Talk Elections

OK, here we go. It's in three images because Tennessee is a pretty long state.

For starters, this is without partisan data. Criteria I used were making the numbers (2008) fit, keeping counties/cities/communities-of-interest together, compactness, and not putting two incumbents in the same district.

()
Home counties are Washington (blue), Knox (green), and Hamilton (purple).
Blue includes all of the traditional Upper East area, as well as its neighbor counties. The few "stray" precincts are just to get the population right.

The green/purple boundary fixes a misfeature of the current map--there is no reason for both of those districts to stretch the full height of the state. In particular, the southeast corner is much more closely tied to Chattanooga than to Knoxville. Purple also reaches into Anderson County to keep the city of Oak Ridge together. I'd have preferred to have all of Monroe in green, but purple can't expand west as you would think (red's incumbent lives in Marion County).


()
Incumbents are in Marion (red), Davidson (yellow), and Sumner (dark teal).
Yellow, of course, starts from Nashville, which (as both a county and a city) I considered it a priority to keep intact. After trying several ways to bring it up to a quota, I settled on picking up the two cities now linked to Nashville by the Music City Star (Cheatham is much more rural, so less community-of-interest than Wilson, and Williamson would risk catching gray's incumbent.
Dark teal is a "suburban crescent" running from Murfreesboro, through Gallatin/Hendersonville, over to Clarksville. The non-Rutherford part is also a long-standing high school region (in Tennessee, that's something people think of a lot in terms of identifying "their" area). It includes Trousdale to preserve the traditional boundary between the Upper Cumberland and Mid-Cumberland areas.


()
Incumbents are in Williamson (gray), Crockett (blurple), and Shelby (turquoise).
To put it bluntly, two cross-river districts is a stupid idea, much less ones that touch both Nashville and Memphis. Gray thus starts with the rest of Middle Tennessee, and simply adds territory moving westward until it has enough. Weakley gets split because its multiple towns allow for adequate population tweaking without cutting through one. Finally, it seemed that turquoise could be made more compact by expanding it from its core (Memphis) up the Arkansas line instead of east along the border with Mississippi.

The largest deviation from quota in this map is 745. If that were a less strict requirement, I would move the one gray precinct in Robertson County into dark-teal with the rest of the county; the maximum deviation would then be just over 2,000.

Do you think the GOP would try to knock out Cooper by chopping up Davidson into 4 pieces?  I'm sure it wouldn't be hard if they were so inclined, but I don't know what the political culture is down there. 

I don't see that happening for two reasons: (1) that could be seen as a minority-influence district--only 27.1% black and 7.5% Latino, but I doubt they want the appearance of trouble there (not to mention the risk of an actual court fight), and (2) it could backfire and yield two Midstate Democrats if there's a swing back.

The only way I see it happening is if the House minority leader (in TN, the maps are drawn by the party leaders and then submitted to the legislature as a whole) throws Cooper overboard to get a safer district for himself (he represents a curious district that includes the old-money part of Nashville). Other than that, having not quite won 2/3 for governor, I think they settle for the 7-2 they have now.

That's probably too risky.  Nashville could theoretically be split 3 or 4 ways to make it completely Republican, but the rural parts of the 4th, 6th, and 8th are have history supporting Democratic congressional candidates, and so making any of them more competitive is probably a bad move, especially since they all have freshman representatives. 

It would be better for the GOP to just secure those districts and give Cooper a safe one in Nashville.  Not only is he a fairly strong congressman, but he previously represented much of the current 4th and could probably hold a close district based in that area.  It would be better for the GOP to wait a decade (given that it looks like the GOP's holding onto the state government for a while) and hope to shore up some of their new gains (trade the 7th's Memphis's suburbs to the 8th for it's more swing-y northeastern corner mostly).  Also, if they can draw a fairly Solid Democratic district in Nashville, they might wind up with a significantly more Liberal Congressman than they have now, which will make dicing up his district easier.


Lastly, cracking incumbents out of their districts works best when you can completely cover the region with your own incumbents, like what Delay did in Dallas in 2003 to get rid of Martin frost.  That way you have an extra bit of insurance that the target can't pull off an upset win like Edwards did in TX-17.

