2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: New Jersey

[lfromnj]

There are a million examples here of a compact 3rd Dem district in Wisconsin and none for a competitive Trump district in Mass. What this boils down to is you prioritize compactness and small shapes over proportionality, and I prioritize proportionality over compactness and small shapes. There's no guarantee any one formula will mirror the national popular vote exactly, but a focus on shapes certainly carries a big Republican bias, so I don't accept it as a neutral default.

I never said I focused purely on shapes/compcatness.



A lot of my NE wisconsin districts are often a bit ugly but its arguably neccesary to keep the FRV cities all together in one district and also not messing up the rest of the map further.  My map also creates virtually the most D friendly district possible in NE Wisconsin. Compactness is generally a good priority because communities are usually compact but not always. As you can see my map doesn't even strictly focus on county lines and I am willing to do a double county split rather than split Fond Du Lac off.

Anyway referring to my 2nd point why are you opposed to a Likely D seat in Oklahoma but then believe Michigan is a gold standard when it does the exact same thing in the grand rapids metro?(compactly transforming a 50/50 district into a near double digit Biden district)

[Brittain33]

I'm not "opposed" to a Likely D seat in Oklahoma, I just didn't think it was possible without heroic and absurd measures so I opposed counting it in your comparison. You drew a district that Biden won by 7 points in 2020, I am guessing that's a high-water mark for Democrats there and it would be at least Learn R, possibly Likely R in 2022.

[lfromnj]

I'm not "opposed" to a Likely D seat in Oklahoma, I just didn't think it was possible without heroic and absurd measures so I opposed counting it in your comparison. You drew a district that Biden won by 7 points in 2020, I am guessing that's a high-water mark for Democrats there and it would be at least Learn R, possibly Likely R in 2022.

Well that's the same rating for the Michigan seat right? Most people are considering a tossup/Lean R for 2022?

Anyway I am pretty certain the OKC Norman district would be drawn if HR1 was passed. Also Kendra Horn did slightly outperform Biden so its not the high water mark.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1490756373155659777?s=20&t=XmuZ1nls...

Back to NJ, one of these maps is from the Democrats, one is from the GOP - though the names will remain behind the curtain. I think map 1 - turnpike - is the Dem one and map 2 is the GOP, but only partisan data I think could confirm.

EDIT: yep.

https://twitter.com/ECaliberSeven/status/1490758512674287619?s=20&t=XmuZ1nls...

[Torie]

You do realize that nationwide that gives the Dems an advantage right?

I don’t see why that should necessarily be true because of the situation in some of the larger states. There are a number of mid-sized and smaller states where this advantages Republicans, and there are more of them. Beyond that we get the issue that there is a slight Democratic majority in the country so a system favoring proportionality would favor Dems. And also that, given the situation you describe, it may favor Dems but the alternative (legislative rules) would favor Dems even more strongly because of California.

I am just saying what you propose nationwide gives the Dems more than their proportionate share. Other schemes give the Dems more of an excess than yours does.

I have posted this before, but when I write the new US Constitution, we are going to a parliamentary system, probably like the German one, where there are individual seats, but then seats are awarded to achieve proportionality based on the national vote.

In the meantime, I favor the Muon2 rules, where proportionality is a tie breaker between maps that otherwise score pretty equally. The amount of discretion would be minimized, because drawing the lines brings out the worst of the hack in our sadly flawed species.

Here's actually a mini example of what happens with Britainn33 standards. Let's look at 4 states. Let's also just equalize their turnout or whatever.

Oklahoma, Massachussets,Arkansas, and Wisconsin. Combine Arkansas and Oklahoma into 1 state for this purpose. With equalized turnout it's probably pretty close to 50/50


The current maps are 4 Safe R in AR, 5 Safe R in OK, 9 Safe D in MA. 4 Safe R in WI, 1 Lean R and 1 Likely R and 2 Safe D.

My ideal fair map would be 1 tossup in Oklahoma, 4 Safe R, 1 Likely R in AR and 3 Safe R,in WI it would be 3 Safe R, 1 Likely R , 2 Lean R and 2 Safe D.

What would Britainn33 standards result in?

Maybe 1 or 2 Likely D's in MA,  but still 9 very D districts. Oklahoma probably combines Norman and most of Oklahoma county to make a Likely D district.  Arkansas makes a Safe D district with Little Rock and the Delta. Wisconsin would probably be 3 Safe D , 1 Lean D, 1 Lean R and 3 Safe R.
So if we count Lean districts as .75, .25 for their respective parties. I will just count Likely's as a whole 1.

