2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[SevenEleven]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

You don't really "cut" a seat. Population changes and the loss of a district have ramifications across the state. I suppose CA-44 was the closest my map comes to a seat being cut. But CA-8 was also dismantled almost entirely.

[Greedo punched first]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

I cut and replaced Lowenthal (likely retirement), Porter, Levin, and Issa/Campa-Najjar. Garamendi is gone completely.

[Oryxslayer]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

In truth, CA is going to lose two/three seats in 2020, but gains one/two of them right back - just in different regions. The state is that big. CA05 or CA03 is going to have to become a Bay Oriented seat, there is just too little pop in the north to support four seats these days.

[cvparty]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

i didn't "choose" a seat per se but it ended up being roughly CD-28, it just got squished out from all sides

[Greedo punched first]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

I cut a Jefferson seat (Garamendi).

[SevenEleven]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

I cut a Jefferson seat (Garamendi).

That CA-4 is functionally the same as Garamendi's district.

[Greedo punched first]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

I cut a Jefferson seat (Garamendi).

That CA-4 is functionally the same as Garamendi's district.

Yes, but I assigned it to Thompson (Napa). It doesn't contain Walnut Grove, where Garamendi is from.

[S019]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

In truth, CA is going to lose two/three seats in 2020, but gains one/two of them right back - just in different regions. The state is that big. CA05 or CA03 is going to have to become a Bay Oriented seat, there is just too little pop in the north to support four seats these days.

So, then could you also choose to cut a white seat in LA County, such as the 28th, 30th, or 33rd? As for the Inland Empire scenario, I guess the 52nd or 50th would change substantially. As for the valley, isn't it easier just to chop one white seat, rather than dismantle both the 28th and 30th to make what would seem to be only a minority coalition seat, this also doesn't address the issue that some of the Hispanics in these seats probably need to be added to the successor of the 29th to keep it as a Hispanic majority seat?

[SevenEleven]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

In truth, CA is going to lose two/three seats in 2020, but gains one/two of them right back - just in different regions. The state is that big. CA05 or CA03 is going to have to become a Bay Oriented seat, there is just too little pop in the north to support four seats these days.

So, then could you also choose to cut a white seat in LA County, such as the 28th, 30th, or 33rd? As for the Inland Empire scenario, I guess the 52nd or 50th would change substantially. As for the valley, isn't it easier just to chop one white seat, rather than dismantle both the 28th and 30th to make what would seem to be only a minority coalition seat, this also doesn't address the issue that some of the Hispanics in these seats probably need to be added to the successor of the 29th to keep it as a Hispanic majority seat?

The 29th is plenty Hispanic. Ultimately the areas losing the most population in LA are the predominantly Hispanic gateway cities. It's best to just force Barragan and Lowenthal into the same district

[Idaho Conservative]

This is a map that actually respects city lines, unlike Idaho's monstrosity.

LOL my map is a monstrosity?  You literally dad packing and cracking.  And your division of San Bernardino county is atrocious.  I get it now, dem gerrymanders are fair and respect COIs.  Maps that don't favor Democrats are republican gerryanders. Thankfully the commission is bipartisan.  Last time they drew somewhat reasonable maps.

Lol, where did I do any cracking?

What is wrong with the San Bernardino County districts?

You're just spouting off nonsense without even offering an alternate viewpoint. You should go away.

cracking rural sbc.  And packing exurban sd and sw riverside.  A fair map has 7-9 Trump districts.  But overwhelming dominance isn't enough for you.  You must pig as many districts as possible.

"Rural SBC" is not a thing. I kept Joshua Tree National Park whole, and I kept the Mojave Desert whole. San Bernardino County is the largest county by area in the country.

If I was going to gerrymander, there'd be zero Trump districts and my map would be nearly as ugly and non-compact as yours.

Your map is may uglier than mine and not very compact. Also, a 52-0 gerrymander is virtually impossible unless you do a baconmander which the commission won't do.  Yes, you did gerrymader and are using hyperbole to make it look like you aren't. 

[Greedo punched first]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

In truth, CA is going to lose two/three seats in 2020, but gains one/two of them right back - just in different regions. The state is that big. CA05 or CA03 is going to have to become a Bay Oriented seat, there is just too little pop in the north to support four seats these days.

