Idea for Redistricting Reform

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Texas

https://davesredistricting.org/join/44a7e650-b2dc-4f31-9ed6-0739c4416940

TX-01: R+1.59, 50.2-45.5 Clinton 1D, 1R, 1S
TX-02: D+4.93, 57.8-37.6 Clinton 2D, 1R
TX-03: R+15.56, 59.3-36.5 Trump 2R, 1D
TX-04: R+24.14, 72-25.2 Trump 2R, 1S
TX-05: R+17.12, 59.5-34.8 Trump 2R, 1D
TX-06: D+4.28, 55.7-40.2 Clinton 2D, 1R
TX-07: R+10.77, 55.1-40 Trump 2R, 1D
TX-08: R+28.94, 74.7-21 Trump 2R, 1S
TX-09: R+2.24, 48.7-46.7 Clinton 1D, 1R, 1S
TX-10: D+8.6, 58-38.4 Clinton 2D, 1R
TX-11: D+0.2, 50.8-43.5 Clinton 1D, 1R, 1S
TX-12: D+12.47, 63.1-29.8 Clinton 2D, 1R
TX-13: R+16.84, 61.2-33.3 Trump 2R, 1D
Total: 19R, 15D, 5S
Total so far: 153D, 149R, 28S

The South is hence completed.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Montana is a safe 1D, 1R
Wyoming is a safe 1R



Colorado

https://davesredistricting.org/join/08e01fe9-e141-4550-b6b4-8d5651288e51

CO-01: D+10.05, 57.2-34.8 Clinton 2D, 1R
CO-02: D+1.18, 48.4-42.7 Clinton 1D, 1R, 1S
CO-03: R+10.91, 55.6-35.4 Trump 1D, 1R
Total: 4D, 3R, 1S
Total so far: 158D, 154R, 29S


New Mexico is a safe 2D, 1R

Total so far: 160D, 155R, 29S

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

been making this into a map.

[kwabbit]

been making this into a map.

Amazing job so far. The bigger districts look great on a map. I love the color scheme and the squares.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Idaho with 3 seats would be an easy 2R, 1D. Idaho with 2 seats sees both parties lose a certain seat relative to that, so 1R, 1S.

Utah

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4185f2ee-3d72-4dca-bc01-29c644969567

UT-01: R+9.14, 36.7-35.9 Clinton 1R, 1D
UT-02: R+30.63, 54.9-18.5 Trump 2R
Total: 3R, 1D

Total so far: 161D, 159R, 30S

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Arizona

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ec89ae60-2d67-46e1-af53-77bc5c6f30ac

AZ-01: R+11.47, 56.6-36.3 Trump 1D, 1R
AZ-02: D+1.94, 51.5-41.5 Clinton 1D, 1R
AZ-03: R+4.74, 48.3-44.8 Trump 1D, 1R, 1S
AZ-04: R+5.27, 47.2-44.9 Trump 1D, 1R, 1S
Total: 4D, 4R, 2S
Total so far: 165D, 163R, 32S

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Nevada is an interesting case. It's allotted 4 members. However, Clark County is close to 3. It's close enough to 3 that it's justifiable to create one district just within Clark County, and another for the rest of the state.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0f932e06-ca21-4189-938e-91429893e4ed



As such, we have NV-01, composed of just Clark County, which is D+5.02 and 52.4-41.7 Clinton. And NV-02, which is R+8.34 and 53.6-38.3 Trump. The former is a safe 2D, 1R; the latter is 1R. Together they are 2D, 2R.

The running total is 167D, 165R, 32S

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Washington

https://davesredistricting.org/join/26d14122-c77e-4421-8b18-731a96fe9671

WA-01: R+8.01, 53-39.2 Trump 2R, 1D
WA-02: D+22.28, 71.9-21.7 Clinton 2D, 1S
WA-03: D+4.27, 50.2-41 Clinton 1R, 1D
WA-04: D+5.88, 52.8-39 Clinton 1R, 1D
Total: 5D, 4R, 1S
Total so far: 172D, 169R, 33S

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Alaska is 1R for now, though that will probably change in the future.
Hawaii is 2D. If Hawaii ever gains an additional member, that seat will definitely go to a Republican.



