New PA Maps In Effect

[Tartarus Sauce]

Also please FFS Democrats stop defending the Maryland map. It's a monstrosity, plain and simple, and needs to go.

Of course it's a monstrosity, but it's not a gerrymander.

District 6 is the only true gerrymander in the sense that it's actually diluting Republican representation from what we would expect as a baseline of representation. The worst districts in the states, as have been pointed out, are that way due to extravagant incumbent demands. It is wholly unnecessary to draw such convoluted abominations to chop up Anne-Arundel's Republican blocs.

But I think pretty much every Democrat agrees that the Maryland maps need to go. Who's seriously advocating for them to stay the way they are?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also please FFS Democrats stop defending the Maryland map. It's a monstrosity, plain and simple, and needs to go.

Of course it's a monstrosity, but it's not a gerrymander.

It's not a strictly partisan gerrymander, but it's a gerrymander nonetheless.

[Adam Griffin]

If we're going to talk about MD in a PA thread...

MD's one of the hardest states in the country for which to draw fair maps across multiple lines. Besides its very awkward geographic shape, you also have to contend with a less than ideal distribution of metro population and relatively steep VRA requirements as well.

Here's a very beautiful, compact and fair-looking map that guarantees 3 black VRA districts...that still likely results in a 7-1 Democratic delegation in all but the worst years for Democrats. Other than making CD 6 somewhat competitive and forcing Democrats to campaign in Annapolis and the NE suburbs of Baltimore to win CD 7, it's the same outcome.



MD's current map is, of course, biased in favor of nepotism and seniority rather than in favor of any inherent partisan or ideological constraints. In fact, I'd argue that MD is just the place where if the two truly came into direct conflict, said Democrats would gut themselves just to guarantee that a few political dynasties never had to face a competitive election.

[Gass3268]

Also please FFS Democrats stop defending the Maryland map. It's a monstrosity, plain and simple, and needs to go.

Of course it's a monstrosity, but it's not a gerrymander.

It's not a strictly partisan gerrymander, but it's a gerrymander nonetheless.

That's fair.

[IceAgeComing]

There's also the fact that; well; if your definition of "fair" is "proportional" then its impossible in any FPTP election to draw any map that fits that definition.  A map that's "fair" and meets that definition in one election probably won't in another election since swings aren't uniform and you can't draw up a map that remains 'fair' over a few elections.

One very expensive solution to this would be to draw up maps after every election and make them "fair" but this is both very expensive and unnecessary and it doesn't really work.  There's one place in the world that did this (it mandated that whoever got the most votes won a majority of seats basically; its been repealed now) was South Australia and they've had that rule since the late 80s and in the last five elections three of them have been wrong winner elections despite the rule.  This is for a few reasons but mainly because of the geographic distribution of the population: rural areas tend to be very solidly Liberal while Brisbane (two-thirds of the state) is Labor but slightly less safe; meaning that in a 50/50 election the Liberals run up large majorities in their heartlands while Labor retain most of the seats in the city an therefore a majority of the seats - highly simplified but I hope that it proves a point.  This is the core issue with this idea of "fairness"; in many places the population distribution is such that if a party has that sort of advantage then its perfectly fair for them to retain it; since that's one of the inherent things that First Past the Post does and if you are breaking up communities and intentionally drawing seats on a partisan basis then, well, that's gerrymandering by itself.  I don't know anything about the political geography of Maryland but if its a state which is politically homogenous then this is especially the case: if you get 40% across the state and don't have that many big areas where you have concentrated support then its basically impossible for you to get significant representation no matter how you draw the map.

The fair way of doing things is for independent commissions with no partisan involvement at all drawing up maps to best represent local communities - with opportunities to consult local people on the maps to ensure that they are happier - and without considering partisan impact.  At a state level that might not be overly proportional - however if you want Proportional Representation then, well, use a PR electoral system and not FPTP - but it'll probably come out in the wash and it'd lead to better representation of distinct communities.  A good PR system would be a lot better at representing minority parties but good luck getting America to do that!

[Antonio the Sixth]

I completely agree. Districts should be based on communities of interests and communities of interests alone. Nothing else should come into consideration.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Also please FFS Democrats stop defending the Maryland map. It's a monstrosity, plain and simple, and needs to go.

