Without knowing the partisanship of these districts, do you deem this NC map fair? (14 districts)

[Libertas Vel Mors]

That's better than your other one. My main quibbles are:
1. The Triangle--I think a different alignment of districts here is preferable. It's better IMO to have a Raleigh suburban+Johnston/Raleigh/Durham+Chapel Hill+Chatham etc. alignment than that Wayne to Alamance thing.
2. The 8th should include all of Robeson. You can then push the 7th north and then whatever district you have in that area into Moore or Harnett or wherever needs population.
3. There's a way to draw the 11th district in whole counties, which includes all that you have plus Watauga and minus McDowell. Alternatively you can do a more CoI focused district which withdraws from the High Country and takes in all of the Asheville area counties. But your map doesn't really serve either ideal perfectly.
4.You split Winston-Salem I believe.
5. Gaston County if possible should be reunited with the other portions of the Charlotte metro not in the 9th or 12th.

1. Got it, makes sense. How many times would this cut Wake?

2. Yeah, Phil made the same point. I changed it in the above map.

3. That's a good idea -- what do you mean by the High country here?

4. You're right, I'll correct that in the next map.

5. How would that work? Isn't the 10th somewhat Charlottey here anyway?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The map gets a lot easier with 14 districts actually.   



https://davesredistricting.org/join/1daa5814-bfa4-4b55-b77b-6f3f3c9825e8

In the short term in this map Dems would probably be limited to 5 seats,  but 8, 11, and 14 could trend D enough by the end of the decade to flip them.   

This is a solid map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d433094c-770d-4b75-9e4a-671614e65893

my fair map

Why did you draw this with 2010 data? Why did you split Wake County in half? This is a pretty clear D gerrymander.

I didn't make it with 2010 data. On my end, it shows 2018. Also, Wake County has to be split, so what is the problem. This map is a 7-7 map.

Because the way you split it is a gerrymander. Wake County should have 1 100% Wake district, and 1 that takes up the rest. Instead, you split the county perfectly in half, so Wake County doesn't get it's own district and you gerrymander a second district D. It's basically the equivalent of splitting Milwaukee.

Who says that Wake has to have 1 100% district? Also, the second district you say is a D one is almost an even district.

A fair map does, because otherwise you're cracking it and ignoring the county COI in the favor of expanding partisan leans. Also, maybe under the composite, but not in practice, as it would be suburban and left trending.

[Vern]

The map gets a lot easier with 14 districts actually.   



https://davesredistricting.org/join/1daa5814-bfa4-4b55-b77b-6f3f3c9825e8

In the short term in this map Dems would probably be limited to 5 seats,  but 8, 11, and 14 could trend D enough by the end of the decade to flip them.   

This is a solid map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d433094c-770d-4b75-9e4a-671614e65893

my fair map

Why did you draw this with 2010 data? Why did you split Wake County in half? This is a pretty clear D gerrymander.

I didn't make it with 2010 data. On my end, it shows 2018. Also, Wake County has to be split, so what is the problem. This map is a 7-7 map.

Because the way you split it is a gerrymander. Wake County should have 1 100% Wake district, and 1 that takes up the rest. Instead, you split the county perfectly in half, so Wake County doesn't get it's own district and you gerrymander a second district D. It's basically the equivalent of splitting Milwaukee.

Who says that Wake has to have 1 100% district? Also, the second district you say is a D one is almost an even district.

A fair map does, because otherwise you're cracking it and ignoring the county COI in the favor of expanding partisan leans. Also, maybe under the composite, but not in practice, as it would be suburban and left trending.

Also, Southern Wake and Johnston are suburbs of Raleigh. So they should stay together.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The map gets a lot easier with 14 districts actually.   



https://davesredistricting.org/join/1daa5814-bfa4-4b55-b77b-6f3f3c9825e8

In the short term in this map Dems would probably be limited to 5 seats,  but 8, 11, and 14 could trend D enough by the end of the decade to flip them.   

This is a solid map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d433094c-770d-4b75-9e4a-671614e65893

my fair map

Why did you draw this with 2010 data? Why did you split Wake County in half? This is a pretty clear D gerrymander.

I didn't make it with 2010 data. On my end, it shows 2018. Also, Wake County has to be split, so what is the problem. This map is a 7-7 map.

Because the way you split it is a gerrymander. Wake County should have 1 100% Wake district, and 1 that takes up the rest. Instead, you split the county perfectly in half, so Wake County doesn't get it's own district and you gerrymander a second district D. It's basically the equivalent of splitting Milwaukee.

Who says that Wake has to have 1 100% district? Also, the second district you say is a D one is almost an even district.

A fair map does, because otherwise you're cracking it and ignoring the county COI in the favor of expanding partisan leans. Also, maybe under the composite, but not in practice, as it would be suburban and left trending.

