House breakdown if...

[muon2]

I've added detail to the map above for NJ and upstate NY.

NJ: No towns needed to be split, rules P-1,2,3 are all zero. That's the good news. NJ has three couties large enough for a whole district, but another nine counties with over half the size of a CD. Splits become inevitable. For P-4, I split three (Burlington, Camden and Morris). For P-5 only one (Essex) while Bergen and Middlesex keep a whole district within. There are fifteen partial districts for P-6, and the maximum occurs many times: P-7 is three.

Upstate NY: NYC, LI, Westchester and Putnam equal 18 CDs. That leaves 11 for the rest of the state. For that area P-4 equals two (Oneida and Sullivan), and P-5 equals zero. With many counties, fewer partials are needed, P-6 is six and P-7 is two (Oneida and Sullivan).

[minionofmidas]

Western NY is interesting - it looks like there's two safe Dem seats, one ultra-ultra-ultra-repeat at nauseam-ultra safe Rep seat, and one lean Rep seat that should be not impossible for Dems to break.

[muon2]

Are New England seats all Dem execpt southern NH ?

Yes.

NH has one leans D seat and one competitive R seat based on the 2004 presidential vote. Using the 2000 vote they both would be competitive R.

ME has one strong D seat and one leans D seat with the map I posted. All the seats in MA are strong D in 2004.

ME

[socaldem]

Are New England seats all Dem execpt southern NH ?

Yes.

NH has one leans D seat and one competitive R seat based on the 2004 presidential vote. Using the 2000 vote they both would be competitive R.

ME has one strong D seat and one leans D seat with the map I posted. All the seats in MA are strong D in 2004.

ME

What are the breakdowns for the NJ districts?

[muon2]

Here are the breakdowns for NJ and upstate NY:

NJ: The map above would create 4 R (3 strong, 1 lean) and 9 D (7 strong, 2 competitive). The current membership is 7 D, 6 R. This represents a net shift of two seats to competitive D held by R (the southern district and the Passaic county district). I don't know how many R Cds actually voted D in 2004 to know if this is a real shift due to the map.

upstate NY: The map would create 7 R (2 strong, 2 lean, 3 competitive) and 4 D (2 strong, 2 lean). This compares with a current delegation which is also 7 R, 4 D. For those interested the competitive districts are those containing Troy, Poughkeepsie, and Niagara.

[minionofmidas]

While the Dem districts are those including Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and - what? Syracuse?

[muon2]

While the Dem districts are those including Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and - what? Syracuse?

Yes, the Buffalo and Syracuse districts are strong, and the Albany and Rochester districts lean D, though the Albany district is within 0.2% of being strong as well. The Buffalo district is 66% and stronger D than the "ultra ... safe" R district south of Rochester which comes in at 59%.

[minionofmidas]

While the Dem districts are those including Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and - what? Syracuse?

Yes, the Buffalo and Syracuse districts are strong, and the Albany and Rochester districts lean D, though the Albany district is within 0.2% of being strong as well. The Buffalo district is 66% and stronger D than the "ultra ... safe" R district south of Rochester which comes in at 59%.

It was a cursory glance...although I was also thinking of the fact that Reps seem to do better in House elections than presidential ones in the area.

[12th Doctor]

Definitely a few more Democratic districts. The problem is that if you draw districts normally, there's still a lot of wasted votes in overkill Democratic areas like the west Bronx.

I've highlighted the critical part of your post. It's absolutely correct, and in general will weigh against the first part of your quote. For instance, I went through a straight population exercise for IL a few months ago in this thread. If anything it reduces the number of secure Democrat districts by eliminating the gerrymander along the Mississippi (IL-17) and compacting the Chicago districts.

It does increase the competitiveness of many of the districts. Results like Bean's win in IL-8 would be more common. But Republicans would have an equal shot at some lean Democrat districts as well.

Democrats would still be better off, as more states have pro-Republican gerrymandering (like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas).

What about Georgia, North Carolina and New York?  Or don't they count?

For that matter, I could add Alabama and Mississippi.  If they weren't required by law to create majority black districts in those states and map the districts out rationally, every seat would probably go Republican.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For that matter, I could add Alabama and Mississippi.  If they weren't required by law to create majority black districts in those states and map the districts out rationally, every seat would probably go Republican.

Nope; most would go for the sort of conservative Democrats they elect to the state legislature (and like they elected before the unholy coalition of black Democrats and white Republicans got they're way). Besides only one district in MS and one in AL have majority black populations. The Democrats hold two seats in both; methinks it would be nigh on impossible to remove Taylor or Cramer short of gerrymandering.

[jimrtex]

Nope; most would go for the sort of conservative Democrats they elect to the state legislature (and like they elected before the unholy coalition of black Democrats and white Republicans got they're way). Besides only one district in MS and one in AL have majority black populations. The Democrats hold two seats in both; methinks it would be nigh on impossible to remove Taylor or Cramer short of gerrymandering.

