Blumenauer Congressional Plan
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:25:50 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Blumenauer Congressional Plan
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Blumenauer Congressional Plan  (Read 2861 times)
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 15, 2023, 12:51:19 PM »

Here's what I came up with: https://davesredistricting.org/join/add10d91-1c0c-449a-b1ba-0a116f60a484

Two seats at 50% black or above by CVAP, the other at 48.8% but black majority by total population (which the other two aren't.) All should function. The Arab communities are divided, but they aren't large enough to control a congressional district anyway, even at this size.

6 safe Dem seats (defined as at least Biden +10), 7 same R seats (at least Trump +5), 6 swing seats (only one of which voted for Trump, but most of which would have flipped in a Trump victory.)
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,141
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 15, 2023, 02:55:03 PM »

Here's what I came up with: https://davesredistricting.org/join/add10d91-1c0c-449a-b1ba-0a116f60a484

Two seats at 50% black or above by CVAP, the other at 48.8% but black majority by total population (which the other two aren't.) All should function. The Arab communities are divided, but they aren't large enough to control a congressional district anyway, even at this size.

6 safe Dem seats (defined as at least Biden +10), 7 same R seats (at least Trump +5), 6 swing seats (only one of which voted for Trump, but most of which would have flipped in a Trump victory.)
What do you make of this?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/5459f468-07c6-4a92-a768-ca5ad41132d4
Zero municipal splits outside of Detroit, and three black seats.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 15, 2023, 08:14:59 PM »
« Edited: February 15, 2023, 10:30:07 PM by Oryxslayer »

It's really not hard to draw three Black-influence districts:

It keeps heavily Arab areas in Dearborn and Dearborn Heights in one district, and unifies them with Hamtramck.

Sometimes it feels like Atlas redistricters just don't want to draw minority-influence seats.



I feel like I have to respond to this: literally go upthread ands you'll find me arguing how a 4th AA access seat and a Chinese opportunity seat override the interests of White Hasidim in NYC. I'll provide another one here. But if you really want more info, DM me.


So I have two big issues with all these 3-AA seats maps. One, the linkage with Pontiac. The commission made a clear choice to destroy the linkage between it and the two AA seats. They did not see why the two cities should be together, and instead viewed it as a gerrymander designed to pack and crack Oakland. This is despite the fact that it's removal and Detroit African American population loss meant that both AA seats would be starting at the mid-40s on VAP. This is also despite the fact they created a senate seat very similar to the old 14th's Oakland arm that goes from Pontiac to Southfield on the border. This was viewed to now expand African American access, and it did not force unequal gerrymanders on the surrounding seats because of the overall seat population size.

It also bears reminding that the old Detroit seats lost ~4% BVAP between 2010 and 2020. So far there is no indication this will stop, and it's something I think both the commission and their RPV expect should have accounted for.

Next, as we saw in the 2018 primary that produced Tlaib, putting the the Dearborns and African American areas together if you have the option of separating them should be avoided. One will come out on top and defeat the candidate(s) of choice of the other. Of course the commission didn't have the option to not pair the two, since they were nesting seats in Wayne, so both got paired in the district already with an Arab congresswoman who by now had taken steps for African American outreach. In a similar vein to many Los Angeles districts on various maps, you shouldn't zero-sum discriminate against one group if you have the option not to.


Which brings me to the map I have had for a while.





9-9 in 2016, 11-7 in 2020. Like I commented upthread, the reduction of district sizes means that a split of Macomb and a comparatively larger Kalamazoo works to reverse democratic geographic disadvantage.

District 10 may seem unorthodox, but from the Michigander's I have conferred with in the past online and in person they are adamant that the rural thumb has more in common with the other rurals to the north along the lakeshore than anything southwards. Putting St. Clair with the Detroit seats afforded me such a luxury this time.

Interestingly all 4 of the new seats - since I started assigning seat number locations from the old 14-district 2010 map - end up in and around Detroit. Guess that's what you get from a GOP gerrymander that gave all seats some rural profile.

The real interesting thing though is that the 4 districts I would define as competitive on this map all have very different profiles.


MI-06 is a classic swing seat that's more conservative than the nation. Obama wins it by a decent percentage in 2012, then Trump in 2016 by a decent percentage, then Biden in 2020 by a tiny amount. Probably would keep electing Upton.

