2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[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.   

[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. 

[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.  

[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.

[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.  

[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.  

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

Not necessarily, like with what happened with Valadao. 

[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.

[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.  

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

Not necessarily, like with what happened with Valadao. 

Did you put Escondido in a Republican seat with Santee or a Democratic seat with Carlsbad?

Escondido is with east county, as it is currently.

[Idaho Conservative]

Excluding the obviously weird choices when it comes to pairings, which as noted seem to favor republicans, I'm confused what happened to the LA Asian seat. Also of course Glendora, but I assume you cut Azuza so there actually is a road connection there.

LA asian seat is not eliminated.  I drew a 48% asian district from Rowland Heights to Alhambra.  Glendora is better paired with the northern exurbs than an asian or hispanic vra seat. 

[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.  

Yup. Your biggest problem is drawing insane lines in LA County to produce more VRA seats than necessary. Connecting Mar Vista to La Canada-Filntridge or Hermosa Beach to Belmont Shores is just ridiculous. And never, ever cross the San Gabriel Mountains. You need 1-2 AA seats in South LA, 1 Asian seat in the San Gabriel Valley, and maybe 4 Latino seats (2 in the Gateway Cities, 1 in Downtown/EastLA, and 1 in the San Fernando Valley. Beyond that, pair minority communities rationally but don't prioritize that over drawing rational, compact districts which adhere to natural geographic lines. Also, I hate maps which pair San Diego and Imperial but that's just me. You can still get your Latino VRA district by pairing Imperial and Palm Springs.

LA county has 6 hispanic seats, not 4. With losing a district,maintaining them is hard.  I could easily have drawn 1 less, but I'm guessing there would be a lawsuit, considering the hispanic pop has grown.

[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.  

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

Not necessarily, like with what happened with Valadao. 

Did you put Escondido in a Republican seat with Santee or a Democratic seat with Carlsbad?

Escondido is with east county, as it is currently.

I put it in a Democratic district with Carlsbad, similar to the 1990s map. I feel Escondido fits better with Carlsbad than with Santee. Glendora with CA-25? That’s a pain for Glendora residents to access the local office. Even my OC-Corona seat has better access from OC with an actual connecting state highway (state highway 74).

Well CA-25 currently conects to Simi, which belongs with Ventura.  I just think Glendora is a better pair than SFV.  Also, I disagree about Escondido, it fits fine on the current map.  I just think you have partisan motives.  

[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.  

Yup. Your biggest problem is drawing insane lines in LA County to produce more VRA seats than necessary. Connecting Mar Vista to La Canada-Filntridge or Hermosa Beach to Belmont Shores is just ridiculous. And never, ever cross the San Gabriel Mountains. You need 1-2 AA seats in South LA, 1 Asian seat in the San Gabriel Valley, and maybe 4 Latino seats (2 in the Gateway Cities, 1 in Downtown/EastLA, and 1 in the San Fernando Valley. Beyond that, pair minority communities rationally but don't prioritize that over drawing rational, compact districts which adhere to natural geographic lines. Also, I hate maps which pair San Diego and Imperial but that's just me. You can still get your Latino VRA district by pairing Imperial and Palm Springs.

LA county has 6 hispanic seats, not 4. With losing a district,maintaining them is hard.  I could easily have drawn 1 less, but I'm guessing there would be a lawsuit, considering the hispanic pop has grown.

Does your East County San Diego seat contain San Diego State University?

no, why? 

[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.  

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

Not necessarily, like with what happened with Valadao. 

Please enlighten me on "what happened with Valadao".

Hispanic candidate of choice lost most of the decade, you didn't know that?

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/14c07950-05ff-4f60-92d9-61d9f07870c0
here's the data, if ppl want it.

[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.  

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

Not necessarily, like with what happened with Valadao. 

Please enlighten me on "what happened with Valadao".

Hispanic candidate of choice lost most of the decade, you didn't know that?

1. There was no "Hispanic candidate of choice" in this district. The Hispanic groups tend not to get along.
2. Just like your map does, the Republican base is concentrated in a single media market while the Democratic base sprawls across three or four.

so there shoudn't be hispanic vra districts because "they don't get along"?  do you have ANY source relevent on that to this district?  Btw, I definitely am sympathetic to arguments section 2 doesn't apply to districting, just your argument isn't very strong.

[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.  

Yup. Your biggest problem is drawing insane lines in LA County to produce more VRA seats than necessary. Connecting Mar Vista to La Canada-Filntridge or Hermosa Beach to Belmont Shores is just ridiculous. And never, ever cross the San Gabriel Mountains. You need 1-2 AA seats in South LA, 1 Asian seat in the San Gabriel Valley, and maybe 4 Latino seats (2 in the Gateway Cities, 1 in Downtown/EastLA, and 1 in the San Fernando Valley. Beyond that, pair minority communities rationally but don't prioritize that over drawing rational, compact districts which adhere to natural geographic lines. Also, I hate maps which pair San Diego and Imperial but that's just me. You can still get your Latino VRA district by pairing Imperial and Palm Springs.