Submitted for consideration

()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()

Racial changes in districts

TN5: Goes from 68/23 in the 2000 Census to 75/14.
TN6: Goes from 89/6 to 77/15.
TN7: Goes from 83.5/11 to 80/14.
TN8: Goes from 74/22 to 76/19.
TN9: Goes from 35/59.5 to 29/63.

TN5 is less than half Davidson, and takes in two of the most Republican counties in Middle Tennessee.

And the division of Nashville actually divides their African-American neighborhoods between the 6th and 7th.

Why bother with a gerrymander? They've won. I mean, you can't rule out the occasional come back every now and again, but that's nothing to worry about. Moral high ground time, maybe?

I can see them moving some of the Memphis suburbs into the 8th to make Fincher completely safe and to make sure that Blackburn has a district that isn't a total inkblot and won't have Memphis suburbanite Republicans who could challenge her in the future. Going for potential opposition that would take a pass due to a lack of a wide base.

There's no reason not to unpack Blackburn's district. Whether it's really advisable to try and take out Cooper is another matter entirely.

I did more or less the same thing as RBH above, but with some numbers:

()

()

Basically, this keeps all the Republicans quite safe, and turns TN-05 into a not quite safe, but  strongly leaning, GOP seat.  There is absolutely no downside to this for the GOP that I can see.  

I'm using Bush '04 numbers to gauge things, seeing as Obama's candidacy skews a lot of the numbers in Appalachia.  

TN-01, -02, and -03 (blue, green, purple) are all still uber-safe, of course.  I strung them out to take in the most Dem-friendly counties within reach (though even those counties are probably lean-Republican of late).  

TN-04 (red, Scott DesJarlais) was already 58-41 Bush, but I now have it at 59.4-39.8.  I think Al Gore lost this district in 2000 the way I have it drawn.  

TN-06 (teal, Diane Black) picks up most of Davidson north of the river.  It's still at 56.7-42.7 Bush (down from 60-40).  

TN-07 (grey, Marsha Blackburn) takes in southwest Davidson.  My count has it at 57.6-41.7 Bush.  

TN-08 (lavender, Stephen Fincher) gets the biggest boost.  His previous district was at 53-46 Bush, but even before I add in the Memphis suburbs in Shelby County (sample precinct: 1035-264 in favor of Bush) he's at 56.6-42.9.  

TN-09 is now 66% black.  

Finally, TN-05 (yellow): I'm going to guess that Cooper's house is now in TN-06, but no matter.  He'd run here, rather than try to take on Blackburn on her turf.  My math says that the district runs 54.7-44.6 Bush, compared to 47-52 previously.  Is that enough?  Everyone is saying that Cooper has won in rural districts before, but that was during a time when Blue Dogs weren't getting booted out left and right.  He's amassed a somewhat more liberal voting line during his last stint in a safe district (e.g., voting for the health care bill) and that will be hard to run away from.  Even if he can still win he'll be forced to shift back rightward.  

Scott Desjarlais lives in TN-03 on your map.

That's annoying.  I read his website and it said something about Sherwood TN, but now that I look more closely, that's where he goes to church. 

Anyway, we can exchange Sequatchie County for half of Marion... not a big deal. 

Ack, just noticed I wasn't using the new population estimates.  I drew a new map, but I really don't feel like recalculating just yet.  Maybe after Christmas. 

()

OK, here's the new version. 

Districts 1/2/3 in East Tennessee are still very safe for the Pubbies.  TN-04 (red) now contains DesJarlais's home and is at 59.8-39.4 Bush, not counting two half-counties in the east which are safely GOP anyway.  This is up from 58-41. 

TN-08, in lavender, is at 55.6-43.8 Bush BEFORE adding in the Memphis suburbs, which should bump it up even more.  Up from 53-46 previously. 

