Does increased urbanization hurt the Democrats in the House?

[All Along The Watchtower]

In terms of gerrymandering and vote packing. Does the denser population in the Democratic cities help the Republicans, who are more spread out among the metro fringe and the rural areas?

[krazen1211]

That depends if one man one vote is adhered to or not. Democrats in some places such as PA had heavily gerrymandered plans in their favor because one man one vote was not adhered to during the 2012 elections.

[muon2]

Not necessarily. A dense urban area can be used to send districts from the city out into the suburbs neutralizing GOP votes. IL Dems did that very effectively this cycle. They added two seats out of 18 compared to a neutral map. On the flip side the GOP can use the urban packing against the Dems as in OH.

[Smid]

It can do, to some extent, and benefit them in other ways.

As you note, urbanisation results in natural vote packing, which is part of the reason there appears to be a degree of Republican gerrymandering in the House - in some cases it's not gerrymandering, it is unrepresentative geographic dispersion that would require gerrymandering to overturn. New York is a good example of this, with the compact 15th District naturally absorbing a substantially above-average proportion of Democrat voters - it would have to be gerrymandered if it were to be more efficient for the Democrats.

On the flip side, however, peri-urbanisation can lead to a tightening of the margin of previously rural districts, if that growth is fueled by Democrats and the rural areas are more Republican.

Furthermore, densification and disproportionate population growth in urban areas can lead to a greater proportion of a state's districts being based in its urban areas, which may lean Democratic. If a state gains a district but population growth has been concentrated in the city, it potentially can benefit the Democrats (bearing in mind redistricting and gerrymandering can change the partisan composition of existing districts).

It's unfortunate that the US electoral strategy hinges on boundaries and boundary changes to the extent that it does, but that may be my pro-Westminster System bias showing.

[barfbag]

No I don't thinks so. Gerrymandering will be done no matter how vastly populated or densely populated our country gets. It's fixed at 538 so the lines will just be drawn differently. Things should be the same depending on the voters.

[Kevinstat]

That depends if one man one vote is adhered to or not. Democrats in some places such as PA had heavily gerrymandered plans in their favor because one man one vote was not adhered to during the 2012 elections.

Come again?  2010 I could get, as that was pre-redistricting, although as with Michigan the Republicans who drew the maps would have only themselves to blame for that (not that Republicans in Michigan were complaining about the Democratic vote sinks having too few people at the end of the decade when several other, overpopulated Republican districts had loads of wasted (cracked) Democratic voters).

[krazen1211]

That depends if one man one vote is adhered to or not. Democrats in some places such as PA had heavily gerrymandered plans in their favor because one man one vote was not adhered to during the 2012 elections.

Come again?  2010 I could get, as that was pre-redistricting, although as with Michigan the Republicans who drew the maps would have only themselves to blame for that (not that Republicans in Michigan were complaining about the Democratic vote sinks having too few people at the end of the decade when several other, overpopulated Republican districts had loads of wasted (cracked) Democratic voters).

The 2012 Pennsylvania elections were held under the 2000 maps that gave the Democrats extra seats in Western Pennsylvania as determined by 2010 census figures. The Democrats were upset about losing seats in Western Pennsylvania in the 2012 redistricting and jammed the plan in court.

Of course, the 9% population contraction in Pittsburgh and similar contraction in the surround areas essentially mandated that the Democrats lose seats. They didn't win either chamber even with the bonus seats. They tried to jam the 2014 plan in court as well but failed.

[Skill and Chance]

It depends.  Democrats seem to do better in the House in rural swing states (IA, NH, NM) than in more urbanized swing states (OH, VA, CO).  This would be true even without gerrymandering.  So urbanization in the context of small to moderate sized cities seems to hurt Democrats by concentrating their votes.

On the other hand, you have states like CA, NY, CT and MA that are so urban that the cities and inner suburbs completely run the show.  In all of these states, Republicans get far fewer seats than their statewide vote share would suggest.  None of them are particularly gerrymandered.  And even in MD, the poster-child of self-packed Democrats, the suburbs have swung so far that a neutral map would probably still be 6D/2R there.  Republicans have a downballot advantage in all but the most rural swing states, but it's also fundamentally easier for Democrats to shut Republicans out in their safe states than vice-versa.  KY Republicans still have to concede Louisville and TN Republicans Memphis and Nashville.  NY and MA Democrats don't have any uber-Republican areas to worry about.       