LA county has 6 hispanic seats, not 4. With losing a district,maintaining them is hard.  I could easily have drawn 1 less, but I'm guessing there would be a lawsuit, considering the hispanic pop has grown.

Does your East County San Diego seat contain San Diego State University?

no, why?  

I just wanted to know because San Diego State University is in East County, and also because it is in the East County district on my map.

My San Diego map.

CA-47: Oceanside-Fallbrook; CA-48: North County, CA-49: Central San Diego-Coronado-Imperial Beach; CA-50: Hispanic South County seat; CA-51: East County

nice gerrymander.  No reason for the tendril into dark blue areas.  I tried to respect city lines on my map.

[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.  

Yup. Your biggest problem is drawing insane lines in LA County to produce more VRA seats than necessary. Connecting Mar Vista to La Canada-Filntridge or Hermosa Beach to Belmont Shores is just ridiculous. And never, ever cross the San Gabriel Mountains. You need 1-2 AA seats in South LA, 1 Asian seat in the San Gabriel Valley, and maybe 4 Latino seats (2 in the Gateway Cities, 1 in Downtown/EastLA, and 1 in the San Fernando Valley. Beyond that, pair minority communities rationally but don't prioritize that over drawing rational, compact districts which adhere to natural geographic lines. Also, I hate maps which pair San Diego and Imperial but that's just me. You can still get your Latino VRA district by pairing Imperial and Palm Springs.

LA county has 6 hispanic seats, not 4. With losing a district,maintaining them is hard.  I could easily have drawn 1 less, but I'm guessing there would be a lawsuit, considering the hispanic pop has grown.

Does your East County San Diego seat contain San Diego State University?

no, why?  

I just wanted to know because San Diego State University is in East County, and also because it is in the East County district on my map.

My San Diego map.

CA-47: Oceanside-Fallbrook; CA-48: North County, CA-49: Central San Diego-Coronado-Imperial Beach; CA-50: Hispanic South County seat; CA-51: East County

nice gerrymander.  No reason for the tendril into dark blue areas.  I tried to respect city lines on my map.

What dark blue areas? Do you mean Democratic or my North County seat I assigned a dark blue color?

combine est county with far left San diego city precincts. 

[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.  

Yup. Your biggest problem is drawing insane lines in LA County to produce more VRA seats than necessary. Connecting Mar Vista to La Canada-Filntridge or Hermosa Beach to Belmont Shores is just ridiculous. And never, ever cross the San Gabriel Mountains. You need 1-2 AA seats in South LA, 1 Asian seat in the San Gabriel Valley, and maybe 4 Latino seats (2 in the Gateway Cities, 1 in Downtown/EastLA, and 1 in the San Fernando Valley. Beyond that, pair minority communities rationally but don't prioritize that over drawing rational, compact districts which adhere to natural geographic lines. Also, I hate maps which pair San Diego and Imperial but that's just me. You can still get your Latino VRA district by pairing Imperial and Palm Springs.

LA county has 6 hispanic seats, not 4. With losing a district,maintaining them is hard.  I could easily have drawn 1 less, but I'm guessing there would be a lawsuit, considering the hispanic pop has grown.

Does your East County San Diego seat contain San Diego State University?

no, why?  

I just wanted to know because San Diego State University is in East County, and also because it is in the East County district on my map.

My San Diego map.

CA-47: Oceanside-Fallbrook; CA-48: North County, CA-49: Central San Diego-Coronado-Imperial Beach; CA-50: Hispanic South County seat; CA-51: East County

nice gerrymander.  No reason for the tendril into dark blue areas.  I tried to respect city lines on my map.

What dark blue areas? Do you mean Democratic or my North County seat I assigned a dark blue color?

combine est county with far left San diego city precincts.  

It isn’t a gerrymander. San Diego County should have only one GOP seat (Oceanside-Fallbrook on my map). Liberal areas like San Diego State University and Lemon Grove are in my East County district because they’re in East County. East County is the CoI.

He doesn't know anything about California, he's just here to troll like he was doing in the Virginia thread.

Literally from California

[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.

[Idaho Conservative]

He doesn't know anything about California, he's just here to troll like he was doing in the Virginia thread.

Literally from California

Still true.

I know much more about Cali than you.  You are just a democratic hack and snob.  A toxic person on this forum.

[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.

[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. 

[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.