2020 Redistricting in Pennsylvania

[Nyvin]

Not that I realistically expect the PA State Supreme Court would do anything at all like this,  but tendrils into both Lancaster and Reading cities would work:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/2864d3fc-b901-4226-b7c9-9734274a3dfd

All the districts are winnable for Democrats.

Edit - If the Chester district has to go into either Lancaster or Berks and not the other,  then I would actually choose Lancaster based on recent trends.   If Dems don't win it in 2022 then they'd have a good chance by 2024 or 2026.

I think Cartwright is doomed no matter how the Scranton district is drawn.

[Nyvin]

Actually this would work too:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/2864d3fc-b901-4226-b7c9-9734274a3dfd

Have Chester to it's own district then expand into Lancaster,  have the Delaware district expand into Montgomery, then the Montgomery district gets Reading.

This would be a lot cleaner than the other one.   PA-6 is Clinton +6.6% and PA-5 is Clinton +15.5%.

[Nyvin]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bee23a27-3796-4f20-99da-98550eebd85a

[Nyvin]

So if the State Senate is a plain map that keeps the cities together for the most part,  here's how I'd see the seats that Democrats could win -

More or less Safe D-
4 Alleghany
1 Scranton
1 Allentown
1 Harrisburg
1 Reading
2 Chester
13 SEPA

Tossup but probably leaning in Dem's direction-
1 Northampton
1 Lancaster
1 Erie
1 additional Alleghany

That's 23 seats they'd have a really good chance at winning, and a further 4 they can reach for.   So 27 total.   If they hold the Lt Gov seat they'd need 25 for majority, and 26 if lt gov is lost.

[Nyvin]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/10cf8230-5566-4ec2-a2b3-415a6e613d47

A "plain" map I drew.

[Nyvin]

Something like this? 

https://davesredistricting.org/join/3d91ae72-035c-49d8-920b-d44012d3ea2d

[/url]


Republicans lose a seat somewhere between the current 12, 15, and 16 districts, but that's pretty much inevitable in any normal map.   They probably gain PA-8 in exchange, again, probably inevitable. 

Dems keep most of the rest that they have except maybe Lamb's current district, trends are good in that area between northern Allegheny and southern Butler though.  Is PA-4 going into Berks like that acceptable or will they have to get that ~140k somewhere else?

[Nyvin]

Here's mine after taking away PA-4's extension in Berks

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f6919645-5ded-4fee-b55a-9a9e46a067d9



In this case PA-8 is definitely gone.   Lamb's and Houlahan's seats are still winnable by Democrats though.

[Nyvin]

The Dems should see if the PA Supreme Court would be willing to crack Philly. Unlikely but it's worth a try with a friendly judicial body.

Not even pretending that you want fair maps anymore, huh?

Note that someone like him would be considered an "independent" on the redistricting commissions proposed by the For the People Act.

If Senate Republicans want to pass a national reform for redistricting they're more than welcome to.

[Nyvin]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/222b5cee-1ab5-472a-8ea0-53ea1eb85515

[Nyvin]

Here's one I made that attempt to keep statewide proportionality and respected borders as much as possible.   Generally if a county is large enough for it's own district it got one, and I used whole counties as much as feasible.





https://davesredistricting.org/join/07223592-ee0e-4f4f-8105-115eb11be238

4 AA majority seats in Philly, a seat in Delaware that's functional to elect an AA candidate of choice, along with a Hispanic opportunity seat in Philly.  

21 safe seats for each party, along with 8 highly competitive seats.

[Nyvin]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/222b5cee-1ab5-472a-8ea0-53ea1eb85515

I’m not sure cracking Pittsburgh is a good idea. Those districts are like Biden+11 and Biden+14 and may fall in a wave. Better to have a safe seat and a swing or even R-leaning seat.

That doesn't follow what we've seen in states like Nevada or Oregon.   Democrats seem more interested in maxing their ceiling than their floor.

[Nyvin]

Of course they had to split State College in half on the Senate map.

[Nyvin]

Those Centre County districts are weak sauce,  that's not a D gerrymander, the eastern district is only Biden+7.   I made Biden+14 and a Biden+20 districts while only cutting three precincts out from State College.   It also makes a lot more sense if the geography of the county is taken into account (the valleys go east-west, not north-south).

https://davesredistricting.org/join/74775877-e588-4698-848b-11fe74ed5cc4

Clinton+Centre counties are almost exactly three state house districts.

