Redistricting North Carolina

[Landslide Lyndon]

Swing State Project continues it's redistricting exercise.
This time it's North Carolina:



http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=076CDC3F17482C8ABA37DC5FCFA089A8?diaryId=4965

[Devilman88]

This isn't a very good map, this person made the districts as democratic as they could.

[minionofmidas]

Yes... all of the Swing State Project maps are.
They begun with states that are currently Republican gerrymanders. Why they would do a state that is currently a Dem gerrymander beats me. Would be more interesting to de a Republican gerrymander of NC, wouldn't it?

[Devilman88]

Yes... all of the Swing State Project maps are.
They begun with states that are currently Republican gerrymanders. Why they would do a state that is currently a Dem gerrymander beats me. Would be more interesting to de a Republican gerrymander of NC, wouldn't it?

If I knew how to I would try to do a fair map of NC

[muon2]

Swing State Project continues it's redistricting exercise.
This time it's North Carolina:



http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=076CDC3F17482C8ABA37DC5FCFA089A8?diaryId=4965

I hate to nag, but it would be helpful if the redistricting threads were kept together at the Political Geography / Demographics board.

[Ronnie]

This is almost as bad as Maryland.

[Brittain33]

This is almost as bad as Maryland.

That 5/12 connection around Winston-Salem is uncomfortably similar to how MD-2 hooks around MD-3 north of Baltimore City.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Swing State Project continues it's redistricting exercise.
This time it's North Carolina:



http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=076CDC3F17482C8ABA37DC5FCFA089A8?diaryId=4965

I hate to nag, but it would be helpful if the redistricting threads were kept together at the Political Geography / Demographics board.

While that might be more appropriate, this is also a much higher traffic forum. Maybe we could have one designated redistricting thread for one of the forums.

[muon2]

Swing State Project continues it's redistricting exercise.
This time it's North Carolina:



http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=076CDC3F17482C8ABA37DC5FCFA089A8?diaryId=4965

I hate to nag, but it would be helpful if the redistricting threads were kept together at the Political Geography / Demographics board.

While that might be more appropriate, this is also a much higher traffic forum. Maybe we could have one designated redistricting thread for one of the forums.

I completely agree. I have made that proposal, and I've volunteered to moderate it as well. With 2010 and 2011 approaching this will happen more often. Unfortunately, I have been referred to the aforementioned Political Geography / Demographics forum, so I am left passing the buck to this board to at least attempt to keep the related threads together.

[Dan the Roman]

This makes sense because with the Democrats in complete control in NC we are likely to see an even more extreme Democratic gerrymander. Especially with the Obama Justice Department giving leeway on the VRA.

[Brittain33]

The legislature proposed a rather extreme gerrymander in 2002, but for some reason, they dialed it back and went with the very-Democrat-friendly-but-not-as-extreme map we have today. The current map did gerrymander a Dem victory in NC-8 and a new Dem seat in NC-13, but the first map did the "carve out" in the Smoky Mtns. that makes NC-11 much more Democratic than it is today. I don't know why a similarly Democratic state government decided to leave NC-11 as it was, and whether they would do the same in 2012 or try to shore up the D performance of the district.

[Dan the Roman]

The legislature proposed a rather extreme gerrymander in 2002, but for some reason, they dialed it back and went with the very-Democrat-friendly-but-not-as-extreme map we have today. The current map did gerrymander a Dem victory in NC-8 and a new Dem seat in NC-13, but the first map did the "carve out" in the Smoky Mtns. that makes NC-11 much more Democratic than it is today. I don't know why a similarly Democratic state government decided to leave NC-11 as it was, and whether they would do the same in 2012 or try to shore up the D performance of the district.

You had a Bush Justice Department then, and the NC Dems got burned in 1991 when they crossed another GOP justice department which redrew their map in an unfavorable manner. Mississippi tried to go with a heavily Democratic map, and federal courts threw it out in favor of Pro-GOP one. Ditto for Georgia state house map.

