Georgia 2020 Redistricting Discussion
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:17:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Georgia 2020 Redistricting Discussion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 41
Author Topic: Georgia 2020 Redistricting Discussion  (Read 64426 times)
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,051
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #225 on: June 14, 2020, 03:50:41 PM »

I made a fair Georgia map a while ago. Though it was drawn on pretty fair principles, it did favor Democrats so I thought it would be good to make a version of the same map which more closely paralleled the state's partisan lean:



Here's the the link.

Here's the original version:



link
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #226 on: August 13, 2020, 02:32:43 PM »


Anyway secure 10-4 done by moving the 2nd upto Clayton county although the 2nd is still pretty compact to avoid any claims of a racial gerrymander atleast for that district.

Closest Kemp in north Georgia is Kemp +24.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #227 on: August 13, 2020, 03:30:16 PM »


Anyway secure 10-4 done by moving the 2nd upto Clayton county although the 2nd is still pretty compact to avoid any claims of a racial gerrymander atleast for that district.

Closest Kemp in north Georgia is Kemp +24.
DRA?
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #228 on: August 13, 2020, 03:31:22 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f5c722db-f6e1-4291-852f-49c5f16846ad

The most suburban district(Brown) is still Kemp +29.
Logged
Coastal Elitist
Tea Party Hater
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,251
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.71, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #229 on: September 13, 2020, 06:51:31 PM »

Not sure why so many dems think Kemp and republicans won't go all out in Georgia. This an 11-3 map based on 2018 Governor results. Districts 1-4 actually fit great with 2018 population numbers and probably won't trend much compared to the Atlanta area: https://davesredistricting.org/join/efdd6266-17d2-42c3-a4b8-21a217dc07aa

GA-1: Kemp+12
GA-2: Kemp+12
GA-3: Kemp +14
GA-4: Kemp+14
GA-5: Abrams+64
GA-6: Kemp+22
GA-7: Kemp+21
GA-8: Abrams+66
GA-9: Kemp+23
GA-10: Kemp+34
GA-11: Kemp+26
GA-12: Kemp+20
GA-13: Kemp+22
GA-14: Abrams+72

You can easily get rid of McBath with this map and it's unlikely that this will fail in 10 years.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,542


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #230 on: September 13, 2020, 07:07:26 PM »

Not sure why so many dems think Kemp and republicans won't go all out in Georgia. This an 11-3 map based on 2018 Governor results. Districts 1-4 actually fit great with 2018 population numbers and probably won't trend much compared to the Atlanta area: https://davesredistricting.org/join/efdd6266-17d2-42c3-a4b8-21a217dc07aa

GA-1: Kemp+12
GA-2: Kemp+12
GA-3: Kemp +14
GA-4: Kemp+14
GA-5: Abrams+64
GA-6: Kemp+22
GA-7: Kemp+21
GA-8: Abrams+66
GA-9: Kemp+23
GA-10: Kemp+34
GA-11: Kemp+26
GA-12: Kemp+20
GA-13: Kemp+22
GA-14: Abrams+72

You can easily get rid of McBath with this map and it's unlikely that this will fail in 10 years.

Again, how is the 52% black GA-02 not protected under the VRA?
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #231 on: September 13, 2020, 08:22:01 PM »

One problem for the GOP gerrymanders: as of 2018, it's really easy to draw five compact, majority black districts in Georgia. Democrats could absolutely sue for this on VRA grounds:

Logged
Coastal Elitist
Tea Party Hater
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,251
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.71, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #232 on: September 13, 2020, 08:45:37 PM »

Not sure why so many dems think Kemp and republicans won't go all out in Georgia. This an 11-3 map based on 2018 Governor results. Districts 1-4 actually fit great with 2018 population numbers and probably won't trend much compared to the Atlanta area: https://davesredistricting.org/join/efdd6266-17d2-42c3-a4b8-21a217dc07aa

GA-1: Kemp+12
GA-2: Kemp+12
GA-3: Kemp +14
GA-4: Kemp+14
GA-5: Abrams+64
GA-6: Kemp+22
GA-7: Kemp+21
GA-8: Abrams+66
GA-9: Kemp+23
GA-10: Kemp+34
GA-11: Kemp+26
GA-12: Kemp+20
GA-13: Kemp+22
GA-14: Abrams+72

You can easily get rid of McBath with this map and it's unlikely that this will fail in 10 years.

