2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[SevenEleven]

ERM, how many Trump districts does your map have? I was surprised to find that my map only had four.

[Oryxslayer]

ERM, how many Trump districts does your map have? I was surprised to find that my map only had four.

Before anyone express concern over the loss of GOP seats, making the state more imbalanced, you should check with reality. When you increase the size of districts and shrink the total number, districts are going to get wider and as a result, more diverse in their COI groupings. Less districts means that Californias Dem geographic advantage goes to work even more. Right now, the GOP really only has four areas of concentrated support that won't be breaking anytime soon:

- Rural and suburban Jefferson
- The agricultural and oil producing south valley of Kern, Kings, and Tulare
- the Rural hinterlands of the Sierra Nevadas and deserts
- Ranching exurbia that goes through western Riverside, Southern OC, and outlying San Diego. Also includes a few scattered communities that still stay loyal like Yucaipa/Calimesa and Yorba Linda.

That's really it. Everything else is too disconnected to ever support anything meaningful. The more people in a district, the less the GOPs regions can return to govt.

[Greedo punched first]

My map has only seven Trump seats, like the current map. No Trump seats in Los Angeles County. Newport/Laguna Beach seat is Clinton +8. Lowenthal’s old seas is also Clinton +8. Only Corona and OC south hills-Oceanside-Temecula are Trump south of CA-40.

[SevenEleven]

I noticed that the most Hispanic district I have by CVAP that goes over 500k total CVAP is CA-39, at 37% Hispanic. I wonder where it might be possible to get 50% Hispanic CVAP out of over 500k total.

[Greedo punched first]

I noticed that the most Hispanic district I have by CVAP that goes over 500k total CVAP is CA-39, at 37% Hispanic. I wonder where it might be possible to get 50% Hispanic CVAP out of over 500k total.

I have 50+% Hispanic CVAP in CA-19, CA-20, CA-27, CA-30, CA-32, CA-36, CA-37, CA-38, CA-39, CA-45, and CA-50.

[SevenEleven]

I noticed that the most Hispanic district I have by CVAP that goes over 500k total CVAP is CA-39, at 37% Hispanic. I wonder where it might be possible to get 50% Hispanic CVAP out of over 500k total.

I have 50+% Hispanic CVAP in CA-19, CA-20, CA-27, CA-30, CA-32, CA-36, CA-37, CA-38, CA-39, CA-45, and CA-50.

Yeah but your total CVAP is probably less than 500k.

[Greedo punched first]

I noticed that the most Hispanic district I have by CVAP that goes over 500k total CVAP is CA-39, at 37% Hispanic. I wonder where it might be possible to get 50% Hispanic CVAP out of over 500k total.

I have 50+% Hispanic CVAP in CA-19, CA-20, CA-27, CA-30, CA-32, CA-36, CA-37, CA-38, CA-39, CA-45, and CA-50.

Yeah but your total CVAP is probably less than 500k.

I couldn't find a place to get it over 500k. Getting it over 500k is a racial gerrymander that makes many other seats too white, putting the map under the minimum amount of Hispanic seats mandated. Did you mean 50k? I think my CA-20 and CA-32 are over 50k.

[SevenEleven]

I noticed that the most Hispanic district I have by CVAP that goes over 500k total CVAP is CA-39, at 37% Hispanic. I wonder where it might be possible to get 50% Hispanic CVAP out of over 500k total.

I have 50+% Hispanic CVAP in CA-19, CA-20, CA-27, CA-30, CA-32, CA-36, CA-37, CA-38, CA-39, CA-45, and CA-50.

Yeah but your total CVAP is probably less than 500k.

I couldn't find a place to get it over 500k. Getting it over 500k is a racial gerrymander that makes many other seats too white, putting the map under the minimum amount of Hispanic seats mandated. Did you mean 50k? I think my CA-20 and CA-32 are over 50k.

No, I meant 500k. Very few districts can get over 500k CVAP. This suggests that the map will be very different in performance by the end of the decade, likely helping Dems even more.

[Greedo punched first]

I noticed that the most Hispanic district I have by CVAP that goes over 500k total CVAP is CA-39, at 37% Hispanic. I wonder where it might be possible to get 50% Hispanic CVAP out of over 500k total.

I have 50+% Hispanic CVAP in CA-19, CA-20, CA-27, CA-30, CA-32, CA-36, CA-37, CA-38, CA-39, CA-45, and CA-50.

Yeah but your total CVAP is probably less than 500k.

