2020 Oregon Redistricting
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:33:10 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)
  2020 Oregon Redistricting
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18
Author Topic: 2020 Oregon Redistricting  (Read 21287 times)
OBD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,575
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 31, 2019, 02:32:52 PM »

With my home state set to gain a representative, things will get interesting here. While Democrats fully control the government, creating a 5-1 Democratic gerrymander is difficult, and there's an independent redistricting initiative in the pipeline. Democrats also have to consider incumbent protection, as Schrader and DeFazio are both in vulnerable districts. Because of trends, DeFazio's 4th is much more vulnerable in practice, and Schrader's 5th can be shored up by taking in more of Portland in exchange for the Trumpy coast and Polk county. These considerations, which include DeFazio's impeding retirement, can limit what Democrats want to do in terms of redistricting.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f5c226fc-e00b-4312-9ab4-6a19fcbc76fe

This map is a potential 5-1 map. It leaves 18-county Eastern Oregon intact, while shoring up Schrader, creating a swingy but D-leaning 6th district, and shifting the 4th district marginally left. The borders are also, on the whole, tidier (except the 4th district). The drawbacks of this map are the multiple county splits (which can be remedied at the expense of Democratic numbers in the 4th and 6th districts), the 2nd district eating into the Willamette Valley, and Bonamici's 1st getting slightly less safe. The 4th district is Clinton +1.6, the 5th district is Clinton +11.7, and the 6th district is Clinton +4. Note: this map is population-equal based on 2016 data.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/e80bd6fb-a2c4-4a73-90d6-23bd028baa12

The above map is a possible 4-2 map. Targeting 4 seats instead of 5 makes things far easier for the Democratic mapmakers, and there are many ways to go here. The above map is one (admittedly extreme) option, which gives DeFazio a Clinton +11 district and Schrader a Clinton +14 one (though the 5th can be shored up further by taking in more of SE Portland in exchange for Gresham). The 6th district, on the other hand, becomes a Trump +16 district, and is safely Republican. This map could actually please both parties, depending on how ambitious Brown, Kotek, and Courtney are regarding this issue.

Thoughts?


Logged
ksd2000
Rookie
**
Posts: 77
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.19, S: -6.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2019, 04:34:46 PM »

Here's the map I made. It's sort of 3-2-1 by my judgment, although I don't claim to have a deep understanding of Oregon's political geography. I these districts, I focused on attempting to create districts that protected my understood communities of interest. These districts split very few cities.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/6022e9ae-6846-4a42-ac82-4c0dee49a0e5

I made these districts without considering incumbency protection, but it works out that Districts 1-4 actually go one each to the four current representatives from Oregon.

District 1- Portland. Clinton+63.2, Obama+62.2. Titanium D
District 2- Portland suburbs. Clinton+28.1, Obama+24.4. Solid D
District 3- Northwest Oregon. Trump+4.7 (this was an unintentional surprise), Obama+4.2. Likely/Lean D/Tossup? (Not sure about this rating)
District 4- Urban Willamette Valley. Clinton+18.4, Obama+24.3. Solid D
District 5- Remaining Willamette Valley/Coast/Bend. Trump+13.4, McCain+1.9.
Lean/Likely R? (Not sure about this rating)
District 6- Southern and Eastern Oregon. Trump+28.6, McCain+16.4. Solid R

Overall, I'd say that 1, 2, and 4 are D, 6 is R, while 3 and 5 are competitive.

One strange thing is that Trump and Clinton each won 3 of these districts, which does not match with Oregon's political makeup. However, for some reason I get the sense District 3 would solidly held by Schrader and other Democrats.

I would predict this to result in a 4-2 makeup, but with District 5 possibly going Democratic eventually due to Bend trending left.

I'd love any feedback people have.
Logged
UncleSam
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,498


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2019, 04:48:32 PM »

Here's the map I made. It's sort of 3-2-1 by my judgment, although I don't claim to have a deep understanding of Oregon's political geography. I these districts, I focused on attempting to create districts that protected my understood communities of interest. These districts split very few cities.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/6022e9ae-6846-4a42-ac82-4c0dee49a0e5

I made these districts without considering incumbency protection, but it works out that Districts 1-4 actually go one each to the four current representatives from Oregon.