So, then could you also choose to cut a white seat in LA County, such as the 28th, 30th, or 33rd? As for the Inland Empire scenario, I guess the 52nd or 50th would change substantially. As for the valley, isn't it easier just to chop one white seat, rather than dismantle both the 28th and 30th to make what would seem to be only a minority coalition seat, this also doesn't address the issue that some of the Hispanics in these seats probably need to be added to the successor of the 29th to keep it as a Hispanic majority seat?

The 29th is plenty Hispanic. Ultimately the areas losing the most population in LA are the predominantly Hispanic gateway cities. It's best to just force Barragan and Lowenthal into the same district

Like this? Lowenthal like retires because of his age. CA-47 should be replaced by an Asian Belt seat like on my map.

[Idaho Conservative]

Anyway, quick question, which do you think is better:



Using the mountains as a divider



Or using the County Line as the divider. The micro-suburbs could be dropped from riverside seat in this instance, but doing that would require having the Antelope Valley seat cut into the LA metropolis proper and I don't want to do that.

I have finished cleaning up LA, and I think I have resolved most of the previous concerns.

the second map makes more sense, basically what I drew.  Removing Simi from Ventura is one of the parts of the current map I dislike.  

[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.

actually, your map erases the democratic advantage lol. clinton won CA by 32 points (two-party vote), which would suggest her winning 43/52 districts (which i believe is what your map has). and yeah you’re right ab tustin, it’s hard to see where exactly cities lie without more detail. but my point still stands, cities like villa park and yorba linda and brea are very far from dana point, san clemente, etc. your district that connects them is barely contiguous by road and conveniently skirts around blue irvine. it simply just does not represent any COI besides “orange county republicans.” and again, not splitting the coachella valley is way more important than making an already majority-minority seat slightly more non-white. your map isn’t a hardcore GOP gerrymander but it tends to represent COIs poorly and brazenly ignore the state’s geography (i will once again bring up the very questionable inclusion of glendora in CA-25)

Trump won almost 1/3 of the vote in Cali, my map has him win 17% of the seats.  The dem geographic advantage is still very much alive.  As for Glendora, it's substitute for Simi Valley.  Still a Clinton district btw.

that’s not how it works with FPTP/single-member district system lol. if a party gets x percent of vote statewide, they can expect twice that percent advantage in the number of districts they win. but maybe you should start benefitting democrats in states like missouri and SC, GA, AL if you actually believe in direct proportionality? it’s hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re acting in good faith when you stand by basically all the huge flaws that were pointed out

But my map isn't even close to being proportional. Your argument falls flat.  I'm not arguing for proportional, just that my map gives republicans far fewer seats than the statewide vote, so I didn't compensate for the geographic disadvantage.  But the districts I drew don't exploit the geographic disadvantage like some maps here. 

[Idaho Conservative]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

In truth, CA is going to lose two/three seats in 2020, but gains one/two of them right back - just in different regions. The state is that big. CA05 or CA03 is going to have to become a Bay Oriented seat, there is just too little pop in the north to support four seats these days.

So, then could you also choose to cut a white seat in LA County, such as the 28th, 30th, or 33rd? As for the Inland Empire scenario, I guess the 52nd or 50th would change substantially. As for the valley, isn't it easier just to chop one white seat, rather than dismantle both the 28th and 30th to make what would seem to be only a minority coalition seat, this also doesn't address the issue that some of the Hispanics in these seats probably need to be added to the successor of the 29th to keep it as a Hispanic majority seat?

The 29th is plenty Hispanic. Ultimately the areas losing the most population in LA are the predominantly Hispanic gateway cities. It's best to just force Barragan and Lowenthal into the same district

Like this? Lowenthal like retires because of his age. CA-47 should be replaced by an Asian Belt seat like on my map.

What's the % asian of your ca-44?

[Greedo punched first]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

In truth, CA is going to lose two/three seats in 2020, but gains one/two of them right back - just in different regions. The state is that big. CA05 or CA03 is going to have to become a Bay Oriented seat, there is just too little pop in the north to support four seats these days.

So, then could you also choose to cut a white seat in LA County, such as the 28th, 30th, or 33rd? As for the Inland Empire scenario, I guess the 52nd or 50th would change substantially. As for the valley, isn't it easier just to chop one white seat, rather than dismantle both the 28th and 30th to make what would seem to be only a minority coalition seat, this also doesn't address the issue that some of the Hispanics in these seats probably need to be added to the successor of the 29th to keep it as a Hispanic majority seat?