Also, Southern Wake and Johnston are suburbs of Raleigh. So they should stay together.

You literally have half the city of Raleigh in your Johnston district, don't try to play it off like that.

[lfromnj]

I think its acceptable to split Wake so no whole district is in wake provided its still in the metropolitan area but splitting Raleigh is a gerrymander.

[cvparty]

The map gets a lot easier with 14 districts actually.  



https://davesredistricting.org/join/1daa5814-bfa4-4b55-b77b-6f3f3c9825e8

In the short term in this map Dems would probably be limited to 5 seats,  but 8, 11, and 14 could trend D enough by the end of the decade to flip them.  

This is a solid map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d433094c-770d-4b75-9e4a-671614e65893

my fair map

Why did you draw this with 2010 data? Why did you split Wake County in half? This is a pretty clear D gerrymander.

I didn't make it with 2010 data. On my end, it shows 2018. Also, Wake County has to be split, so what is the problem. This map is a 7-7 map.

Because the way you split it is a gerrymander. Wake County should have 1 100% Wake district, and 1 that takes up the rest. Instead, you split the county perfectly in half, so Wake County doesn't get it's own district and you gerrymander a second district D. It's basically the equivalent of splitting Milwaukee.

Who says that Wake has to have 1 100% district? Also, the second district you say is a D one is almost an even district.

A fair map does, because otherwise you're cracking it and ignoring the county COI in the favor of expanding partisan leans. Also, maybe under the composite, but not in practice, as it would be suburban and left trending.

Also, Southern Wake and Johnston are suburbs of Raleigh. So they should stay together.

You literally have half the city of Raleigh in your Johnston district, don't try to play it off like that.

actually, if you look at the map only one precinct is in raleigh, and only part of it is

op: it's already been said but the 14th district is crazy. the rest of the districts are ok, but to fix the 14th you probably have to shift other districts around as well

[Vern]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d433094c-770d-4b75-9e4a-671614e65893

Then you can do it like this for all I care. But Johnston should go with Wake.

[Sol]

1. Got it, makes sense. How many times would this cut Wake?

It'd cut Wake into three pieces--though the portion in the Durham-Orange district would be pretty small. Alternatively you could cut Lee or something.

3. That's a good idea -- what do you mean by the High country here?

Basically the NW mountains--a bit of a nebulous region but basically centered in Watauga, Ashe, and Avery counties. Broader definitions include Mitchell and Alleghany and sometimes Yancey; there's a council of Government which covers all of the above plus Wilkes but I doubt Wilkes would usually be included.

5. How would that work? Isn't the 10th somewhat Charlottey here anyway?

Your 10th is a bit of a mix; certain portions of Catawba, Cleveland and Lincoln are somewhat Charlottey but the rest isn't. It's more that Mooresville, Gastonia, and Kannapolis are very much Charlotte suburbs and should be together rather than being drawn out into rural areas.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The map gets a lot easier with 14 districts actually.  



https://davesredistricting.org/join/1daa5814-bfa4-4b55-b77b-6f3f3c9825e8

In the short term in this map Dems would probably be limited to 5 seats,  but 8, 11, and 14 could trend D enough by the end of the decade to flip them.  

This is a solid map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d433094c-770d-4b75-9e4a-671614e65893

my fair map

Why did you draw this with 2010 data? Why did you split Wake County in half? This is a pretty clear D gerrymander.

I didn't make it with 2010 data. On my end, it shows 2018. Also, Wake County has to be split, so what is the problem. This map is a 7-7 map.

Because the way you split it is a gerrymander. Wake County should have 1 100% Wake district, and 1 that takes up the rest. Instead, you split the county perfectly in half, so Wake County doesn't get it's own district and you gerrymander a second district D. It's basically the equivalent of splitting Milwaukee.

Who says that Wake has to have 1 100% district? Also, the second district you say is a D one is almost an even district.

A fair map does, because otherwise you're cracking it and ignoring the county COI in the favor of expanding partisan leans. Also, maybe under the composite, but not in practice, as it would be suburban and left trending.

Also, Southern Wake and Johnston are suburbs of Raleigh. So they should stay together.

You literally have half the city of Raleigh in your Johnston district, don't try to play it off like that.

actually, if you look at the map only one precinct is in raleigh, and only part of it is

op: it's already been said but the 14th district is crazy. the rest of the districts are ok, but to fix the 14th you probably have to shift other districts around as well

What should it be instead then?

[cvparty]

The map gets a lot easier with 14 districts actually.  



https://davesredistricting.org/join/1daa5814-bfa4-4b55-b77b-6f3f3c9825e8

In the short term in this map Dems would probably be limited to 5 seats,  but 8, 11, and 14 could trend D enough by the end of the decade to flip them.  

