Colorado 2020 U.S. House Redistricting Discussion
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:59:10 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)
  Colorado 2020 U.S. House Redistricting Discussion
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21
Author Topic: Colorado 2020 U.S. House Redistricting Discussion  (Read 26298 times)
Boobs
HCP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,510


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 13, 2020, 12:04:29 AM »
« edited: January 13, 2020, 12:32:54 AM by Inevitable Barbara Bollier »

I figured I might as well start this thread.

As we all know, Colorado is poised (and almost guaranteed) to gain a district in the next round of apportionment, bring it up to 8 districts. It's a Democratic trifecta that is likely to hold in 2020 (or even expand; 3 Republican senators in Clinton districts are up).

I drew this map.





Generally, I think this an elegant map in the sense that it mostly preserves the 2012-2020 districts' compositions, both in terms of voter base and partisanship.

I drew the map using the 2020 estimates in DRA and then redrew it in 2010 to get the following numbers:

CO-01 - Clinton 73.6-18.9
CO-02 - Clinton 57.8-33.4
CO-03 - Trump 51.6-40.3
CO-04 - Trump 59.8-32.2
CO-05 - Trump 56.3-33.8
CO-06 - Clinton 49.4-42.1
CO-07 - Clinton 51.4-39.4
CO-08 - Trump 46.3-44.8 (new)

Mostly, Districts 1-7 remain within 2% of their previous iteration, with CO-01 becoming about 4% more Democratic, but it's safe anyway.

The new district is southern JeffCo, most of Douglas, and the westernmost parts of Arapahoe. It was carried by Trump but I'd bet it would be won by the Democratic nominee in 2020, and is generally trending toward the Democrats, leading the map to settle towards 5-3 Dem in the long run, reflecting the likely desire of a Dem-controlled redistricting process.

Edit: Link here.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2020, 06:45:13 AM »

Colorado Amendments Y and Z both overwhelmingly passed in 2018, so the Democratic trifecta has no ability to use their control to influence redistricting.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2020, 07:18:51 AM »

Can you provide a color key for your results? I wish I had the DRA color order memorized, but I don’t.

This is a very minor point, but Routt County (Steamboat Springs) is more Democratic than nearby counties and would pair well with the Boulder district rather than the primarily agricultural counties to its west. Rabbit Ears Pass connects it with the Front Range is warm weather.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2020, 07:48:04 AM »

Can you provide a color key for your results? I wish I had the DRA color order memorized, but I don’t.

This is a very minor point, but Routt County (Steamboat Springs) is more Democratic than nearby counties and would pair well with the Boulder district rather than the primarily agricultural counties to its west. Rabbit Ears Pass connects it with the Front Range is warm weather.

First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh
Eighth
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2020, 08:34:29 AM »

Thank you! I can see how the similarities to current districts would mean this key might not be necessary.
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,286


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2020, 08:37:59 AM »

Can you provide a color key for your results? I wish I had the DRA color order memorized, but I don’t.

This is a very minor point, but Routt County (Steamboat Springs) is more Democratic than nearby counties and would pair well with the Boulder district rather than the primarily agricultural counties to its west. Rabbit Ears Pass connects it with the Front Range is warm weather.

I think Steamboat Springs is more naturally kept in the district that includes all of the other ski towns as well (which is potentially winnable for the Democrats as I think the strong Hispano numbers for Trump understate Democrats' strength in the area).

This map is pretty reasonable overall. I've had some fun drawing gerrymanders of Colorado, but obviously one isn't going to happen. The only question is whether with 8 districts it might be possible to create a Latino district in the Denver area, which a commission might consider.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2020, 10:50:52 AM »
« Edited: January 13, 2020, 11:17:31 AM by MarkD »

Is the new CO-08 predominantly Anglo white? If so, then I would guess that since it voted for Trump, and is an area of new and rapidly growing population, that it would more likely elect a Republican in the coming decade, resulting in a delegation that is evenly split. It has been my experience that an area made up of new suburbs, rapidly growing, tends to be more Republican, unless the area is dominated by minorities.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2020, 11:57:43 AM »

First off, Colorado now has a commission. The structure of Colorado's commission is very similar to California's in that there are a large number of commissioners and any map needs 2/3s of them to approve a plan. Now, Colorado's commission is carefully worded to specify party members as the criteria for being selected  as a partisan/indie commissioner. Since we all know that Colorado's Indie voters consistently break blue (Boulder has plurality Indie registered for instance) there is the potential that the commission ends up slanted and just selects D-favoring maps. However, lets ignore this potential for now and move  on to the main event: Denver.