Oregon

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c168b294-de90-4c30-8fd7-0defadf48c04

OR-01: D+14.28, 59.8-29.3 Clinton 2D, 1R
OR-02: R+4.77, 48.7-40.6 Trump 1D, 1R, 1S
Total: 3D, 2R, 1S
Total so far: 177D, 172R, 34S

All that remains is California.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

California

https://davesredistricting.org/join/449794fe-f7d4-462d-86b3-10f880fa1a45

CA-01: D+8.27, 55.8-36.9 Clinton 2D, 1R
CA-02: D+17.86, 67.4-26.8 Clinton 2D
CA-03: D+29.22, 78.3-16.1 Clinton 3D
CA-04: D+30.31, 78.9-15.2 Clinton 3D
CA-05: D+22.22, 72-22.1 Clinton 2D
CA-06: D+6.39, 55.8-37.5 Clinton 2D, 1R
CA-07: D+3.27, 51.9-42.4 Clinton 1D, 1R
CA-08: R+5.12, 49.8-44.4 Trump 2R, 1D
CA-09: D+5.75, 56.1-37.4 Clinton 1D, 1R
CA-10: R+0.21, 49.4-45.1 Clinton 2D, 2R
CA-11: D+14.98, 65-29.4 Clinton 2D, 1R
CA-12: D+26.54, 76.8-18 Clinton 3D
CA-13: D+18.58, 68.4-25.9 Clinton 2D, 1R
CA-14: D+32.38, 81-13.8 Clinton 2D
CA-15: D+23.91, 72.7-21.7 Clinton 2D
CA-16: R+0.83, 51.4-42.8 Clinton 2D, 2R
CA-17: D+0.31, 50.1-44.7 Clinton 2D, 1R
CA-18: D+10.44, 61.2-33.3 Clinton 1D, 1S
CA-19: D+3.64, 55-38.7 Clinton 2D, 1R
Total: 37D, 14R, 1S
Total overall: 214D, 186R, 35S

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm redoing NJ to account for 10% deviation, which was in place due to CA.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

New Jersey, redone

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bf146b69-5d13-421b-b650-dd0a0d5abcb8

NJ-01: D+1.6 1D, 1R, 1S
NJ-02: D+5.53 2D, 1R
NJ-03: D+0.5 1D, 1R, 1S
NJ-04: D+23.71 2D, 1S
Total: 6D, 3R, 3S
Total overall: 213D, 185R, 37S

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Florida redone

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4eeb6960-0ebc-4aca-8e64-008ef46e39f4

FL-01: R+13.74, 59.9-35.2 Trump 1R, 1D
FL-02: R+11.37, 60.2-35.9 Trump 2R, 1D
FL-03: R+10.56, 56.2-39.5 Trump 1R, 1D
FL-04: D+2.39, 52.5-42.8 Clinton 2D, 1R
FL-05: R+5.61, 53.5-42.3 Trump 2R, 1D
FL-06: D+0.89, 49.2-45.9 Clinton 1D, 1R, 1S
FL-07: R+9.16, 57.1-39.2 Trump 2D, 2R
FL-08: D+6.69, 56.2-40.9 Clinton 1D, 1R
FL-09: D+10.87, 60.8-36.3 Clinton 2D, 1R
FL-10: D+11.33, 62.6-34.4 Clinton 2D, 2R
Total: 14D, 14R, 1S
Total overall: 213D, 184R, 38S

[muon2]

It's perhaps useful to note that IL used a similar method for over 100 years to elect its House until it was eliminated in 1980. The state was divided into 59 three-member districts. Voters could cast 3 votes for either 1, 2 or 3 candidates dividing their votes evenly (eg. if a voter only selected two candidates they each got 1 1/2 votes). Parties ran only two candidates in a district to avoid being knocked out by strategic voting, so districts had representation from both parties.

[Alcibiades]

It's perhaps useful to note that IL used a similar method for over 100 years to elect its House until it was eliminated in 1980. The state was divided into 59 three-member districts. Voters could cast 3 votes for either 1, 2 or 3 candidates dividing their votes evenly (eg. if a voter only selected two candidates they each got 1 1/2 votes). Parties ran only two candidates in a district to avoid being knocked out by strategic voting, so districts had representation from both parties.

Even in, say, inner-city Chicago would the Dems only put up 2 candidates?