[traininthedistance]

It depends.  Democrats seem to do better in the House in rural swing states (IA, NH, NM) than in more urbanized swing states (OH, VA, CO).  This would be true even without gerrymandering.  So urbanization in the context of small to moderate sized cities seems to hurt Democrats by concentrating their votes.

On the other hand, you have states like CA, NY, CT and MA that are so urban that the cities and inner suburbs completely run the show.  In all of these states, Republicans get far fewer seats than their statewide vote share would suggest.  None of them are particularly gerrymandered.  And even in MD, the poster-child of self-packed Democrats, the suburbs have swung so far that a neutral map would probably still be 6D/2R there.  Republicans have a downballot advantage in all but the most rural swing states, but it's also fundamentally easier for Democrats to shut Republicans out in their safe states than vice-versa.  KY Republicans still have to concede Louisville and TN Republicans Memphis and Nashville.  NY and MA Democrats don't have any uber-Republican areas to worry about.       

Eh, in NY there is the Southern Tier and Holland Purchase area in West NY; that's pretty solidly Republican; you've also got Staten Island, southern Brooklyn, Peter King's old district; there are certainly a number of sizable strong-Pub areas in NY.  Massachusetts, of course, is very much an outlier when it comes to partisan distribution.

Anyway, the answer to the OP is obviously yes.  While much of the Republicans' structural advantage in the House is due to getting lucky with the 2010 wave enabling some truly grotesque gerrymanders, "fair" maps would still give them a 5-10 seat lead on an even election due primarily to packing of urban areas.  Everything else is a red herring.

[krazen1211]

It depends.  Democrats seem to do better in the House in rural swing states (IA, NH, NM) than in more urbanized swing states (OH, VA, CO).  This would be true even without gerrymandering.  So urbanization in the context of small to moderate sized cities seems to hurt Democrats by concentrating their votes.

On the other hand, you have states like CA, NY, CT and MA that are so urban that the cities and inner suburbs completely run the show.  In all of these states, Republicans get far fewer seats than their statewide vote share would suggest.  None of them are particularly gerrymandered.  And even in MD, the poster-child of self-packed Democrats, the suburbs have swung so far that a neutral map would probably still be 6D/2R there.  Republicans have a downballot advantage in all but the most rural swing states, but it's also fundamentally easier for Democrats to shut Republicans out in their safe states than vice-versa.  KY Republicans still have to concede Louisville and TN Republicans Memphis and Nashville.  NY and MA Democrats don't have any uber-Republican areas to worry about.        

That's interesting. Before the Democrats Gerrymandering of Maryland in 2002, the Republicans held 4 seats. The map present then could be considered neutral or not neutral. But, as it existed, it would have given the Republicans 3 likely seats, all with PVIs of R+7 or higher.

Link

1 in Western Maryland + Howard County
1 in Baltimore + Harford County
1 in the Eastern Shore + Anne Arundel County.

[Skill and Chance]

It depends.  Democrats seem to do better in the House in rural swing states (IA, NH, NM) than in more urbanized swing states (OH, VA, CO).  This would be true even without gerrymandering.  So urbanization in the context of small to moderate sized cities seems to hurt Democrats by concentrating their votes.

On the other hand, you have states like CA, NY, CT and MA that are so urban that the cities and inner suburbs completely run the show.  In all of these states, Republicans get far fewer seats than their statewide vote share would suggest.  None of them are particularly gerrymandered.  And even in MD, the poster-child of self-packed Democrats, the suburbs have swung so far that a neutral map would probably still be 6D/2R there.  Republicans have a downballot advantage in all but the most rural swing states, but it's also fundamentally easier for Democrats to shut Republicans out in their safe states than vice-versa.  KY Republicans still have to concede Louisville and TN Republicans Memphis and Nashville.  NY and MA Democrats don't have any uber-Republican areas to worry about.        