The 29th is plenty Hispanic. Ultimately the areas losing the most population in LA are the predominantly Hispanic gateway cities. It's best to just force Barragan and Lowenthal into the same district

Like this? Lowenthal like retires because of his age. CA-47 should be replaced by an Asian Belt seat like on my map.

What's the % asian of your ca-44?

It's actually a white seat, but it can easily elect an Asian candidate. 50.1% white CVAP. Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Westminster and Fountain Valley go well together. The main demographics are Asians and working class whites. I didn't want all the coastal seats to be wealthy.

[Idaho Conservative]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

In truth, CA is going to lose two/three seats in 2020, but gains one/two of them right back - just in different regions. The state is that big. CA05 or CA03 is going to have to become a Bay Oriented seat, there is just too little pop in the north to support four seats these days.

So, then could you also choose to cut a white seat in LA County, such as the 28th, 30th, or 33rd? As for the Inland Empire scenario, I guess the 52nd or 50th would change substantially. As for the valley, isn't it easier just to chop one white seat, rather than dismantle both the 28th and 30th to make what would seem to be only a minority coalition seat, this also doesn't address the issue that some of the Hispanics in these seats probably need to be added to the successor of the 29th to keep it as a Hispanic majority seat?

The 29th is plenty Hispanic. Ultimately the areas losing the most population in LA are the predominantly Hispanic gateway cities. It's best to just force Barragan and Lowenthal into the same district

Like this? Lowenthal like retires because of his age. CA-47 should be replaced by an Asian Belt seat like on my map.

What's the % asian of your ca-44?

It's actually a white seat, but it can easily elect an Asian candidate. 50.1% white CVAP. Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Westminster and Fountain Valley go well together. The main demographics are Asians and working class whites. I didn't want all the coastal seats to be wealthy.

Working class whites?  I would've assumed that area would be quite educated.  That arrangement is definitely preferable to the current one, which  really cuts up that area bad. 

[Coastal Elitist]

Seven Eleven your map is clearly skewed towards democrats like mine is towards Republicans. For everyone I don't think that UC Irvine should be connected to Newport Beach and coastal OC.

[Greedo punched first]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

In truth, CA is going to lose two/three seats in 2020, but gains one/two of them right back - just in different regions. The state is that big. CA05 or CA03 is going to have to become a Bay Oriented seat, there is just too little pop in the north to support four seats these days.

So, then could you also choose to cut a white seat in LA County, such as the 28th, 30th, or 33rd? As for the Inland Empire scenario, I guess the 52nd or 50th would change substantially. As for the valley, isn't it easier just to chop one white seat, rather than dismantle both the 28th and 30th to make what would seem to be only a minority coalition seat, this also doesn't address the issue that some of the Hispanics in these seats probably need to be added to the successor of the 29th to keep it as a Hispanic majority seat?

The 29th is plenty Hispanic. Ultimately the areas losing the most population in LA are the predominantly Hispanic gateway cities. It's best to just force Barragan and Lowenthal into the same district

Like this? Lowenthal like retires because of his age. CA-47 should be replaced by an Asian Belt seat like on my map.

What's the % asian of your ca-44?

It's actually a white seat, but it can easily elect an Asian candidate. 50.1% white CVAP. Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Westminster and Fountain Valley go well together. The main demographics are Asians and working class whites. I didn't want all the coastal seats to be wealthy.

Working class whites?  I would've assumed that area would be quite educated.  That arrangement is definitely preferable to the current one, which  really cuts up that area bad.  

I live in West Garden Grove. It's blue collar. So are the majority-white precincts in Westminster and neighboring precincts in Huntington Beach, which are near the Naval Weapons station. I'm always puzzled by the stereotype that all whites in Orange County are wealthy.

[SevenEleven]

Seven Eleven your map is clearly skewed towards democrats like mine is towards Republicans. For everyone I don't think that UC Irvine should be connected to Newport Beach and coastal OC.

Where is my map biased?

And where would you take population from to replace UC Irvine?

You can't take any population from the Hispanic or Asian district, and it has to come from somewhere. Splitting Irvine is the only logical approach here.

[SevenEleven]

I re-did NorCal.

[Idaho Conservative]

I re-did NorCal.

Ew.  pull Roseville out of Placer than put in Yolo?  Also Yuba City metro should stay together and crossing the SF Bay is just dumb.  You said my map is bad?  HAHAHA

[Oryxslayer]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

In truth, CA is going to lose two/three seats in 2020, but gains one/two of them right back - just in different regions. The state is that big. CA05 or CA03 is going to have to become a Bay Oriented seat, there is just too little pop in the north to support four seats these days.