The current scenario has
14.75 R districts  11.25 D districts. We also do have to wait for Wisconsin's actual districts which could end up in 14.5/11.5


My fair map scenario is 14 R, 12 D.

Britain33's scenario is 15 D-11 R which is actually more extreme than the current delegation. Obviously still nothing crazy but still the most biased.

So infact as Torie said your standards/national Democrats standards would result in quite unfavorable maps for the GOP as national Democrats obviously designed it. I don't believe you have the same intent as the national Democrats but if your effects are the same. Just draw geographically good maps and you will get pretty responsive and equal maps nationwide. Small biases can exist but one can just suck it up. Incumbency bias's are probably more likely to result in an unfair result. Trying to muck around with this results in geographically worse districts and may not actually result in more fair maps.


I chose these 4 states because its an interesting exercise in geography. 1 Super Safe D state, 1 Super Safe R(combined) and 1 pure tossup. The very Safe D state has very good D geography while the tossup has very good R geography. Meanwhile the Safe R state has fairly neutral geography. I could also replace the 2 R states with TN but TN isn't nearly as R as these 2 states.

It's either that or just make an actual PR system like Germany does. Now what Democrats want is obviously more seats and maybe PR may result in that in a 2 party system  but they also obviously don't want to completely mess up the system either as PR very likely could end up in a multiparty system. So why not try to create something that not only gives them more seats than PR but doesn't radically change anything.

It seems also a priori obvious that you cannot get anywhere near strict proportionality in larger states heavily skewed to one party. All of those states are Dem. Meanwhile, in more closely balanced states, where the Pubs have a geographic advantage, that is systematically wiped out by abandoning neutral metrics to gerrymander to offset the geographic advantage.


So the Dems get far more than their proportionate stare in CA, NY, IL (maybe, can one gerrymander to get the Pubs up to 7 seats), NJ, and MA, with the smaller states a wash, overall. It's a formula for the Dems having a near permanent majority in the House given current party coalitions or a big wave election.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1490756373155659777?s=20&t=XmuZ1nls...

Back to NJ, one of these maps is from the Democrats, one is from the GOP - though the names will remain behind the curtain. I think map 1 - turnpike - is the Dem one and map 2 is the GOP, but only partisan data I think could confirm.

EDIT: yep.

https://twitter.com/ECaliberSeven/status/1490758512674287619?s=20&t=XmuZ1nls...

Ah so that's why the CO GOP may have been happy with the legislative proposals.

[Roll Roons]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1490756373155659777?s=20&t=XmuZ1nls...

Back to NJ, one of these maps is from the Democrats, one is from the GOP - though the names will remain behind the curtain. I think map 1 - turnpike - is the Dem one and map 2 is the GOP, but only partisan data I think could confirm.

EDIT: yep.

https://twitter.com/ECaliberSeven/status/1490758512674287619?s=20&t=XmuZ1nls...

Honestly, presidential numbers don't mean all that much in New Jersey (especially in North and Central) because downballot Republicans tend to run so far ahead of the presidential topline in legislative races.

[Brittain33]

Torie, I think you're hanging a lot on California and Massachusetts geography that doesn't work with all those other states.

A proportional map in New York would have 10 R seats in a neutral year. If you do a mild R gerrymander you can get to 8-9 easily. 2 on LI, 2 in NYC, 1 in the Hudson Valley, 1 up North, the rest in central and western NY.

A proportional map of New Jersey would have 5 R seats. You can draw 4 R districts without breaking a sweat, 5 with a mild gerrymander.

A proportional map of Illinois would have 7 Republican seats. I haven't tried but I think 5-6 would be easy, 7 within reach.

And if those 1s and 2s in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois offend, then fine - let's assign a bonus to those states like OK, UT, and AR which are so far from the 50-yard line that they don't have to create any Lean D or neutral districts.

In addition, I think people are so accustomed to the Republican bias built into our current system and the preferences many have for compact and squared off districts (which dovetail well with historical segregation patterns / urban packing of Dems) that a neutral map feels like the worst-case scenario, and something favoring Democrats feels actively perverse and corrupt. You have not had to live with what we have had to live with for 20+ years of the game stacked against us. Consider that if a system has a small Dem edge, it's a reflection of the impossibility of achieving true neutrality over many years rather than a dealbreaker for system.  

