Ohio redistricting thread

[ProgressiveModerate]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

I generally agree with the OP; but according to my calculation a far map would be 9-6 on average, (Dems win about 40% of seats)

[David Hume]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

If they know it's 4 year map, why don't try their luck to get 13-2? If they are lucky with the state court, it's unlikely to be a dummymander just in 4 years. They can adjust after 4 years, which is actually better for party interest.

[Padfoot]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

I generally agree with the OP; but according to my calculation a far map would be 9-6 on average, (Dems win about 40% of seats)

Calculation based on what?  I was basing off of presidential results which should be closer to a 55-45 GOP advantage and result in a 8-7 split.

Also I don't think any fair map for Ohio should guarantee either party a majority.  I think there should be at least two swingy seats in the middle with the remaining balance slightly tipped towards the GOP based on their relatively stronger success in statewide/presidential races over the last decade and their current geographic advantage.  It's really not that hard to draw a map where Trump narrowly ekes out 8 districts in 2020 and Brown does the same in 2018.

[ProgressiveModerate]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

I generally agree with the OP; but according to my calculation a far map would be 9-6 on average, (Dems win about 40% of seats)

Calculation based on what?  I was basing off of presidential results which should be closer to a 55-45 GOP advantage and result in a 8-7 split.

Also I don't think any fair map for Ohio should guarantee either party a majority.  I think there should be at least two swingy seats in the middle with the remaining balance slightly tipped towards the GOP based on their relatively stronger success in statewide/presidential races over the last decade and their current geographic advantage.  It's really not that hard to draw a map where Trump narrowly ekes out 8 districts in 2020 and Brown does the same in 2018.

I respectfully disagree. Think about it this way; in California, Rs win about 30-35% of the vote in the average election, but only tend to win fewer than 20% of the seats. In order to give Rs the 16 or 17 seats that’d make a “partisansly proportional” map, you’d really have to go out of your way. This is true in pretty much every lopsided US state.

In other words, there’s always going to be a disproportionately large amount of seats that go to the party that wins the vote in the state, and this advantage only increases as partisanship becomes more extreme. This is because you’re going to have more votes of the minority party “wasted” in areas won by the majority party. In this theory, we’re excluding situations where we have heavy geographic advantages. In CA for instance, over 2/3rds of R votes actually come from precincts won by Joe Biden in 2020. Meanwhile, only 12% of D votes come from precincts Trump won.

When I was doing the project to calculate geographic advantages, I was able to create a regression for how many seats you’d expect a given party to win based on a states overall partisanship. For OH which was R + 8.03 in 2020, it was almost exactly a 60-40 split. 60% of 15 is 9 and 40% is 6.

[Padfoot]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

I generally agree with the OP; but according to my calculation a far map would be 9-6 on average, (Dems win about 40% of seats)

Calculation based on what?  I was basing off of presidential results which should be closer to a 55-45 GOP advantage and result in a 8-7 split.

Also I don't think any fair map for Ohio should guarantee either party a majority.  I think there should be at least two swingy seats in the middle with the remaining balance slightly tipped towards the GOP based on their relatively stronger success in statewide/presidential races over the last decade and their current geographic advantage.  It's really not that hard to draw a map where Trump narrowly ekes out 8 districts in 2020 and Brown does the same in 2018.

I respectfully disagree. Think about it this way; in California, Rs win about 30-35% of the vote in the average election, but only tend to win fewer than 20% of the seats. In order to give Rs the 16 or 17 seats that’d make a “partisansly proportional” map, you’d really have to go out of your way. This is true in pretty much every lopsided US state.

In other words, there’s always going to be a disproportionately large amount of seats that go to the party that wins the vote in the state, and this advantage only increases as partisanship becomes more extreme. This is because you’re going to have more votes of the minority party “wasted” in areas won by the majority party. In this theory, we’re excluding situations where we have heavy geographic advantages. In CA for instance, over 2/3rds of R votes actually come from precincts won by Joe Biden in 2020. Meanwhile, only 12% of D votes come from precincts Trump won.

When I was doing the project to calculate geographic advantages, I was able to create a regression for how many seats you’d expect a given party to win based on a states overall partisanship. For OH which was R + 8.03 in 2020, it was almost exactly a 60-40 split. 60% of 15 is 9 and 40% is 6.