Again, how is the 52% black GA-02 not protected under the VRA?
According to DRA it's only 49.4% black and I'm not aware of that being true.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,542


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #233 on: September 14, 2020, 06:56:49 AM »
« Edited: September 14, 2020, 07:12:47 AM by Mr.Phips »

Not sure why so many dems think Kemp and republicans won't go all out in Georgia. This an 11-3 map based on 2018 Governor results. Districts 1-4 actually fit great with 2018 population numbers and probably won't trend much compared to the Atlanta area: https://davesredistricting.org/join/efdd6266-17d2-42c3-a4b8-21a217dc07aa

GA-1: Kemp+12
GA-2: Kemp+12
GA-3: Kemp +14
GA-4: Kemp+14
GA-5: Abrams+64
GA-6: Kemp+22
GA-7: Kemp+21
GA-8: Abrams+66
GA-9: Kemp+23
GA-10: Kemp+34
GA-11: Kemp+26
GA-12: Kemp+20
GA-13: Kemp+22
GA-14: Abrams+72

You can easily get rid of McBath with this map and it's unlikely that this will fail in 10 years.

Again, how is the 52% black GA-02 not protected under the VRA?
According to DRA it's only 49.4% black and I'm not aware of that being true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia's_2nd_congressional_district

Even if it is 49.4%, i would think it is still protected.  If not, the. IL-07 (only 46% black) also isn’t protected and Dems would be able to unpack it to help shore up Lauren Underwood.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,563


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #234 on: September 14, 2020, 07:10:10 AM »

It doesn't matter whether the district itself is 50% black. It matters whether the Gingles test is met.

You can easily draw a geographically compact district in SW Georgia in which African-Americans constitute more than 50% of the voting age population; African-Americans in the south without question vote in a politically cohesive manner; the same is equally true of white votes in SW Georgia.

All three legs of the Gingles test are therefore satisfied, unless you can somehow argue that a district based on Columbus and Macon isn't 'geographically compact'. And whilst I could see some courts accepting this argument, that isn't due to the merits of such a claim.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #235 on: September 14, 2020, 09:13:04 AM »

Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #236 on: September 14, 2020, 09:15:20 AM »

At any rate, yeah, with the 2018 Census figures, it's going to be tough for the GOP to not draw 5 VRA-protected districts. That still leaves a huge chunk of the metro that's majority-white and majority-minority that's strongly D as well. From there, they have to decide whether they want to hack and splice into oblivion (potentially risking more lawsuits and/or a late-decade dummymander), or give a 6th seat to Democrats in the northern metro and be safely guaranteed their 8 for the rest of the decade.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,563


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #237 on: September 14, 2020, 10:38:06 AM »

Could you solve that problem just by packing the Atlanta VRA districts? There's no VRA issue in doing this with Gwinnett Latinos and with the current Supreme Court they'd have a decent chance at getting away with moving the VRA districts from the 50s% black to the mid 60s% and getting away with it.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #238 on: September 14, 2020, 06:43:10 PM »

Could you solve that problem just by packing the Atlanta VRA districts? There's no VRA issue in doing this with Gwinnett Latinos and with the current Supreme Court they'd have a decent chance at getting away with moving the VRA districts from the 50s% black to the mid 60s% and getting away with it.

I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Gingles test stipulates that if a protected minority group constitutes a majority of the electorate in a hypothetical compactly-drawn district. African Americans are the only group to which this status applies in Georgia (Gwinnett Latinos couldn't be the majority in any district so can crack them either way). Given it is now possible to draw five compact, majority African American districts in Georgia (Macon-Columbus, South Atlanta Burbs, South Fulton/Douglass/Cobb, Core Atlanta, and East DeKalb/South Gwinnett), it can easily be argued that collapsing the latter four districts into three is an illegal racial gerrymander because it dilutes the natural voting power of Atlanta-area African Americans.

That, however, is the best Dems are getting in GA. The GOP shouldn't run into legal trouble stripping North Fulton/North Cobb/North Gwinnett deep into Appalachia.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,563


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #239 on: September 15, 2020, 03:57:41 AM »

Could you solve that problem just by packing the Atlanta VRA districts? There's no VRA issue in doing this with Gwinnett Latinos and with the current Supreme Court they'd have a decent chance at getting away with moving the VRA districts from the 50s% black to the mid 60s% and getting away with it.

I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Gingles test stipulates that if a protected minority group constitutes a majority of the electorate in a hypothetical compactly-drawn district. African Americans are the only group to which this status applies in Georgia (Gwinnett Latinos couldn't be the majority in any district so can crack them either way). Given it is now possible to draw five compact, majority African American districts in Georgia (Macon-Columbus, South Atlanta Burbs, South Fulton/Douglass/Cobb, Core Atlanta, and East DeKalb/South Gwinnett), it can easily be argued that collapsing the latter four districts into three is an illegal racial gerrymander because it dilutes the natural voting power of Atlanta-area African Americans.

