What districts would have Dems won back if not for gerrymandering?

[krazen1211]

I am just assuming the GOP controlled legislature states didn't change anything from 2000 maps. Of course NC-2 was very gerrymandered, a fair NC map would probably have a Wake County based district that takes up most if not all of the county. And I have to keep GOP in PA-12 b/c that seat was being eliminated regardless, although the Democrats would have chopped up Pittsburgh.

Nope.

Link.


It's highly amusing to see such bizarre conclusions drawn from districts that are substantially noncompliant with one man, one vote. Though I'm not certain liberals believe in such a thing.

[krazen1211]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

The Democrats naturally envision Chabot's seat to be, err, conveniently drawn in a manner of their choosing. The same people who complain about Cincinnati being split into 2 districts will split Cleveland into 2 districts without hesitation. There are plenty of maps as proof.

[krazen1211]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

The Democrats naturally envision Chabot's seat to be, err, conveniently drawn in a manner of their choosing. The same people who complain about Cincinnati being split into 2 districts will split Cleveland into 2 districts without hesitation. There are plenty of maps as proof.

I believe all cities shouldn't be split unless it is to large to fit in a single district. Cincinnati can easily be put in a single district, as can Dayton, Columbus, Toledo, and Akron. Cleveland is too large for a single district, plus there are VRA concerns.

Err, the population of Cleveland is barely half a Congressional district, under 400k.

[krazen1211]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

The Democrats naturally envision Chabot's seat to be, err, conveniently drawn in a manner of their choosing. The same people who complain about Cincinnati being split into 2 districts will split Cleveland into 2 districts without hesitation. There are plenty of maps as proof.

I believe all cities shouldn't be split unless it is to large to fit in a single district. Cincinnati can easily be put in a single district, as can Dayton, Columbus, Toledo, and Akron. Cleveland is too large for a single district, plus there are VRA concerns.

Eh, Cleveland can fit in one district, actually.  Columbus, OTOH, not so much anymore (especially not with its insane boundaries).  And at this point I'd probably prefer a district that took in all of Cleveland to one which snaked down to Akron as a way of disguising a Republican gerrymander in VRA's clothing.

The black representatives of the Ohio legislature wanted to ensure they they protected the then lone black member of the delegation. Indeed, such is part of the rationale for the shape of the new 3rd as well.

[krazen1211]

Eh, Cleveland can fit in one district, actually.  Columbus, OTOH, not so much anymore (especially not with its insane boundaries).  And at this point I'd probably prefer a district that took in all of Cleveland to one which snaked down to Akron as a way of disguising a Republican gerrymander in VRA's clothing.

Interesting. Your own map made the, err, convenient choice of splitting Cleveland, Columbus, and Akron, and not Cincinnati and replicates that so called gerrymandering tactic.


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=124180.msg3385020#msg3385020

[krazen1211]

Eh, Cleveland can fit in one district, actually.  Columbus, OTOH, not so much anymore (especially not with its insane boundaries).  And at this point I'd probably prefer a district that took in all of Cleveland to one which snaked down to Akron as a way of disguising a Republican gerrymander in VRA's clothing.

Interesting. Your own map made the, err, convenient choice of splitting Cleveland, Columbus, and Akron, and not Cincinnati and replicates that so called gerrymandering tactic.


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=124180.msg3385020#msg3385020

That's not the most recent map I've posted w/r/t Ohio, this is:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=173216.msg3723134#msg3723134

You will note that I have changed my mind since, and now would prefer a whole Cleveland.

And, you do realize that: a) splitting Cleveland and Akron like I did is a pro-Republican move, and if it is to be justified, would be justified via the VRA anyway (not an issue in Cincy) and b) Columbus is too large for a district, so you have to split it no matter what (and the municipal boundaries are such that an all-Columbus district is basically impossible). 

I await your retraction. Patiently. 

It is hardly a Republican move at all. A sizable number of Republican votes are wasted in that bizarre tail. Indeed, if it was you would not have used it. The legislature decided to keep the growing Columbus black population whole in order to give the black population of Ohio a potential chance at electing a second representative. I suspect you don't care about that and have no need to pretend to.

More importantly, Columbus is barely over the population of a Congressional district.That of course leaves the options of.

1. Make a district consisting mostly of the city and perhaps spill the small leftover into another district.
2. Chop the city into 2 pieces of roughly equal size.



Guess which one was, err, conveniently chosen? Your choice is no superior to the legislature's choice.




The 'split Cleveland but keep Cincinnati whole' phenomenon is hardly unique to your set of maps. Indeed, other so called 'fair' maps, drawn by, as you might guess, 'fair' map individuals, conveniently make such a simultaneous choice. Talk about schizophrenia.

[krazen1211]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

Considering that Chabot only won by five in 2010 against a candidate that Dems had long pulled the plug on, I don't thin he could have won the old 1st past 2010.  That seat was rapidly turning into another KY-03.

In any other year than 2010, Chabot would not have been able to win the old OH-01 back and certainly not a version that included all of Cincinatti and didn't have those super red precincts in Butler.