[muon2]

It's perhaps useful to note that IL used a similar method for over 100 years to elect its House until it was eliminated in 1980. The state was divided into 59 three-member districts. Voters could cast 3 votes for either 1, 2 or 3 candidates dividing their votes evenly (eg. if a voter only selected two candidates they each got 1 1/2 votes). Parties ran only two candidates in a district to avoid being knocked out by strategic voting, so districts had representation from both parties.

Even in, say, inner-city Chicago would the Dems only put up 2 candidates?

I believe that by 1970 state law restricted each party to at most two nominees per district. If you look at Speaker Madigan's first primary election in 1970, you'll see that there were three Dems in the primary, but only two advanced. I don't know when that law went into effect. A 2001 study concluded that the old system was more effective at getting minority representation, since in diverse areas the minority would use the bullet vote (casting three votes for one candidate) to win.

[kwabbit]

Florida redone

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4eeb6960-0ebc-4aca-8e64-008ef46e39f4

FL-01: R+13.74, 59.9-35.2 Trump 1R, 1D
FL-02: R+11.37, 60.2-35.9 Trump 2R, 1D
FL-03: R+10.56, 56.2-39.5 Trump 1R, 1D
FL-04: D+2.39, 52.5-42.8 Clinton 2D, 1R
FL-05: R+5.61, 53.5-42.3 Trump 2R, 1D
FL-06: D+0.89, 49.2-45.9 Clinton 1D, 1R, 1S
FL-07: R+9.16, 57.1-39.2 Trump 2D, 2R
FL-08: D+6.69, 56.2-40.9 Clinton 1D, 1R
FL-09: D+10.87, 60.8-36.3 Clinton 2D, 1R
FL-10: D+11.33, 62.6-34.4 Clinton 2D, 2R
Total: 14D, 14R, 1S
Total overall: 213D, 184R, 38S

This ended up being friendlier to Democrats than I expected. If the tossups went split, then it would 232-203. I was expecting around 225-210 or around that. Overall it's pretty proportional, and much more proportional at a per state level. Thank you for doing this series, it was very cool to see the idea in action.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Florida redone

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4eeb6960-0ebc-4aca-8e64-008ef46e39f4

FL-01: R+13.74, 59.9-35.2 Trump 1R, 1D
FL-02: R+11.37, 60.2-35.9 Trump 2R, 1D
FL-03: R+10.56, 56.2-39.5 Trump 1R, 1D
FL-04: D+2.39, 52.5-42.8 Clinton 2D, 1R
FL-05: R+5.61, 53.5-42.3 Trump 2R, 1D
FL-06: D+0.89, 49.2-45.9 Clinton 1D, 1R, 1S
FL-07: R+9.16, 57.1-39.2 Trump 2D, 2R
FL-08: D+6.69, 56.2-40.9 Clinton 1D, 1R
FL-09: D+10.87, 60.8-36.3 Clinton 2D, 1R
FL-10: D+11.33, 62.6-34.4 Clinton 2D, 2R
Total: 14D, 14R, 1S
Total overall: 213D, 184R, 38S

This ended up being friendlier to Democrats than I expected. If the tossups went split, then it would 232-203. I was expecting around 225-210 or around that. Overall it's pretty proportional, and much more proportional at a per state level. Thank you for doing this series, it was very cool to see the idea in action.

I suspect the reason this favored Dems was that there are more >70% Dem areas in the country than >70% GOP areas, and combined with county integrity rules this means that GOP votes are disproportionately unable to elect a member of their party. This isn't a huge enough advantage that Ds have a majority lock-and-key, but they still have a leg-up. This does mirror the advantage Ds have in the presidential popular vote though, and as long as this nation is polarized to this degree, Ds should have a clear advantage.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Completed map

[Torie]

It's perhaps useful to note that IL used a similar method for over 100 years to elect its House until it was eliminated in 1980. The state was divided into 59 three-member districts. Voters could cast 3 votes for either 1, 2 or 3 candidates dividing their votes evenly (eg. if a voter only selected two candidates they each got 1 1/2 votes). Parties ran only two candidates in a district to avoid being knocked out by strategic voting, so districts had representation from both parties.

I remember those days, and meeting the local Pub in the House, who got elected with a handful of votes in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. It seemed like a bad idea, at least for essentially one party areas, but back in those days, the Dems liked having Reps in high income GOP areas in the collar counties, who often brought heft to their cause, and were perceived to help their party grow in those areas. The Dems no longer need that now, obviously, since they have largely run the table in that department.