[lfromnj]

Torie, I think you're hanging a lot on California and Massachusetts geography that doesn't work with all those other states.

A proportional map in New York would have 10 R seats in a neutral year. If you do a mild R gerrymander you can get to 8-9 easily. 2 on LI, 2 in NYC, 1 in the Hudson Valley, 1 up North, the rest in central and western NY.

A proportional map of New Jersey would have 5 R seats. You can draw 4 R districts without breaking a sweat, 5 with a mild gerrymander.

A proportional map of Illinois would have 7 Republican seats. I haven't tried but I think 5-6 would be easy, 7 within reach.

And if those 1s and 2s in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois offend, then fine - let's assign a bonus to those states like OK, UT, and AR which are so far from the 50-yard line that they don't have to create any Lean D or neutral districts.

In addition, I think people are so accustomed to the Republican bias built into our current system and the preferences many have for compact and squared off districts (which dovetail well with historical segregation patterns / urban packing of Dems) that a neutral map feels like the worst-case scenario, and something favoring Democrats feels actively perverse and corrupt. You have not had to live with what we have had to live with for 20+ years of the game stacked against us. Consider that if a system has a small Dem edge, it's a reflection of the impossibility of achieving true neutrality over many years rather than a dealbreaker for system.  

But there wouldn't be 2 R seats in NYC. First and foremost according to HR1 comes minority seats and drawing that 2nd R brooklyn seat would possibly interfere with other seats. If you would support the Brooklyn seat good on you.

[Nyvin]

Most of the R gerrymandering in the small to mid sized states (anything smaller than North Carolina/Gerogia) just comes from splitting up the states metros.   

Split up Salt Lake County, Split up Nashville, split up Little Rock, split up Oklahoma City, and split up Charleston (last one might be a bit tricky to avoid due to VRA, but there's obviously fishy business going on in the current map).

These districts would be so basic and elementary under any fair standards that proportionality is hardly even needed.   Just give the cities their own darn districts.

[lfromnj]

Most of the R gerrymandering in the small to mid sized states (anything smaller than North Carolina/Gerogia) just comes from splitting up the states metros.  

Split up Salt Lake County, Split up Nashville, split up Little Rock, split up Oklahoma City, and split up Charleston (last one might be a bit tricky to avoid due to VRA, but there's obviously fishy business going on in the current map).

These districts would be so basic and elementary under any fair standards that proportionality is hardly even needed.   Just give the cities their own darn districts.

The portion of Charleston taken is around 40% black only.

[Torie]

Torie, I think you're hanging a lot on California and Massachusetts geography that doesn't work with all those other states.

A proportional map in New York would have 10 R seats in a neutral year. If you do a mild R gerrymander you can get to 8-9 easily. 2 on LI, 2 in NYC, 1 in the Hudson Valley, 1 up North, the rest in central and western NY.

A proportional map of New Jersey would have 5 R seats. You can draw 4 R districts without breaking a sweat, 5 with a mild gerrymander.

A proportional map of Illinois would have 7 Republican seats. I haven't tried but I think 5-6 would be easy, 7 within reach.

And if those 1s and 2s in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois offend, then fine - let's assign a bonus to those states like OK, UT, and AR which are so far from the 50-yard line that they don't have to create any Lean D or neutral districts.

In addition, I think people are so accustomed to the Republican bias built into our current system and the preferences many have for compact and squared off districts (which dovetail well with historical segregation patterns / urban packing of Dems) that a neutral map feels like the worst-case scenario, and something favoring Democrats feels actively perverse and corrupt. You have not had to live with what we have had to live with for 20+ years of the game stacked against us. Consider that if a system has a small Dem edge, it's a reflection of the impossibility of achieving true neutrality over many years rather than a dealbreaker for system.  

You do know that before before the alleged 20 years, the gerrymandering was pro Dem for the 40 years before that right? The whole idea of chopping and erosity to achieve proportionality is a profoundly bad idea and will continue the downward slide of a functioning democracy away from where the two sides have some level of comity and do not hate each other, to where each side has  an uncomfortably high number of extremists/kooks and willing to do almost anything they can get away with to screw the other side. And there should be more swing districts, where there is a reward for those and room for those who are not the show horse firebrands. We need more room for the Katkos, and not less. And yes, Manchin and Sinema and Collins and Murkowski too, Senators of an ilk that will soon no longer be with us.