District 1- Portland. Clinton+63.2, Obama+62.2. Titanium D
District 2- Portland suburbs. Clinton+28.1, Obama+24.4. Solid D
District 3- Northwest Oregon. Trump+4.7 (this was an unintentional surprise), Obama+4.2. Likely/Lean D/Tossup? (Not sure about this rating)
District 4- Urban Willamette Valley. Clinton+18.4, Obama+24.3. Solid D
District 5- Remaining Willamette Valley/Coast/Bend. Trump+13.4, McCain+1.9.
Lean/Likely R? (Not sure about this rating)
District 6- Southern and Eastern Oregon. Trump+28.6, McCain+16.4. Solid R

Overall, I'd say that 1, 2, and 4 are D, 6 is R, while 3 and 5 are competitive.

One strange thing is that Trump and Clinton each won 3 of these districts, which does not match with Oregon's political makeup. However, for some reason I get the sense District 3 would solidly held by Schrader and other Democrats.

I would predict this to result in a 4-2 makeup, but with District 5 possibly going Democratic eventually due to Bend trending left.

I'd love any feedback people have.
I don’t think Dems would or should go for this. While they have a good shot at a 4-2 and an outside chance at 5-1 down the line, there’s no reason to make three districts this vulnerable. In a year merely as R as 2016, the delegation becomes a 3-3 split, and that’s not something Dems want to ever risk no matter how big of a wave hits.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2019, 04:49:50 PM »

I don't think Salem and Eugene will end up in the same district.   Each city kind of has it's own establishment and won't want to share a district or risk a primary challenge. 



Quote
This map is a potential 5-1 map. It leaves 18-county Eastern Oregon intact, while shoring up Schrader, creating a swingy but D-leaning 6th district, and shifting the 4th district marginally left. The borders are also, on the whole, tidier (except the 4th district). The drawbacks of this map are the multiple county splits (which can be remedied at the expense of Democratic numbers in the 4th and 6th districts), the 2nd district eating into the Willamette Valley, and Bonamici's 1st getting slightly less safe. The 4th district is Clinton +1.6, the 5th district is Clinton +11.7, and the 6th district is Clinton +4. Note: this map is population-equal based on 2016 data.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/e80bd6fb-a2c4-4a73-90d6-23bd028baa12

This one is pretty good,  making use of Ashland is pretty tough to do, lol.   I hope they move Hood River in with the Willamette districts.  I think the counties east of the Cascades are considered a COI and have to be in the same district.  Which is too bad because I wish the OR dems could make use of Hood River and Bend.



Logged
OBD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,575
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2019, 06:57:00 PM »
« Edited: December 31, 2019, 07:01:51 PM by Oregon Blue Dog »

Here's the map I made. It's sort of 3-2-1 by my judgment, although I don't claim to have a deep understanding of Oregon's political geography. I these districts, I focused on attempting to create districts that protected my understood communities of interest. These districts split very few cities.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/6022e9ae-6846-4a42-ac82-4c0dee49a0e5

I made these districts without considering incumbency protection, but it works out that Districts 1-4 actually go one each to the four current representatives from Oregon.

District 1- Portland. Clinton+63.2, Obama+62.2. Titanium D
District 2- Portland suburbs. Clinton+28.1, Obama+24.4. Solid D
District 3- Northwest Oregon. Trump+4.7 (this was an unintentional surprise), Obama+4.2. Likely/Lean D/Tossup? (Not sure about this rating)
District 4- Urban Willamette Valley. Clinton+18.4, Obama+24.3. Solid D
District 5- Remaining Willamette Valley/Coast/Bend. Trump+13.4, McCain+1.9.
Lean/Likely R? (Not sure about this rating)
District 6- Southern and Eastern Oregon. Trump+28.6, McCain+16.4. Solid R

Overall, I'd say that 1, 2, and 4 are D, 6 is R, while 3 and 5 are competitive.

One strange thing is that Trump and Clinton each won 3 of these districts, which does not match with Oregon's political makeup. However, for some reason I get the sense District 3 would solidly held by Schrader and other Democrats.

I would predict this to result in a 4-2 makeup, but with District 5 possibly going Democratic eventually due to Bend trending left.