So, then could you also choose to cut a white seat in LA County, such as the 28th, 30th, or 33rd? As for the Inland Empire scenario, I guess the 52nd or 50th would change substantially. As for the valley, isn't it easier just to chop one white seat, rather than dismantle both the 28th and 30th to make what would seem to be only a minority coalition seat, this also doesn't address the issue that some of the Hispanics in these seats probably need to be added to the successor of the 29th to keep it as a Hispanic majority seat?

The 29th is plenty Hispanic. Ultimately the areas losing the most population in LA are the predominantly Hispanic gateway cities. It's best to just force Barragan and Lowenthal into the same district

Like this? Lowenthal like retires because of his age. CA-47 should be replaced by an Asian Belt seat like on my map.

What's the % asian of your ca-44?

It's actually a white seat, but it can easily elect an Asian candidate. 50.1% white CVAP. Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Westminster and Fountain Valley go well together. The main demographics are Asians and working class whites. I didn't want all the coastal seats to be wealthy.

Working class whites?  I would've assumed that area would be quite educated.  That arrangement is definitely preferable to the current one, which  really cuts up that area bad. 

Huntington used to be a WWC GOP suburb, but it no longer is, except among the retirees who never sold their spacious suburban homes like my mothers side of the family. It's now a populated by a different type of white, and the only reason why the cities education rate remains low is thanks to those retirees and the growing Hispanic population in certain areas of the county. Its not exactly a stereotype, but this semi-outdated characterization belongs in the filing cabinet along with the Compton of the Gangsta Rock days.

[Oryxslayer]

I re-did NorCal.

Ew.  pull Roseville out of Placer than put in Yolo?  Also Yuba City metro should stay together and crossing the SF Bay is just dumb.  You said my map is bad?  HAHAHA

In addition, the point of reworking the bay area is to avoid the ugly cut of Fremont...not make it worse. Also the essential West Sacramento and Truckee cuts.

[SevenEleven]

In addition, the point of reworking the bay area is to avoid the ugly cut of Fremont...not make it worse. Also the essential West Sacramento and Truckee cuts.

The point was to eliminate the Marin-SF district, since everyone hated it, myself included. I re-did it again to not cut Fremont and I think it's better now. What about West Sacramento and Truckee?

[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

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.

actually, your map erases the democratic advantage lol. clinton won CA by 32 points (two-party vote), which would suggest her winning 43/52 districts (which i believe is what your map has). and yeah you’re right ab tustin, it’s hard to see where exactly cities lie without more detail. but my point still stands, cities like villa park and yorba linda and brea are very far from dana point, san clemente, etc. your district that connects them is barely contiguous by road and conveniently skirts around blue irvine. it simply just does not represent any COI besides “orange county republicans.” and again, not splitting the coachella valley is way more important than making an already majority-minority seat slightly more non-white. your map isn’t a hardcore GOP gerrymander but it tends to represent COIs poorly and brazenly ignore the state’s geography (i will once again bring up the very questionable inclusion of glendora in CA-25)

Trump won almost 1/3 of the vote in Cali, my map has him win 17% of the seats.  The dem geographic advantage is still very much alive.  As for Glendora, it's substitute for Simi Valley.  Still a Clinton district btw.

that’s not how it works with FPTP/single-member district system lol. if a party gets x percent of vote statewide, they can expect twice that percent advantage in the number of districts they win. but maybe you should start benefitting democrats in states like missouri and SC, GA, AL if you actually believe in direct proportionality? it’s hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re acting in good faith when you stand by basically all the huge flaws that were pointed out

But my map isn't even close to being proportional. Your argument falls flat.  I'm not arguing for proportional, just that my map gives republicans far fewer seats than the statewide vote, so I didn't compensate for the geographic disadvantage.  But the districts I drew don't exploit the geographic disadvantage like some maps here. 

i didn't say that it is? you're implying that your map doesn't give Rs 18 seats, so it's actually Dem biased. but in reality, proportionality isn't the nature of the single-member district system. but like i said before, my issue with your map isn't that it's a gerrymander (it isn't really), it's that it lacks COIs other than partisan vote/race. i already pointed out many of the issues, and now that you posted the map in detail i can actually point out a few more (rancho cucamonga/upland and redlands are not connected, central valley funkiness). i'm trying to help and give you advice about COIs, but it doesn't seem like you really care. you need to look at the state's population through a more nuanced lens