That leaves 5-6-7 in the middle.  I've calculated that, combined, they are at 56.7-42.6 Bush.  It's a pain sorting through the Davidson divide, since the precinct labels from the TN SoS don't always match the ones in the app, so I haven't bothered.  It should be relatively easy to divide Davidson in such a way that Blackburn and Black get 57%+ Bush districts and Cooper gets a 55% Bush district.  Cooper's old TN-05 was 52-47 Kerry.  Black is down slightly from 60% Bush, but given that she won by almost 40% in her first try...

You're not going to get anything remotely pretty or truly safe for the entire period if you split Nashville. Far wiser to leave it alone (not sure Reps will take my advice, obviously, but yes I consider it likely).

When you do though...

()

Pretty and clean and fairly logical for the most part, and every incumbent is safe for the duration in his current district. Preserved the Chattanooga-Oak Ridge link because it's been defended to me before.

Not pretty, sure, but it's much less ugly than a lot of other states.  You could easily make most of the lines within Davidson County fairly logical. 

As for the "not safe over the entire period"... you think Tennessee is trending blue?!  Nashville itself might be but suburban growth will outpace it.  And yes, the suburban counties will get less red, percentage-wise, over time, but that's because they started at 70% GOP and the people moving in are only 60% GOP - in other words, not helpful from the Democratic point of view.  And of course the rural areas are still moving strongly rightward. 

No; it's more that electoral movement doesn't work like that. Long term trends are long term trends, but it also makes sense to protect against short term swings, scandal-tarred incumbents and poor elections for your party.

With three districts at 57, 57, 55% Bush, you MIGHT lose 2-3 out of the 15 elections that will occur with these lines.  Whereas if you keep the Davidson district and keep Black and Blackburn packed, you'll definitely lose 4-5.  That's a trade-off you take. 

There's going to be an ugly primary fight if TN-8 is redrawn to include Memphis burbs. Granted, it's mostly a matter of style and not substance, but people out there are not going to want to be represented by some hillybilly farmer. Blackburn's a vaguely snooty country club type and that's how people in East Shelby County imagine themselves to be.

Part of this split Nashville issue revolves around how confident one is that the Dems are more or less permanently done in middle Tenn and the suburban counties around Davidson that used to be marginal. I suspect that might be the case (part of it is a Japanese car manufacturers versus Detroit thing, on top of the social issues divide, and now we have right to work coming back and public employee unions - all issues that are toxic to the Dems in Tenn), in which event, unlike Columbus, Ohio, it might be reasonably prudent for the Pubbies to chop Nashville and eviscerate TN-05.

I think I may have solved the 8-1 problem and the Fincher primary problem:

()

Yeah, carving up Nashville into four parts is ugly, but why not?

TN-01 (blue) - Not much changed. Phil Roe is still smack in the middle of the seat, though. Formerly 70-29 McCain, now 70.9 McCain, 29.1 Obama.
TN-02 (green) - Shifted north, but remains centered in Jimmy Duncan's base of Knoxville. Was 64-34 McCain, now 65.1 McCain, 34.9 Obama.
TN-03 (purple) - Eliminates the melting hourglass shape, remaining centered in the Chattanooga area. Chuck Fleischmann will be happy; it goes from 62-37 McCain to 68.7 McCain, 31.3 Obama.
TN-04 (red) - Chops off the two ends of the district that I think were only put there to elect Lincoln Davis; instead shoots up into Murfreesboro and outer Nashville. Goes from 64-34 McCain to 60.1 McCain, 39.9 Obama, but given how the state has swung away from the Democrats, I don't think Scott DesJarlais will have much trouble in the general.
TN-05 (yellow) - Cuts out half of Davidson County, stretches waaaay west to the Memphis 'burbs. Goes from 56-43 Obama to 57.0 McCain, 43.0 Obama. Bye, Jim Cooper.
TN-06 (teal) - Removes Diane Black's potential primary opponents in Murfreesboro, stretches east to take in part of TN-04. Goes from 62-37 McCain to 62.8 McCain, 37.2 Obama.
TN-07 (grey) - Unpacks the Republican vote sink by removing the Memphis suburbs. Retains Blackburn's base in suburban Nashville. Goes from 65-34 McCain to 60.0 McCain, 40.0 Obama.
TN-08 (light purple) - Barely changed this one, just removes the Shelby County portion (Stephen Fincher will be pleased) and adds a bit at the eastern end of the district. Goes from 56-43 McCain to 58.8 McCain, 41.2 Obama.
TN-09 (sky blue) - Remains a majority-black district in Memphis. 62.3% black VAP. Rejoice, Steve Cohen, you're the only Democrat left! Goes from 77-22 Obama to 77.8 Obama, 22.2 McCain.