That, however, is the best Dems are getting in GA. The GOP shouldn't run into legal trouble stripping North Fulton/North Cobb/North Gwinnett deep into Appalachia.

Yeah, I didn't mean denying a fourth AA district in metro Atlanta - the only way you're avoiding that is if the Supreme Court is willing to radically reinterpret or strike down the VRA. I meant using those four districts to ensure that you can't draw a fifth Democratic district in the city.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #240 on: September 15, 2020, 11:54:01 AM »

People forget literally half the current active justices on the 11th court are Trump appointees.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #241 on: September 15, 2020, 12:22:24 PM »

Could you solve that problem just by packing the Atlanta VRA districts? There's no VRA issue in doing this with Gwinnett Latinos and with the current Supreme Court they'd have a decent chance at getting away with moving the VRA districts from the 50s% black to the mid 60s% and getting away with it.

I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Gingles test stipulates that if a protected minority group constitutes a majority of the electorate in a hypothetical compactly-drawn district. African Americans are the only group to which this status applies in Georgia (Gwinnett Latinos couldn't be the majority in any district so can crack them either way). Given it is now possible to draw five compact, majority African American districts in Georgia (Macon-Columbus, South Atlanta Burbs, South Fulton/Douglass/Cobb, Core Atlanta, and East DeKalb/South Gwinnett), it can easily be argued that collapsing the latter four districts into three is an illegal racial gerrymander because it dilutes the natural voting power of Atlanta-area African Americans.

That, however, is the best Dems are getting in GA. The GOP shouldn't run into legal trouble stripping North Fulton/North Cobb/North Gwinnett deep into Appalachia.

Yeah, I didn't mean denying a fourth AA district in metro Atlanta - the only way you're avoiding that is if the Supreme Court is willing to radically reinterpret or strike down the VRA. I meant using those four districts to ensure that you can't draw a fifth Democratic district in the city.

I don't think that's relevant so long as AA voting power isn't diluted. SCOTUS reaffirmed partisan redistricting as constitutional and GA doesn't have any state level rules of the sort. I really don't see why the GAGOP wouldn't try and crack that natural Sandy Springs/Alpharetta/Dunwoody/Duluth/East Cobb seat. It's gonna be 5-8.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,051
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #242 on: September 15, 2020, 01:43:39 PM »

Could you solve that problem just by packing the Atlanta VRA districts? There's no VRA issue in doing this with Gwinnett Latinos and with the current Supreme Court they'd have a decent chance at getting away with moving the VRA districts from the 50s% black to the mid 60s% and getting away with it.

I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Gingles test stipulates that if a protected minority group constitutes a majority of the electorate in a hypothetical compactly-drawn district. African Americans are the only group to which this status applies in Georgia (Gwinnett Latinos couldn't be the majority in any district so can crack them either way). Given it is now possible to draw five compact, majority African American districts in Georgia (Macon-Columbus, South Atlanta Burbs, South Fulton/Douglass/Cobb, Core Atlanta, and East DeKalb/South Gwinnett), it can easily be argued that collapsing the latter four districts into three is an illegal racial gerrymander because it dilutes the natural voting power of Atlanta-area African Americans.

That, however, is the best Dems are getting in GA. The GOP shouldn't run into legal trouble stripping North Fulton/North Cobb/North Gwinnett deep into Appalachia.

Yeah, I didn't mean denying a fourth AA district in metro Atlanta - the only way you're avoiding that is if the Supreme Court is willing to radically reinterpret or strike down the VRA. I meant using those four districts to ensure that you can't draw a fifth Democratic district in the city.

I don't think that's relevant so long as AA voting power isn't diluted. SCOTUS reaffirmed partisan redistricting as constitutional and GA doesn't have any state level rules of the sort. I really don't see why the GAGOP wouldn't try and crack that natural Sandy Springs/Alpharetta/Dunwoody/Duluth/East Cobb seat. It's gonna be 5-8.

Ehh, probably 4-9 at least until Democrats are able to assert control over either the 11th circuit or SCOTUS.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #243 on: September 16, 2020, 05:43:57 AM »

Is it really a safe bet that 4 black districts will be required in the Atlanta area? In my opinion it is fairly easy to justify that only 3 are needed. The COIs write themselves if you only do 3:

1 DeKalb county district
1 southern Fulton county district
1 "southern suburbs" district.

All of these are "natural" COIs, create very nice districts and lead to 3 VRA districts that are 55%, 58% and 57% black respectively.

If doing a fair map, there is also a 4th "natural" majority minority COI that would be basically most of Gwinett county, but that one would not be a VRA protected district (38% white, 31% black, 23% Hispanic, 12% Asian) and would get cracked in an R gerrymander anyways.