This is a solid map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d433094c-770d-4b75-9e4a-671614e65893

my fair map

Why did you draw this with 2010 data? Why did you split Wake County in half? This is a pretty clear D gerrymander.

I didn't make it with 2010 data. On my end, it shows 2018. Also, Wake County has to be split, so what is the problem. This map is a 7-7 map.

Because the way you split it is a gerrymander. Wake County should have 1 100% Wake district, and 1 that takes up the rest. Instead, you split the county perfectly in half, so Wake County doesn't get it's own district and you gerrymander a second district D. It's basically the equivalent of splitting Milwaukee.

Who says that Wake has to have 1 100% district? Also, the second district you say is a D one is almost an even district.

A fair map does, because otherwise you're cracking it and ignoring the county COI in the favor of expanding partisan leans. Also, maybe under the composite, but not in practice, as it would be suburban and left trending.

Also, Southern Wake and Johnston are suburbs of Raleigh. So they should stay together.

You literally have half the city of Raleigh in your Johnston district, don't try to play it off like that.

actually, if you look at the map only one precinct is in raleigh, and only part of it is

op: it's already been said but the 14th district is crazy. the rest of the districts are ok, but to fix the 14th you probably have to shift other districts around as well

What should it be instead then?

many possibilities, but if we're trying to preserve your general map, you could have 4 take in the parts of 14 north of chatham, have 2 take in most of NW wake, then move 14 into wake (probably the holly springs-apex-mooresville area works best?)

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The map gets a lot easier with 14 districts actually.  



https://davesredistricting.org/join/1daa5814-bfa4-4b55-b77b-6f3f3c9825e8

In the short term in this map Dems would probably be limited to 5 seats,  but 8, 11, and 14 could trend D enough by the end of the decade to flip them.  

This is a solid map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d433094c-770d-4b75-9e4a-671614e65893

my fair map

Why did you draw this with 2010 data? Why did you split Wake County in half? This is a pretty clear D gerrymander.

I didn't make it with 2010 data. On my end, it shows 2018. Also, Wake County has to be split, so what is the problem. This map is a 7-7 map.

Because the way you split it is a gerrymander. Wake County should have 1 100% Wake district, and 1 that takes up the rest. Instead, you split the county perfectly in half, so Wake County doesn't get it's own district and you gerrymander a second district D. It's basically the equivalent of splitting Milwaukee.

Who says that Wake has to have 1 100% district? Also, the second district you say is a D one is almost an even district.

A fair map does, because otherwise you're cracking it and ignoring the county COI in the favor of expanding partisan leans. Also, maybe under the composite, but not in practice, as it would be suburban and left trending.

Also, Southern Wake and Johnston are suburbs of Raleigh. So they should stay together.

You literally have half the city of Raleigh in your Johnston district, don't try to play it off like that.

actually, if you look at the map only one precinct is in raleigh, and only part of it is

op: it's already been said but the 14th district is crazy. the rest of the districts are ok, but to fix the 14th you probably have to shift other districts around as well

What should it be instead then?

many possibilities, but if we're trying to preserve your general map, you could have 4 take in the parts of 14 north of chatham, have 2 take in most of NW wake, then move 14 into wake (probably the holly springs-apex-mooresville area works best?)

Like this?

[cvparty]

The map gets a lot easier with 14 districts actually.  



https://davesredistricting.org/join/1daa5814-bfa4-4b55-b77b-6f3f3c9825e8

In the short term in this map Dems would probably be limited to 5 seats,  but 8, 11, and 14 could trend D enough by the end of the decade to flip them.  

This is a solid map.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d433094c-770d-4b75-9e4a-671614e65893

my fair map

Why did you draw this with 2010 data? Why did you split Wake County in half? This is a pretty clear D gerrymander.

I didn't make it with 2010 data. On my end, it shows 2018. Also, Wake County has to be split, so what is the problem. This map is a 7-7 map.

Because the way you split it is a gerrymander. Wake County should have 1 100% Wake district, and 1 that takes up the rest. Instead, you split the county perfectly in half, so Wake County doesn't get it's own district and you gerrymander a second district D. It's basically the equivalent of splitting Milwaukee.

Who says that Wake has to have 1 100% district? Also, the second district you say is a D one is almost an even district.

A fair map does, because otherwise you're cracking it and ignoring the county COI in the favor of expanding partisan leans. Also, maybe under the composite, but not in practice, as it would be suburban and left trending.

Also, Southern Wake and Johnston are suburbs of Raleigh. So they should stay together.

You literally have half the city of Raleigh in your Johnston district, don't try to play it off like that.

actually, if you look at the map only one precinct is in raleigh, and only part of it is

op: it's already been said but the 14th district is crazy. the rest of the districts are ok, but to fix the 14th you probably have to shift other districts around as well

What should it be instead then?

many possibilities, but if we're trying to preserve your general map, you could have 4 take in the parts of 14 north of chatham, have 2 take in most of NW wake, then move 14 into wake (probably the holly springs-apex-mooresville area works best?)