At the moment, what is happening is that the Dems in their gerrymanders and courts and commissions into gerrymandering to get to proportionality, and erasing in large numbers CD's friendly to moderate Pubs, so what will be left is a more pure caucus of hardline Pub kooks. You shall see. Be patient.

In any event for NYS, it is quite doable to get to 7 seats, with 8 you have to work, and to get to 10 Pub seats (10.5 or so actually is the proportionate number), with swing seats counting a half seat, near impossible. As a realistic matter counting swing seats as a half seat without something insane, 8 is about the max. NYS is becoming an almost bizarre state with so many orthodox Jews voting near unanimously Pub now and growing so rapidly. Dan and I visited Kyras Joel yesterday btw. It is right out of a sci fi novel. It is like entering through the wardrobe, on one side is rural England, and on the other side is Narnia just like that - zap.

The NY map below is actually a clean pro Pub map, that does hew to neutral redistricting principles taking cognizance of COI's. That is the kind of map that is appropriate to draw to even the scales some, for the minority party.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/2772529a-d162-4387-b07d-f5d9589005d2

[lfromnj]

Oh yeah the HR1 standard is probably around 8 GOP districts based on the efficiency gap. Although as stated the Brooklyn seat would probably be a very good seat to create under HR1 except for the VRA stuff.

[CookieDamage]

when will legislative maps be confirmed?

[Tekken_Guy]

Most of the R gerrymandering in the small to mid sized states (anything smaller than North Carolina/Gerogia) just comes from splitting up the states metros.  

Split up Salt Lake County, Split up Nashville, split up Little Rock, split up Oklahoma City, and split up Charleston (last one might be a bit tricky to avoid due to VRA, but there's obviously fishy business going on in the current map).

These districts would be so basic and elementary under any fair standards that proportionality is hardly even needed.   Just give the cities their own darn districts.

The portion of Charleston taken is around 40% black only.

40% black is still a high floor for Democrats. But yeah this seat and the Nashville one in particular seem like they’ll be issues for the GOP later in the decade.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Most of the R gerrymandering in the small to mid sized states (anything smaller than North Carolina/Gerogia) just comes from splitting up the states metros.  

Split up Salt Lake County, Split up Nashville, split up Little Rock, split up Oklahoma City, and split up Charleston (last one might be a bit tricky to avoid due to VRA, but there's obviously fishy business going on in the current map).

These districts would be so basic and elementary under any fair standards that proportionality is hardly even needed.   Just give the cities their own darn districts.

The portion of Charleston taken is around 40% black only.

40% black is still a high floor for Democrats. But yeah this seat and the Nashville one in particular seem like they’ll be issues for the GOP later in the decade.

I think there's a good chance that Nashville could just get a sink in 2030 (the GOP will still likely control TN redistricting). Same goes for SLC especially if a 5th seat is added in Utah.

South Carolina is a weird state overall geographically as the party coalitions are more white/black rather than urban/rural and a lot of the cities sort of blend.

[Roll Roons]

Most of the R gerrymandering in the small to mid sized states (anything smaller than North Carolina/Gerogia) just comes from splitting up the states metros.  

Split up Salt Lake County, Split up Nashville, split up Little Rock, split up Oklahoma City, and split up Charleston (last one might be a bit tricky to avoid due to VRA, but there's obviously fishy business going on in the current map).

These districts would be so basic and elementary under any fair standards that proportionality is hardly even needed.   Just give the cities their own darn districts.

The portion of Charleston taken is around 40% black only.

40% black is still a high floor for Democrats. But yeah this seat and the Nashville one in particular seem like they’ll be issues for the GOP later in the decade.

I think there's a good chance that Nashville could just get a sink in 2030 (the GOP will still likely control TN redistricting). Same goes for SLC especially if a 5th seat is added in Utah.

South Carolina is a weird state overall geographically as the party coalitions are more white/black rather than urban/rural and a lot of the cities sort of blend.

I think UT-05 is a near-certainty, along with ID-03. Most likely there'll be a safe blue seat in SLC and a competitive seat based in Boise.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Most of the R gerrymandering in the small to mid sized states (anything smaller than North Carolina/Gerogia) just comes from splitting up the states metros.  

Split up Salt Lake County, Split up Nashville, split up Little Rock, split up Oklahoma City, and split up Charleston (last one might be a bit tricky to avoid due to VRA, but there's obviously fishy business going on in the current map).