I'd love any feedback people have.
I don’t think Dems would or should go for this. While they have a good shot at a 4-2 and an outside chance at 5-1 down the line, there’s no reason to make three districts this vulnerable. In a year merely as R as 2016, the delegation becomes a 3-3 split, and that’s not something Dems want to ever risk no matter how big of a wave hits.
Yeah, Democrats would not go with this. While there are novel ideas here, Eastern Oregon is a COI and can’t be split. While Hood River could probably slide, as it’s similar politically to Portland, I doubt the GOP and the courts would let Bend go too. That said, if Bend becomes available, Democrats could switch Bend with parts of titanium-R Douglas County, turn the 4th into a pack and strengthen their chances of holding the district post-DeFazio. And, the NW district is flawed - major parts of it are zooming right, and I doubt Schrader could survive a wave with this district’s dynamic. On the whole, the map had things in it that would upset both parties, and thus is a very unlikely option,
I don't think Salem and Eugene will end up in the same district.   Each city kind of has it's own establishment and won't want to share a district or risk a primary challenge.  



Quote
This map is a potential 5-1 map. It leaves 18-county Eastern Oregon intact, while shoring up Schrader, creating a swingy but D-leaning 6th district, and shifting the 4th district marginally left. The borders are also, on the whole, tidier (except the 4th district). The drawbacks of this map are the multiple county splits (which can be remedied at the expense of Democratic numbers in the 4th and 6th districts), the 2nd district eating into the Willamette Valley, and Bonamici's 1st getting slightly less safe. The 4th district is Clinton +1.6, the 5th district is Clinton +11.7, and the 6th district is Clinton +4. Note: this map is population-equal based on 2016 data.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/e80bd6fb-a2c4-4a73-90d6-23bd028baa12

This one is pretty good,  making use of Ashland is pretty tough to do, lol.   I hope they move Hood River in with the Willamette districts.  I think the counties east of the Cascades are considered a COI and have to be in the same district.  Which is too bad because I wish the OR dems could make use of Hood River and Bend.




Just clarifying, that’s the 4-2 map. Thanks for the comments, though! I personally think that Ashland is a must-have for Dems, as it’s a natural extension of the 4th and can help counterbalance the more conservative territory the 4th inevitably takes in. It’s even a good idea for the 4th to protrude into Medford IMO, but the issue of that is that it forces a Douglas County split. Nevertheless, the 4th is losing population and trending GOP relative to the state, and once DeFazio’s out it will be a very difficult hold for the Dems.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2019, 08:23:08 PM »

I really think 5D-1R is just too risky.   Also it'd fuel the narrative of "Look at the Dem gerrymander in Oregon!"  whenever you bring up Republican gerrymanders elsewhere.  

4D-2R is just the way to go IMO

EDIT- Oops, yeah, I grabbed the wrong link.   I meant the 5-1 map in my comment.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2019, 08:50:30 PM »
« Edited: January 01, 2020, 01:11:44 AM by Oryxslayer »



Here's a 5-1 map I drew last summer. Yes, the 6th has a road connection across the mountains. I tend to believe that laws limiting gerrymandering ability, but still leaving the pen in the hands of the legislature, don't really end up inhibiting a desire to gerrymander. This was shown by Florida in 2010, and even Oregon to a limited extent.



Here's a more recent safe 4-2 I drew that actually maintains COIs. Since it's more  recent, it lacks the pre-made breakdown:

1: 53.8/34 Clinton, D+7.6 CPVI
2: 54.2/35.7 Trump, R+10.9
3: 72.1/18.1 Clinton, D+27.9
4: 53.3/34.9 Clinton, D+9.1
5: 52.8/36.4 Clinton, D+6.6
6: 57.7/32.1 Trump, R+13.1



Here's a different 5-1 with more emphasis on COIs, which trades away one of the safe D seats from the first  map. That eastern stretch in CD 5  is a COI itself, though pairing it with a bit of portland is a clear partisan move.

1: 46.8/42.4 Clinton, D+2.3 CPVI
2: 59.7/30.5 Trump, R+15.9
3: 63.3/26.3 Clinton, D+19.1
4: 62.7/25.9 Clinton, D+16.1
5: 52.5/36.6 Clinton, D+6.7
6: 45/43.3 Clinton, R+0.3

The first impression of those here though is correct, Oregon has a lot of choices regarding their six districts. Unless they want to gerrymander, the new seat should favor the GOP, though it could be anywhere from competitive to safe depending on the goals of the Oregon Democrats.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2020, 03:37:54 PM »

