2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Indiana

[I’m not Stu]

The Garymander is so unsightly.

[I’m not Stu]

Is it legal, or at least physically possible to draw a 9R-0D map in Indiana? It's legal to draw 18D-0R or 17D-0R maps in Illinois.

[I’m not Stu]

Is it legal, or at least physically possible to draw a 9R-0D map in Indiana? It's legal to draw 18D-0R or 17D-0R maps in Illinois.

probably legal, definitely inadvisable.  Also Illinois can't do that.  3 black and 1 hispanic vra seat are mandated.  Once you take those out, IL is much less blue and an 18-0 map could massively backfire and republicans could win a majority in a midterm election.  Also it would be visually appalling.

Somebody supposedly created a 18D-0R VRA-compliant Illinois map with 3 AA and 1 Hispanic. What does a 9R-0D Indiana map look like?
https://twitter.com/BadElectionMaps/status/1212909359572881408

[I’m not Stu]

I did a Republican gerrymander of Indiana. Check out my Garymander of Gary.

My 9R-0D Indiana GOP gerrrymander:



Indianapolis:



Gary:

[I’m not Stu]

You can get away with splitting Gary, and I expect R's to do it, but splitting Marion is much riskier. Your 1st or 2nd could be vulnerable in a wave or with a bad candidate. 8-1 is a much safer play than 9-0. Plus this ugly map probably leads to calls for reform, which the INGOP doesn't want, you can split Lake in much cleaner ways than you did, as well. 9-0 is very unlikely for all of these reasons.

Look what I did to Gary on my 9R-0D map. Look at the purple district.

[I’m not Stu]

You can get away with splitting Gary, and I expect R's to do it, but splitting Marion is much riskier. Your 1st or 2nd could be vulnerable in a wave or with a bad candidate. 8-1 is a much safer play than 9-0. Plus this ugly map probably leads to calls for reform, which the INGOP doesn't want, you can split Lake in much cleaner ways than you did, as well. 9-0 is very unlikely for all of these reasons.

I don't care how cleanly Lake is split. I just wanted 9-0.

[I’m not Stu]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

They could just stick him in an D+1 or so district and hope he loses to a strong R challenger in the next wave. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

why not 8-1?  If 9-0 is plausible, 8-1 is easy.

But I don't agree with either statement.

Indiana is Trump+19, you can make a map where every district is at least double digits for Trump.  Risky, but it would likely end up working.  

This applies to everyone who is drawing maps for states without an unbiased citizen-led commission: Partisanship is not the only concern when drawing districts, and is sometimes not the most important. Incumbents or legislative allies can and will level demands that oftentimes cannot be ignored without making enemies out of some faction of your caucus, who in time may enact their revenge. Mappers may have geographic or cultural biases and draw maps to those groups favor - as seen in Louisiana 2010 and the Northern-favoring state GOP leadership. Sometimes states fear outside action, be that citizen referendum or the DOJ back before Shelby, and maybe once again if a Biden trifecta creates modern section 4 guidelines for our data driven era.

The only real times when partisanship is the only factor in redistricting is when the mappers fear for their political lives - best seen in the last maps Georgia and Texas democrats put into law.

I know there are other concerns.  My point is, 9=0 is mathematically possible, so the GOP should try for 8-1 or at the very least 7-1-1. But 8-1 is possible where the only R seat that's competitive is IN-1, incumbent homes staying  their districts, and it isn't extremely ugly.  Also, Pete Visclosky is retiring, so in 2022 Republicans would be running against a freshman dem (Frank Mrvan), who should be easier to defeat than an entrenched incumbent.  Especially if IN-1 trends R again in 2020, the seat is gone.  

Updated my map. Every seat at least R+11. My map would likely hold up with no risk of backfiring. No seat is R+10 or less.

1: R+11, 2: R+11, 3: R+11, 4:R+11, 5: R+12, 6: R+20, 7: R+30, 8: R+24, 9: R+14

[I’m not Stu]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

They could just stick him in an D+1 or so district and hope he loses to a strong R challenger in the next wave. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

why not 8-1?  If 9-0 is plausible, 8-1 is easy.

But I don't agree with either statement.

Indiana is Trump+19, you can make a map where every district is at least double digits for Trump.  Risky, but it would likely end up working.  

This applies to everyone who is drawing maps for states without an unbiased citizen-led commission: Partisanship is not the only concern when drawing districts, and is sometimes not the most important. Incumbents or legislative allies can and will level demands that oftentimes cannot be ignored without making enemies out of some faction of your caucus, who in time may enact their revenge. Mappers may have geographic or cultural biases and draw maps to those groups favor - as seen in Louisiana 2010 and the Northern-favoring state GOP leadership. Sometimes states fear outside action, be that citizen referendum or the DOJ back before Shelby, and maybe once again if a Biden trifecta creates modern section 4 guidelines for our data driven era.

The only real times when partisanship is the only factor in redistricting is when the mappers fear for their political lives - best seen in the last maps Georgia and Texas democrats put into law.