[Nyvin]

This is not what a fair map looks like because it gerrymanders to get Democrats to proportionality. Democrats are self-packed into Philly and Pittsburgh. A fair map would be 9-5-3, like this. https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::1aec4a7c-782d-4214-82ac-1a0e16a04cb7

Only they really aren't all that self-packed.   You split up the Harrisburg metro, have a district stretching from Pike to Snyder, that PA-16 district in Allegheny makes no sense at all, and drew the Chester district in an almost optimal way for Republicans.   That's not a neutral map at all.

[Nyvin]

This is not what a fair map looks like because it gerrymanders to get Democrats to proportionality. Democrats are self-packed into Philly and Pittsburgh.

State-sponsored racial discrimination in housing, leading to 90+% African-American neighborhoods adjacent to places in Bucks County where they were forbidden to live, is not “self-packing.” Using racial discrimination as a justification for unequal distribution of political power is rewarding racists for their success.

It is self packing that Democratic vote shares are highly concentrated in urban areas.

Republicans are heavily concentrated in rural areas....do you penalize them for that?

[Nyvin]

I really hope there’s some kind of minor change in coalitions that allows some of the artificial D seats in PA, OH, NC, MI, etc to go red. I’m not sure how that would happen but it would be hilarious. The self-righteous D’s on this forum would very much deserve it for how much they are celebrating hideously gerrymandered seats in the name of partisan fairness. I’m not sure why the courts ever got this idea but the maps are intended to preserve communities of interest so that their geographical area can fairly select a representative. They are not supposed to legislate the national scoreboard and pre-determine who wins each seat.

My view on it is that proportionality should be used to an extend that is acceptable.   Make the map equal to the point that voters can translate votes to seats at a level that is proportionate to their statewide vote share, but if that requires distorting the seats to an extent that voters can't really know what district they're in (weird tentacles or awkward splits, etc) then that's a step too far.

Proportionality is one of the best ways we have to give a map true legitimacy because it's based on simple math rather than what looks good.  It's probably why the concept has taken hold in courts and commissions around the country so strongly.

[Nyvin]

I really hope there’s some kind of minor change in coalitions that allows some of the artificial D seats in PA, OH, NC, MI, etc to go red. I’m not sure how that would happen but it would be hilarious. The self-righteous D’s on this forum would very much deserve it for how much they are celebrating hideously gerrymandered seats in the name of partisan fairness. I’m not sure why the courts ever got this idea but the maps are intended to preserve communities of interest so that their geographical area can fairly select a representative. They are not supposed to legislate the national scoreboard and pre-determine who wins each seat.

My view on it is that proportionality should be used to an extend that is acceptable.   Make the map equal to the point that voters can translate votes to seats at a level that is proportionate to their statewide vote share, but if that requires distorting the seats to an extent that voters can't really know what district they're in (weird tentacles or awkward splits, etc) than that's a step too far.

Proportionality is one of the best ways we have to give a map true legitimacy because it's based on simple math rather than what looks good.  It's probably why the concept has taken hold in courts and commissions around the country so strongly.

There is no inherent right to have a map that reflects your state’s partisan lean. That is the job of the senate, where all voters in the state have the same influence. The job of the house is to give an equal and non-diluted vote to all voters in the COUNTRY. Gerrymandering towards a “fair” outcome is no better than gerrymandering towards a partisan outcome. Both actively disenfranchise voters in search of a pre-determined outcome, instead of letting the voters decide who to elect

The seats are distributed based on a state's population and the district borders are restricted by state lines, so I don't see how the seats shouldn't be tied to the statewide vote and is only meant to represent the country, that makes no sense.

If you have a state that votes 48% for one party but the party only gets 13% of the seats that at a fundamental level is a very undemocratic (small d) system and morally wrong.  It can't just be brushed aside and needs SOME kind of remedy. 

Proportionality is simply the best way we have to offer such a remedy, at least the best way with the other rules we have in place currently.

[Nyvin]

This is not what a fair map looks like because it gerrymanders to get Democrats to proportionality. Democrats are self-packed into Philly and Pittsburgh.

State-sponsored racial discrimination in housing, leading to 90+% African-American neighborhoods adjacent to places in Bucks County where they were forbidden to live, is not “self-packing.” Using racial discrimination as a justification for unequal distribution of political power is rewarding racists for their success.

It is self packing that Democratic vote shares are highly concentrated in urban areas.

Republicans are heavily concentrated in rural areas....do you penalize them for that?

Excluding some rare rural packs, Republicans are less concentrated in rural areas than Dems in urban areas.

Less concentrated doesn't mean not concentrated at all,  they should still be penalized like you seem to want to penalize Democrats.

[Nyvin]

Bumping an old thread, but I just created an 11-6 Democratic gerrymander in PA I wanted to share here. Any feedback would be appreciated.

I really hope districts like this never come back.