Of course it's a monstrosity, but it's not a gerrymander.

It's not a strictly partisan gerrymander, but it's a gerrymander nonetheless.

That's fair.

I've always viewed it as a pretty egregious gerrymander for protecting incumbents in the primaries. That being said, the effect is much less in the general. It's a very different animal than the maps in states like North Carolina or (formerly) Pennsylvania.

[Sol]

in many places the population distribution is such that if a party has that sort of advantage then its perfectly fair for them to retain it; since that's one of the inherent things that First Past the Post does and if you are breaking up communities and intentionally drawing seats on a partisan basis then, well, that's gerrymandering by itself.  I don't know anything about the political geography of Maryland but if its a state which is politically homogenous then this is especially the case: if you get 40% across the state and don't have that many big areas where you have concentrated support then its basically impossible for you to get significant representation no matter how you draw the map.

The thing about Maryland is that it's quite the opposite; Republicans on a fair map would probably be a bit overrepresented, even in a pretty Democratic state. They'd be guaranteed a very safe district in the Eastern shore, and likely one in the West too. Plus they'd be liable to get a district or two in southern Maryland or suburban Baltimore, depending on how the map is drawn. The possibility of a 4-4 map in a state where Trump got only a third of the vote...probably a lot of why Democrats are defending gerrymandering even though it's still unconscionable in this case.

[Oryxslayer]

in many places the population distribution is such that if a party has that sort of advantage then its perfectly fair for them to retain it; since that's one of the inherent things that First Past the Post does and if you are breaking up communities and intentionally drawing seats on a partisan basis then, well, that's gerrymandering by itself.  I don't know anything about the political geography of Maryland but if its a state which is politically homogenous then this is especially the case: if you get 40% across the state and don't have that many big areas where you have concentrated support then its basically impossible for you to get significant representation no matter how you draw the map.

The thing about Maryland is that it's quite the opposite; Republicans on a fair map would probably be a bit overrepresented, even in a pretty Democratic state. They'd be guaranteed a very safe district in the Eastern shore, and likely one in the West too. Plus they'd be liable to get a district or two in southern Maryland or suburban Baltimore, depending on how the map is drawn. The possibility of a 4-4 map in a state where Trump got only a third of the vote...probably a lot of why Democrats are defending gerrymandering even though it's still unconscionable in this case.

Yes, unlike California and Massachusetts where Democratic voters are very nicely distributed (and thus Democrats over represented in the delegation), a fair Maryland would probably be about 5D-3R

Most fair MD maps I draw tend to be 5 - 2 - 1. Five D seats: 2 PG seats (1 BVAP plus tidewater rurals to prevent racial packing, and one mixed seat North of DC) 1 Montgomery seat, 1 Baltimore BVAP seat, and one Baltimore county Dem seat. Two R seats: The current 1st on the East Shore and Harford, and the 6th which is pushed out of Montgomery and into Carroll and North Baltimore. The battleground seat is based out Anne Arundel, but has to grab blue leaning areas around it, like Howard, Baltimore, or the DC suburbs. With Anne's shift left, along with the rest of the DC core though, one might not be able to call the seat competitive anymore.

[Tartarus Sauce]

in many places the population distribution is such that if a party has that sort of advantage then its perfectly fair for them to retain it; since that's one of the inherent things that First Past the Post does and if you are breaking up communities and intentionally drawing seats on a partisan basis then, well, that's gerrymandering by itself.  I don't know anything about the political geography of Maryland but if its a state which is politically homogenous then this is especially the case: if you get 40% across the state and don't have that many big areas where you have concentrated support then its basically impossible for you to get significant representation no matter how you draw the map.

The thing about Maryland is that it's quite the opposite; Republicans on a fair map would probably be a bit overrepresented, even in a pretty Democratic state. They'd be guaranteed a very safe district in the Eastern shore, and likely one in the West too. Plus they'd be liable to get a district or two in southern Maryland or suburban Baltimore, depending on how the map is drawn. The possibility of a 4-4 map in a state where Trump got only a third of the vote...probably a lot of why Democrats are defending gerrymandering even though it's still unconscionable in this case.