These districts would be so basic and elementary under any fair standards that proportionality is hardly even needed.   Just give the cities their own darn districts.

The portion of Charleston taken is around 40% black only.

40% black is still a high floor for Democrats. But yeah this seat and the Nashville one in particular seem like they’ll be issues for the GOP later in the decade.

I think there's a good chance that Nashville could just get a sink in 2030 (the GOP will still likely control TN redistricting). Same goes for SLC especially if a 5th seat is added in Utah.

South Carolina is a weird state overall geographically as the party coalitions are more white/black rather than urban/rural and a lot of the cities sort of blend.

I think UT-05 is a near-certainty, along with ID-03. Most likely there'll be a safe blue seat in SLC and a competitive seat based in Boise.

It'd be funny for the GOP to attempt a 5 way split of SLC. Imma see how'd that even work on DRA. They'd likely have to keep Utah relatively stable or even swing R this decade to actually do that though.



In this map every seat is at least Trump + 16, but who knows what poltical coalitions will look like in a decade.

[Former President tack50]

There are a million examples here of a compact 3rd Dem district in Wisconsin and none for a competitive Trump district in Mass. What this boils down to is you prioritize compactness and small shapes over proportionality, and I prioritize proportionality over compactness and small shapes. There's no guarantee any one formula will mirror the national popular vote exactly, but a focus on shapes certainly carries a big Republican bias, so I don't accept it as a neutral default.

Does a compact map carry a big Republican bias though? I certainly don't think it does?

Looking at the "538 Redistricting Atlas", the "Compact using an algorithm" map is 151D-104S-184R. The "Compact respecting county borders" is 155D-99S-181R. Both maps do have a very small R bias but it seems perfectly fine to me? Especilally given they'd have a lot more swing districts. For comparison, the 2010 map was 168D-72S-195R

Tbh if Democrats have a bad voter distrubution well too bad. PR would be a much better fix than deliberately gerrymandering imo?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/

[Roll Roons]

Back to discussing the actual state: https://newjerseyglobe.com/redistricing/deal-legislative-map-looks-increasingly-possible/

[lfromnj]

There are a million examples here of a compact 3rd Dem district in Wisconsin and none for a competitive Trump district in Mass. What this boils down to is you prioritize compactness and small shapes over proportionality, and I prioritize proportionality over compactness and small shapes. There's no guarantee any one formula will mirror the national popular vote exactly, but a focus on shapes certainly carries a big Republican bias, so I don't accept it as a neutral default.

Does a compact map carry a big Republican bias though? I certainly don't think it does?

Looking at the "538 Redistricting Atlas", the "Compact using an algorithm" map is 151D-104S-184R. The "Compact respecting county borders" is 155D-99S-181R. Both maps do have a very small R bias but it seems perfectly fine to me? Especilally given they'd have a lot more swing districts. For comparison, the 2010 map was 168D-72S-195R

Tbh if Democrats have a bad voter distrubution well too bad. PR would be a much better fix than deliberately gerrymandering imo?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/

Note compact is with the more inefficient 2012 and 2016 coalitians.

[Roll Roons]

https://twitter.com/wildstein/status/1494497981554380801?cxt=HHwWgsCywd__wr0pAAA...

Reportedly, there is a narrow but plausible path to GOP legislative majorities in 2023. Honestly, New Jersey Republicans are criminally underrated as a party.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/wildstein/status/1494497981554380801?cxt=HHwWgsCywd__wr0pAAA...

Reportedly, there is a narrow but plausible path to GOP legislative majorities in 2023. Honestly, New Jersey Republicans are criminally underrated as a party.

I'm honestly surprised they never came very close to winning the state legislature this past decade, especially since earlier Dems were prolly more packed than they are now. Infact they haven't had controlled since the 2000s.

The legislature composition has been surprisingly stable despite it being up in some pretty extreme environments including 2021

[Mr.Phips]

https://twitter.com/wildstein/status/1494497981554380801?cxt=HHwWgsCywd__wr0pAAA...

Reportedly, there is a narrow but plausible path to GOP legislative majorities in 2023. Honestly, New Jersey Republicans are criminally underrated as a party.

Dems should only agree to a map that shores up incumbents on both sides.

[Roll Roons]

No visualization yet, but some tidbits on how it'll look: https://newjerseyglobe.com/redistricing/heres-what-the-new-legislative-districts-will-look-like/