I don't think keeping a Memphis-to-Nashville district is going to make anyone happy.  Fincher is gong to have to suck it up and take in the Memphis 'burbs. 

Incidentally, it appears that, since DRA doesn't include the early/absentee votes, its figures are about 1% skewed in the R direction.  It has McCain winning with 57.9% when in reality he only took 56.9%. 

I think the yellow district would appeal to suburban Memphis Republicans in the legislature. Currently the Memphis suburbs are split between TN-07 and TN-08, so a Republican from the suburbs doesn't have much of a chance of winning a primary. The yellow district would give one of them a chance of winning.

New map, borrowing a theme

()

TN1: 70.9/29.1 McCain, 64/36 R
TN2: 64.6/35.4 McCain, 58/42 R
TN3: 68.6/31.4 McCain, 61/39 R
TN4: 62.3/37.7 McCain, 55/45 R
TN5: 59.7/40.3 McCain, 55.5/44.5 R
TN6: 58.3/41.7 McCain, 53/47 R
TN7: 58.4/41.6 McCain, 53/47 R
TN8: 59.3/40.7 McCain, 52.5/47.5 R
TN9: 75.6/24.4 Obama, 70.5/29.5 D, 63.7% Black

()

Now, your catch on gerrymandering Jim Cooper is that he represented the TN4 area (he used to live in Shelbyville. So keeping his former district very red helps out. Makes it harder for him to jump to TN6 or TN7 where he doesn't have much history.

If they carve Nashville that viciously, Cooper should move back to Shelbyville and face DesJarlais (or whoever primaries him). The shape of TN4 goes back to Jim Cooper and creating a seat for him in the 1980s, the district was similarly shaped in 1992.

------------

edit

realized Diane Black lived in Hendersonville... so time to change the plan

()

TN4: 57.6/42.4 McCain, 53/47 R
TN5: 57/43 McCain, 54/46 R
TN6: 66.1/33.9 McCain, 57/43 R

()

Too lazy to check residency right now.

1 93% White, 71% McCain
2 87% White, 65% McCain
3 82% White, 11% Black, 69% McCain
4 92% White, 66% McCain
5 59% White, 26% Black, 58% Obama
6 84% White, 66% McCain
7 83% White, 10% Black, 61% McCain
8 74% White, 20% Black, 64% McCain
9 64% Black, 27% Black, 76% Obama

Yeah, this is part of my "what seems to be the fairest" series, not a prediction of course. What's the state of discussion - any news articles out of Tennessee pointing to what they intend to do with Nashville?

Only halfheartedly gunning for Cooper.

http://wpln.org/?p=28881

Tennessee Republicans are talking about a push to unseat Nashville Democrat Jim Cooper next year. The GOP has made big gains in recent elections, and is eyeing what it might add after redrawing the state’s Congressional districts.

State GOP Chairman Chris Devaney says priority one for the party is holding its ground. After that, depending on how redistricting plays out, Cooper’s seat could become a target. Devaney thinks Cooper’s feeling vulnerable, because the longtime incumbent campaigned hard for reelection last fall.

Cooper is upset about the RRH plan to crack Nashville in 3.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110829/NEWS02/308290043/Nashville-district-could-divided-three-ways-say-Cooper-Dean

You think its a trial balloon to determine the reactions of Nashville swing voters to such a proposal?

Its certainly possibe to divide Cooper's seat into at least two theoretically 'safe enough' Republican seats (i.e. 55% McCain vote as a minimum).

It could turn bad for the Republicans if they aren't careful. They need to make sure TVA counties don't end up with the Nashville districts if this is their plan. I would say they should make the Memphis district even safer, by adding the blacks in the surrounding rural/small town areas into the Memphis distict. That way you free up more of the Memphis suburbs for the 8th, which gets added in with the TVA areas. Pretty sure that would work, no?