Yes, unlike California and Massachusetts where Democratic voters are very nicely distributed (and thus Democrats over represented in the delegation), a fair Maryland would probably be about 5D-3R

Most fair MD maps I draw tend to be 5 - 2 - 1. Five D seats: 2 PG seats (1 BVAP plus tidewater rurals to prevent racial packing, and one mixed seat North of DC) 1 Montgomery seat, 1 Baltimore BVAP seat, and one Baltimore county Dem seat. Two R seats: The current 1st on the East Shore and Harford, and the 6th which is pushed out of Montgomery and into Carroll and North Baltimore. The battleground seat is based out Anne Arundel, but has to grab blue leaning areas around it, like Howard, Baltimore, or the DC suburbs. With Anne's shift left, along with the rest of the DC core though, one might not be able to call the seat competitive anymore.

^This, it's impossible to make three safe Republican seats without extreme gerrymandering. At best, a third competitive seat could be made.

[Nyvin]

in many places the population distribution is such that if a party has that sort of advantage then its perfectly fair for them to retain it; since that's one of the inherent things that First Past the Post does and if you are breaking up communities and intentionally drawing seats on a partisan basis then, well, that's gerrymandering by itself.  I don't know anything about the political geography of Maryland but if its a state which is politically homogenous then this is especially the case: if you get 40% across the state and don't have that many big areas where you have concentrated support then its basically impossible for you to get significant representation no matter how you draw the map.

The thing about Maryland is that it's quite the opposite; Republicans on a fair map would probably be a bit overrepresented, even in a pretty Democratic state. They'd be guaranteed a very safe district in the Eastern shore, and likely one in the West too. Plus they'd be liable to get a district or two in southern Maryland or suburban Baltimore, depending on how the map is drawn. The possibility of a 4-4 map in a state where Trump got only a third of the vote...probably a lot of why Democrats are defending gerrymandering even though it's still unconscionable in this case.

Yes, unlike California and Massachusetts where Democratic voters are very nicely distributed (and thus Democrats over represented in the delegation), a fair Maryland would probably be about 5D-3R

Most fair MD maps I draw tend to be 5 - 2 - 1. Five D seats: 2 PG seats (1 BVAP plus tidewater rurals to prevent racial packing, and one mixed seat North of DC) 1 Montgomery seat, 1 Baltimore BVAP seat, and one Baltimore county Dem seat. Two R seats: The current 1st on the East Shore and Harford, and the 6th which is pushed out of Montgomery and into Carroll and North Baltimore. The battleground seat is based out Anne Arundel, but has to grab blue leaning areas around it, like Howard, Baltimore, or the DC suburbs. With Anne's shift left, along with the rest of the DC core though, one might not be able to call the seat competitive anymore.

^This, it's impossible to make three safe Republican seats without extreme gerrymandering. At best, a third competitive seat could be made.

Especially with 2016 numbers

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

in many places the population distribution is such that if a party has that sort of advantage then its perfectly fair for them to retain it; since that's one of the inherent things that First Past the Post does and if you are breaking up communities and intentionally drawing seats on a partisan basis then, well, that's gerrymandering by itself.  I don't know anything about the political geography of Maryland but if its a state which is politically homogenous then this is especially the case: if you get 40% across the state and don't have that many big areas where you have concentrated support then its basically impossible for you to get significant representation no matter how you draw the map.

The thing about Maryland is that it's quite the opposite; Republicans on a fair map would probably be a bit overrepresented, even in a pretty Democratic state. They'd be guaranteed a very safe district in the Eastern shore, and likely one in the West too. Plus they'd be liable to get a district or two in southern Maryland or suburban Baltimore, depending on how the map is drawn. The possibility of a 4-4 map in a state where Trump got only a third of the vote...probably a lot of why Democrats are defending gerrymandering even though it's still unconscionable in this case.

Yes, unlike California and Massachusetts where Democratic voters are very nicely distributed (and thus Democrats over represented in the delegation), a fair Maryland would probably be about 5D-3R

Most fair MD maps I draw tend to be 5 - 2 - 1. Five D seats: 2 PG seats (1 BVAP plus tidewater rurals to prevent racial packing, and one mixed seat North of DC) 1 Montgomery seat, 1 Baltimore BVAP seat, and one Baltimore county Dem seat. Two R seats: The current 1st on the East Shore and Harford, and the 6th which is pushed out of Montgomery and into Carroll and North Baltimore. The battleground seat is based out Anne Arundel, but has to grab blue leaning areas around it, like Howard, Baltimore, or the DC suburbs. With Anne's shift left, along with the rest of the DC core though, one might not be able to call the seat competitive anymore.