It really isn't that hard to draw a 5-1 map while leaving all of Eastern Oregon intact. The key is to draw a Eugene-Ashland district and then split the Portland metro 4 ways (basically NW Portland+Beaverton+Hillsboro+NW Coast, SW Portland+Tigard/Tualitan+Yamhill+Polk+Benton+Lincoln, NW Portland+Gresham, and Inner SE Portland+Clackamas+Marion+Linn)
Logged
OBD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,575
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2020, 04:33:58 PM »

It really isn't that hard to draw a 5-1 map while leaving all of Eastern Oregon intact. The key is to draw a Eugene-Ashland district and then split the Portland metro 4 ways (basically NW Portland+Beaverton+Hillsboro+NW Coast, SW Portland+Tigard/Tualitan+Yamhill+Polk+Benton+Lincoln, NW Portland+Gresham, and Inner SE Portland+Clackamas+Marion+Linn)
True, the issue is that the Eugene-Ashland district needs to take in a lot of conservative territory, so it's really difficult to shore up without yanking too much liberal territory from the new district and the 5th or reaching into the Bend cookiejar.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2020, 05:52:25 PM »

It really isn't that hard to draw a 5-1 map while leaving all of Eastern Oregon intact. The key is to draw a Eugene-Ashland district and then split the Portland metro 4 ways (basically NW Portland+Beaverton+Hillsboro+NW Coast, SW Portland+Tigard/Tualitan+Yamhill+Polk+Benton+Lincoln, NW Portland+Gresham, and Inner SE Portland+Clackamas+Marion+Linn)
True, the issue is that the Eugene-Ashland district needs to take in a lot of conservative territory, so it's really difficult to shore up without yanking too much liberal territory from the new district and the 5th or reaching into the Bend cookiejar.
It's possible if you carefully carve up Jackson and Josephine. The 5 Dem districts in this map should all be Clinton+5 or more.

Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2020, 06:47:24 PM »

It really isn't that hard to draw a 5-1 map while leaving all of Eastern Oregon intact. The key is to draw a Eugene-Ashland district and then split the Portland metro 4 ways (basically NW Portland+Beaverton+Hillsboro+NW Coast, SW Portland+Tigard/Tualitan+Yamhill+Polk+Benton+Lincoln, NW Portland+Gresham, and Inner SE Portland+Clackamas+Marion+Linn)
True, the issue is that the Eugene-Ashland district needs to take in a lot of conservative territory, so it's really difficult to shore up without yanking too much liberal territory from the new district and the 5th or reaching into the Bend cookiejar.
It's possible if you carefully carve up Jackson and Josephine. The 5 Dem districts in this map should all be Clinton+5 or more.



On that map the 5th (teal) is about D+2 and Clinton+3, while the 3rd (red) has an Even PVI and is only Clinton+1. Also the eastern R pack is certainly oversized for pop.
Logged
OBD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,575
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2020, 09:52:38 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/09e2d195-c12d-4cf8-959b-25966f42076f

The above map is my attempt at a PDX split. It DOES mess with the Eastern Oregon COIs, but a lot of the areas it picks out (Hood River, The Dalles, Bend, the Warm Springs reservation) are arguably distinct from the remainder of Eastern Oregon.

District 1: A Clinton +19.5 district. It's pretty similar to the current District 1, but with Tillamook County thrown in and McMinnville/Sherwood/Tigard removed. Still Safe D, and still Bonamici's district.

District 2: A Trump +36.8 district, uniting the remnants of Eastern Oregon with portions of Southern Oregon. It's significantly more Republican than it's predecessor, and Buehler (who was drawn out of the district anyway) would not survive here. Safe R.

District 3: Takes in some redder territory, but is still Clinton +45.1. If Blumenauer was from West Portland (and thus no longer in the district), the primary could have gotten interesting, but he isn't, so the district is his until he retires. Safe D

District 4: A Clinton +10 district, and significantly bluer than its predecessor (though still with large rural areas trending Republican). This district would be a Democratic dream, as it makes DeFazio safe and makes his successor far more likely to be a Democrat. The presence of Bend also counteracts some of the very favorable GOP trends in the rest of the district. Likely D

District 5: Schrader's new district protrudes southwest from the Portland Metro, including some south Portland burbs as well as Salem. It's a Clinton +10.1 district that seems to have favorable trends for Democrats. Thing is, Schrader may be more vulnerable to primary challenge here as there's more blue territory in the district than in the previous iteration.  Lean Schrader, but Likely D