Here's the map, sbane.

http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/993/tennessee-considers-ketronmander

I don't know if its a reality, and frankly, I'm not a huge fan of 8-1, but regardless its cool to see people's work reflected. Torie of course had that WSJ article.

That's a formidable map. Definitely pretty close to what I would have done. Maybe I'll go work on that now.

()()

()

My map which I drew before looking at the published map is kind of similar. TN-05 can be made a toss-up CD with near total safety I think. Yes, a toss-up CD. Don't trust the McCain numbers in TN. That really inflates what is really the partisan baseline here I think. Just look at the "average" two party vote figures if you don't believe me (52%-48% Dem).

So I would not recommend doing more. The problem here is that TN-06 just doesn't have the uber GOP territory around it that one would like, so it can't do much; it just isn't possible to really Pub it up. So it just takes some marginal precincts in Davidson, while TN-07 takes some of the heavy Dem ones, thereby pushing TN-05 into heavy GOP territory in the eastern suburbs.  I get nervous when the McCain percentages fall below about 58%, and prefer 59%.  So TN-07 has to do the heavy lifting, and it can do quite a bit, if like I did you really Pub it up as much as you can before you move it into Nashville. The way I drew it is not an accident. Ditto TN-06. The game was to Pub them both up, without creating a ridiculous looking map.

The only way to do more with some safety is to bring TN-04 into play (it's 65% McCain), but having that rural CD joining the  Nashville chop has me nervous (remember that a Tory Dem used to represent that CD until 2010), and would require radical changes from the existing map. So I just said no.

I suppose you have the wrong image?

It was a work in progress. Be patient!  :P

Ah, I figured it was a copy-and-paste issue.

If you're moving it to just 51% McCain... what's the point? You force the Dems to spend money there maybe once or twice in the cycle; that's about it. Unless you know where the next wave of suburb construction is likely to occur... now there's a new (new to me, anyhow) idea for pubbie 'manders!

As to drawing Memphis-to-Jackson (as you didn't)... it's just stupid from a Republican perspective, I think. The parts of Memphis you excise have much better Dem growth potential than the rural black belt.

The point is to keep the Pubbie incumbents safe, and "leash" Gordon of course!  How many times do I have to tell you that I like "leashed" Dems. :)

Anyway it is better than nothing. It moves the Pubbie ball half way, at no cost. The Pubs gain half a seat. Why not?

Drawing lines planning on where the new uber Pubbie exurbs are projected to be built is an old game Lewis. Willy Brown used to chat about that one 30 years ago. But you are probably too young to remember Willy Brown. :P  It was also an issue with the CA redistricting commission actually, and I think was even mentioned by the AZ one.

Probably, yeah. Well, less than half, but still at no cost.

Half Lewis. Please don't nickel and dime me. LOL.

Now let's see if the Pubs get greedy and do a dummymander.

I'll give you a quarter for it.

Do I get my four bits now,  rather than the measly two that you condescended to award me Lewis, you cheapskate you?  

()()()

Can you show me a closeup of Nashville please? Hope you didn't put me in Blackburn's district. She is a little off. Though she is pretty hot. I'd hit that.

:)  I understand. I think Marsha got Al Gore as a constituent.   :P

()

Well, looks like I am in her district. I guess I live on the "wrong" side of Nolensville Pike. :P

Why not put the southwest corner of Davidson County, the Bellevue area, in Blackburn's district in exchange for some areas of central Nashville, or some Black neighborhoods of Nashville which are also in Blackburn's district from what I can tell. CD-6 might be a little overpubbified.

That exchange would just make TN-06 more Dem (if it picked up black precincts in exchange), and TN-07 more Pubbie, and TN-07 is already at 59.2% McCain.  TN-06 is at 58.8% McCain, and I don't want to go any lower, particularly for a freshman who has been given a largely new CD other than her home county of Rutherford. I consider 59% the sweet spot.  I just don't trust these inflated McCain numbers, although granted that is less true for suburban territory. I am trying to guess what the Pubbies might do, and a drop of 7 Pubbie points in TN-07 and 4 points in TN-06 seems like about right to me, all things considered. More would be a reach.