MI-03 goes from Romney in 2012 to a tiny Clinton margin to such a strong Biden result that some might see it as off the field. Probably would have elected the same people as IRL until 2022, then maybe a different dem.

MI-09 still lurches right. It goes from a strong Obama win to a marginal Clinton one, then to Biden by a margin only slightly more Dem than the nation. Probably still elects Levin. The northern border of the seat is designed to try and follow the river.

MI-11 goes from a comfortable Romney win to a marginal trump win, then a Biden win equivalent to MI-09. Probably still has similar electoral history, but 2018 and 2020 elections under similar lines might have been more competitive.

 



Finally we must touch on Detroit, which features this new phallic district nested inside the county. Downloading ACS data and analyzing the seat in GIS gives me a district that is between 25 and 30% Arab + adjacent groups. Putting in the Hispanic neighborhoods and adding in the fact that the outer towns with small Arab populations also have some GOP primary voting whites and you end up with a access seat that will elect a candidate of choice. Though maybe specifically not Tlaib...
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,141
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 15, 2023, 10:20:37 PM »

That map feels like a CA commission-style map.
Logged
kwabbit
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 15, 2023, 10:32:11 PM »

It's really not hard to draw three Black-influence districts:



It keeps heavily Arab areas in Dearborn and Dearborn Heights in one district, and unifies them with Hamtramck.

Sometimes it feels like Atlas redistricters just don't want to draw minority-influence seats.



There's currently zero Black representatives from Detroit. It's not a hypothetical where a 40ish Black VAP could be risky, both current seats have failed to elect Black representatives. As the population decline continues in Detroit, it's safer to make two seats with higher Black CVAP.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 15, 2023, 10:50:31 PM »

It's really not hard to draw three Black-influence districts:



It keeps heavily Arab areas in Dearborn and Dearborn Heights in one district, and unifies them with Hamtramck.

Sometimes it feels like Atlas redistricters just don't want to draw minority-influence seats.



There's currently zero Black representatives from Detroit. It's not a hypothetical where a 40ish Black VAP could be risky, both current seats have failed to elect Black representatives. As the population decline continues in Detroit, it's safer to make two seats with higher Black CVAP.

It's not good to conflate the race of the representatives with whether or not they are the candidates of choice of the Black community.

2 and 3 are majority Black on CVAP; 1 is plurality white but should easily elect the preferred candidates since a large chunk of those whites are Republicans. It's of course not impossible for the Black candidate of choice to lose a primary, but that's very difficult to guarantee and the non-preferred candidate winning would require substantial support from Black voters in most cases (and you can cook up similar scenarios for higher CVAP numbers too).
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 15, 2023, 10:58:06 PM »

It's really not hard to draw three Black-influence districts:



It keeps heavily Arab areas in Dearborn and Dearborn Heights in one district, and unifies them with Hamtramck.

Sometimes it feels like Atlas redistricters just don't want to draw minority-influence seats.



There's currently zero Black representatives from Detroit. It's not a hypothetical where a 40ish Black VAP could be risky, both current seats have failed to elect Black representatives. As the population decline continues in Detroit, it's safer to make two seats with higher Black CVAP.

It's not good to conflate the race of the representatives with whether or not they are the candidates of choice of the Black community.

2 and 3 are majority Black on CVAP; 1 is plurality white but should easily elect the preferred candidates since a large chunk of those whites are Republicans. It's of course not impossible for the Black candidate of choice to lose a primary, but that's very difficult to guarantee and the non-preferred candidate winning would require substantial support from Black voters in most cases (and you can cook up similar scenarios for higher CVAP numbers too).

Yeah one needs to remember that candidate of choice =/= candidate of same ethnic group. The classic example here is Steve Cohen.

Thanedar is the plurality candidate of choice for example based on the 2022 primary results in AA precincts. Now we can debate whether it is solely cause he had substantial goodwill within his former legislative district, or whether he would have won a 1 v 1 with an African American candidate, but we don't have that information.