District 6: This is probably the bluest possible iteration of the new district, as this District 6 is Clinton +15.3. It includes Portland proper and urban Clackamas County, but also takes in some very conservative turf in Linn and Marion counties. This district is pretty much Safe D, but could see some competitiveness in a GOP wave situation.
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 #12 on: January 18, 2020, 04:54:05 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/93c0f5b0-6396-40f7-b7ab-c3ae740ebc58
If OR gets a commission, they might get something like this.  Its advantages are generally preserving county and city lines, as well as competitive districts.  Dems won't like it has 3 trump districts.  2 of them were close and lean Dem downballot, but still is risky for Dems.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8914defd-d130-4d0b-a44b-e6a192c812c4
Here is a tilt D bipartisan gerrymander.  Protects Dem incumbents but in return gives Republicans OR-6 as a second R pack.   A 4D-2R delegation does disproportionately favor Dems, but less than the current 4D-1R. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2020, 06:17:54 PM »

A priority for Dems should be to unpack the 3rd district and use some Portland precincts to fortify the 5th district and as a Dem base in the new 6th.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,418
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2020, 01:49:47 AM »

Thanks for posting the thread OR Blue Dawg'....

1.) I have to say that I appreciate your overall contributions to the Forum, as a relatively new member who has quickly mastered many of the intricacies of redistricting combined with OR legal matters related to how OR-CD's are allowed to be formed with minimal chances of legal challenges.

2.) This has inspired me to register for Dave's "App" to explore options to create a fair (legal) distribution of CD's, while naturally maximizing both the short-term and long-term electoral benefit to the Democratic Party (Recognizing that my sympathies are with a strong "Left" component of the Party rather than "Centrist" DEMs on many policy items).

3.) I will likely be playing around with this for some time, and not yet ready to post my own maps, although there are other threads from various posters from a wide variety of partisan persuasions and avatars that have visited this topic on this very sub-board.

4.) There have been several previous threads where this topic was previously discussed, albeit from a time period not as close to the US Census releases...

I was attempting to estimate population distributions in Oregon back in 7/21/17 to create some crude numbers and maps.... 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=330790.msg6927795#msg6927795

5.) Although I have not yet explored Dave's App, clearly projected population forecasting could potentially play a major role, since there are many parts of Oregon where population growth is increasing and stagnating, and there is a narrow margin for creating "equal districts by pop", so this is a variable that we need to consider.

6.) In addition to point #5, naturally we need to consider what a potential '20 >'30 Pop growth might look like, *especially if we are considering Medium and Long Term implications when it comes to electoral compositions and party composition.

7.) This point becomes even more difficult if we consider that perhaps the '16 Presidential Election might have been a temporary factor when it comes to partisan voting patterns.

8.) It is entirely possible, that as I have noted elsewhere that some of the swings towards Trump in '16 in "rural and small town Oregon", may have possibly been caused by 3rd Party defection from folks that couldn't vote for HRC, but wouldn't vote for Trump (Many of whom may have voted for Obama in '08 and/or '12). Not to say that there were not significant swings towards Trump (Including significant increase in vote share particularly in many parts of the State).

9.) It is also entirely possible that some of the massive swings towards HRC in Upper-Income and educated suburbs of Metro PDX (And similar downstate demographic places from Salem to Corvallis, Eugene, and Medford... not to even mention parts of Central Oregon around Bend) may well also have been an anomaly....

10.) Redistricting in Oregon can be tricky business if we simply look at voting patterns simply off of the past few Presidential Election Cycles....

11.) Multiple variables to consider here, and one element that has not been mentioned is the resentment that many Working-Class Oregonians feel about being priced out of our own communities, as the cost of living has surged in many housing markets in a State which arguably suffered the worst at the hands of the Great Recession, which plays much more heavily in "Downstate Oregon" than in Metro PDX....

