Fair maps that could become unfair later in the decade?

[ProgressiveModerate]

What you consider a fair map is up to you

Some possibilities:

AZ: Dems really don't have much room to grow in the map. They may lock into a 5-4 delegation even if they hypothetically started winning statewide by like 10%. On the flip if suburbs revert hard R, Rs could get 7-2 or 6-3. I feel like the map is fairish specifically when AZ is about even politically but if you shift it either way it becomes advantageous to Rs.

CO: Say Denver continues to push the state hard left, but Hispanics shift right, causing CO-08 to stay swingy or even R leaning even if the state becomes like D + 20. CO-03 prolly stays R thanks to Hispanics and the growth in Mesa, CO-05 has downballot R strength, and CO-04 is just too R.

MI: If Dems continue to grow in mid-sized cities and suburbs, I feel like MI-4, MI-7, and MI-10 could all become Dem leaning and MI-03 safe even if the state shifts right and MI-05 flips.

NE: If NE-01 and NE-02 both continue to zoom left while NE-03 grounds the state, we could end up with a 2D - 1R delegation in an R + 10ish state (NE-01 voted about 8 points to the left of the state in 2020).

Again, all of these are huge ifs but interesting to think about.

[Schiff for Senate]

OH would be the opposite before the map got undone - a dummymander and an unfair map that became fair(er), since the GOP created (I believe) a few competitive to reddish seats that would trend leftward and probably flip by the decade's end.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

This assumes that proportionality is the measurement of fairness. Arguably (actually, not just arguably: I'd argue it), all of the above maps are already unfair maps because they're drawn for partisan balance  rather than geographic representation (Michigan more so, Colorado and Nebraska least so).

[Libertas Vel Mors]

What you consider a fair map is up to you

Some possibilities:

AZ: Dems really don't have much room to grow in the map. They may lock into a 5-4 delegation even if they hypothetically started winning statewide by like 10%. On the flip if suburbs revert hard R, Rs could get 7-2 or 6-3. I feel like the map is fairish specifically when AZ is about even politically but if you shift it either way it becomes advantageous to Rs.

CO: Say Denver continues to push the state hard left, but Hispanics shift right, causing CO-08 to stay swingy or even R leaning even if the state becomes like D + 20. CO-03 prolly stays R thanks to Hispanics and the growth in Mesa, CO-05 has downballot R strength, and CO-04 is just too R.

MI: If Dems continue to grow in mid-sized cities and suburbs, I feel like MI-4, MI-7, and MI-10 could all become Dem leaning and MI-03 safe even if the state shifts right and MI-05 flips.

NE: If NE-01 and NE-02 both continue to zoom left while NE-03 grounds the state, we could end up with a 2D - 1R delegation in an R + 10ish state (NE-01 voted about 8 points to the left of the state in 2020).

Again, all of these are huge ifs but interesting to think about.

Also, NE-01 isn't zooming left. It swung left from 2016 to 2020, but it also swung right from 2012 to 2016. It did trend slightly to the left through the decade as a whole, but not by much. I don't have the 2012 numbers for the new district, but the old one was 57-41 for Romney and 56-41 for Trump.

[ProgressiveModerate]

What you consider a fair map is up to you

Some possibilities:

AZ: Dems really don't have much room to grow in the map. They may lock into a 5-4 delegation even if they hypothetically started winning statewide by like 10%. On the flip if suburbs revert hard R, Rs could get 7-2 or 6-3. I feel like the map is fairish specifically when AZ is about even politically but if you shift it either way it becomes advantageous to Rs.

CO: Say Denver continues to push the state hard left, but Hispanics shift right, causing CO-08 to stay swingy or even R leaning even if the state becomes like D + 20. CO-03 prolly stays R thanks to Hispanics and the growth in Mesa, CO-05 has downballot R strength, and CO-04 is just too R.

MI: If Dems continue to grow in mid-sized cities and suburbs, I feel like MI-4, MI-7, and MI-10 could all become Dem leaning and MI-03 safe even if the state shifts right and MI-05 flips.

NE: If NE-01 and NE-02 both continue to zoom left while NE-03 grounds the state, we could end up with a 2D - 1R delegation in an R + 10ish state (NE-01 voted about 8 points to the left of the state in 2020).

Again, all of these are huge ifs but interesting to think about.

Also, NE-01 isn't zooming left. It swung left from 2016 to 2020, but it also swung right from 2012 to 2016. It did trend slightly to the left through the decade as a whole, but not by much. I don't have the 2012 numbers for the new district, but the old one was 57-41 for Romney and 56-41 for Trump.

Fair enough; the reason why I think it'll shift further left (though maybe not Zoom) is because Rs have kinda hit a ceiling in the most rural parts of the district and Lincoln is growing. The reason it shifted right between 2012 and 2016 was because some rural counties that are now like 80% swung 10 points right. That mathematically becomes a difficult task to repeat.

In short, it seems more likely that Omaha and Lincoln would have more room to shift further left and net Dems votes than rural counties.

Again, this is just hypothetical, the chance of it actually flipping si pretty small IMO.