Meanwhile, if you go for 4 VRA districts, you need to deliberately gerrymander to get the desired result. I am open to see better maps, but my try had districts that, while somewhat clean, still broke more counties and COIs:

1 most of DeKalb + a bit of southern Gwinnett
1 southeastern suburbs and rurals
1 southern Fulton + a part of Clayton + southwestern rurals
1 Atlanta + southern Cobb

The former arrangement is certainly a much nicer one.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,051
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #244 on: September 16, 2020, 10:59:58 AM »

Is it really a safe bet that 4 black districts will be required in the Atlanta area? In my opinion it is fairly easy to justify that only 3 are needed. The COIs write themselves if you only do 3:

1 DeKalb county district
1 southern Fulton county district
1 "southern suburbs" district.

All of these are "natural" COIs, create very nice districts and lead to 3 VRA districts that are 55%, 58% and 57% black respectively.

If doing a fair map, there is also a 4th "natural" majority minority COI that would be basically most of Gwinett county, but that one would not be a VRA protected district (38% white, 31% black, 23% Hispanic, 12% Asian) and would get cracked in an R gerrymander anyways.



Meanwhile, if you go for 4 VRA districts, you need to deliberately gerrymander to get the desired result. I am open to see better maps, but my try had districts that, while somewhat clean, still broke more counties and COIs:

1 most of DeKalb + a bit of southern Gwinnett
1 southeastern suburbs and rurals
1 southern Fulton + a part of Clayton + southwestern rurals
1 Atlanta + southern Cobb

The former arrangement is certainly a much nicer one.

You could do something like this:

Though it does mess with counties, it captures CoIs pretty neatly--western suburbs, southern suburbs, Atlanta, and eastern suburbs. Everything is majority Black.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #245 on: October 14, 2020, 05:34:50 PM »
« Edited: October 14, 2020, 05:39:09 PM by #proudtikitorchmarcher »


Why Split Savanah like that?
Seems like a D gerrymander by taking the blackest parts of Savanah to create 2 SafeD D districts there. The second district should probably be closer to a swing district.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,116
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #246 on: October 14, 2020, 05:46:48 PM »


Why Split Savanah like that?
Seems like a D gerrymander by taking the blackest parts of Savanah to create 2 SafeD D districts there. The second district should probably be closer to a swing district.
I would defend this on basis of the fact that this is the stats the map generates:

Metric Description
Seats bias 2.52% Half the difference in seats at 50% vote share
Votes bias 1.71% The excess votes required for half the seats
Declination 5.06° A geometric measure of packing & cracking
Global symmetry 2.74% The overall symmetry of the seats-votes curve
Gamma 1.78% The fair difference in seats at the statewide vote share
Efficiency gap 0.38% The relative two-party difference in wasted votes
Partisan bias 2.34% The difference in seats between the statewide vote share and the symmetrical counterfactual share
Proportional 4.16% The simple deviation from proportionality using fractional seat shares
Mean–median 1.54% The average vote share across all districts minus the median vote share
Turnout bias 0.01% The difference between the statewide vote share and the average district share
Lopsided outcomes -2.21% The relative two-party difference in excess vote shares

By convention, positive values of bias metrics favor Republicans & negative values favor Democrats. So this means that it only makes the map more fair. All but one metric here, out of 12, are in the GOP's favor. This would be even more true if Savannah was drawn differently.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #247 on: October 14, 2020, 06:03:13 PM »

So the map overall is a D gerrymander ?



What do you do in a state like Wisconsin when you draw the maps based with numbers similar to 2012 for 2010 redistricting and then Clinton comes in and loses all the swingish fair districts in the rural area by an absurd number? Do you redistrict the map because now its unfair?
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,116
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #248 on: October 14, 2020, 06:04:22 PM »

So the map overall is a D gerrymander ?



What do you do in a state like Wisconsin when you draw the maps based with numbers similar to 2012 for 2010 redistricting and then Clinton comes in and loses all the swingish fair districts in the rural area by an absurd number? Do you redistrict the map because now its unfair?
Wisconsin is a lot less inelastic than Georgia.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #249 on: October 14, 2020, 06:05:38 PM »

So the map overall is a D gerrymander ?



What do you do in a state like Wisconsin when you draw the maps based with numbers similar to 2012 for 2010 redistricting and then Clinton comes in and loses all the swingish fair districts in the rural area by an absurd number? Do you redistrict the map because now its unfair?
Wisconsin is a lot less inelastic than Georgia.

Sure in certain areas  but the point still stands,  a map can all of a sudden become unfair, should that require redistricting if that happens?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 41  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 13 queries.