12.) Rant aside... will need to spend some time and create my own map....   Wink

 

Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2020, 07:33:18 PM »
« Edited: May 10, 2020, 07:42:42 PM by Southern Archivist Punxsutawney Phil »

what map are we going to be looking at in the Beaver State?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/4d69c7eb-961e-4a6d-b527-586cda2e1493
I made this map.
I hand-selected precincts in Jackson County and Lane County to make OR-04 be Dem-leaning. As a result the district retains its position as a Clinton district. DeFazio should be fine.
While the new 6th takes in a lot of red turf, it also has some specially-selected areas in Portland and is D+1. It is trending D. Schrader lives here and might choose to run here, or he might stay in the 5th, which also voted for Clinton by somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-5 points.
The 2nd is firm GOP as always, and the 3rd, now contained fully within Multnomah, is also firm D in even greater measure.
All the districts are compact and do not gratitiously split counties. And like under the previous map, only 1 Trump seat despite the state gaining a seat.
Also every Democratic congresscritter gets a safer district, even Blumenauer. DeFazio and Schrader go from EVEN to D+1; Bonamici goes from D+9 to D+11; and Blumenauer goes from D+24 to D+27 (not that he needs that safety).
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2020, 07:41:59 PM »

This is generally a good 5-1 map, but I have a few suggestions:
1. The 3rd should stay east of the Willamette, even though that forces a Washington/Yamhill split. Let it take in some of Clackamas like it does now.
2. Give the 6th everything between the river and 205, south of Powell.
3. The 1st should have Clatsop county, even though that means the 5th has to take in more of Washington.
4. West Linn and Lake Oswego belong in the 1st or the 5th. As a general rule, do not cross the Willamette in the Portland metro.
5. Having the 5th cut into Springfield is better than it crossing the river in Lane.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2020, 08:07:30 PM »

I redid the 3rd, 1st, and 6th. Now the new CD is D+10, pretty much safe D.
I adopted suggestion 1.
I still prefer cutting into Multnomah twice over splitting Washington so I decided instead to feed the 6th CD into western Downtown Portland.

"5. Having the 5th cut into Springfield is better than it crossing the river in Lane." That something I cannot do. I didn't hand-pick precincts in Lane County just to turn OR-04 into a Trump district due to it having more Trump-voting territory in northern Lane. (I assume that you meant to type 6th there instead of 5th)
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2020, 08:13:32 PM »

If Dems try to Gerrymander, here is my take on a 5-1 Dem gerrymander. Not too different from Tim's map, except it takes his 4th and 5th districts and takes them from tossup or Lean D to Likely/Safe D:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/dcd8d51f-699b-4e48-bed1-4d1646465ad0

OR-01: Clinton+17; D+8
OR-02: Trump+37; R+19
OR-03: Clinton+42; D+21
OR-04: Clinton+11; D+5
OR-05: Clinton+12; D+4
OR-06: Clinton+19; D+8

I suppose you could shift the lines a little if you feel the 4th or 5th districts are not safe enough, but this seems good for a start
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2020, 08:16:38 PM »
« Edited: May 10, 2020, 08:20:57 PM by 🌐 »

I redid the 3rd, 1st, and 6th. Now the new CD is D+10, pretty much safe D.
I adopted suggestion 1.
I still prefer cutting into Multnomah twice over splitting Washington so I decided instead to feed the 6th CD into western Downtown Portland.

"5. Having the 5th cut into Springfield is better than it crossing the river in Lane." That something I cannot do. I didn't hand-pick precincts in Lane County just to turn OR-04 into a Trump district due to it having more Trump-voting territory in northern Lane. (I assume that you meant to type 6th there instead of 5th)

Nice. I really like what you did. However, it's really a 3 Dem, 2 Tossup, 1 GOP map, and that can't be changed without cutting Washington.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2020, 08:25:35 PM »

I redid the 3rd, 1st, and 6th. Now the new CD is D+10, pretty much safe D.
I adopted suggestion 1.
I still prefer cutting into Multnomah twice over splitting Washington so I decided instead to feed the 6th CD into western Downtown Portland.

"5. Having the 5th cut into Springfield is better than it crossing the river in Lane." That something I cannot do. I didn't hand-pick precincts in Lane County just to turn OR-04 into a Trump district due to it having more Trump-voting territory in northern Lane. (I assume that you meant to type 6th there instead of 5th)

Nice. I really like what you did. This should be a pretty safe 5-1 and it doesn't cross the Cascades. I wish there were better ties between the northern and southern parts of the 5th, but that really isn't possible without cutting Washington.
Thanks for the kind words. This is what happens you hand-pick precincts. In the 2nd's share of Jackson for instance there are 0 Clinton precincts. And in the 6th's share of Lane there are only 3 Clinton precincts.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2020, 08:42:42 PM »

I redid the 3rd, 1st, and 6th. Now the new CD is D+10, pretty much safe D.
I adopted suggestion 1.
I still prefer cutting into Multnomah twice over splitting Washington so I decided instead to feed the 6th CD into western Downtown Portland.