When I was looking at the 1994 House results, the GOP came really close to getting Cramer (I think about 2,000 votes).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

When I was looking at the 1994 House results, the GOP came really close to getting Cramer (I think about 2,000 votes).

Yeah, that's true but he seems to have dug himself in pretty well since then.

[12th Doctor]

For that matter, I could add Alabama and Mississippi.  If they weren't required by law to create majority black districts in those states and map the districts out rationally, every seat would probably go Republican.

Nope; most would go for the sort of conservative Democrats they elect to the state legislature (and like they elected before the unholy coalition of black Democrats and white Republicans got they're way). Besides only one district in MS and one in AL have majority black populations. The Democrats hold two seats in both; methinks it would be nigh on impossible to remove Taylor or Cramer short of gerrymandering.

Al, the map of Alabama is Gerrymandered the way it is because of the need to create majority black districts.  If the majority black districts were cur up and spread out in fair,semi-competative congressional districts, then Republicans would probably take those seats.  If people were going to vote for "Conservative Democrats, just liek they do for the state legislatures" then why aren't they doing it now?  It is because the DNC and the state parties in the South and Plains don't have anything to do with one another, beyond formalities.  The disconnect between the National Democrats and many of the state parties is huge and is not mirrored by the Republicans in even the most liberal states.

[12th Doctor]

For that matter, you can ad California.  I slightly less partisan gerrymander there might give the Republicans and additional 3-4 seats.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, the map of Alabama is Gerrymandered the way it is because of the need to create majority black districts.

Yes, I know that. And it's district, not districts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not especially likely. I'm pretty sure you could create a non-gerrymandered black majority district in AL and a non-gerrmandered black majority district in MS. It's just that the black majority wouldn't be as huge in either district as it is now; the knock on effect would be to up the black %'s in tuther districts in both states and weaken the GOP in a couple of other districts as a result.
Racial gerrymandering is wonderful for black democrats and white republicans; if it weren't for the requirement to draw them, Alabama and Mississippi would be pretty bad partisan gerrymanders methinks (as a moral question, which is worse out of partisan gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The extreme north of Alabama and the extreme south of Mississippi do at the moment. Both would be very competative if either congressman retired. Two other Alabama districts (these held by Republicans) should also be very competative in open races (both also in northern Alabama and not effected by the racial gerrymander in a big way) as well, even though Bush took 70% in one of them (that area has one of the most extreme cases of vote splitting in the U.S at the moment interestingly enough) In all four cases it depends on who the candidates are.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Western NY is interesting - it looks like there's two safe Dem seats, one ultra-ultra-ultra-repeat at nauseam-ultra safe Rep seat, and one lean Rep seat that should be not impossible for Dems to break.

I'm assuming the green Buffalo district and the red Rochester district are the Dem seats, the blue district then is the very safe Rep one. So is the red district surrounding Buffalo the lean Rep seat? That's quite similar to the district that was represented by Quinn and now Higgins, and probably would be more of a tossup.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's quite similar to the district that was represented by Quinn and now Higgins, and probably would be more of a tossup.

Not really; in the current map Buffalo is more-or-less split between two districts

[socaldem]

For that matter, you can ad California.  I slightly less partisan gerrymander there might give the Republicans and additional 3-4 seats.

Wrong.  I've actually been working on a Democrtic map...Ive been churning through data, but can't seem to find a decent map to draw my districts on...  but, in any case, the incumbent-protection gerrymander creates a bunch of safe republican and safe democrat districts at the expense of lean democrat districts and toss-ups...

The problem with the california county maps I've found is that the colors dont show up well in ms paint, the only graphic program i have, so its impossible to "spill" color onto the map to designate district lines...

[minionofmidas]

For that matter, you can ad California.  I slightly less partisan gerrymander there might give the Republicans and additional 3-4 seats.

No. If anything it'd be costly to them. Same thing in New York, btw.

[minionofmidas]

That's quite similar to the district that was represented by Quinn and now Higgins, and probably would be more of a tossup.

Not really; in the current map Buffalo is more-or-less split between two districts

On the other hand,the district gains Niagara.

[muon2]

Western NY is interesting - it looks like there's two safe Dem seats, one ultra-ultra-ultra-repeat at nauseam-ultra safe Rep seat, and one lean Rep seat that should be not impossible for Dems to break.

I'm assuming the green Buffalo district and the red Rochester district are the Dem seats, the blue district then is the very safe Rep one. So is the red district surrounding Buffalo the lean Rep seat? That's quite similar to the district that was represented by Quinn and now Higgins, and probably would be more of a tossup.