Ohio is not that "lopsided."  The state definitely leans to the right and has leaned harder that way recently but it is in no way comparable to a state like California as far as consistent partisan divides go.

It's so easy to draw a clean map of Ohio that fits the criteria I outlined previously.  For example:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a06107e1-c02c-49d0-b309-f173125b49ba

This map is 8-7 Trump in both 2016 and 2020 and it is also 9-6 Brown in 2018.  There are a ton of competitive districts in the middle and neither party has a baked-in majority but Republicans have a clear overall advantage.

[ProgressiveModerate]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

I generally agree with the OP; but according to my calculation a far map would be 9-6 on average, (Dems win about 40% of seats)

Calculation based on what?  I was basing off of presidential results which should be closer to a 55-45 GOP advantage and result in a 8-7 split.

Also I don't think any fair map for Ohio should guarantee either party a majority.  I think there should be at least two swingy seats in the middle with the remaining balance slightly tipped towards the GOP based on their relatively stronger success in statewide/presidential races over the last decade and their current geographic advantage.  It's really not that hard to draw a map where Trump narrowly ekes out 8 districts in 2020 and Brown does the same in 2018.

I respectfully disagree. Think about it this way; in California, Rs win about 30-35% of the vote in the average election, but only tend to win fewer than 20% of the seats. In order to give Rs the 16 or 17 seats that’d make a “partisansly proportional” map, you’d really have to go out of your way. This is true in pretty much every lopsided US state.

In other words, there’s always going to be a disproportionately large amount of seats that go to the party that wins the vote in the state, and this advantage only increases as partisanship becomes more extreme. This is because you’re going to have more votes of the minority party “wasted” in areas won by the majority party. In this theory, we’re excluding situations where we have heavy geographic advantages. In CA for instance, over 2/3rds of R votes actually come from precincts won by Joe Biden in 2020. Meanwhile, only 12% of D votes come from precincts Trump won.

When I was doing the project to calculate geographic advantages, I was able to create a regression for how many seats you’d expect a given party to win based on a states overall partisanship. For OH which was R + 8.03 in 2020, it was almost exactly a 60-40 split. 60% of 15 is 9 and 40% is 6.

Ohio is not that "lopsided."  The state definitely leans to the right and has leaned harder that way recently but it is in no way comparable to a state like California as far as consistent partisan divides go.

It's so easy to draw a clean map of Ohio that fits the criteria I outlined previously.  For example:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a06107e1-c02c-49d0-b309-f173125b49ba

This map is 8-7 Trump in both 2016 and 2020 and it is also 9-6 Brown in 2018.  There are a ton of competitive districts in the middle and neither party has a baked-in majority but Republicans have a clear overall advantage.

Nice map, but it's also really easy to draw a clean 9-6 map or 10-5 map; it just averages out. Notice how even in your 8-7 map, 3 of the Biden districts are extremely marginal. Also; shouldn't Brown win the same if not fewer districts than Trump did as he won by a smaller margin?

In 2020, Trump won precincts in OH worth 7.1 million people whereas Biden only won precincts worth 4.6 million, which shows how even on the precinct level we see this phenomenon playing out. Yes, it isn't as extreme as CA, but it's still there nontheless

[Idaho Conservative]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

no way R's agree to a 4th solid Dem seat, the only way that maybe could happen is an Akron+Cleveland suburbs seat, but I think R' would instead go for a swing seat in Akron.  Also, a 4 year map is to the Republicans advantage, they then can adjust it for trends and the OH Supreme Court will probably be more conservative thanks to partisan elections.

[Padfoot]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

I generally agree with the OP; but according to my calculation a far map would be 9-6 on average, (Dems win about 40% of seats)

Calculation based on what?  I was basing off of presidential results which should be closer to a 55-45 GOP advantage and result in a 8-7 split.

Also I don't think any fair map for Ohio should guarantee either party a majority.  I think there should be at least two swingy seats in the middle with the remaining balance slightly tipped towards the GOP based on their relatively stronger success in statewide/presidential races over the last decade and their current geographic advantage.  It's really not that hard to draw a map where Trump narrowly ekes out 8 districts in 2020 and Brown does the same in 2018.