That's interesting. Before the Democrats Gerrymandering of Maryland in 2002, the Republicans held 4 seats. The map present then could be considered neutral or not neutral. But, as it existed, it would have given the Republicans 3 likely seats, all with PVIs of R+7 or higher.

Link

1 in Western Maryland + Howard County
1 in Baltimore + Harford County
1 in the Eastern Shore + Anne Arundel County.

Ignore MD if you wish.  It's not important.  The point still holds for all the other states.  Commissions/courts gave Democrats more than proportional representation in CA, NY, and CT because of the geography of those states. 

[traininthedistance]

The 1990s Maryland lines are not exactly an exemplar of good redistricting principles, either.  Putting that aside, there are several possible good non-partisan ways to divvy up MD.  5-3, 6-2, 5-2-1, and even 4-2-2 are all plausible outcomes.

[krazen1211]

It depends.  Democrats seem to do better in the House in rural swing states (IA, NH, NM) than in more urbanized swing states (OH, VA, CO).  This would be true even without gerrymandering.  So urbanization in the context of small to moderate sized cities seems to hurt Democrats by concentrating their votes.

On the other hand, you have states like CA, NY, CT and MA that are so urban that the cities and inner suburbs completely run the show.  In all of these states, Republicans get far fewer seats than their statewide vote share would suggest.  None of them are particularly gerrymandered.  And even in MD, the poster-child of self-packed Democrats, the suburbs have swung so far that a neutral map would probably still be 6D/2R there.  Republicans have a downballot advantage in all but the most rural swing states, but it's also fundamentally easier for Democrats to shut Republicans out in their safe states than vice-versa.  KY Republicans still have to concede Louisville and TN Republicans Memphis and Nashville.  NY and MA Democrats don't have any uber-Republican areas to worry about.        

That's interesting. Before the Democrats Gerrymandering of Maryland in 2002, the Republicans held 4 seats. The map present then could be considered neutral or not neutral. But, as it existed, it would have given the Republicans 3 likely seats, all with PVIs of R+7 or higher.

Link

1 in Western Maryland + Howard County
1 in Baltimore + Harford County
1 in the Eastern Shore + Anne Arundel County.

Ignore MD if you wish.  It's not important.  The point still holds for all the other states.  Commissions/courts gave Democrats more than proportional representation in CA, NY, and CT because of the geography of those states. 

Partially. Connecticut had less to do with the geography and more to do with the Democrats pushing the redistricting plan to the courts.

The bigger culprit is the 20 point margin in those states. If the states were more competitive the GOP would get a fair share of the seats. George W. Bush won 24 California seats out of 53.

[Sbane]

Not necessarily. A dense urban area can be used to send districts from the city out into the suburbs neutralizing GOP votes. IL Dems did that very effectively this cycle. They added two seats out of 18 compared to a neutral map. On the flip side the GOP can use the urban packing against the Dems as in OH.

Yes, but what about in a neutral map?

[muon2]

Not necessarily. A dense urban area can be used to send districts from the city out into the suburbs neutralizing GOP votes. IL Dems did that very effectively this cycle. They added two seats out of 18 compared to a neutral map. On the flip side the GOP can use the urban packing against the Dems as in OH.

Yes, but what about in a neutral map?

A neutral map filed in IL was 10D-8R, and a neutral one filed in OH was 8-8. Both plans also had a significant number of competitive seats built in.

[Skill and Chance]

Not necessarily. A dense urban area can be used to send districts from the city out into the suburbs neutralizing GOP votes. IL Dems did that very effectively this cycle. They added two seats out of 18 compared to a neutral map. On the flip side the GOP can use the urban packing against the Dems as in OH.

Yes, but what about in a neutral map?

A neutral map filed in IL was 10D-8R, and a neutral one filed in OH was 8-8. Both plans also had a significant number of competitive seats built in.

I think this just reinforces that a lean D urban state has the worst potential for underrepresentation in the country (MI, WI, IL without Obama, etc.), even worse than a true urban swing state.

