Project Shameless Gerrymander

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Inspired by Antonio's thread, I shall do my own, gerrymandering the states according to the three scenarios:

- Pro-Democratic bias
- Pro-Republican bias
- No bias, just to make it look funny

More to come.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

My first, and thus, lousy attempt.

Democratic gerrymander.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Great !

But I think you could make it even more shameless, partisan and awfully looking.

What about packing Hawaii with Alaska ? Expanding CA so that it comprises a lot of Rep territory ? Packing all the southern white vote and make a big black State ? Doing some more regrouping in the west ? Taking dem areas in Ohio and Indiana ? Do your worst !

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'll soon do my worst.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Second attempt

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Now, pro-Pubbie gerrymander.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Daley"

Though, merging ME and NH wouldn't really help reps. Also, you should give western OR/WA to Idaho, or even better, make it its own State. Maybe merge detroit and Cleveland metros so that MI and OH become solid rep. Also, what about merging MN with the Dakotas ? Would it be enough to flip it ? The same way, you can merge CO with Utah.

To perfection the dem map, you could merge AL, MI and GA (since anyways their population is far lower). You could also add Nevada (minus Vegas) to California. And what about putting WV with MD ?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I will come up with new states names soon.

[Niemeyerite]

I don't think new hamsphire-maine would help republicans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think new hamsphire-maine would help republicans.

Indeed. It turns a lean-dem and a solid-dem State into one likely-dem State.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't think new hamsphire-maine would help republicans.

Depends. It's foolish to call NH a Democratic-leaning state. It's a pure swing state, as we saw in 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010. Maine isn't as Democratic as the rest of New England. Combining this wouldn't be thing Democrats would like.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

For the GOP map merge the non Chicago parts of Illinois with Kentucky and Indiana.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think new hamsphire-maine would help republicans.

Depends. It's foolish to call NH a Democratic-leaning state. It's a pure swing state, as we saw in 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010. Maine isn't as Democratic as the rest of New England. Combining this wouldn't be thing Democrats would like.

No chance to see such a State voting republican in a close (within 5%) election, which is the only kind of election where gerrymandering matters.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bump !

[Mehmentum]

For the republicans, you could merge Northern Va with  Maryland.  Even better, merge it with DC, so it doesn't vote for Senators or Representatives.

Or, if you want to be very evil...

Merge every pro- democrat area with DC.

[Person Man]

I wonder what it would look like if the Federal Court Districts were made the states.

[Person Man]

[Mehmentum]

1, 2, 3, 7, and 9 are likely Democrat.  10, 6 and 4, and 8 are lean Republican, 11 and 5 are likely Republican.

The Republicans have the advantage, the Democrats are generally packed into a bunch of safe districts, while 10, 6, 8, and 4 could flip D in a strong Democratic (or weak Republican) perfomance, but could be counted on for the Republicans in a normal election.

[Person Man]

I think this is how the map in 2004 and 2008 would have looked like

Correction: Alaska is 9th...though it doesn't change the outcome
2004

Obama nuetralized the GOP strength in 8 by winning Ohio and having equal margins in Michigan as McCain had in Tennessee and Kentucky. McCain lost the 4th by only pulling off a landslide in West Virginia and only winning South Carolina with 53% of the vote while losing everywhere else. Despite Obama's strong performance out west, McCain was able to easily hold the 10th where McCain carried Oklahoma and Kansas combined with 59% of the vote while Obama only carried Colorado and New Mexico with 55% of the vote. In the 6th, McCain holds by simply swamping Obama in Arkansas with 59% and in Nebraska with 58% of the vote (though he should have done better)  of the vote. It also helped that Obama lost Missouri.

2008

4,7,8 are the big three. Each party's candidate has to win two of them to win under most cirmcumstances. 1,2,3 have no Republican stronghold and 9 is simply locked up by huge margins and populations in California.  6 and 10 have some D strongholds, but are attached to circuits that are in the ultraconservative South Plains, the new center of gravity for the Republican Party in the 21st Century. The 11th could be competitive but Florida Democrats simply cannot deliver and would have to win big to nuetralize their faux-existance in Alabama and rural Georgia. There are no significant liberal strongholds (No Democrat will win just because of Southern Blacks, South Texas Mexicans and metrosexuals in Austin) in the unltraconservative 5th to speak of.

Though what I am really interested in thinking about is a lower house apportioned based on  trial court districts (94 Districts) and a higher chamber based on representing the 11 circuits + DC. Perhaps there would be 3 representatives  (282 seats in the House of Masters) for each district and 5 senators from each circuit plus one from the Capital (56 in the House of  Doctors that would choose amongst them 9 Supreme Court Justices, whom would choose a chief amongst them ). ..this could be an interesting timeline based on some sort of Confucian or Continental Constitutional founding that was based around the judiciary....or the rule of the learned official.