But that district did not include 'all' of Cincinatti in either its 1990 or 2000 iterations.

[krazen1211]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

Considering that Chabot only won by five in 2010 against a candidate that Dems had long pulled the plug on, I don't thin he could have won the old 1st past 2010.  That seat was rapidly turning into another KY-03.

In any other year than 2010, Chabot would not have been able to win the old OH-01 back and certainly not a version that included all of Cincinatti and didn't have those super red precincts in Butler.

But that district did not include 'all' of Cincinatti in either its 1990 or 2000 iterations.

It included all of it in the 1991 iteration and about 95% in the 2001 one.

Link


The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

[krazen1211]

snip

The 1st Congressional District includes almost all of Cincinnati, except for its affluent eastern edge



The 2000 version carved nearly 60k people out of a city of 330k. Thus only about 82% of Cincinatti was in that version of the 1st district.

As usual, Krazen is correct. In some ways, the House is the only bastion of fair repiublican treatment with the Senate and Presidency being gerrymadered for the Democrats.

I would think that Mr. Phips's inaccurate post about the history of OH-01 would merit your purple haired girl and not this other guy's accurate one.

[krazen1211]

Hm.  What do people think of this proposal as a way to lessen, if not entirely neutralize, the partisan effects of line-drawing (both from gerrymandering, and "natural packing")?

Districts should be drawn in each state so that half of them have a PVI more D than the state as a whole, and half of them have a PVI that is more R than the state as a whole.  Maybe allow wiggle room of a point or two in either direction.  So, in the case of Michigan, you'd need seven districts D+4 or more Dem, and seven districts that were D+4 or more Pub.  Conversely, a state like North Carolina would be mandated to have six districts that are at least R+3, and a seventh right around that number.

This should safeguard against the worst abuses, in both directions. 

For the record, the enacted New Jersey map complies with this criteria.

Yet, of course, this poster in question doesn't like the New Jersey map and wants to blow Republican districts up.

Link


Curious.

[krazen1211]

Hm.  What do people think of this proposal as a way to lessen, if not entirely neutralize, the partisan effects of line-drawing (both from gerrymandering, and "natural packing")?

Districts should be drawn in each state so that half of them have a PVI more D than the state as a whole, and half of them have a PVI that is more R than the state as a whole.  Maybe allow wiggle room of a point or two in either direction.  So, in the case of Michigan, you'd need seven districts D+4 or more Dem, and seven districts that were D+4 or more Pub.  Conversely, a state like North Carolina would be mandated to have six districts that are at least R+3, and a seventh right around that number.

This should safeguard against the worst abuses, in both directions.  

For the record, the enacted New Jersey map complies with this criteria.

Yet, of course, this poster in question doesn't like the New Jersey map and wants to blow Republican districts up.

Link


Curious.

Well, how does the NJ map score on muon's (more robust) skew measure?   Is it even on that front, too?  I think you know what the answer would be.

How about we enact a new Pennsylvania map that complies with my proposed criteria (which is, mind you, supposed to be a fail-safe against the most egregious of partisan effects, and not a sufficient marker of good redistricting by itself) and then I'll stop complaining about NJ.  That's more than fair.

Let's see. I can't read your mind, only your posts, so I will use this.

Link

By this standard, the enacted NJ map has 6D, 2e, 2r, 2R. The Democrats have a bonus of 2 districts, and if I am reading muon2's post correctly, an expected skew of 2. 2 is what he assigned for Michigan.


Of course I briefly searched through this thread for the specific muon2 criteria that you hint about. Then again you tossed your own criteria aside in a half second when you decided it didn't achieve your hack partisan outcome, so I suspect you'll do his as well.

[krazen1211]

Of course I briefly searched through this thread for the specific muon2 criteria that you hint about. Then again you tossed your own criteria aside in a half second when you decided it didn't achieve your hack partisan outcome, so I suspect you'll do his as well.

Please quote where, exactly, I "tossed aside" the usage of muon's skew criteria.  What I disagreed with is the idea of only using county chops/erosity as methods for scoring districts without regard to skew or metro contiguity, which appears to me rather more like the opposite of what you are claiming.

By this standard, the enacted NJ map has 6D, 2e, 2r, 2R.

Actually it is 6D, 2e, 1r, 3R.  Check your PVIs again.  Of course, looking at it more holistically, the lack of any districts at all in the "lean D" range is a good tipoff that what we are looking at is in reality a partisan gerrymander.  But you're a smart guy, I'm sure you knew that, even if you will never admit as such.

At the time that the districts were mapped, NJ-11 was measured by cook to be R+5, and I used the 2-5 criteria that was posted. Certainly it would be both absurd and bizarre to measure NJ-11 using the current PVIs for the purpose of this measurement.

Link

The skew it appears is the same in any case based on the post I quoted, and is exactly what the state of New Jersey should have as a skew, based on the post I quoted.




But I am thoroughly amused by this new 'holistic' criteria approach, whatever it is, because it wasn't in your prior post.