Now Tlaib was not the candidate of choice fer her seat really until recently. She won 2018 off just a concentrated base of support, and then in 2020 won landslide victories in all the non-Detroit parts of her seat. Which is why I prefer separating and not zero-summing these ethnic groups.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: February 15, 2023, 11:10:46 PM »

Next, as we saw in the 2018 primary that produced Tlaib, putting the the Dearborns and African American areas together if you have the option of separating them should be avoided. One will come out on top and defeat the candidate(s) of choice of the other. Of course the commission didn't have the option to not pair the two, since they were nesting seats in Wayne, so both got paired in the district already with an Arab congresswoman who by now had taken steps for African American outreach. In a similar vein to many Los Angeles districts on various maps, you shouldn't zero-sum discriminate against one group if you have the option not to.

I'm not sure how the current outcome is zero-sum discrimination--Tlaib is now the candidate of choice for both communities and does a good job representing both groups.

Frankly, I don't think trying to maximize the Arab percentage in a district, even at this size, is worth it; Arab communities in Detroit are pretty diverse in both religion and background and highly diffuse. Even in your map, it's only 25-30%; certainly not worth throwing out fair redistricting principles for.

I'm also curious what you're considering as "adjacent groups;" Hamtramck has a lot of Yemenis but also a lot of Bangladeshis who are of course not Arab.
Logged
kwabbit
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: February 15, 2023, 11:25:47 PM »

It's really not hard to draw three Black-influence districts:



It keeps heavily Arab areas in Dearborn and Dearborn Heights in one district, and unifies them with Hamtramck.

Sometimes it feels like Atlas redistricters just don't want to draw minority-influence seats.



There's currently zero Black representatives from Detroit. It's not a hypothetical where a 40ish Black VAP could be risky, both current seats have failed to elect Black representatives. As the population decline continues in Detroit, it's safer to make two seats with higher Black CVAP.

It's not good to conflate the race of the representatives with whether or not they are the candidates of choice of the Black community.

2 and 3 are majority Black on CVAP; 1 is plurality white but should easily elect the preferred candidates since a large chunk of those whites are Republicans. It's of course not impossible for the Black candidate of choice to lose a primary, but that's very difficult to guarantee and the non-preferred candidate winning would require substantial support from Black voters in most cases (and you can cook up similar scenarios for higher CVAP numbers too).

Whether a seat is functioning or not is most tested when it comes to open elections. Detroit's districts have both failed to produce African American representatives despite being drawn to do so. Yes, there is a distinction between choice of the Black community and a Black candidate, but such a distinction is rare. Cohen is the only White rep to represent a majority Black district.

Tlaib won in 2018 when she was clearly not the choice of the Black community, Thanedar squeaked by because the Black community was divided. Tlaib has built ties with the Black community now and so will Thanedar, but it's not a good sign when both districts designed to represent a Black community that's impoverished and in population decline did not elect a Black representative. I don't think it's a fluke, I think it's a signal that the seats would require a majority Black by VAP to elect a Black rep reliably in an open race. In 2030 with more Black population decline this might be moot either way though and one majority AA seat will be drawn and the other will be more Muslim oriented.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: February 15, 2023, 11:29:33 PM »

Next, as we saw in the 2018 primary that produced Tlaib, putting the the Dearborns and African American areas together if you have the option of separating them should be avoided. One will come out on top and defeat the candidate(s) of choice of the other. Of course the commission didn't have the option to not pair the two, since they were nesting seats in Wayne, so both got paired in the district already with an Arab congresswoman who by now had taken steps for African American outreach. In a similar vein to many Los Angeles districts on various maps, you shouldn't zero-sum discriminate against one group if you have the option not to.

I'm not sure how the current outcome is zero-sum discrimination--Tlaib is now the candidate of choice for both communities and does a good job representing both groups.

Frankly, I don't think trying to maximize the Arab percentage in a district, even at this size, is worth it; Arab communities in Detroit are pretty diverse in both religion and background and highly diffuse. Even in your map, it's only 25-30%; certainly not worth throwing out fair redistricting principles for.

I'm also curious what you're considering as "adjacent groups;" Hamtramck has a lot of Yemenis but also a lot of Bangladeshis who are of course not Arab.

The current map is not. See how I said if you have the option of separating them. Since the commission was nesting seats effectively inside Wayne, there is no option of separation. Therefore, the best option is to give Tlaib as much Arab areas as possible and keep them together.