I respectfully disagree. Think about it this way; in California, Rs win about 30-35% of the vote in the average election, but only tend to win fewer than 20% of the seats. In order to give Rs the 16 or 17 seats that’d make a “partisansly proportional” map, you’d really have to go out of your way. This is true in pretty much every lopsided US state.

In other words, there’s always going to be a disproportionately large amount of seats that go to the party that wins the vote in the state, and this advantage only increases as partisanship becomes more extreme. This is because you’re going to have more votes of the minority party “wasted” in areas won by the majority party. In this theory, we’re excluding situations where we have heavy geographic advantages. In CA for instance, over 2/3rds of R votes actually come from precincts won by Joe Biden in 2020. Meanwhile, only 12% of D votes come from precincts Trump won.

When I was doing the project to calculate geographic advantages, I was able to create a regression for how many seats you’d expect a given party to win based on a states overall partisanship. For OH which was R + 8.03 in 2020, it was almost exactly a 60-40 split. 60% of 15 is 9 and 40% is 6.

Ohio is not that "lopsided."  The state definitely leans to the right and has leaned harder that way recently but it is in no way comparable to a state like California as far as consistent partisan divides go.

It's so easy to draw a clean map of Ohio that fits the criteria I outlined previously.  For example:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a06107e1-c02c-49d0-b309-f173125b49ba

This map is 8-7 Trump in both 2016 and 2020 and it is also 9-6 Brown in 2018.  There are a ton of competitive districts in the middle and neither party has a baked-in majority but Republicans have a clear overall advantage.

Nice map, but it's also really easy to draw a clean 9-6 map or 10-5 map; it just averages out. Notice how even in your 8-7 map, 3 of the Biden districts are extremely marginal. Also; shouldn't Brown win the same if not fewer districts than Trump did as he won by a smaller margin?

In 2020, Trump won precincts in OH worth 7.1 million people whereas Biden only won precincts worth 4.6 million, which shows how even on the precinct level we see this phenomenon playing out. Yes, it isn't as extreme as CA, but it's still there nontheless

The Dayton/Springfield district could easily be made more Republican to flip it away from Brown if that is the main issue but then you lose a competitive district.  And yes, some of the Biden districts are marginal but that's sort of the point.  The map shouldn't be solid for either party and there should be multiple competitive districts that have the opportunity to be flipped as coalitions changes or swing voters shift parties.  Locking in a 9-6 majority is not a fair map.  If a relatively clean map that is true to average partisanship can be achieved then it doesn't matter what some formula says "should" be possible.

[Padfoot]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

no way R's agree to a 4th solid Dem seat, the only way that maybe could happen is an Akron+Cleveland suburbs seat, but I think R' would instead go for a swing seat in Akron.  Also, a 4 year map is to the Republicans advantage, they then can adjust it for trends and the OH Supreme Court will probably be more conservative thanks to partisan elections.

I think the 4th likely Dem seat would more likely come from a second Dem pack in Columbus.  I also think you might be overestimating the partisanship of the Redistricting Commission members.  If a GOP map fails to win 50% of the Democratic votes in each chamber of the General Assembly then the Redistricting Commission takes over.  There are multiple GOP members on that committee who have worked on passing redistricting reform and several who aren't exactly Trump's biggest cheerleaders so they'd have no qualms about drawing Mike Carey or Jim Jordan out of a district.  I'm betting on the passage of a 10 year map that still favors the GOP but is much more competitive.  12 safe GOP seats is not going to happen.

[Idaho Conservative]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans.  

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

no way R's agree to a 4th solid Dem seat, the only way that maybe could happen is an Akron+Cleveland suburbs seat, but I think R' would instead go for a swing seat in Akron.  Also, a 4 year map is to the Republicans advantage, they then can adjust it for trends and the OH Supreme Court will probably be more conservative thanks to partisan elections.