I couldn't find a place to get it over 500k. Getting it over 500k is a racial gerrymander that makes many other seats too white, putting the map under the minimum amount of Hispanic seats mandated. Did you mean 50k? I think my CA-20 and CA-32 are over 50k.

No, I meant 500k. Very few districts can get over 500k CVAP. This suggests that the map will be very different in performance by the end of the decade, likely helping Dems even more.

I couldn't figure out how to get any at 500k. That sounds like a Democratic gerrymander. I got a 45D-7R map.

[Oryxslayer]

It is important to remember that VAP is what is used to distinguish a seat demographically by law, not CVAP. CVAP is not VAP, though it is more useful. The majority of what is removed from the general population by CVAP is those also not captured by the VAP - those under 18. Both statistics are biased against Hispanics because of higher birth rates, and in turn, larger families and more children. There are however individuals who are non-citizens who are also excluding by CVAP. Not all are illegal residents, migrant farmers, or green card migrants, which we often characterize these populations as. There are workers of all peoples who are recruited from their homes around and brought to Cali to work in one global company or another. The disparity between Pop and CVAP for this group is best seen in Silicon Valley. So while those under 18 may grow up in the next decade, there are others, concentrated in a few areas like the previously mentioned Silicon valley and Imperial County who have a good chance of not becoming voters in the same period. As seen by CA21, these individuals need to be recognized and accounted for.

[Greedo punched first]

It is important to remember that VAP is what is used to distinguish a seat demographically by law, not CVAP. CVAP is not VAP, though it is more useful. The majority of what is removed from the general population by CVAP is those also not captured by the VAP - those under 18. Both statistics are biased against Hispanics because of higher birth rates, and in turn, larger families and more children. There are however individuals who are non-citizens who are also excluding by CVAP. Not all are illegal residents, migrant farmers, or green card migrants, which we often characterize these populations as. There are workers of all peoples who are recruited from their homes around and brought to Cali to work in one global company or another. The disparity between Pop and CVAP for this group is best seen in Silicon Valley. So while those under 18 may grow up in the next decade, there are others, concentrated in a few areas like the previously mentioned Silicon valley and Imperial County who have a good chance of not becoming voters in the same period. As seen by CA21, these individuals need to be recognized and accounted for.

Like CA-20 here?

[Idaho Conservative]

52 districts, CA-39 is eliminated.  Prioritized COIs, compactness, racial/ethnic representation (part of COIs), city and county borders, and fairness so commissioners of both parties could support it. 
40D-3S-9R
likely/safe R districts are Jefferson, Placer-Yuba, Sierras+Modesto, Fresno suburbs, Bakersfield+desert, San Bernardino suburbs, sw Riverside, se Orange, and east SD.  Tossups are Sacramento suburbs, north LA county, and nw Orange (Vietnamese district).  There are a few light blue districts that appear competitive according to PVI, but I classified as Dem because of a Clinton margin over 10 pts.  This map is not close to being proportionality partisan due to Republicans having a large geographic disadvantage, but my map does not weaponize the geography in a partisan way like some maps do here.  CA has a commission with members of both parties, and a certain degree of fairness will be needed to get broad support.  Also, I must say socal is far more chaotic, while drawing norcal is quite straightforward.   

[SevenEleven]

Lol. Please explain to me your SoCal logic besides "combining as many GOP precincts as possible".

This is the worst California map I've maybe ever seen.

[cvparty]

snip

maybe like...focus less on partisan vote because the outlines of republican/democrat areas are way too clear. ex. democratic districts clearly stop at the county lines of del norte, trinity and colusa; laguna beach and irvine are conveniently not in that barely contiguous OC seat that stretches from san clemente to brea; palmdale district that stretches through the san gabriel mountains to capture glendora. also the number of skinny districts that seem to represent no clear COI that isn't having republicans/democrats (lake tahoe-colusa, san diego-indio, manhattan beach-bellflower[?] and the ten other snake districts in LA county)

[SevenEleven]

Don't even justify your map; let's hear what you think is wrong with my map.

[Idaho Conservative]

Lol. Please explain to me your SoCal logic besides "combining as many GOP precincts as possible".

This is the worst California map I've maybe ever seen.

Oh really?  My SD and riverside districts are similar to the current, just better following county borders, and the OC seat is similar to  a proposal in 2011 that was refected as being a dem gerrymander.  If you think 9/52 compact Trump districts is unfair, you are nothing more than a partisan hack. 

[SevenEleven]

Lol. Please explain to me your SoCal logic besides "combining as many GOP precincts as possible".