I also really didn't want to push TN-05 farther out into rural territory which while GOP, can swing strongly to a reasonable Dem incumbent, as well as mess up the map (I dumped one rural county into it as it was (well actually 3 really), because it/they was/were pretty Pubbie and within rather easy reach). It is better just to select which precincts one wants to pick up in Nashville, and tailor make your PVI numbers.

Well, if the numbers are like that then it's probably the right move. I thought you were trying to avoid the black areas with Blackburn's district, but it's not so. And yeah, 58-59% should be enough. And Cooper might not lose, but he will have to become more conservative, yes. Also to answer Lewis's question, you seem to have put the areas that should have more suburban growth into Cooper's district. But you also put the areas where the Black middle class will move in into his district as well.

I put up my matrix chart above, and below just for you. You can see the pattern. Part of it I guess, is that I don't want TN-06 and TN-07 to be way more Dem then their Pubbie colleagues. That just doesn't "feel" right - particularly since they are taking such a hit to their numbers as it is. The bump up in the GOP % in TN-03 is rather odd isn't it?  I didn't expect that, but I guess TN-02 and TN-04 took some of its more Dem territory, relatively speaking, and TN-04 made up for it, and then a tad, by where it expanded elsewhere to the west.

I didn't use PVI's for this chart, because in TN, I consider them misleading. You've got to admit that my matrix charts are just gorgeous no? :P

()

Oh, the partisan numbers on the Dave Bradlee software are screwed up for TN-03 for some reason. It is about 5% percentage points too high for McCain vis a vis the actual numbers. That explains it. So I am adjusting for that. The chart below for TN-03 should be  more accurate.

()

TN-3 is quite odd. Not like it matters though. TN-6,7 and 8 around 60% seem about right. I wonder if the pubbies in the legislature realize they need to keep things more GOP in these seats to hold all of their gains. I wonder how pretty their matrix is. :P

It was a Bradlee software data entry error of some sort as it turns out. See above. Bradlee seems to have "lost" tens of thousands of voters in TN-03. 

Alright. Here you are.

()

Thanks Lewis, but the price has gone up to five bits now. :)  Drip, drip, drip. I had a little problem:  I had those Memphis suburban precincts switched out of TN-07 put in TN-03, rather than TN-08!  :P  Sky blue and cyan just look so similar!  So the map needed a bit of work (like about 70,000 in population worth of work), leading to well, TN-05 sliding into the "lean GOP" zone! As the pawns moved around, TN-07 picked up about 50 basis points, which I promptly dumped right back into TN-05.  I also picked up another 50 cheap basis points by moving TN-05 to the south rather than the east. TN-04 puts its oar in the water a bit to help out. Hey TN-05 even looks better too now! Life is beautiful. I can just feel Cooper's pain. 53% of his new CD is now new territory for him.

One other thing, for those who want the right numbers when they use the DRA. The missing votes are all in Hamilton County. So in whatever district you put Hamilton County (presumably TN-03), add 31,931 votes to the McCain total and 35,531 votes to the Obama total.

()()

()()

()

Your own fault for changing colors. -_- (Though default 5 and 18 are much too similar.)

I assume you have all the incumbents in the right districts? (I really wouldn't know, lol.) Also, since neither Fincher nor Blackburn really wants the remaining Memphis suburbs, maybe they should split them, insulating both from a primary challenge from there. Only if it can be done without upsetting the partisan balances, of course.

Eastern districts look good. I would ask why the two first ones are so far off optimal population, except that I already know the answer. Those huge precincts just can be a pain in the ass.

Yes, I checked all of that except for Fincher. I suppose I should check out where he lives; I didn't before because he had not really lost any territory. Now he has.  And yes the precincts are big, which led to a couple of splits that I would not have otherwise made (like Oak Ridge). So what I did is try to match the over/under numbers between two adjacent CD's, so some precinct can be easily chopped.