I think the 4th likely Dem seat would more likely come from a second Dem pack in Columbus.  I also think you might be overestimating the partisanship of the Redistricting Commission members.  If a GOP map fails to win 50% of the Democratic votes in each chamber of the General Assembly then the Redistricting Commission takes over.  There are multiple GOP members on that committee who have worked on passing redistricting reform and several who aren't exactly Trump's biggest cheerleaders so they'd have no qualms about drawing Mike Carey or Jim Jordan out of a district.  I'm betting on the passage of a 10 year map that still favors the GOP but is much more competitive.  12 safe GOP seats is not going to happen.

not 12 safe seats, some, like the Toledo seat and maybe Akron will still be competitive but trending right.  I really doubt Columbus has 2 Dems seats though, it is extremely easy to keep it to 1.  Northeastern OH is much more geographically challenging.  It is possible to create a very clean map where Trump won 12/15, but a couple of those would be within 5 points.  I think best case for Dems in a wave year would be winning 5 seats

[ProgressiveModerate]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

I generally agree with the OP; but according to my calculation a far map would be 9-6 on average, (Dems win about 40% of seats)

Calculation based on what?  I was basing off of presidential results which should be closer to a 55-45 GOP advantage and result in a 8-7 split.

Also I don't think any fair map for Ohio should guarantee either party a majority.  I think there should be at least two swingy seats in the middle with the remaining balance slightly tipped towards the GOP based on their relatively stronger success in statewide/presidential races over the last decade and their current geographic advantage.  It's really not that hard to draw a map where Trump narrowly ekes out 8 districts in 2020 and Brown does the same in 2018.

I respectfully disagree. Think about it this way; in California, Rs win about 30-35% of the vote in the average election, but only tend to win fewer than 20% of the seats. In order to give Rs the 16 or 17 seats that’d make a “partisansly proportional” map, you’d really have to go out of your way. This is true in pretty much every lopsided US state.

In other words, there’s always going to be a disproportionately large amount of seats that go to the party that wins the vote in the state, and this advantage only increases as partisanship becomes more extreme. This is because you’re going to have more votes of the minority party “wasted” in areas won by the majority party. In this theory, we’re excluding situations where we have heavy geographic advantages. In CA for instance, over 2/3rds of R votes actually come from precincts won by Joe Biden in 2020. Meanwhile, only 12% of D votes come from precincts Trump won.

When I was doing the project to calculate geographic advantages, I was able to create a regression for how many seats you’d expect a given party to win based on a states overall partisanship. For OH which was R + 8.03 in 2020, it was almost exactly a 60-40 split. 60% of 15 is 9 and 40% is 6.

Ohio is not that "lopsided."  The state definitely leans to the right and has leaned harder that way recently but it is in no way comparable to a state like California as far as consistent partisan divides go.

It's so easy to draw a clean map of Ohio that fits the criteria I outlined previously.  For example:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a06107e1-c02c-49d0-b309-f173125b49ba

This map is 8-7 Trump in both 2016 and 2020 and it is also 9-6 Brown in 2018.  There are a ton of competitive districts in the middle and neither party has a baked-in majority but Republicans have a clear overall advantage.

Nice map, but it's also really easy to draw a clean 9-6 map or 10-5 map; it just averages out. Notice how even in your 8-7 map, 3 of the Biden districts are extremely marginal. Also; shouldn't Brown win the same if not fewer districts than Trump did as he won by a smaller margin?

In 2020, Trump won precincts in OH worth 7.1 million people whereas Biden only won precincts worth 4.6 million, which shows how even on the precinct level we see this phenomenon playing out. Yes, it isn't as extreme as CA, but it's still there nontheless

The Dayton/Springfield district could easily be made more Republican to flip it away from Brown if that is the main issue but then you lose a competitive district.  And yes, some of the Biden districts are marginal but that's sort of the point.  The map shouldn't be solid for either party and there should be multiple competitive districts that have the opportunity to be flipped as coalitions changes or swing voters shift parties.  Locking in a 9-6 majority is not a fair map.  If a relatively clean map that is true to average partisanship can be achieved then it doesn't matter what some formula says "should" be possible.

I don’t disagree, I’m saying 9-6 should be how it is on 2020 numbers, not that there can’t be other cooperative seats

[Torie]

Well, having reviewed and applied the Ohio anti-gerrymandering strictures, as expected I find them quite toothless. Heck, although it would not have been that big a problem anyway, other than for cities in excess of 100,000, there is no limit at all to municipal chopping. One could do whatever the F one wanted. It’s party time! Not that some circuit breakers here would have slowed the party down much from doing whatever the heck one wanted anyway.

So here is Ohio in all its glory, and, in its current political condition, one didn’t even need to break a sweat to create this masterpiece. Badger's CD embraces Holmes County as it should. He should enjoy campaigning there when he runs for Congress. Leave the beer at home in Holmes Badger.