This is the worst California map I've maybe ever seen.

Oh really?  My SD and riverside districts are similar to the current, just better following county borders, and the OC seat is similar to  a proposal in 2011 that was refected as being a dem gerrymander.  If you think 9/52 compact Trump districts is unfair, you are nothing more than a partisan hack.  

Your districts are not compact at all.

My map is compact.

[Idaho Conservative]

snip

maybe like...focus less on partisan vote because the outlines of republican/democrat areas are way too clear. ex. democratic districts clearly stop at the county lines of del norte, trinity and colusa; laguna beach and irvine are conveniently not in that barely contiguous OC seat that stretches from san clemente to brea; palmdale district that stretches through the san gabriel mountains to capture glendora. also the number of skinny districts that seem to represent no clear COI that isn't having republicans/democrats (lake tahoe-colusa, san diego-indio, manhattan beach-bellflower[?] and the ten other snake districts in LA county)

The SD seat going to the Coahella valley opens up a minority opportunity seat in SD and allows San Diego county to only be split once.  Yuba and Colusa are both farm areas just like placer.  Tahoe area has a small pop, I won't rip up Placer for that.  As for LA, I don't like it either, but the VRA with hispanics is hard to work with.  Without the snake districts, a hispanic seat would be lost instead of CA-39.  

[SevenEleven]

snip

maybe like...focus less on partisan vote because the outlines of republican/democrat areas are way too clear. ex. democratic districts clearly stop at the county lines of del norte, trinity and colusa; laguna beach and irvine are conveniently not in that barely contiguous OC seat that stretches from san clemente to brea; palmdale district that stretches through the san gabriel mountains to capture glendora. also the number of skinny districts that seem to represent no clear COI that isn't having republicans/democrats (lake tahoe-colusa, san diego-indio, manhattan beach-bellflower[?] and the ten other snake districts in LA county)

The SD seat going to the Coahella valley opens up a minority opportunity seat in SD and allows San Diego county to only be split once.  Yuba and Colusa are both farm areas just like placer.  Tahoe area has a small pop, I won't rip up Placer for that.  As for LA, I don't like it either, but the VRA with hispanics is hard to work with.  Without the snake districts, a hispanic seat would be lost instead of CA-39.  

Post your district stats like I did.

You've clearly gone out of the way and eschewed compactness and COIs to benefit Republicans. Your Central valley is probably 3-3 Republican with only a single Hispanic district.

[Idaho Conservative]

Your map is not compact lol, Kern to El Dorado is ridiculous.  Also combining SD suburbs with Riverside and cutting up rural San Bernardino are not keeping to COIs.  as for my valley map, it's 3-3 (very fair, as the valley voted Trump overall), and 2 districts are hispanic+minority opportunity seat in stickton.  3 hispanic vra seats in the valley isn't possible because they have to be over 60% hispanic.

[SevenEleven]

Your map is not compact lol, Kern to El Dorado is ridiculous.  Also combining SD suburbs with Riverside and cutting up rural San Bernardino are not keeping to COIs.  as for my valley map, it's 3-3 (very fair, as the valley voted Trump overall), and 2 districts are hispanic+minority opportunity seat in stickton.  3 hispanic vra seats in the valley isn't possible because they have to be over 60% hispanic.

El Dorado is with Placer where it belongs.

SD subrubs have their own district, not paired with Riverside at all.

I have 4 majority Hispanic seats in the valley and a minority coalition in Stockton. The two southern valley districts are both over 50% Hispanic by CVAP.

Have you ever even been to California?

[cvparty]

snip

maybe like...focus less on partisan vote because the outlines of republican/democrat areas are way too clear. ex. democratic districts clearly stop at the county lines of del norte, trinity and colusa; laguna beach and irvine are conveniently not in that barely contiguous OC seat that stretches from san clemente to brea; palmdale district that stretches through the san gabriel mountains to capture glendora. also the number of skinny districts that seem to represent no clear COI that isn't having republicans/democrats (lake tahoe-colusa, san diego-indio, manhattan beach-bellflower[?] and the ten other snake districts in LA county)

The SD seat going to the Coahella valley opens up a minority opportunity seat in SD and allows San Diego county to only be split once.  Yuba and Colusa are both farm areas just like placer.  Tahoe area has a small pop, I won't rip up Placer for that.  As for LA, I don't like it either, but the VRA with hispanics is hard to work with.  Without the snake districts, a hispanic seat would be lost instead of CA-39.  