The criteria I deemed for adjacent groups: would a member of said community hypothetically go before a commission and be asked or argue for pairing with specific other ethnic groups they consider part of their greater social fabric. If a member would consider themselves closer through neighborhood, social, or economic ties to the Arab access seat than European Whites or African Americans, then they went into my percentage total. This is also the ACS data, which is both very much a lagging indicator that gets progressively more inaccurate the further we get from a census year, and it comes with a MOE, so that all needs to be mentioned.

And finally, I guess agree to disagree on the point of separation. Maybe it's just my background in city politics, so I am acutely aware of when the point of distinction stops being D v R and it starts being access for a specific community - not just an ethnic one. Of maybe I have just spent to long analyzing LA's districts after last year. and seeing how zero-sum redistricting is used to silence one ethnic group at the expense of another. But the 2018 election results are a fairly strong point towards what I am getting at.
Logged
kwabbit
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2023, 12:02:00 AM »

Michigan Blumenauer

Made my own. I didn't exactly equalize population as I liked some of the whole county/municipality results. Michigan is always complicated to draw.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2023, 01:07:43 AM »

Ohio is actually a state where Democrats do well with this number of districts, although it's more about winnable districts than safe ones:




OH-01: A Cincinnati-based seat Biden won by almost 40 points and clearly Safe D...btw if you want to see just how strong the Cincinnati area has trended check out the 2006 Gubernatorial map where the Democrat won in a landslide. This used to be considered one of the most conservative major cities in the country...that does kind of still show in its suburbs though although those are showing cracks now (see northern Kentucky in recent years.)

OH-02: Safe R suburban Cincy district. It's crazy how many D pockets exist in this district and how it still ends up so Republican and Trump+27.

OH-03: Almost exactly the same as above, even the same margins.

OH-04: It's crazy to think that this seat that was won by Trump by 39 points was won by Democrats in almost every poster on here's lifetime. Absurdly Safe R now though obviously.

OH-05: This is actually a pretty interesting seat...Biden won it by 2 points, but almost every other statewide Republican in recent elections except Sherrod Brown's opponent won it by a narrow margin. It's about as polarized and split as possible, can't be anything but a pure tossup. On a side note, one odd thing about me in high school and college is I actually thought Dayton would be an awesome place to live...yes, seriously, this being due to the high number of bands it had for a city of its size and that it was a frequent tour date...this can possibly be attributed to geography, Ohio after all is a convenient state to tour in, but at the time Cincinnati was also regarded as a pretty lackluster city in terms of its scene, why Dayton was superior despite that it's an economically dead Rust Belt city which unlike places like Detroit, Pittsburgh and of course Cleveland can't even rebound based on being a regional hub and thus able to diversify is a true mystery. Today of course that is not true at all, based on tour dates Cincinnati is totally a better place to be, although not as good as Cleveland or Columbus.

OH-06: Another Trump+40 district that would've been winnable in most poster's lifetimes for Democrats...and those numbers are WITH Athens County. Safe R is also obvious.

OH-07: This is kind of a weird district and basically leftovers although it does kind of makes sense as a community of interest as Columbus exurbia on the south side...Safe R although Trump "only" won it by 18 points, if you used Kerry or even Obama 08 numbers and told people this would be less Republican than the aforementioned Appalachian districts that would be regarded as insane.

OH-08: First of all let me say that Columbus is one of my least favorite places in the country to draw, not so much due to the sheer number of discontinuous precincts but that their shape MAKES NO F[INKS]ING SENSE WHATSOEVER. The weird way the southern portion of this district is squeezed by the 7th is due to this primarily. Regardless this is designed to be a black influence seat in the Columbus metro and is overall just barely majority non-white...obvious Safe D.

OH-09: This is the other Democratic seat in Columbus. What's interesting is even though this is seat is under 10% black (compared to over 37% in the 8th) and about half as non-white as the 8th it only voted 5 points to the right...Biden got 65% here compared to 70% there...whites in this part of Columbus must be pretty damn D and no doubt the most D whites in the state. And Safe D.

OH-10: A hodgepodge of northern Columbus suburbia/exurbia and rural farmland, obvious Safe R, Trump+28.