If the trifecta had their way with the maps, Denver would be carved six ways to Sunday and the entire metro region would become Safe for their blue incumbents. However, with commission in place, there are really just two general plans in regard to the city.

The first general plan is keeping most or all of the city inside one district. This is obviously a democratic pack, but it keeps the the city COI intact. If such a district is drawn, the 8th district is almost guaranteed to be based out of Douglas County. This means the seat is going to be both more white and more GOP than the other seats in the region. This style  of map would focus on preserving city, town, and county COI's.



The second option has the side effect of splitting Denver, which is why the democrats may have their interest groups lobbying the commission hard for this type of plan. This general option is a minority district. The district could resemble the  lines below, or it could drop parts of Adams in favor of Aurora. This type of plan favors minority COIs over city ones. Such a plan would release the white parts  of Denver to her suburbs. Even if this chunk of the city is kept whole, it still will push the suburban seats towards the democrats because of it's hyper-democratic partisanship. Such a plan does not guarantee a seat based out of Douglas, nor does it guarantee such a seat even favors the Republicans.

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 #8 on: January 13, 2020, 02:39:16 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2020, 02:58:13 PM »

I remember posting in a thread about this a while ago - I can't seem to find it though.  

Anyway - I'm 99% certain the hispanic opportunity seat will win out in the commission over keeping Denver whole.  

Beyond that,  it's actually pretty beneficial to try to keep CO-6 somewhat close to it's current configuration.   It helps with the hispanic seat quite a bit,  I got the hispanic percentage all the way up to 46.9%.

Making a 5D-3R map isn't too difficult,  especially with the Denver/Boulder trends.





https://davesredistricting.org/join/a95c0709-a8ce-4658-b848-af17f59a989c

I made this map loosely based on 2018 pop estimates at the county level.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2020, 05:18:51 PM »

4 dem seats, 1 toss up and 3 GOP seem to be quite representative of colorado I guess?
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2020, 06:28:15 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.
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 13, 2020, 07:01:12 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.
It's a bipartisan commission.  Also, PVI doesn't determine whether a district is competitive.  The western CO area is swingy and McCain only won it by 2.  Also the suburban seat is competitive in the post Trump area.  The map would either produce a 4D 4R map or a 5D 3R map in a decent dem year.  Given the political geography of CO, with dems being hyper concentrated in Denver and Boulder, a truly fair map would have only 2 safe dem seats and 2 lean/likely dem in the suburbs.  However by cracking Denver I drew 3 safe D and 1 likely D seat.  The other 4 are 2 safe R and 2 lean R.  On average Dems win maybe 4.5/8 seats if you look at how the state voted the past decade.  Very fair. 
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2020, 07:23:15 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.
It's a bipartisan commission.  Also, PVI doesn't determine whether a district is competitive.  The western CO area is swingy and McCain only won it by 2.  Also the suburban seat is competitive in the post Trump area.  The map would either produce a 4D 4R map or a 5D 3R map in a decent dem year.  Given the political geography of CO, with dems being hyper concentrated in Denver and Boulder, a truly fair map would have only 2 safe dem seats and 2 lean/likely dem in the suburbs.  However by cracking Denver I drew 3 safe D and 1 likely D seat.  The other 4 are 2 safe R and 2 lean R.  On average Dems win maybe 4.5/8 seats if you look at how the state voted the past decade.  Very fair. 

That map would pretty much always produce a 4D-4R delegation,  except maybe by around 2026 or 2028 the Douglas seat could be competitive since it also has southern Arapahoe.     

There's no way for Democrats to realistically win the western seat.  Not happening.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2020, 07:37:12 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.
It's a bipartisan commission. 
It's as much of a bipartisan commission as Arizona has a "bipartisan commission"
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2020, 07:47:28 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.
It's a bipartisan commission. 
It's as much of a bipartisan commission as Arizona has a "bipartisan commission"

Colorado's commission is a CA style commission. 12 Commissioners, 4  D, 4 R, 4 Indie. Any map needs 2/3s approval, and at least 2 indies need to be in that 2/3s. now, like I mentioned above, the indies could be stacked. However, the more commissioners there are, the lower chance  of this happening. AZ for instance has a simple majority to adopt their maps with a 5 member commission, putting all power in that single indie.
Logged
💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)
peenie_weenie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,416
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2020, 08:12:52 PM »

Can you provide a color key for your results? I wish I had the DRA color order memorized, but I don’t.

