Ohio redistricting thread

[kwabbit]

Hypothetical Ohio Fair Map



I think it's illegal though, bc the 13th cedes just a little bit of Lorain County to the 10th for population equity. I'm not sure how to get around that, assuming that Cuyahoga shouldn't be split thrice. Either way, lots of Competitive districts. The 8, 12, 13, and 5 were all likely razor close this past year. With the first 3 potentially being Clinton/Trump and the 5th being Trump/Biden. I think only the 13th and 5th actually flipped this year though.

[kwabbit]

I don't think the Youngstown area belongs with Lake County.

Yeah it doesn't, I'm trying to rearrange it. Ohio's population distribution forces one to either choose compactness or COI interests. Happens with Cleveland, Akron, and Youngstown all being close and then with Cincinnati and Dayton in the same area.

[kwabbit]

Guys stop fighting! I think there's something we can all agree on with Ohio redistricting: that Columbus' precincts are a serious affront to humanity.

[kwabbit]

Alright so I followed your suggestions. The Columbus suburban district is centered to the East instead of the West. Lake and Youngstown are not paired now. So now the Akron district now has an R tilt and Columbus Suburban District has a D tilt. Sadly, a lot more county splits.

The overall Dem seat count went from 5.36 on average to 5.44. The Dems are just horribly distributed. There's a strong chance that a fair map could end up with 3 Dems in a neutral year.

[kwabbit]

No idea how legal this is, but I made a 2-13 map based on 2018 population. The closest R district, district 8, was Trump +13 in 2016.


https://davesredistricting.org/join/08b4de36-dabf-47e1-8a02-d4278a9def01

Other than the VRA violation for black packing the Cleveland CD with a very  non compact CD, perhaps you might try to list the rest of your legal violations with your map as a mental exercise. Or perhaps not.  As was pointed out to me a couple of times, I crossed the line myself a couple of times.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=351688.msg7849710#msg7849710

I don't think Cleveland have an illegal VRA pack. The most Black seat you can make isn't even a majority, so if anything it should be as packed as possible.

[kwabbit]

The GOP is really fighting a losing battle in the Cincinnati area. They should’ve just drawn a compact Hamilton seat and not have jeopardized their entire map in the process.

[kwabbit]

The GOP is really fighting a losing battle in the Cincinnati area. They should’ve just drawn a compact Hamilton seat and not have jeopardized their entire map in the process.

It was the desire to over satisfy incumbents. A clermont + Hamilton minus the black suburbs would be pretty similar to the Pittsburgh seat and a bit more defendable.



The suburban seat here is problematic for the future as its only Trump +12 and trending left quickly but it should be fine to 2024 obviously. Still a gerrymander although one could stretch  it to reasonably compact

What were the 2020 results of this two seats? IMO any configuration that didn’t have any Biden seats seemed likely to be struck down. I believe Chabot’s current seat was won by Biden, and it’s already gerrymandered and everyone knows it’s gerrymandered. Trying to push the envelope further on an already gerrymandered map was too risky for the OH GOP.

[kwabbit]

That Franklin County comment is a big blow, essentially forcing them to cede a seat to the Democrats. Perhaps not safe in 2022, but trending left rapidly. I believe a fair map for Ohio would still be 9-6 nominally from 2020 results and maybe 11-4 in 2022, but the Ohio GOP might have to draw something of a Dem gerrymander to achieve the proportionality the court wants

[kwabbit]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

Nope. The GOP favored ones need to be axed. The Dem ones should stay until nationally the districts come out to somewhat even. Or till the GOP approves anti-gerrymandering legislation

The number of Biden districts is likely to be around 230, maybe more. This round of redistricting is likely to result in a more favorable outcome for Democrats than if national redistricting legislation was passed, unless that legislation used some efficiency gap BS. The only major gerrymanders on the GOP side were Texas, which was largely defensive, Ohio, which is now gone, and NC, which has a solid chance of being gone. IL and NY are probably enough to counter all standing GOP gerrymanders on their own.

Democrats have massively won messaging on the issue. They have made gerrymandering into a Republican phenomenon and in doing so have been able to install backwards ideas like the efficiency gap into the decision making of courts and commissions. Yet the GOP will not be so successful advocating for such measures in states where they have wasted votes. If we end up in a system where GOP gerrymanders all get struck down because of superior Dem messaging and litigation, while Dem gerrymanders are allowed to remain, the House should develop a Dem bias. Especially given that Dem strength in the suburbs has minimized geographic bias in the House.

[kwabbit]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

Nope. The GOP favored ones need to be axed. The Dem ones should stay until nationally the districts come out to somewhat even. Or till the GOP approves anti-gerrymandering legislation

The number of Biden districts is likely to be around 230, maybe more. This round of redistricting is likely to result in a more favorable outcome for Democrats than if national redistricting legislation was passed, unless that legislation used some efficiency gap BS. The only major gerrymanders on the GOP side were Texas, which was largely defensive, Ohio, which is now gone, and NC, which has a solid chance of being gone. IL and NY are probably enough to counter all standing GOP gerrymanders on their own.