OH-11: This is hands down the most Republican district in the state, Trump+48...and that's including Springfield, which granted isn't a super D city that Biden only won by high single digits...still it's kind of crazy just how Republican this area is. Obvious Safe R.

OH-12: Another obvious Safe R seat although it has enough Democratic pockets in small cities and of course Bowling Green (although that's notably less D than you'd expect from a city with a college of that size), to be about 6 points to the left of the above...Trump still won it by over 37 points.

OH-13: Toledo still dominates a district at this size! It's about a Biden+7 set, doesn't seem that safe but in this area it's at worst Likely D...and frankly Safe for Kaptur.

OH-14: One thing I've noticed with Ohio is no matter how you draw the state or how many districts there are you always end up with a bunch of leftovers districts. This is an example. Some boring rural areas and some heavily Obama-Trump working class towns by the lake....Safe R won by Trump by over 31 points.

OH-15: So let me say while this district is kind of ugly that was drawn by considerations in the other seats and it's actually not terrible from a CoI standpoint, there's still continuous road connection from Akron to the southern part without crossing into another districts and thus I'll argue that since the Akron area has to be paired with some rural areas southwest isn't really much worse than immediately west. Biden won this by 4 points...so it's not a stronghold but I also can't find any Republican that did carry it, DeWine no doubt did in 2022 but you can't base anything off that. Though it's PVI is close to Even I'm going to call it somewhere between Lean and Likely D.

OH-16: Canton always gets screwed doesn't it? At least Canton Democrats. What's interesting is how overlooked of a city Canton is, I guess it's not that big, but I can only think of two people who have ever mentioned being from it, a guy who once was a guest speaker at my church, and some metalcore band whose name escapes me...also must be a lousy place for shows, why would any big touring band play there instead of Cleveland, and even if it's a regional tour and you want a date before or after Cleveland Akron makes far more sense, I guess at least if you drive you still have decent access to shows...anyway this is a Safe R Trump+26 seat.

OH-17: Yeah this is basically Safe R now at Trump+16. Let me say though that Democrats shouldn't mourn this area too much, the only reason it used to be key to Democratic victories in the past is it had way more population than it does now....believe it or not this area used to have a population that was about 70-80% of Franklin County's in the 60s and 70s.

OH-18: This is kind of a leftovers seat because as I noted Ohio is prone to those, although in this case it's kind of a necessary case because the part of northern Ohio east of Cleveland is always tough to draw from a CoI standpoint, it's not big enough for its own seat even at this size and it's surrounded by other CoI areas that it's always going to be an awkward fit to pair with. In this case I went with suburban which is weird with the Akron district but also not unjustifiable based on road connections in both districts, about Trump+15 so Safe R which is still frustrating with how many D strongholds it contains like Kent.

OH-19: This is another weird tossup district. Biden won it by less than 2 points...I think it's the closest district in the state although both Biden and Trump did better than in the 5th. A strange combo of working class cities, Oberlin and Cleveland suburbs. Although unlike the 5th no Republican recently (other than DeWine 2022) has carried it...I'm actually going to be bold and call this a Lean D seat, at least somewhere between Lean D and tossup.

OH-20: This district has a weird shape yes, but the idea is to take in the white parts of the Cleveland metro and give the black community an influence district, and the black population in Cleveland is kind of disbursed in an odd way. Biden won it by over 20 points, so still Safe D.

OH-21: Over 53% black and Biden+56. And even this district has an odd fit in that realities in others forced almost 20% of it to be that overwhelmingly white and Trump+6 part of Lake County into it. But a clear Safe D seat.

So you basically have 5 truly Safe D seats, one basically Safe D seat, two sort of fool's gold-esque for Republicans seats, 12 Safe R seats and one total toss-up seat...actually pretty good for Democrats.
Logged
patzer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,037
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: February 16, 2023, 01:20:13 PM »

Colorado, if the Democrats there were as bold as the Illinois ones! (Data is 2020 presidential)

Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: February 16, 2023, 01:31:21 PM »

https://davesredistricting.org/join/495f85b2-3573-4921-bd70-528457d5397f

Texas

26T-26B



Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,141
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: February 16, 2023, 01:44:33 PM »

Amazing job doing my home state.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: February 16, 2023, 01:46:55 PM »