This is a very minor point, but Routt County (Steamboat Springs) is more Democratic than nearby counties and would pair well with the Boulder district rather than the primarily agricultural counties to its west. Rabbit Ears Pass connects it with the Front Range is warm weather.

I think Steamboat Springs is more naturally kept in the district that includes all of the other ski towns as well (which is potentially winnable for the Democrats as I think the strong Hispano numbers for Trump understate Democrats' strength in the area).

This map is pretty reasonable overall. I've had some fun drawing gerrymanders of Colorado, but obviously one isn't going to happen. The only question is whether with 8 districts it might be possible to create a Latino district in the Denver area, which a commission might consider.

Steamboat is in CO-03 - the town is located to the west of the name on that map, in Routt County (the one shaped like Mississippi).

IDK about the size but you could make a horseshoe-shaped district with the southeast leg West of the Platte and into Jefferson County, snaking up and around downtown and coming down to Aurora which would pack a lot of Latinos in. The question is what to do with the rest of Denver - very white and urbane (mostly wealthy too) but lumping it in with southern suburbs puts them in conflict with the most conservative voters in the area.

Is the new CO-08 predominantly Anglo white? If so, then I would guess that since it voted for Trump, and is an area of new and rapidly growing population, that it would more likely elect a Republican in the coming decade, resulting in a delegation that is evenly split. It has been my experience that an area made up of new suburbs, rapidly growing, tends to be more Republican, unless the area is dominated by minorities.

Yes - Douglas county is the most conservative of the Denver suburbs, and it's 97% white in the 2010 census. Worth noting that the southern half of Jefferson (included in the 8th in this map) is rural and also reliably Republican.

There's a crazy amount of growth there though as people get priced out of downtown or inner suburbs - you can find people living as far south as Colorado Springs and commuting into the Denver (!). I think Castle Rock could easily turn into a Denver bedroom suburb but right now the area is pretty R-friendly.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2020, 09:36:45 PM »

Colorado is yet another Democratic Trifecta to adopt a commission denying the Democrats the opportunity for more favourable maps. A clean 6-2 could very easily be drawn if the legislature still controlled redistricting. (In this example the 3rd is D+5 while the other Dem seats are all over D+8)

Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2020, 03:17:12 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.
It's a bipartisan commission. 
It's as much of a bipartisan commission as Arizona has a "bipartisan commission"

Colorado's commission is a CA style commission. 12 Commissioners, 4  D, 4 R, 4 Indie. Any map needs 2/3s approval, and at least 2 indies need to be in that 2/3s. now, like I mentioned above, the indies could be stacked. However, the more commissioners there are, the lower chance  of this happening. AZ for instance has a simple majority to adopt their maps with a 5 member commission, putting all power in that single indie.

This is particularly likely to happen in Western states with a lot of "indies" who all lean one way, to the point where I would go in with the assumption of a soft Dem map in CO and AZ and a soft GOP map if e.g. the OK/NE commission initiatives succeed.  In, say, Michigan, I would be more confident that the independents on the commission have unique views not aligned with either party. 
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 #19 on: January 28, 2020, 02:29:22 AM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.
It's a bipartisan commission. 
It's as much of a bipartisan commission as Arizona has a "bipartisan commission"

Colorado's commission is a CA style commission. 12 Commissioners, 4  D, 4 R, 4 Indie. Any map needs 2/3s approval, and at least 2 indies need to be in that 2/3s. now, like I mentioned above, the indies could be stacked. However, the more commissioners there are, the lower chance  of this happening. AZ for instance has a simple majority to adopt their maps with a 5 member commission, putting all power in that single indie.

This is particularly likely to happen in Western states with a lot of "indies" who all lean one way, to the point where I would go in with the assumption of a soft Dem map in CO and AZ and a soft GOP map if e.g. the OK/NE commission initiatives succeed.  In, say, Michigan, I would be more confident that the independents on the commission have unique views not aligned with either party. 

Also some southern states with a lot of Republican voters who are still registered dem could have this issue if they were to get bipartisan commissions.  Like KY.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2020, 09:44:43 AM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.
It's a bipartisan commission. 
It's as much of a bipartisan commission as Arizona has a "bipartisan commission"

Colorado's commission is a CA style commission. 12 Commissioners, 4  D, 4 R, 4 Indie. Any map needs 2/3s approval, and at least 2 indies need to be in that 2/3s. now, like I mentioned above, the indies could be stacked. However, the more commissioners there are, the lower chance  of this happening. AZ for instance has a simple majority to adopt their maps with a 5 member commission, putting all power in that single indie.