I really don't want to split the Memphis burbs between two Pubbie CD's. It would make the map butt ugly, and erode some the Pubbie precentage in TN-07. That is because the two counties directly to the east of Memphis are kind of marginal, and "marginal" is a dirty word when it comes to anything put into TN-07. Fincher should just stop being a crybaby. The Memphis burbs hardly dominate his CD. He should just suck it up - and shut up.

Ah right. Makes sense. Lots of rural Blacks there.

Fincher by the way lives in Crockett County. So life is beautiful - yet again.  :)

And you can see why if the Dems do as poorly in 2012 as they did in 2010, Cooper is in pretty serious trouble (and he campaigned pretty hard in 2010), given that TN-05 has moved 10.3% in the Pubbie direction:

()

OK, I know I am beating this drum until it has no sound, but I "found" another 20 basis points, and just can't help but share the "good news."  I screwed around with Bedford County to "find" them. Cooper is going to have to have an immediate epiphany, and become a hard core blue dog. Maybe he should get some pointers from that guy from Lexington Kentucky, and pour a little Boren in it for good measure. He is going to have to fight like heck to survive. I give him a 1 in 3 chance. And I suspect something like this map is probably going to happen. Get a clue Charlie Cook! Of course, given some of the mappies we have seen actually enacted ... well, whatever.

Gosh I am getting rather good at this I think. No more than one county split between each set of two adjacent CD's, and no municipal splits anywhere, except where the uber large precincts forced me into it - except of course for Nashville, which of course was the point. So I didn't cheat - much. And not much erosity either, unlike the current "disgusting" Dem gerry. It was fun to toss that one out. I could pick up 10 basis points for TN-08 by flipping two precincts in Selby County (still respecting municipal lines), but decided that enough is enough. TN-08 is not going to fall to the Dems any time soon.

Anyway, I'm done with TN - finally!

()()()
()

()

How could anyone forget that Fincher is from the town of Frog Jump?

Non-partisan:

()

CD1 (Blue): +80; 92.9% White; 70.9% McCain
CD2 (Orange): -84; 86.7% White; 64.6% McCain
CD3 (Lime): -36; 81.0% White; 65.7% McCain
CD4 (Red): +40; 93.7% White; 67.9% McCain
CD5 (Yellow): -36; 61.2% White; 57.3% Obama
CD6 (Dark Green): -40; 82.0% White; 65.5% McCain
CD7 (Black): -18; 83.6% White; 61.6% McCain
CD8 (Violet): +56; 63.0% White; 55.5% McCain
CD9 (Pink): +36; 50.9% Black; 66.3% Obama

Summary:

1 slim-majority Black district
8 strong-majority (55%+) White districts
1 safe democrat (60%+ Obama) district
1 strong democrat (55%+ Obama) district
1 strong republican (55%+ McCain) district (note: I think this'd actually be a swing seat)
6 safe republican (60%+ McCain) districts

Max. deviation 84/100, average deviation 47.111/50.000, all districts truly contiguous, 7 county splits.

Democratic gerrymander (still needs some fiddling)

()

Same colour scheme as above.
CD1: +80; 92.9% White; 70.9% McCain
CD2: +19; 68.1% White; 51.2% Obama
CD3: +69; 82.4% White; 68.5% McCain
CD4: -302; 91.9% White; 69.1% McCain
CD5: +77; 68.2% White; 50.4% Obama
CD6: +79; 87.3% White; 67.5% McCain
CD7: +27; 89.9% White; 66.1% McCain
CD8: -28; 61.0% White; 50.2% Obama
CD9: -23; 50.8% Black; 64.1% Obama

Summary:

1 slim-majority Black district
8 strong majority (55%+) White districts
1 safe democrat (60%+ Obama) district
3 lean democrat (50%+ Obama) districts
5 safe republican (60%+ McCain) districts

Max. deviation 302/100, average deviation 78.222/50.000, all districts truly contiguous, 36 county splits.

I won't be doing a GOP gerrymander, as it's already been done so well, and I won't be fixing this Democratic one up, but feel free to fiddle away if you want to use this as a base.