Democrats have massively won messaging on the issue. They have made gerrymandering into a Republican phenomenon and in doing so have been able to install backwards ideas like the efficiency gap into the decision making of courts and commissions. Yet the GOP will not be so successful advocating for such measures in states where they have wasted votes. If we end up in a system where GOP gerrymanders all get struck down because of superior Dem messaging and litigation, while Dem gerrymanders are allowed to remain, the House should develop a Dem bias. Especially given that Dem strength in the suburbs has minimized geographic bias in the House.

More than 230? That can’t be right lol. So you’re telling me the house will have a DEM bias?!?! That would mean Dems are likely to take the house back in 2024

Not much more, perhaps 232 max or so. And yes, the Democrats have a great chance of flipping back the house in 2024. Although the GOP does better in the congressional race than the presidency. So keep in mind if the Presidential PV is D+2, that might still be an outright R victory in the congressional ballot.

[kwabbit]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

Nope. The GOP favored ones need to be axed. The Dem ones should stay until nationally the districts come out to somewhat even. Or till the GOP approves anti-gerrymandering legislation

The number of Biden districts is likely to be around 230, maybe more. This round of redistricting is likely to result in a more favorable outcome for Democrats than if national redistricting legislation was passed, unless that legislation used some efficiency gap BS. The only major gerrymanders on the GOP side were Texas, which was largely defensive, Ohio, which is now gone, and NC, which has a solid chance of being gone. IL and NY are probably enough to counter all standing GOP gerrymanders on their own.

Democrats have massively won messaging on the issue. They have made gerrymandering into a Republican phenomenon and in doing so have been able to install backwards ideas like the efficiency gap into the decision making of courts and commissions. Yet the GOP will not be so successful advocating for such measures in states where they have wasted votes. If we end up in a system where GOP gerrymanders all get struck down because of superior Dem messaging and litigation, while Dem gerrymanders are allowed to remain, the House should develop a Dem bias. Especially given that Dem strength in the suburbs has minimized geographic bias in the House.

More than 230? That can’t be right lol. So you’re telling me the house will have a DEM bias?!?! That would mean Dems are likely to take the house back in 2024

Not much more, perhaps 232 max or so. And yes, the Democrats have a great chance of flipping back the house in 2024. Although the GOP does better in the congressional race than the presidency. So keep in mind if the Presidential PV is D+2, that might still be an outright R victory in the congressional ballot.

A Presidential PV of just D+2 probably means an EC loss for Dems.

That’s true. The House was already the least biased of the three chambers/offices, and is even more so now.

[kwabbit]

If the OH GOP draws a map that the court finds unsatisfactory once again, does the court then draw it? Perhaps the court is fully aware of this and wants this regardless, but making an OH map truly proportional requires a lot of Dem friendly choices. I think a court may actually be too uncomfortable to make a 8-7. I think a map that is proportional enough for the court to accept would be farther left than what the court draws itself.

[kwabbit]

If they're going to draw a D-trending Biden +8 seat, why not just draw the fair Cinci configuration? Cincinatti and Warren was the most obvious flaw of the first map, but they basically just kept it.

[kwabbit]

If they're going to draw a D-trending Biden +8 seat, why not just draw the fair Cinci configuration? Cincinatti and Warren was the most obvious flaw of the first map, but they basically just kept it.

Because this isn't a serious proposal. In the games of state power, it appears to be more beneficial to recognizably die on a hill preserving incumbent seats - Chabot's and Jordan's for example - rather than cooperate with the court and be the one who has to tell some members they may need to go home or run against each other. Far more simple to get an outsider from the court to do that move.

I know it's not a serious proposal, but if it isn't, why are they even changing the Cincinnati + Warren seat. They kept it ugly but made the partisanship worse for them.

[kwabbit]

If they're going to draw a D-trending Biden +8 seat, why not just draw the fair Cinci configuration? Cincinatti and Warren was the most obvious flaw of the first map, but they basically just kept it.

Because this isn't a serious proposal. In the games of state power, it appears to be more beneficial to recognizably die on a hill preserving incumbent seats - Chabot's and Jordan's for example - rather than cooperate with the court and be the one who has to tell some members they may need to go home or run against each other. Far more simple to get an outsider from the court to do that move.

I know it's not a serious proposal, but if it isn't, why are they even changing the Cincinnati + Warren seat. They kept it ugly but made the partisanship worse for them.

  By drawing a true Hamilton district seat would be gone, so they attempt to placate the court (which we all know this is headed) by arguing they made the Cincy seat more Democratic without likely losing the seat.  Chabot is entrenched enough that he likely holds a Biden +8 seat this year, and  would have a decent chance of winning in 2024 even if it is a similar environment to 2020

I think he would be probably lose in a 2020 environment in 2024. He's a decent incumbent, but he only won by 4pts more than Trump. Especially since his district would be much different than his current one, so I doubt his overperformance would be as strong.

I think the GOP should've drawn a Clermont + Cincinnati + R parts of Hamilton. It looks less gerrymandery than CIN + Warren, and more R as well.

Wenstrup is a stronger incumbent than Chabot too, so he would've had a good chance to keep the seat.