I know there are other concerns.  My point is, 9=0 is mathematically possible, so the GOP should try for 8-1 or at the very least 7-1-1. But 8-1 is possible where the only R seat that's competitive is IN-1, incumbent homes staying  their districts, and it isn't extremely ugly.  Also, Pete Visclosky is retiring, so in 2022 Republicans would be running against a freshman dem (Frank Mrvan), who should be easier to defeat than an entrenched incumbent.  Especially if IN-1 trends R again in 2020, the seat is gone.  

Updated my map. Every seat at least R+11. My map would likely hold up with no risk of backfiring. No seat is R+10 or less.

1: R+11, 2: R+11, 3: R+11, 4:R+11, 5: R+12, 6: R+20, 7: R+30, 8: R+24, 9: R+14

Impressive, but draws incumbents out of their districts.  An 8-1 would be safer, cleaner, and satisfy incumbents.

9-0 is doable. I don't care about satisfying incumbents. See my California maps.

Levin is drawn out (replaced by Democratic Escondido seat):



Porter is drawn out (OC gets fewer seats due to fewer county splits and Irvine is moved into a coastal seat); Lowenthal is drawn out but might retire anyway (Lowenthal's seat loses Long Beach and Lakewood, turning it into a coastal OC Asian seat with Huntington Beach):



Garamendi is drawn out:

[I’m not Stu]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

They could just stick him in an D+1 or so district and hope he loses to a strong R challenger in the next wave. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

why not 8-1?  If 9-0 is plausible, 8-1 is easy.

But I don't agree with either statement.

Indiana is Trump+19, you can make a map where every district is at least double digits for Trump.  Risky, but it would likely end up working.  

This applies to everyone who is drawing maps for states without an unbiased citizen-led commission: Partisanship is not the only concern when drawing districts, and is sometimes not the most important. Incumbents or legislative allies can and will level demands that oftentimes cannot be ignored without making enemies out of some faction of your caucus, who in time may enact their revenge. Mappers may have geographic or cultural biases and draw maps to those groups favor - as seen in Louisiana 2010 and the Northern-favoring state GOP leadership. Sometimes states fear outside action, be that citizen referendum or the DOJ back before Shelby, and maybe once again if a Biden trifecta creates modern section 4 guidelines for our data driven era.

The only real times when partisanship is the only factor in redistricting is when the mappers fear for their political lives - best seen in the last maps Georgia and Texas democrats put into law.

I know there are other concerns.  My point is, 9=0 is mathematically possible, so the GOP should try for 8-1 or at the very least 7-1-1. But 8-1 is possible where the only R seat that's competitive is IN-1, incumbent homes staying  their districts, and it isn't extremely ugly.  Also, Pete Visclosky is retiring, so in 2022 Republicans would be running against a freshman dem (Frank Mrvan), who should be easier to defeat than an entrenched incumbent.  Especially if IN-1 trends R again in 2020, the seat is gone.  

Updated my map. Every seat at least R+11. My map would likely hold up with no risk of backfiring. No seat is R+10 or less.

1: R+11, 2: R+11, 3: R+11, 4:R+11, 5: R+12, 6: R+20, 7: R+30, 8: R+24, 9: R+14

Impressive, but draws incumbents out of their districts.  An 8-1 would be safer, cleaner, and satisfy incumbents.

9-0 is doable. I don't care about incumbent protection. See my California maps.

Levin is drawn out (replaced by Democratic Escondido seat); Issa/Campa-Najjar also drawn out (replaced by OC south hills, Oceanside, and wine country seat):



Porter is drawn out (OC gets fewer seats due to fewer county splits and Irvine is moved into a coastal seat); Lowenthal is drawn out but might retire anyway (Lowenthal's seat loses Long Beach and Lakewood, turning it into a coastal OC Asian seat with Huntington Beach):



Garamendi is drawn out:

CA is drawn by an independent commission.  IN is drawn by the legislature, they will protect Republican incumbents.  

Yes, but I pointed out that I personally don't care about protecting incumbents when I draw maps. My California and Indiana maps both draw out incumbents. My Indiana map is safe from Democratic waves.

[I’m not Stu]

What is the most odd connection of areas on my Indiana 9-0 map?

[I’m not Stu]

Might Gary end up with an all-Republican delegation?

[I’m not Stu]

None of the seats of my gerrymander are competitive.

[I’m not Stu]

None of the seats of my gerrymander are competitive.

yeah but IN won't draw a map that ugly. 

What's the weirdest thing I did on my ugly gerrymander?

[I’m not Stu]

Would cracking IN-01 require drawing Walorski out of IN-02?

[I’m not Stu]

Would cracking IN-01 require drawing Walorski out of IN-02?

No see my map above it satisfies all R incumbents

I wonder if the INGOP is willing to draw out Walorski to make an even more extreme map.

[I’m not Stu]

Does the INGOP care about protecting incumbent Republicans?

[I’m not Stu]

My wacky 9R-0D Pubmander map that cracks Gary and Indianapolis. It’s a maximalist IDGAF about incumbents GOP map.