[hopper]

Not necessarily. A dense urban area can be used to send districts from the city out into the suburbs neutralizing GOP votes. IL Dems did that very effectively this cycle. They added two seats out of 18 compared to a neutral map. On the flip side the GOP can use the urban packing against the Dems as in OH.

Yes, but what about in a neutral map?

A neutral map filed in IL was 10D-8R, and a neutral one filed in OH was 8-8. Both plans also had a significant number of competitive seats built in.

IL should be 11-7 D or at least 12-6 D. OH maybe like 9-7 or 10-6 R. Depends where the population is growing in OH. Cleveland and Toledo are seeing decreasing population and those 2 area's are Solid D.

[hopper]

It depends.  Democrats seem to do better in the House in rural swing states (IA, NH, NM) than in more urbanized swing states (OH, VA, CO).  This would be true even without gerrymandering.  So urbanization in the context of small to moderate sized cities seems to hurt Democrats by concentrating their votes.

On the other hand, you have states like CA, NY, CT and MA that are so urban that the cities and inner suburbs completely run the show.  In all of these states, Republicans get far fewer seats than their statewide vote share would suggest.  None of them are particularly gerrymandered.  And even in MD, the poster-child of self-packed Democrats, the suburbs have swung so far that a neutral map would probably still be 6D/2R there.  Republicans have a downballot advantage in all but the most rural swing states, but it's also fundamentally easier for Democrats to shut Republicans out in their safe states than vice-versa.  KY Republicans still have to concede Louisville and TN Republicans Memphis and Nashville.  NY and MA Democrats don't have any uber-Republican areas to worry about.        

That's interesting. Before the Democrats Gerrymandering of Maryland in 2002, the Republicans held 4 seats. The map present then could be considered neutral or not neutral. But, as it existed, it would have given the Republicans 3 likely seats, all with PVIs of R+7 or higher.

Link

1 in Western Maryland + Howard County
1 in Baltimore + Harford County
1 in the Eastern Shore + Anne Arundel County.

Ignore MD if you wish.  It's not important.  The point still holds for all the other states.  Commissions/courts gave Democrats more than proportional representation in CA, NY, and CT because of the geography of those states. 

CA and NY actually have good redistricting maps for this decade except for Grace Meng's district in NY. CT that's more because the GOP sucks these days in moderate districts like CT 4 and CT 5. Remember they held both of those districts before the Dem Wave Years of 2006 and 2008.

[hopper]

It depends.  Democrats seem to do better in the House in rural swing states (IA, NH, NM) than in more urbanized swing states (OH, VA, CO).  This would be true even without gerrymandering.  So urbanization in the context of small to moderate sized cities seems to hurt Democrats by concentrating their votes.

On the other hand, you have states like CA, NY, CT and MA that are so urban that the cities and inner suburbs completely run the show.  In all of these states, Republicans get far fewer seats than their statewide vote share would suggest.  None of them are particularly gerrymandered.  And even in MD, the poster-child of self-packed Democrats, the suburbs have swung so far that a neutral map would probably still be 6D/2R there.  Republicans have a downballot advantage in all but the most rural swing states, but it's also fundamentally easier for Democrats to shut Republicans out in their safe states than vice-versa.  KY Republicans still have to concede Louisville and TN Republicans Memphis and Nashville.  NY and MA Democrats don't have any uber-Republican areas to worry about.        

That's interesting. Before the Democrats Gerrymandering of Maryland in 2002, the Republicans held 4 seats. The map present then could be considered neutral or not neutral. But, as it existed, it would have given the Republicans 3 likely seats, all with PVIs of R+7 or higher.

Link

1 in Western Maryland + Howard County
1 in Baltimore + Harford County
1 in the Eastern Shore + Anne Arundel County.

Well the GOP should have MD-6(the one in Northwestern MD) right now. There should be 2 competitive ones as well wether its Sarbanes district by Annapolis or Rupperberger's 3rd district in Towson.

[muon2]

Not necessarily. A dense urban area can be used to send districts from the city out into the suburbs neutralizing GOP votes. IL Dems did that very effectively this cycle. They added two seats out of 18 compared to a neutral map. On the flip side the GOP can use the urban packing against the Dems as in OH.

