Ohio redistricting thread (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:08:09 PM
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)
  Ohio redistricting thread (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Ohio redistricting thread  (Read 88290 times)
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« on: November 29, 2020, 11:03:03 AM »

Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2021, 07:09:54 PM »

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)
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2021, 10:43:04 PM »

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.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2021, 09:08:34 AM »

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
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2021, 11:43:15 AM »

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
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2021, 02:06:06 PM »

Submitted mine too. I tried to aim for a lot of competitive districts.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2021, 08:33:12 PM »


Seem like pretty fair maps to me. There are a few cases of favorable decisions being made towards Ds but nothing aggregious. Most of the uglieness comes from the fact that a lot of OH cities have horrendous borders. The biggest question when it comes to the state legistlatures is really a question of not if Democrats have a path to a majority, but how easy it will be for them to crack the GOP's supermajorities (60% is needed). In both these maps, Biden wins slightly above the needed threshold to crack the supermajority.

As a sidenote, it really makes me annoyed how hard it is to do a clean NE OH that follows the rules and keeps COIs together.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2021, 09:37:28 PM »


Seem like pretty fair maps to me. There are a few cases of favorable decisions being made towards Ds but nothing aggregious. Most of the uglieness comes from the fact that a lot of OH cities have horrendous borders. The biggest question when it comes to the state legistlatures is really a question of not if Democrats have a path to a majority, but how easy it will be for them to crack the GOP's supermajorities (60% is needed). In both these maps, Biden wins slightly above the needed threshold to crack the supermajority.

As a sidenote, it really makes me annoyed how hard it is to do a clean NE OH that follows the rules and keeps COIs together.

Would the new rules prevent Republicans from attaching the city of Dayton to blood red rurals to cheat Dems out of a Dayton based State Senate seat?

Technically they could do that though you’d prolly make a lean R and likely R seat rather than 2 truly safe R seats. The current configuration is pretty much this.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2021, 11:32:39 AM »

For how ugly it is it isn’t even like it’s the most effective map they could make
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2021, 02:37:22 PM »

Pretty sure a 3-way split of Hamilton is also illegal under the new OH provision. At best for the GOP they have to significantly modify their maps.

Also WTF the GOP really tryna crack Columbus? What could go wrong?
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2021, 03:19:53 PM »

Wait I'm confused what the OH GOP's goal is with that 3. At worst it's a pretty strong likely D, prolly around Biden + 18, (Republicans aren't winning it unless its a perfect storm), without being a max pack, and they just risk a racial gerrymander and more dummymander potential.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2021, 09:35:25 PM »

They are also supposed to attempt to make districts compact. I don't see how a Cincinnati/rural county district is compact.

Because "muh rural representation"
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2021, 08:41:44 PM »
« Edited: November 15, 2021, 08:48:45 PM by ProgressiveModerate »

Dang that map is a whole lot cleaner. Looks like 4 Biden seats but 1 and 13 are marginal. As others have pointed out 1 prolly wouldn't be deemed compact. 15 seems like it could fall in teh right circumstnaces as it's almost entirely Franklin County based.

The more I look at this the more it actually seems like an *almost* fair map minus a few things.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2021, 12:15:44 PM »

Anyone got a shapefile for the new map?
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2021, 05:11:19 PM »

Just for clarity of the court rejects the map either fully or in part, who draws the new lines? Does it get thrown back to the legislature or does the court do it? What’s to say the legistlature won’t just do something nasty again?
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2022, 11:02:48 PM »

Is it even legally possible to make a 54 R 46 D state house?

Probably not, but we'll figure out how close is realistically possible in the coming weeks.

It's really hard, especially given County rules. You'd have to make a lot of Dem favoring decisions to just get 40 Biden seats many of which would be narrow. Most of the strategic lien drawing would likely have to be in the Greater Cleveland area and to basically deny Rs as many seats as possible in the region. (It's harder to play around especially with Columbus because it's basically perfectly encapsulated in Franklin County.

This is why trying to get a directly proportional delegation, especially when it comes to state House, is never a good idea. The majority party should always win a disproportionate amount of seats because more of their opponents votes should be wasted in areas won by the majority if that makes sense.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2022, 01:00:00 PM »

Am I the only one thinking about how the entire Midwest (outside IL) gonna have pretty aesthetic maps?
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2022, 05:55:22 PM »

Ngl, even as a Dem, i think advocating for truly proportional legislative maps in a tilted state like Ohio is kinda messed up since the only way to achieve that is by basically making a Dem gerry.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2022, 09:42:00 PM »

At this rate, I wonder if we'll get a snake by the lake lite in the CD map that's like Biden +5
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2022, 11:56:41 AM »

Pretty sure that map is illegal cause Columbus is split 3 ways, though that could be fixed p easily
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2022, 12:11:48 PM »

Pretty sure that map is illegal cause Columbus is split 3 ways, though that could be fixed p easily

Parts of the any city that cross borders are considered two or more localities for the purpose of redistricting, according to the rules of the road. And simmilarly, any city that is near to or larger than a CD simply needs to have a CD built around it, it need not only include parts of said city but can also include neighboring communities with likeminded views. Unless of course you are referring to the order of the court to make a meaningful attempt to include the non-Franklin portions of Columbus inside a second urban-suburban seat, which I'm sure they will say they did in Delaware.

Ah thanks for the clarification. Columbus City lines really really get to my OCD (which I actually have).
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2022, 11:55:27 AM »

Marcy Kaptur is awake and hungry!
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2022, 12:18:31 AM »

Why canta the OH GOP draw a normal map. They’ve had so many chances
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2022, 08:53:07 PM »



Here's a hypothetical Ohio max gerrymander that still abides by redistricting rules and doesn't look horrendous.

Amazing how OH-02 is "only" Trump + 6 in this map, basically only takes in Cinci proper, and shows the extent of teh urban-rural divide. Since most of Dems Hamilton gains have been in the suburbs, it should probably be ok for the decade, and infact rurals and improvements with minorities could easily push it rightwards.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,566


« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2022, 09:00:05 PM »



Here's a hypothetical Ohio max gerrymander that still abides by redistricting rules and doesn't look horrendous.

Amazing how OH-02 is "only" Trump + 6 in this map, basically only takes in Cinci proper, and shows the extent of teh urban-rural divide. Since most of Dems Hamilton gains have been in the suburbs, it should probably be ok for the decade, and infact rurals and improvements with minorities could easily push it rightwards.
How did the rest-of-Franklin CD vote?

Trump + 8 and Trump + 12. Should hold for the decade but def the most vulnerable. Picks up the reddest and most "r shifting" WWC parts of the county.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
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 0.045 seconds with 12 queries.