Notice however that this map preserves two minority majority districts(barely). The originally 2002 map didn't, though they both would have been winnable for their incumbents.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Keep in mind that North Carolina might gain one seat after the census.
The guys at SSP are already preparing a map for that occasion.

[Devilman88]

Does anyone know where I can find population by precincts for NC?

[Mr.Phips]

The legislature proposed a rather extreme gerrymander in 2002, but for some reason, they dialed it back and went with the very-Democrat-friendly-but-not-as-extreme map we have today. The current map did gerrymander a Dem victory in NC-8 and a new Dem seat in NC-13, but the first map did the "carve out" in the Smoky Mtns. that makes NC-11 much more Democratic than it is today. I don't know why a similarly Democratic state government decided to leave NC-11 as it was, and whether they would do the same in 2012 or try to shore up the D performance of the district.

Did the "extreme gerrymander" in 2002 take Stanley and Cabarrus counties almost completely out of NC-08 and add more of Mecklinburg county to the district?  This would have made it almost certain that Hayes would have lost in 2002 and that possibly even Gore and Kerry carried the district. 

[Brittain33]

Did the "extreme gerrymander" in 2002 take Stanley and Cabarrus counties almost completely out of NC-08 and add more of Mecklinburg county to the district?  This would have made it almost certain that Hayes would have lost in 2002 and that possibly even Gore and Kerry carried the district. 

I've been trying to find records from that period without any luck. All I remember is the changes in 10/11 that didn't stick. I don't think they tried anything with 8 beyond the eventual inclusion of a slug of Charlotte.

[muon2]

The SSP motive is somewhat baffling. They are working hard on gerrymanders to favor Dems, while Dems in places like OH are working hard to create a more neutral set of redistricting rules. The OH Dems had their own experience with a Rep gerrymander this decade, but don't seem to look for retaliation. In many ways the extreme Dem gerrymanders in TX and GA became the basis for midterm redistricting once the GOP took over at the state level.

Why don't both sides admit that the practice of extreme gerrymanders can backfire later in the decade as much as it succeeds in the first election out of the box?

[Smash255]

Yes... all of the Swing State Project maps are.
They begun with states that are currently Republican gerrymanders. Why they would do a state that is currently a Dem gerrymander beats me. Would be more interesting to de a Republican gerrymander of NC, wouldn't it?

With SSP it depends on who is making the maps.  Some have made only Democratic gerrymanders.  Others will make a map either as a GOP gerrymander, Dem gerrymander, or Incumbent protection, etc based on who would be in control of the process.   In NC, the Dems control the Governor's mansion and both the State House and Senate (by large margins)so the Democrats will be in complete control of the redistricting process.

[minionofmidas]

In many ways the extreme Dem gerrymanders in TX and GA became the basis for midterm redistricting once the GOP took over at the state level.

There was no such thing in Texas. There was a court drawn map that didn't completely dismantle the extreme Dem gerrymander of ten years previously (parts of which had been dismantled by court decisions over the 90s already), but created two new Republican districts and left a number of Democratic seats extremely vulnerable / certain to stay lost once lost. That none were lost in 2002 was essentially a random chance event.

[minionofmidas]

Why don't both sides admit that the practice of extreme gerrymanders can backfire later in the decade as much as it succeeds in the first election out of the box?

I dunno. Stupidity?

Not that it always turns out that way, of course. The NC gerrymander of 2002 has been rather exceeding expectations. Same with Maryland.

[Brittain33]

Why don't both sides admit that the practice of extreme gerrymanders can backfire later in the decade as much as it succeeds in the first election out of the box?

How often does a gerrymander actually backfire? What we saw in Georgia in '02, Pennsylvania in '06, and Michigan, Ohio, and central Florida in '08 is that a gerrymander can't stand up to an overwhelming wave moving in the opposite direction. That's not the same as backfiring. In my opinion, the only ways a gerrymander backfires is by investing too much in the strength of a flawed incumbent (George Gekas, Phil Crane, Tom Delay) or by creating districts so safe that the incumbent or pseudo-incumbent self-destructs from lack of quality control (Don Sherwood, "Champ" Walker in GA-12).