^This, it's impossible to make three safe Republican seats without extreme gerrymandering. At best, a third competitive seat could be made.

To expand on the Voting Rights Act problems a Republican district based on Anne Arundel, St. Mary's, and Calvert Counties might raise: the district one would have to draw to its west based on Prince George's County and Charles County would be over 67% black, probably the highest in the country.

[Sol]

I wonder if Maryland will have to draw another VRA district in 2020.

[Antonio the Sixth]

in many places the population distribution is such that if a party has that sort of advantage then its perfectly fair for them to retain it; since that's one of the inherent things that First Past the Post does and if you are breaking up communities and intentionally drawing seats on a partisan basis then, well, that's gerrymandering by itself.  I don't know anything about the political geography of Maryland but if its a state which is politically homogenous then this is especially the case: if you get 40% across the state and don't have that many big areas where you have concentrated support then its basically impossible for you to get significant representation no matter how you draw the map.

The thing about Maryland is that it's quite the opposite; Republicans on a fair map would probably be a bit overrepresented, even in a pretty Democratic state. They'd be guaranteed a very safe district in the Eastern shore, and likely one in the West too. Plus they'd be liable to get a district or two in southern Maryland or suburban Baltimore, depending on how the map is drawn. The possibility of a 4-4 map in a state where Trump got only a third of the vote...probably a lot of why Democrats are defending gerrymandering even though it's still unconscionable in this case.

Yes, unlike California and Massachusetts where Democratic voters are very nicely distributed (and thus Democrats over represented in the delegation), a fair Maryland would probably be about 5D-3R

Most fair MD maps I draw tend to be 5 - 2 - 1. Five D seats: 2 PG seats (1 BVAP plus tidewater rurals to prevent racial packing, and one mixed seat North of DC) 1 Montgomery seat, 1 Baltimore BVAP seat, and one Baltimore county Dem seat. Two R seats: The current 1st on the East Shore and Harford, and the 6th which is pushed out of Montgomery and into Carroll and North Baltimore. The battleground seat is based out Anne Arundel, but has to grab blue leaning areas around it, like Howard, Baltimore, or the DC suburbs. With Anne's shift left, along with the rest of the DC core though, one might not be able to call the seat competitive anymore.

^This, it's impossible to make three safe Republican seats without extreme gerrymandering. At best, a third competitive seat could be made.

To expand on the Voting Rights Act problems a Republican district based on Anne Arundel, St. Mary's, and Calvert Counties might raise: the district one would have to draw to its west based on Prince George's County and Charles County would be over 67% black, probably the highest in the country.

If the natural community of interest is 67% Black, then so should the district. To do otherwise is just another kind of gerrymandering.

[Gass3268]

in many places the population distribution is such that if a party has that sort of advantage then its perfectly fair for them to retain it; since that's one of the inherent things that First Past the Post does and if you are breaking up communities and intentionally drawing seats on a partisan basis then, well, that's gerrymandering by itself.  I don't know anything about the political geography of Maryland but if its a state which is politically homogenous then this is especially the case: if you get 40% across the state and don't have that many big areas where you have concentrated support then its basically impossible for you to get significant representation no matter how you draw the map.

The thing about Maryland is that it's quite the opposite; Republicans on a fair map would probably be a bit overrepresented, even in a pretty Democratic state. They'd be guaranteed a very safe district in the Eastern shore, and likely one in the West too. Plus they'd be liable to get a district or two in southern Maryland or suburban Baltimore, depending on how the map is drawn. The possibility of a 4-4 map in a state where Trump got only a third of the vote...probably a lot of why Democrats are defending gerrymandering even though it's still unconscionable in this case.