This is particularly likely to happen in Western states with a lot of "indies" who all lean one way, to the point where I would go in with the assumption of a soft Dem map in CO and AZ and a soft GOP map if e.g. the OK/NE commission initiatives succeed.  In, say, Michigan, I would be more confident that the independents on the commission have unique views not aligned with either party. 

Also some southern states with a lot of Republican voters who are still registered dem could have this issue if they were to get bipartisan commissions.  Like KY.

Very well could happen in Arkansas if their commission actually comes into existence. Every Dem would need to be a AA for the Dems to have any chance at pushing for an AA seat on the Congressional level. If not, then the Dems would probably be encouraged to trade GOP authority over the Congressional map for a greater amount of Dem seats on the State legislative maps. Oklahoma is also pushing for a commission, but if it successfully becomes law, Dems don't really have much to worry about on the Congressional level. Their only possible desire, keeping OKC whole, is fairly common sense and would occur under any fair map.
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 #21 on: January 29, 2020, 02:43:55 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.
It's a bipartisan commission. 
It's as much of a bipartisan commission as Arizona has a "bipartisan commission"

Colorado's commission is a CA style commission. 12 Commissioners, 4  D, 4 R, 4 Indie. Any map needs 2/3s approval, and at least 2 indies need to be in that 2/3s. now, like I mentioned above, the indies could be stacked. However, the more commissioners there are, the lower chance  of this happening. AZ for instance has a simple majority to adopt their maps with a 5 member commission, putting all power in that single indie.

This is particularly likely to happen in Western states with a lot of "indies" who all lean one way, to the point where I would go in with the assumption of a soft Dem map in CO and AZ and a soft GOP map if e.g. the OK/NE commission initiatives succeed.  In, say, Michigan, I would be more confident that the independents on the commission have unique views not aligned with either party. 

Also some southern states with a lot of Republican voters who are still registered dem could have this issue if they were to get bipartisan commissions.  Like KY.

Very well could happen in Arkansas if their commission actually comes into existence. Every Dem would need to be a AA for the Dems to have any chance at pushing for an AA seat on the Congressional level. If not, then the Dems would probably be encouraged to trade GOP authority over the Congressional map for a greater amount of Dem seats on the State legislative maps. Oklahoma is also pushing for a commission, but if it successfully becomes law, Dems don't really have much to worry about on the Congressional level. Their only possible desire, keeping OKC whole, is fairly common sense and would occur under any fair map.
and it would be difficult to ensure every Democrat on the commission is black, AR isn't MS, there are many white Dems.  To explicitly reject all white people from Dem slots can only be described as one thing: racist
Logged
voice_of_resistance
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 488
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.34, S: 5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2020, 02:19:05 PM »

Now that the GOP has nominated yet another batsh**t crazy woman in CO-03, here's my take on what a Dem gerrymander of the state would look like. Obviously there is the commission, but this is a hypothetical if Dems could go for broke.



CO-01: Denver, Sheridan, Centennial - Clinton 52-40, Bennet 53-42, D+3
CO-02: Boulder, Greeley - Clinton 52-39, Bennet 53-41, D+6
CO-03: Western Slope/Ski Country - Trump 50-42, Glenn 49-44, R+5
CO-04: Fort Collins, Longmont, and Eastern Plains - Trump 48-43, Glenn 48-46, R+3
CO-05: Colorado Springs - Trump 56-34, Glenn 58-36, R+13
CO-06: Aurora, Parker, Castle Rock - Clinton 47-44, Bennet 49-46, D+0
CO-07: Denver, Thornton - Clinton 69-23, Bennet 70-24, D+23
CO-08: Arvada, Golden, Pueblo, Clinton 46-45, Bennet 50-45, D+0

Incumbent wise:
1: new D seat
2: Neguse
3: DMB
4: Buck
5: Lamborn
6: Crow
7: DeGette
8: Perlmutter

Buck would be in significant danger of losing the 4th now, and the 3rd moves a few points left. This could easily become a 7-1 D map.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2020, 02:46:38 PM »

Did a fair CO map:



Logged
nerd73
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 958
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2020, 06:50:48 PM »
« Edited: July 01, 2020, 07:52:05 PM by nerd73 »



My 8-seat Colorado map.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21  
« 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 0.069 seconds with 11 queries.