Yes, but what about in a neutral map?

A neutral map filed in IL was 10D-8R, and a neutral one filed in OH was 8-8. Both plans also had a significant number of competitive seats built in.

IL should be 11-7 D or at least 12-6 D. OH maybe like 9-7 or 10-6 R. Depends where the population is growing in OH. Cleveland and Toledo are seeing decreasing population and those 2 area's are Solid D.

Cook county is 40% of the state's population but is so solidly Dem that it alone is sufficient to elect a statewide Dem. Quinn only carried three other counties (of 102 in the state) in 2010 and then those three only had pluralities for Quinn, yet 64% of the Cook vote was enough to win.

Generally the Dems have to run tendrils from Cook into the collar counties to gain more seats in Chicagoland. As some of the collars like Lake shift Dem then the D packing won't be as pronounced in NE IL. The CDs are so large downstate that they will tend R unless the isolated urban centers are intentionally linked.

[Torie]

But you have this theory no Muon2 that population density breeds Democrats? So if one believes that, than long term that favors a secular trend in favor of the Dems, no? Not that I necessarily subscribe to that theory really (except perhaps on some social issues), but I digress.

In terms of current CD lines, of course the Dems being packed in small places geographically tends to favor the Pubs.

[Kevinstat]

That depends if one man one vote is adhered to or not. Democrats in some places such as PA (for the state legislature, not for Congress) had heavily gerrymandered malapportioned plans in their favor because one man one vote was not adhered to during the 2012 elections.

Come again?  2010 I could get, as that was pre-redistricting, although as with Michigan the Republicans who drew the maps would have only themselves to blame for that (not that Republicans in Michigan were complaining about the Democratic vote sinks having too few people at the end of the decade when several other, overpopulated Republican districts had loads of wasted (cracked) Democratic voters).

The 2012 Pennsylvania elections were held under the 2000 maps that gave the Democrats extra seats in Western Pennsylvania as determined by 2010 census figures. The Democrats were upset about losing seats in Western Pennsylvania in the 2012 redistricting and jammed the plan in court.

Of course, the 9% population contraction in Pittsburgh and similar contraction in the surround areas essentially mandated that the Democrats lose seats. They didn't win either chamber even with the bonus seats. They tried to jam the 2014 plan in court as well but failed.

I clarified your earlier post for the benefit of those reading it.

[pbrower2a]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

[muon2]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

MN was drawn by the court.

There are arguably more districts where Dems dominate and the primary is the only election that matters. Those districts should pull to the left as much as the solid Pub districts pull right.

[Sbane]

Republicans effectively packed Democrats into hyper-urban districts in MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, and VA and divided the rest of the state almost on an at-large basis. Such is effective for giving an edge to just about any Republican politician because in the extra-urban districts (including some with liberal-leaning cities like Kalamazoo, Lansing, and South Bend that can be effectively diluted with rural votes) the district might have a 54-46 split in Presidential elections.

The hazard for Republicans is that they could get just about any Republican elected, including some people very far to the Right on the political spectrum. Winning the Republican primary would be all that matters, and as the Republican Party goes increasingly to the Right, so do the Republican nominees for the House in the rural and semi-urban districts. But such nominees can eventually offend the sensibilities of such moderates as there are. We may see a Democrat well suited to a D+4 district defeating an incumbent  Republican well suited for an R+40 district in R+5 (Cook PVI) districts in many districts that Republicans gerrymandered to the immediate benefit of Tea Party pols.

Republicans may have gotten some poisoned wins in 2010.       

MN was drawn by the court.

There are arguably more districts where Dems dominate and the primary is the only election that matters. Those districts should pull to the left as much as the solid Pub districts pull right.

And yet you don't see that happening. No one is out there advocating socialism. The Republican primaries on the other hand are full of crazy wingnuts.

To an extent I do believe in the cyclical theory of politics. Just like the Democrats overreached in the 1960's and 1970's after dominating the landscape since the 1930's, we are seeing Republicans overreaching now. That is why you see purity tests being held in R+5 districts while moderates are running without problems in D+15 districts.