Yes, unlike California and Massachusetts where Democratic voters are very nicely distributed (and thus Democrats over represented in the delegation), a fair Maryland would probably be about 5D-3R

Most fair MD maps I draw tend to be 5 - 2 - 1. Five D seats: 2 PG seats (1 BVAP plus tidewater rurals to prevent racial packing, and one mixed seat North of DC) 1 Montgomery seat, 1 Baltimore BVAP seat, and one Baltimore county Dem seat. Two R seats: The current 1st on the East Shore and Harford, and the 6th which is pushed out of Montgomery and into Carroll and North Baltimore. The battleground seat is based out Anne Arundel, but has to grab blue leaning areas around it, like Howard, Baltimore, or the DC suburbs. With Anne's shift left, along with the rest of the DC core though, one might not be able to call the seat competitive anymore.

^This, it's impossible to make three safe Republican seats without extreme gerrymandering. At best, a third competitive seat could be made.

To expand on the Voting Rights Act problems a Republican district based on Anne Arundel, St. Mary's, and Calvert Counties might raise: the district one would have to draw to its west based on Prince George's County and Charles County would be over 67% black, probably the highest in the country.

If the natural community of interest is 67% Black, then so should the district. VRA districts are an abomination and should be tossed.

That would be illegal.

[Tintrlvr]

in many places the population distribution is such that if a party has that sort of advantage then its perfectly fair for them to retain it; since that's one of the inherent things that First Past the Post does and if you are breaking up communities and intentionally drawing seats on a partisan basis then, well, that's gerrymandering by itself.  I don't know anything about the political geography of Maryland but if its a state which is politically homogenous then this is especially the case: if you get 40% across the state and don't have that many big areas where you have concentrated support then its basically impossible for you to get significant representation no matter how you draw the map.

The thing about Maryland is that it's quite the opposite; Republicans on a fair map would probably be a bit overrepresented, even in a pretty Democratic state. They'd be guaranteed a very safe district in the Eastern shore, and likely one in the West too. Plus they'd be liable to get a district or two in southern Maryland or suburban Baltimore, depending on how the map is drawn. The possibility of a 4-4 map in a state where Trump got only a third of the vote...probably a lot of why Democrats are defending gerrymandering even though it's still unconscionable in this case.

Yes, unlike California and Massachusetts where Democratic voters are very nicely distributed (and thus Democrats over represented in the delegation), a fair Maryland would probably be about 5D-3R

Most fair MD maps I draw tend to be 5 - 2 - 1. Five D seats: 2 PG seats (1 BVAP plus tidewater rurals to prevent racial packing, and one mixed seat North of DC) 1 Montgomery seat, 1 Baltimore BVAP seat, and one Baltimore county Dem seat. Two R seats: The current 1st on the East Shore and Harford, and the 6th which is pushed out of Montgomery and into Carroll and North Baltimore. The battleground seat is based out Anne Arundel, but has to grab blue leaning areas around it, like Howard, Baltimore, or the DC suburbs. With Anne's shift left, along with the rest of the DC core though, one might not be able to call the seat competitive anymore.

^This, it's impossible to make three safe Republican seats without extreme gerrymandering. At best, a third competitive seat could be made.

To expand on the Voting Rights Act problems a Republican district based on Anne Arundel, St. Mary's, and Calvert Counties might raise: the district one would have to draw to its west based on Prince George's County and Charles County would be over 67% black, probably the highest in the country.

If the natural community of interest is 67% Black, then so should the district. To do otherwise is just another kind of gerrymandering.

Not if it reduces the power of the black community to elect candidates of their choice in surrounding districts. There are other ways to draw natural community-of-interest districts that result in a majority black and a plurality black district in the area. This is why St. Marys-Calvert-Anne Arundel doesn't work. St. Marys and Calvert have to be attached to Charles and PG so as not to overly concentrate the black vote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Racial makeup is one of the features that defines a community of interest (although by no means the only one). So if you have a contiguous area of majority-Black precincts populous enough to make up one district, the natural choice (again, ceteris paribus) is to regroup all these precincts into one district. To split them into multiple districts is essentially a form of "cracking" and shouldn't be encouraged. The fact that this might result in fewer African-American representatives is unfortunate, but that's an indictment of the single-member-district system in and of itself, not of how districts were drawn. That's why I support PR instead.