The Maryland gerrymander, the Texas Perrymander, even most of the Florida gerrymander still stand. The most interesting fact to me is that while the Pennsylvania delegation has swung heavily Democratic, the two Republican legislative architects of the map, Gerlach and Murphy, are the rare survivors. 

Given the record and human nature, I think it will always be the tendency for legislators to overreach, and so it is reasonable for SSP to assume maximal conditions.

[muon2]

Why don't both sides admit that the practice of extreme gerrymanders can backfire later in the decade as much as it succeeds in the first election out of the box?

How often does a gerrymander actually backfire? What we saw in Georgia in '02, Pennsylvania in '06, and Michigan, Ohio, and central Florida in '08 is that a gerrymander can't stand up to an overwhelming wave moving in the opposite direction. That's not the same as backfiring. In my opinion, the only ways a gerrymander backfires is by investing too much in the strength of a flawed incumbent (George Gekas, Phil Crane, Tom Delay) or by creating districts so safe that the incumbent or pseudo-incumbent self-destructs from lack of quality control (Don Sherwood, "Champ" Walker in GA-12).

The Maryland gerrymander, the Texas Perrymander, even most of the Florida gerrymander still stand. The most interesting fact to me is that while the Pennsylvania delegation has swung heavily Democratic, the two Republican legislative architects of the map, Gerlach and Murphy, are the rare survivors. 

Given the record and human nature, I think it will always be the tendency for legislators to overreach, and so it is reasonable for SSP to assume maximal conditions.

My observation is that the partisan gerrymanders are more susceptible to a wave election. This is usually because the party in control tries to eke out every possible seat, but assumes votes from the previous election. GA had the problem after both 1990 as well as 2000. The incumbent protection gerrymander is generally stronger, as is seen in CA this decade.

[Brittain33]

My observation is that the partisan gerrymanders are more susceptible to a wave election. This is usually because the party in control tries to eke out every possible seat, but assumes votes from the previous election. GA had the problem after both 1990 as well as 2000. The incumbent protection gerrymander is generally stronger, as is seen in CA this decade.

Ok. I'm not going to examine this in detail, but I was assuming a baseline of reasonably ungerrymandered districts, not something like California's plan.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

muon's point makes sense, gerrymanders (Florida's being the perfect example) are typically based off lots of 53-54% for the party districts, with not super-solid vote margins resulting in voters being "wasted". But one assumes that 53-54% will hold. It won't in a wave. That was what was brutal for Pennsylvania and Florida Republicans. The Georgia Democrats made a bit of the same mistake.

brittain's point is also valid, but you can get that just as easily with safe seats in a fair map. Colorado wasn't a GOP gerrymander, but the GOP still managed to blow it by nominating people like Musgrave, and nominating people who could never get elected statewide in its safest seats.

[muon2]

muon's point makes sense, gerrymanders (Florida's being the perfect example) are typically based off lots of 53-54% for the party districts, with not super-solid vote margins resulting in voters being "wasted". But one assumes that 53-54% will hold. It won't in a wave. That was what was brutal for Pennsylvania and Florida Republicans. The Georgia Democrats made a bit of the same mistake.

brittain's point is also valid, but you can get that just as easily with safe seats in a fair map. Colorado wasn't a GOP gerrymander, but the GOP still managed to blow it by nominating people like Musgrave, and nominating people who could never get elected statewide in its safest seats.

Exactly. You can have a good map for your party, but blow it by putting out candidates who aren't competitive for the district.

Movements for more competitive seats, like is happening in OH can be seen as an antigerrymander. For their redistricting competition my map (in the sig) has 12 of 18 seats with less than 5% margin based on 2000 presidential results. In principle those seats should swing back and forth unless one has a strong incumbent whose popularity crosses party lines.