i like how u only try to defend like half of them lol. wouldn’t it make more sense to put nevada county with placer instead? (well we know why you didn’t)...
similarly laguna beach is definitely part of the south county COI, even if its residents are liberal. irvine is way closer to tustin than mission viejo/san clemente are
you can create a second minority seat in SD without branching into the sonoran desert. and frankly the county split is a poor excuse when socal has 20m+ people in less than ten counties. plus when you’re creating another split in riverside anyway and splitting the coachella valley that’s not any better
snake districts are just not necessary and violate compactness and COIs which you claim to prioritize. i’m just pointing out it’s clear that you prioritized partisanship over actual geography and communities. we all kind of know that in states like wisconsin and michigan you wouldn’t have the same energy to help democrats’ geographic disadvantage

[Idaho Conservative]

snip

maybe like...focus less on partisan vote because the outlines of republican/democrat areas are way too clear. ex. democratic districts clearly stop at the county lines of del norte, trinity and colusa; laguna beach and irvine are conveniently not in that barely contiguous OC seat that stretches from san clemente to brea; palmdale district that stretches through the san gabriel mountains to capture glendora. also the number of skinny districts that seem to represent no clear COI that isn't having republicans/democrats (lake tahoe-colusa, san diego-indio, manhattan beach-bellflower[?] and the ten other snake districts in LA county)

The SD seat going to the Coahella valley opens up a minority opportunity seat in SD and allows San Diego county to only be split once.  Yuba and Colusa are both farm areas just like placer.  Tahoe area has a small pop, I won't rip up Placer for that.  As for LA, I don't like it either, but the VRA with hispanics is hard to work with.  Without the snake districts, a hispanic seat would be lost instead of CA-39.  

i like how u only try to defend like half of them lol. wouldn’t it make more sense to put nevada county with placer instead? (well we know why you didn’t)...
similarly laguna beach is definitely part of the south county COI, even if its residents are liberal. irvine is way closer to tustin than mission viejo/san clemente are
you can create a second minority seat in SD without branching into the sonoran desert. and frankly the county split is a poor excuse when socal has 20m+ people in less than ten counties. plus when you’re creating another split in riverside anyway and splitting the coachella valley that’s not any better
snake districts are just not necessary and violate compactness and COIs which you claim to prioritize. i’m just pointing out it’s clear that you prioritized partisanship over actual geography and communities. we all kind of know that in states like wisconsin and michigan you wouldn’t have the same energy to help democrats’ geographic disadvantage

My map still benefits dems drastically.  I did not compensate for a geographic disadvantage, just didn't maximize it like others do here.  Irvine is in the same district as Tustin, and Laguna Beach can fit just as well with Newport.  SD currently has 2 minority seats but one functions as a white lib district.

[Idaho Conservative]

Your map is not compact lol, Kern to El Dorado is ridiculous.  Also combining SD suburbs with Riverside and cutting up rural San Bernardino are not keeping to COIs.  as for my valley map, it's 3-3 (very fair, as the valley voted Trump overall), and 2 districts are hispanic+minority opportunity seat in stickton.  3 hispanic vra seats in the valley isn't possible because they have to be over 60% hispanic.

El Dorado is with Placer where it belongs.

SD subrubs have their own district, not paired with Riverside at all.

I have 4 majority Hispanic seats in the valley and a minority coalition in Stockton. The two southern valley districts are both over 50% Hispanic by CVAP.

Have you ever even been to California?

I'm from there. also, 50% isnt necessarily good enough.  My map puts eldo and placer together as well.  Admittedly I know norcal better than socal.  Hence why people hate on my norcal districts less.  

[SevenEleven]

Your map is not compact lol, Kern to El Dorado is ridiculous.  Also combining SD suburbs with Riverside and cutting up rural San Bernardino are not keeping to COIs.  as for my valley map, it's 3-3 (very fair, as the valley voted Trump overall), and 2 districts are hispanic+minority opportunity seat in stickton.  3 hispanic vra seats in the valley isn't possible because they have to be over 60% hispanic.

El Dorado is with Placer where it belongs.

SD subrubs have their own district, not paired with Riverside at all.

I have 4 majority Hispanic seats in the valley and a minority coalition in Stockton. The two southern valley districts are both over 50% Hispanic by CVAP.

Have you ever even been to California?

I'm from there. also, 50% isnt necessarily good enough.  My map puts eldo and placer together as well.  Admittedly I know norcal better than socal.  Hence why people hate on my norcal districts less.  

You can't get higher than about 57% in any one district. Mine are about 52% each, which is easily enough.