[DrScholl]

Racial polarization makes it impossible not to use race in drawing districts many places. Black voters would have zero representation in southern states if not for VRA mandates. And furthermore, packing voters can be a form of gerrymandering even if it does look geographically neat.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Racial makeup is one of the features that defines a community of interest (although by no means the only one). So if you have a contiguous area of majority-Black precincts populous enough to make up one district, the natural choice (again, ceteris paribus) is to regroup all these precincts into one district. To split them into multiple districts is essentially a form of "cracking" and shouldn't be encouraged. The fact that this might result in fewer African-American representatives is unfortunate, but that's an indictment of the single-member-district system in and of itself, not of how districts were drawn. That's why I support PR instead.

AAs vote like 90-10 Democratic on a bad day. It would basically be packing Democrats into one district diluting AA political influence while simultaneously making other districts less competitive for Democrats. I would agree with you if the black vote was remotely competitive between the two parties.

[Nyvin]

Racial makeup is one of the features that defines a community of interest (although by no means the only one). So if you have a contiguous area of majority-Black precincts populous enough to make up one district, the natural choice (again, ceteris paribus) is to regroup all these precincts into one district. To split them into multiple districts is essentially a form of "cracking" and shouldn't be encouraged. The fact that this might result in fewer African-American representatives is unfortunate, but that's an indictment of the single-member-district system in and of itself, not of how districts were drawn. That's why I support PR instead.

You should split the populations to form districts were the minority population can choose a candidate of their choice,  which is how the VRA is designed.   

If you pack them all into one district you are diluting the voting power of the minority population, which is one feature of the Jim Crow laws from back in the day.   That was considered racist for a good reason.

[Oryxslayer]

Racial makeup is one of the features that defines a community of interest (although by no means the only one). So if you have a contiguous area of majority-Black precincts populous enough to make up one district, the natural choice (again, ceteris paribus) is to regroup all these precincts into one district. To split them into multiple districts is essentially a form of "cracking" and shouldn't be encouraged. The fact that this might result in fewer African-American representatives is unfortunate, but that's an indictment of the single-member-district system in and of itself, not of how districts were drawn. That's why I support PR instead.

You should split the populations to form districts were the minority population can choose a candidate of their choice,  which is how the VRA is designed.   

If you pack them all into one district you are diluting the voting power of the minority population, which is one feature of the Jim Crow laws from back in the day.   That was considered racist for a good reason.

Yep, and the courts have ruled many times that racial packing is illegal on these lines, and have thrown out many maps. The VA case in 2015/16 threw out a district under these rules that was less than 56% AA. I always say communities of interest are the simplest and best way to draw districts with the exception of VRA seats. A pure PG seat would be illegal and thrown out as racial packing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm well aware of what VRA jurisprudence says. As I said, it's a terrible solution to a real problem. You can't improve representation by drawing districts that are a mishmash of communities with nothing in common just because this is likely to maximize the number of representatives for a given race. This is, again, simply not how single-member systems are supposed to work. Want fair racial representation? Switch to PR.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I'm well aware of what VRA jurisprudence says. As I said, it's a terrible solution to a real problem. You can't improve representation by drawing districts that are a mishmash of communities with nothing in common just because this is likely to maximize the number of representatives for a given race. This is, again, simply not how single-member systems are supposed to work. Want fair racial representation? Switch to PR.

We should switch to PR, for this and a number of other reasons. But until that happens, the VRA system is the best that we have.

[Tintrlvr]

I'm well aware of what VRA jurisprudence says. As I said, it's a terrible solution to a real problem. You can't improve representation by drawing districts that are a mishmash of communities with nothing in common just because this is likely to maximize the number of representatives for a given race. This is, again, simply not how single-member systems are supposed to work. Want fair racial representation? Switch to PR.

It’s not like PG-Charles-St Marys-Calvert is some crazy gerrymander. That’s also a community of interest: eastern DC suburban-exurban areas. In a lot of ways St Marys and Calvert connect more to PG and Charles than to Anne Arundel. All else equal, I’d think the two were comparably valid options, but the racial element clearly makes the Anne Arundel alignment untenable.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Not to derail, but anyone have a read/take on the primary in the PA-05? Lefty friends in the area have been talking up Rich Lazer to me.