My OH-02 kind of reminds me of the glory days of that CD that ran from the Memphis burbs to Nashville burbs.

And in a sign of the times, one 25,000 or so folks of once comfortably Pub Arlington have been dumped into OH-03, which smoothed out the lines on the western edge of OH-03 to boot, to make the map even more beautiful.

Oh, my favorite moment is when I put the hippies/stoners/weathermen/whatever left hanging around in Yellow Springs after Antioch College shut down,  into Jordon's district per a nice little county chop just for it because they are so special. COI baby. Gotta do it. Sure it created another county chop, but several (many actually) were left on the table permissible under law feeling lonely and unused, which kind of made me think I must be doing something wrong.

Addendum: I guess the remaining issue is whether the Pubs should threaten to seize Hamilton County if the Dems don't agree to a 10 year plan for this puppy. I know Badger would say no, but then he isn't in Hamilton County planning to run for Congress either.

Just for fun, I will leave it to someone else to draw a 4 year plan map, be it a bluff or otherwise. The idea would be to minimize dummymander potential of course in the Columbus, Cincy and Dayton area in particular, to give the bluff more teeth, if intended as a bluff, or otherwise. The provision of the law can be found here: https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Ohio_after_the_2020_census#Drafting_process

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b9f944aa-cc44-4620-86b3-39754293d587

[Badger]

Well, having reviewed and applied the Ohio anti-gerrymandering strictures, as expected I find them quite toothless. Heck, although it would not have been that big a problem anyway, other than for cities in excess of 100,000, there is no limit at all to municipal chopping. One could do whatever the F one wanted. It’s party time! Not that some circuit breakers here would have slowed the party down much from doing whatever the heck one wanted anyway.

So here is Ohio in all its glory, and, in its current political condition, one didn’t even need to break a sweat to create this masterpiece. Badger's CD embraces Holmes County as it should. He should enjoy campaigning there when he runs for Congress. Leave the beer at home in Holmes Badger.

My OH-02 kind of reminds me of the glory days of that CD that ran from the Memphis burbs to Nashville burbs.

And in a sign of the times, one 25,000 or so folks of once comfortably Pub Arlington have been dumped into OH-03, which smoothed out the lines on the western edge of OH-03 to boot, to make the map even more beautiful.

Oh, my favorite moment is when I put the hippies/stoners/weathermen/whatever left hanging around in Yellow Springs around after Antioch College shut down,  into Jordon's district per a nice little county chop just for it because they are so special. COI baby. Gotta do it. Sure it created another county chop, but several (many actually) were left on the table permissible under law feeling lonely and unused, which kind of made me think I must be doing something wrong.

Addendum: I guess the remaining issue is whether the Pubs should threaten to seize Hamilton County if the Dems don't agree to a 10 year plan for this puppy. I know Badger would say no, but then he isn't in Hamilton County planning to run for Congress either.

Just for fun, I will leave it to someone else to draw a 4 year plan map, be it a bluff or otherwise. The idea would be to minimize dummymander potential of course in the Columbus, Cincy and Dayton area in particular, to give the bluff more teeth, if intended as a bluff, or otherwise. The provision of the law can be found here: https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Ohio_after_the_2020_census#Drafting_process

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b9f944aa-cc44-4620-86b3-39754293d587

Still not with Holmes County here, but thanks for thinking of me.

BTW, that is absolutely cruel to Yellow Springs.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

Ohio, my least favorite state to make maps due to it's strict redistricting rules and horrendous precient layout in Franklin County. My map is 10-5 R (2020 Prez) and two swing districts lean R, while the other two lean D. The population devation is 0.73%, just 0.02% shy of the 0.75% threshold. 😳

https://davesredistricting.org/join/42732453-536e-4cfe-a2d4-2e806a785822

[bagelman]

Ohio, my least favorite state to make maps due to it's strict redistricting rules and horrendous precient layout in Franklin County. My map is 10-5 R (2020 Prez) and two swing districts lean R, while the other two lean D. The population devation is 0.73%, just 0.02% shy of the 0.75% threshold. 😳

https://davesredistricting.org/join/42732453-536e-4cfe-a2d4-2e806a785822

What's with Summit? I thought we would finally get a district here.