Thank you!
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: February 16, 2023, 03:56:46 PM »

Connecticut with zero towns split: https://davesredistricting.org/join/fadacab6-a2fa-456f-b1fa-9279a405da28

I started out aiming for compactness and for a New Haven-Bridgeport seat which might be a plausible minority access seat (though in practice it's 54% white by CVAP so I'm not sure it's possible without splitting towns.) It ended up winding up as a Democratic gerrymander, because to get sufficient population equality and keep vaguely cohesive districts Waterbury needed to end up in the NW district.
Logged
Born to Slay. Forced to Work.
leecannon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,792
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: February 16, 2023, 04:14:56 PM »

I randomly selected a state and got hawaii which also works very well with these numbers. It allows for the not-oahua islands to have a seat (blue) unto their own and a seat for ubran Oahu(green) and one for rural Oahu(purple).

The rural Oahu is interesting as it has seen some dramtic rightward trends in the last decade and could potentially have been a surprise pick up for republicans in 2022 with the right candidate, still it would have been a very longshot.




The new third would have been Hanabusa's seat. Patrick Branco might have it now.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: February 16, 2023, 04:25:59 PM »

I randomly selected a state and got hawaii which also works very well with these numbers. It allows for the not-oahua islands to have a seat (blue) unto their own and a seat for ubran Oahu(green) and one for rural Oahu(purple).

The rural Oahu is interesting as it has seen some dramtic rightward trends in the last decade and could potentially have been a surprise pick up for republicans in 2022 with the right candidate, still it would have been a very longshot.




The new third would have been Hanabusa's seat. Patrick Branco might have it now.


Maybe I'm doing something wrong but: aren't the non-Oahu islands 47K+ underpopulated and the Hawaii law that okay's greater deviations for island-based nesting only applies to the legislature?
Logged
Born to Slay. Forced to Work.
leecannon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,792
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: February 16, 2023, 05:17:22 PM »

I randomly selected a state and got hawaii which also works very well with these numbers. It allows for the not-oahua islands to have a seat (blue) unto their own and a seat for ubran Oahu(green) and one for rural Oahu(purple).

The rural Oahu is interesting as it has seen some dramtic rightward trends in the last decade and could potentially have been a surprise pick up for republicans in 2022 with the right candidate, still it would have been a very longshot.




The new third would have been Hanabusa's seat. Patrick Branco might have it now.


Maybe I'm doing something wrong but: aren't the non-Oahu islands 47K+ underpopulated and the Hawaii law that okay's greater deviations for island-based nesting only applies to the legislature?

You are right but I would imagine there would be a court case over the issue as without it applying to congressional district you would have to add a small part of Oahu to the district to equal it out - a proposition the outer islands and the residents of Oahu would probably be against. Especially if you have the right AG it would get approved under the courts as any alternative is worse. It also isn't as if this is trying to gerrymander seats, but just trying to make the best out of an awkward situation



This is probably what would happen is this hypothetical court battle is lost which imo is much worse from a COI and partisanship view. You *could* do as is currently done where most of the northern half is in the outerisland seat, but then the suburban/rural Oahu seat has to take in parts of Urban Honolulu and I do not think that should be done.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: February 16, 2023, 05:41:15 PM »

I randomly selected a state and got hawaii which also works very well with these numbers. It allows for the not-oahua islands to have a seat (blue) unto their own and a seat for ubran Oahu(green) and one for rural Oahu(purple).

The rural Oahu is interesting as it has seen some dramtic rightward trends in the last decade and could potentially have been a surprise pick up for republicans in 2022 with the right candidate, still it would have been a very longshot.




The new third would have been Hanabusa's seat. Patrick Branco might have it now.


Maybe I'm doing something wrong but: aren't the non-Oahu islands 47K+ underpopulated and the Hawaii law that okay's greater deviations for island-based nesting only applies to the legislature?

You are right but I would imagine there would be a court case over the issue as without it applying to congressional district you would have to add a small part of Oahu to the district to equal it out - a proposition the outer islands and the residents of Oahu would probably be against. Especially if you have the right AG it would get approved under the courts as any alternative is worse. It also isn't as if this is trying to gerrymander seats, but just trying to make the best out of an awkward situation



This is probably what would happen is this hypothetical court battle is lost which imo is much worse from a COI and partisanship view. You *could* do as is currently done where most of the northern half is in the outerisland seat, but then the suburban/rural Oahu seat has to take in parts of Urban Honolulu and I do not think that should be done.