"5. Having the 5th cut into Springfield is better than it crossing the river in Lane." That something I cannot do. I didn't hand-pick precincts in Lane County just to turn OR-04 into a Trump district due to it having more Trump-voting territory in northern Lane. (I assume that you meant to type 6th there instead of 5th)

Nice. I really like what you did. This should be a pretty safe 5-1 and it doesn't cross the Cascades. I wish there were better ties between the northern and southern parts of the 5th, but that really isn't possible without cutting Washington.
Thanks for the kind words. This is what happens you hand-pick precincts. In the 2nd's share of Jackson for instance there are 0 Clinton precincts. And in the 6th's share of Lane there are only 3 Clinton precincts.
Of course. However, I had to edit my earlier comment because it looks like the 5th and 6th districts are very competitive, and any map with 4+ safe D seats has to split Washington. The general design is good, but I think you'll have to do that if you want 5 Clinton+5 or higher seats.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2020, 08:54:13 PM »

I redid the 3rd, 1st, and 6th. Now the new CD is D+10, pretty much safe D.
I adopted suggestion 1.
I still prefer cutting into Multnomah twice over splitting Washington so I decided instead to feed the 6th CD into western Downtown Portland.

"5. Having the 5th cut into Springfield is better than it crossing the river in Lane." That something I cannot do. I didn't hand-pick precincts in Lane County just to turn OR-04 into a Trump district due to it having more Trump-voting territory in northern Lane. (I assume that you meant to type 6th there instead of 5th)

Nice. I really like what you did. This should be a pretty safe 5-1 and it doesn't cross the Cascades. I wish there were better ties between the northern and southern parts of the 5th, but that really isn't possible without cutting Washington.
Thanks for the kind words. This is what happens you hand-pick precincts. In the 2nd's share of Jackson for instance there are 0 Clinton precincts. And in the 6th's share of Lane there are only 3 Clinton precincts.
Of course. However, I had to edit my earlier comment because it looks like the 5th and 6th districts are very competitive, and any map with 4+ safe D seats has to split Washington. The general design is good, but I think you'll have to do that if you want 5 Clinton+5 or higher seats.
You wind up hitting a wall past a certain point. 4 safe D seats or heavily respecting CoI - two things you have to choose between.
The map is optimized for safety while following CoI to a high degree. But one could tear up the CoI and easily get a safe 5-1, as Tack's map illustrates.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2020, 09:05:26 PM »

This is just a much different take on the Portland Metro mostly -





https://davesredistricting.org/join/0263ae3b-8b65-4f4b-9cb9-cc14ba43457f

Only five county splits.

3D - 1R - 2s
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2020, 09:06:10 PM »

I redid the 3rd, 1st, and 6th. Now the new CD is D+10, pretty much safe D.
I adopted suggestion 1.
I still prefer cutting into Multnomah twice over splitting Washington so I decided instead to feed the 6th CD into western Downtown Portland.

"5. Having the 5th cut into Springfield is better than it crossing the river in Lane." That something I cannot do. I didn't hand-pick precincts in Lane County just to turn OR-04 into a Trump district due to it having more Trump-voting territory in northern Lane. (I assume that you meant to type 6th there instead of 5th)

Nice. I really like what you did. This should be a pretty safe 5-1 and it doesn't cross the Cascades. I wish there were better ties between the northern and southern parts of the 5th, but that really isn't possible without cutting Washington.
Thanks for the kind words. This is what happens you hand-pick precincts. In the 2nd's share of Jackson for instance there are 0 Clinton precincts. And in the 6th's share of Lane there are only 3 Clinton precincts.
Of course. However, I had to edit my earlier comment because it looks like the 5th and 6th districts are very competitive, and any map with 4+ safe D seats has to split Washington. The general design is good, but I think you'll have to do that if you want 5 Clinton+5 or higher seats.
You wind up hitting a wall past a certain point. 4 safe D seats or heavily respecting CoI - two things you have to choose between.
The map is optimized for safety while following CoI to a high degree. But one could tear up the CoI and easily get a safe 5-1, as Tack's map illustrates.

I agree. My concern is that in your map, the 5th isn't particularly safe, leaving the possibility of a 3-3 map in a R wave. Understandably, the 4th is always going to be a tossup unless you really start violating COIs.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18  
« 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 0.082 seconds with 12 queries.