[Padfoot]

Ohio, my least favorite state to make maps due to it's strict redistricting rules and horrendous precient layout in Franklin County. My map is 10-5 R (2020 Prez) and two swing districts lean R, while the other two lean D. The population devation is 0.73%, just 0.02% shy of the 0.75% threshold. 😳

https://davesredistricting.org/join/42732453-536e-4cfe-a2d4-2e806a785822

What was your goal with this map?  It looks so ugly but there doesn't seem to be an overarching theme as to why certain squiggles and chops were drawn.  This is obviously not a best case scenario for the GOP, nor is it a best case for the Dems given the Akron split.  It's possible to draw a map with a very similar partisan balance that isn't nearly as ugly too so I can't see how this is a decent "balanced" or "competitive" map either.

[Torie]

The law says the lines in Ohio CD maps cannot be "unduly" partisan, whatever that means. To me, that means something a somewhat hackish partisan court can stomach, without undue embarrassment - sort of like the PA supreme court in 2018. So avoid chopping lines, draw something where the CD's make some sense, are not too erose, while admittedly the grand design is to favor one party - to wit, a gerrymander light. So below is my map based on that metric. It's a 12-3 map of course, with the closest CD the Toledo based one, that Trump 2020 carried by 7 points. Any ugly chop of Hamilton County to try to snatch another Pub CD is a legal fail. Period. I thought my map above was too problematic. Among other things Wood County needs to stay with Lucas, rather than make OH-04 too erose to snatch it. All roads seem to lead to that Rep. Jordon creature staying around forever. Sad.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b9f944aa-cc44-4620-86b3-39754293d587

[Torie]

This version has one more county chop, but the CD’s are considerably more compact, so I prefer it I think.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/995251ad-8fd4-424f-af16-e5e8aeebe7a7

[lfromnj]

This version has one more county chop, but the CD’s are considerably more compact, so I prefer it I think.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/995251ad-8fd4-424f-af16-e5e8aeebe7a7

If its a GOP gerrymander switch Allen and Wood.

[Torie]

I don't want to do that because it makes OH-04 too erose with a jut up like that that can have no explanation but a particularly ugly gerrymander. The idea is to minimize the odds that a court would find that the map "unduly" favors one party. The defense to the lawsuit, which will absolutely be filed, is that the CD's are compact (OH 02 is a bit elongated, but the population spreads force it, and it really is a suburban CD as a mix and match of Columbus and Cincinnati burbs), minimizes county splits except necessary for compactness, and ditto chopping municipalities. Wood has suburbs of Toledo in it as well. Not good to slice them off from Toledo for partisan purposes. OH-04 reaching that far north really looks bad from all aspects in a lawsuit. OH-05 is Pub enough as drawn to decapitate Kaptur. Pigs get fat, and hogs gets slaughtered. Make sense? The map is not really a gerrymander at all you see. It just turned out that way due to Dem self packing, as they lost the white working class big time, into the three 3 big cities. Their coalition just doesn't work in Ohio. Such is life.

[Torie]

And here is a map that actually gets very close to a "fair" map. The Akron based CD, OH-14, was just about dead even for Trump 2020.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/9014bb57-d79d-4f99-aad2-cf150a01e1e5

[It’s so Joever]

I mean, if it weren’t for the “toothless” laws, Cincinnati would probably be a sure crack, no?

[Stuart98]

And here is a map that actually gets very close to a "fair" map. The Akron based CD, OH-14, was just about dead even for Trump 2020.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/9014bb57-d79d-4f99-aad2-cf150a01e1e5

3-1-11 is not a fair map lol

[Torie]

"3-1-11 is not a fair map lol"

I mean based on neutral redistricting principles where dividing the CD spoils is not based on the overall percentage share of the vote between the parties. In some states to make "fair" maps as you define it, would require them to be hideously erose, if not impossible (the VRA can make it even harder in some places), even if one uses the Muon2 formula where you double the percentage points that one party has over the other in the state, so if a party has 55% of the vote statewide, they get 60% of the seats. If the party has 60% of the state vote, they get 70% of of the CD seats.

[Torie]

I mean, if it weren’t for the “toothless” laws, Cincinnati would probably be a sure crack, no?

The law has more teeth than I thought given the map cannot unduly favor one party, but yes, aside from the "unduly" proscription, not cracking big cities does make the chop of Hamilton more difficult, and what you get is only a lean GOP seat anyway.