Like this?

yeah that could work

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Results:

Map 1 (Original)



NC-01: Clinton +11.1
NC-02: Clinton +19.6
NC-03: Trump +23.8
NC-04: Clinton +42.8
NC-05: Trump +31.7
NC-06: Clinton +19.3
NC-07: Trump +14.9
NC-08: Clinton +0.5
NC-09: Trump +14.4
NC-10: Trump +36.7
NC-11: Trump +15.7
NC-12: Clinton +42.4
NC-13: Trump +39.6
NC-14: Trump +13.6

Final split: 8-6 Trump-Clinton

Version 2: Robeson added to NC-08



New NC-07: Trump +14.2
New NC-08: Clinton +2.9
New NC-14: Trump +16.3

Version 3: NC-14 Condensed



New NC-02: Clinton +27
New NC-04: Clinton +33.5
New NC-13: Trump +39.9
New NC-14: Trump +11.2

How are your opinions changed knowing these numbers? Which map do you prefer?

[Water Hazard]

Version 3 looks really good. I assume you're going for minority opportunity in 12. To the naked eye it looks like 9 is hunting for red/purple precincts, but there could definitely be a valid COI argument for drawing it like that.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Version 3 looks really good. I assume you're going for minority opportunity in 12. To the naked eye it looks like 9 is hunting for red/purple precincts, but there could definitely be a valid COI argument for drawing it like that.

I used the demographics map in that regard: I initially only had composite set up (since DRA requires a partisan layer choice) which certainly wouldn’t have been very helpful in the area either way. And yes, I wanted to ensure the map stayed legal/met requirements + felt like white suburbanites vs AA inner voters to be a pretty good COI.

[lfromnj]

Version 3 looks really good. I assume you're going for minority opportunity in 12. To the naked eye it looks like 9 is hunting for red/purple precincts, but there could definitely be a valid COI argument for drawing it like that.

I used the demographics map in that regard: I initially only had composite set up (since DRA requires a partisan layer choice) which certainly wouldn’t have been very helpful in the area either way. And yes, I wanted to ensure the map stayed legal/met requirements + felt like white suburbanites vs AA inner voters to be a pretty good COI.

You can hide election data btw .

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Version 3 looks really good. I assume you're going for minority opportunity in 12. To the naked eye it looks like 9 is hunting for red/purple precincts, but there could definitely be a valid COI argument for drawing it like that.

I used the demographics map in that regard: I initially only had composite set up (since DRA requires a partisan layer choice) which certainly wouldn’t have been very helpful in the area either way. And yes, I wanted to ensure the map stayed legal/met requirements + felt like white suburbanites vs AA inner voters to be a pretty good COI.

You can hide election data btw .

Here I just tried not to look at it/put the composite since it’s essentially outdated, how do you hide it on the new version?

[lfromnj]

Version 3 looks really good. I assume you're going for minority opportunity in 12. To the naked eye it looks like 9 is hunting for red/purple precincts, but there could definitely be a valid COI argument for drawing it like that.

I used the demographics map in that regard: I initially only had composite set up (since DRA requires a partisan layer choice) which certainly wouldn’t have been very helpful in the area either way. And yes, I wanted to ensure the map stayed legal/met requirements + felt like white suburbanites vs AA inner voters to be a pretty good COI.

You can hide election data btw .

Here I just tried not to look at it/put the composite since it’s essentially outdated, how do you hide it on the new version?

In the settings where the datasets are, and at the very bottom it says hide election data.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Version 3 looks really good. I assume you're going for minority opportunity in 12. To the naked eye it looks like 9 is hunting for red/purple precincts, but there could definitely be a valid COI argument for drawing it like that.

I used the demographics map in that regard: I initially only had composite set up (since DRA requires a partisan layer choice) which certainly wouldn’t have been very helpful in the area either way. And yes, I wanted to ensure the map stayed legal/met requirements + felt like white suburbanites vs AA inner voters to be a pretty good COI.

You can hide election data btw .

Here I just tried not to look at it/put the composite since it’s essentially outdated, how do you hide it on the new version?

In the settings where the datasets are, and at the very bottom it says hide election data.

Ah, thanks a million! I still just wish we could add and remove them like before.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Most of the ones in this thread look good to me for the 3 main reasons.

1. No Johnston to Wilmington district
2. No Parallel districts in central NC
3. Asheville being in the 11th.

[Tartarus Sauce]

No, but that's because it's next to impossible to draw satisfactory maps for NC. There are very few reasonable ways to split its metropolitan areas while preserving CoIs, only varying degrees of unpleasant compromises.