The deviation is around 9.5% if my math is right, which is much much larger than anything in Congress and would be pushing the limits of legality for state legislatures, which have looser limits. The 1st district would absolutely be required to take a bite out of Oahu unfortunately, and I doubt legislators would even consider doing otherwise since it's so out of bounds under OPOV.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: February 17, 2023, 10:44:15 AM »

Kansas with no counties split except for Johnson (and keeping cities and towns whole there): https://davesredistricting.org/join/4a425d15-d732-40dd-8a23-414a514f734e

This is intended as a compromise map if Republicans were unable to override a veto, or as a commission map. Both the Johnson County and the Kansas City-Topeka districts voted for Biden by around 10 points, whilst the other 3 districts are safely Republican.

It is still possible to gerrymander five safely Republican districts, but you do need to bacon-strip multiple districts from the Colorado border to the KC metro.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: February 17, 2023, 11:07:15 AM »

Nebraska is a trickier question from a Republican perspective. On the one hand, Douglas County isn't that strongly Democratic. On the other hand, it's still large enough relative to other counties that it's hard to drown it out entirely. With four districts, splitting it between two districts just means that both are vulnerable in a wave and I don't think splitting it three ways is possible without the map looking stupid, especially since you also have to worry about Lincoln.

I think the easiest solution is to create one district that narrowly voted for Biden and three others which are safe, then hope Bacon can hold down that district. Something like this: https://davesredistricting.org/join/aff14830-3f67-4ad5-8511-163b6e0e86c6
Logged
Born to Slay. Forced to Work.
leecannon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,792
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: February 17, 2023, 11:49:37 AM »
« Edited: February 17, 2023, 12:48:51 PM by Peltola for God Empress »

Nebraska is a trickier question from a Republican perspective. On the one hand, Douglas County isn't that strongly Democratic. On the other hand, it's still large enough relative to other counties that it's hard to drown it out entirely. With four districts, splitting it between two districts just means that both are vulnerable in a wave and I don't think splitting it three ways is possible without the map looking stupid, especially since you also have to worry about Lincoln.

I think the easiest solution is to create one district that narrowly voted for Biden and three others which are safe, then hope Bacon can hold down that district. Something like this: https://davesredistricting.org/join/aff14830-3f67-4ad5-8511-163b6e0e86c6

Douglas and Sarpy couty have been shifting left fore a decade now, if I were NE Reps with this plan I would make an Omaha sink as in your plan theres a decenet chance both of these Omaha seats would be democratic by the end of the decade. I came up with this map to that affect. The Lincoln seat voted for Trump by just under ten points. It may become competitive, but it likely wont flip.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/835113b7-0626-4c91-ad3a-693a880fd7dc

EDIT:

By messing around with it some more and splitting up Lancaster county I was able to get three safe republican seats without it looking like a gerrymander. Both east seats Biden got around 40% in. Even in democrats best elections in the data it still doesn't break 45%. Interestingly the 3rd (Northeast) district has shifted right since the 2016/2012 PVI by about the same amount the 2nd (Southeast) shifted left. Both the 2nd and 3rd are R+13


https://davesredistricting.org/join/81cde134-0306-4264-bb1a-7fd287360dcf
Logged
OBD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,575
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: February 18, 2023, 02:18:59 AM »


https://davesredistricting.org/join/4d587a66-8837-4150-a344-f225ac8e3d5a

Judging by what they pulled IRL (barely shoring up NE-02 while moving NE-01 to the periphery of competitiveness) I could see NE Republicans going for something like this. The 1st (Trump+13) is about on par with its OTL equivalent while the 2nd is Trump+10.6 and probably safe for Bacon. Meanwhile, the Omaha seat is dragged as far right as possible, and at Biden+1.5 is further to the right than the current Omaha seat.

This does get risky given trends - as the districts contract into Lincoln and Omaha trends get more pronounced and the calculus of CD Electoral College allocation makes it even more of a gamble - but this should give Republicans at least 3 secure House seats with a good shot at the 4th.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 11 queries.