valley and cutting in and out of the SGV.