Here is how my upstate NY districts would have split their 2-party Presidential vote in 2004:

NY 19 (yellow) Newburgh - 53.1% R (lean)
NY 20 (yellow) Troy - 52.0% R (just barely under so it's competitive)
NY 21 (blue) Albany - 54.8% D (lean, but barely)
NY 22 (green) Poughkeepsie -  50.1% R (now that's competitive!)
NY 23 (red) Utica - 53.6% R (lean)
NY 24 (yellow) Binghamton - 55.0% R (strong)
NY 25 (green) Syracuse - 55.7% D (strong)
NY 26 (red) Rochester - 52.2% D (lean)
NY 27 (red) Niagara Falls - 51.9% R (competitive)
NY 28 (green) Buffalo - 66.4% D (strong)
NY 29 (blue) Batavia - 59.3% R (strong)

I'm almost done with NYC and vicinity.

[12th Doctor]

For that matter, you can ad California.  I slightly less partisan gerrymander there might give the Republicans and additional 3-4 seats.

Wrong.  I've actually been working on a Democrtic map...Ive been churning through data, but can't seem to find a decent map to draw my districts on...  but, in any case, the incumbent-protection gerrymander creates a bunch of safe republican and safe democrat districts at the expense of lean democrat districts and toss-ups...

The problem with the california county maps I've found is that the colors dont show up well in ms paint, the only graphic program i have, so its impossible to "spill" color onto the map to designate district lines...

How am I wrong?  If they did not have an incumbent protection Gerrymander, there would probably be more competative seats that could swing Republican during a Republican year, which is what this is.

[minionofmidas]

It's not hard to have more competitive seats...they currently have 1/2 of one. All the Democrats are sitting on way too large majorities for the party's own good. The Reps too, of course. It's a bipartisan gerrymander.
Is this a Republican year? How so? It's not as if they picked up any seats in the House election, regerrymander excluded.

[socaldem]

For that matter, you can ad California.  I slightly less partisan gerrymander there might give the Republicans and additional 3-4 seats.

Wrong.  I've actually been working on a Democrtic map...Ive been churning through data, but can't seem to find a decent map to draw my districts on...  but, in any case, the incumbent-protection gerrymander creates a bunch of safe republican and safe democrat districts at the expense of lean democrat districts and toss-ups...

The problem with the california county maps I've found is that the colors dont show up well in ms paint, the only graphic program i have, so its impossible to "spill" color onto the map to designate district lines...

How am I wrong?  If they did not have an incumbent protection Gerrymander, there would probably be more competative seats that could swing Republican during a Republican year, which is what this is.

Uh, have you seen how California Democrats have been reacting to the national Republican party?  In 2000, every contested election swung to Democrats...  Democrats, independents, and even Republicans here HATE President Bush... have you seen his approval ratings?  The only demographic with whom Bush has ingratiated himself are hispanic voters, but the Latino political community here is very strongly Democratic, so districts that are split even for bush but with large latino populations (i.e. Loretta Sanchez's) are actually fairly Dem-leaning....

So, yeah, how is CA a pro-Republican gerrymander?  Well, first of all, Riverside County is gerrymandered... Ken Calvert's seat, if it did not snake into orange county to pick up Republicans would be highly competitive.  A little tweaking and Mary Bono's district would see the same happen, though she could hold a moderate district.  While blue-dog Adam Schiff could have held on to his ungerrymandered House district, David Dreier would have been extremely vulnerable and might have even lost in a scare last year if the mappers hadn't saved him.  Lois Capps is beloved in Santa Barbara and didn't need gerrymandering help...but a united Ventura county might have put Elton Galleghy in danger.... the Sacramento Valley could support a toss-up district if it weren't gerrmandered... an ungerrymandered Stockton would put Pombo in danger, but I dont think Dems need to really worry about Cardoza... meanwhile, Tauscher was angered that her district was made more Democratic because she represents the moderate East Bay suburbs very well! 

[muon2]

I've completed a map for NYC and vicinity, and filled it into the existing PA/DE/NJ/NY map.



I've already commented on up state NY, so I'll only add comments that pertain to the 18 CDs in the NYC area. As in some of the other states, I'm using the official NYC community districts as if they were towns within their respective counties. A map with the city detail looks like this:



P-1 = five. Four community areas in NYC were split as was Huntington town in Suffolk. I tried to get it to three in NYC over the last couple of weeks, but I'm stuck at four.

P-2 = zero. Only Hempstead in Nassau is over a CD in size, and it gets its own district.

P-3 = fourteen. No area was split more than three ways.

P-4 = zero. Only Putnam and Richmand are smaller than a CD, and both stayed intact. It does create the only geographically strange district as Putnam is linked to the northern Bronx along the eastern edge of towns  in Westchester. Richmond is connected to Kings by the Verazzano Bridge.

P-5 = zero. All the large counties have at least one whollly contained CD.

P-6 = eighteen partial counties.

P-7 = five partial counties in both Kings and Queens.