That map gains but one point for TN-05 vis a vis my map due to its multiple county splits, precinct cherry picking, some additional erosity and so forth. The balance of his additional total of 3.2% Pubbie points gained (another 2.1%) is gained by shoving the McCain percentages in TN-06 and TN-07 down to levels that I think are unwise.  Sometimes less is more.

And below is a map that does more county splits, and is uglier (but not hideous), which goes in to carve out the blacks in county seats with some restraint, but only some (yes it is a disgusting exercise - totally disgusting - but that seems to be the modus operandi these days, just gut the opposition any way you can, and screw any other considerations). If you want to go for the max, and really go for the gold, that might push up the McCain percentage in TN-05 by another 70 basis points, and if you are willing to cut the McCain percentage in TN-07 down to 58.5% McCain, then Cooper in TN-05 gets very close to road kill. As it is, in my judgment he only has about a 1 in 4 chance of winning in this election cycle. If one were willing to cut the McCain percentage down in TN-06 to 58.5% McCain, he becomes just about absolute road kill, and total road kill if you cut the McCain percentages down to 57.8 and 57.9 percent McCain per what the map the other chap did. All of the above combined, would make TN-05 about 57.6% McCain, 60 basis points higher than the other map.  

While it would probably be acceptable to cut TN-07 down to 58.0%-58.5% McCain (it is a pretty reliably polarized CD electorally speaking),  TN-06 is less so, and for that CD, I think it quite unwise in my judgment to cut it down below 59% McCain in the sense that it creates some very modest risk that something might go wrong. In any event, a 56.7% McCain TN-05 gets Cooper down to very close to absolute road kill. I view 57% McCain as probably close to certain that Cooper will be defeated. Anything much over 56% gets him down to about a 10% of surviving. In other words, in my matrix chart, when you hit 57% McCain for TN, that excel cell goes red.

Anyway, the map:

()()

()

You wouldn't make a very good spy.

Well after what the Dems did in MD, I wanted to punish them a bit more. However, in looking at prior maps, there just isn't a culture of multiple county splits, and I didn't want to break with that tradition. It just might not sit too well. So I had two inconsistent goals. But I think I found a pretty good objective function given the constraints, and so came up with the below. You can see why I did what I did with TN-06 and TN-07 by looking at the two party splits rather than the McCain numbers in the two CD's. TN-06 has a higher McCain percentage, but a lower two party split number. Moreover, Marsha Blackburn (TN-07) is a seasoned veteran, and lives just across the county line from Davidson in Brentwood, so she should be just fine. The incumbent Diane Black (TN-06) is a newbie.

I think this is the best that can and should be done, and I did read on the internet from some pol that what is in play for TN-05 runs from 45% McCain to 55% McCain. This is the 55% plan. It hews to the but one county split between two CD's rule. I like it!

()()

()()()

()

Meh, this was likely to happen anyways. Blackburn should be fine as long as she stays generic R. I remember her being a little crazy back in the day, but she seems to have settled down. Or the pubbies doubled down on the crazy, and she isn't so noticeable anymore. Probably a combination of two. I would just like to add that the slice of Nashville you are giving her is swingy. It has a Trader Joes, and lots of Yoga places. Get what I am saying?

Her slice of Davidson is all over the place. It's about 63.5% Obama, 36.5% McCain. Some of her precincts are over 90% Obama, and some over 60% McCain. There is not that much marginal territory. She takes in almost all of one of two nodes of blacks in Nashville. One precinct that is marginal (55% McCain), I did in my final changes move that 11,000 population precinct from her CD to TN-05 (right next to where you live actually). That precinct (colored in white below) may well be "swingy," (it's 14.5% black and in the transition zone and big) and may be trending Dem (particularly if the blacks there are moving east) as a wild guess.

()

Belle Meade, my neighborhood (the area right to the north and east of Brentwood, and called Brentwood by the locals) and the Green Hills mall area is swingy. All those areas are in that district. The Black areas on the other hand are not swingable since they already vote Dem no matter what. Blacks are moving into northern Rutherford County and the extreme southeast part of Davidson. The newer areas in Antioch basically. No, you did not put those areas into her district. Like I said, generic R will win every time in this district. Lay off the crazy though.

BTW, Bill Ketron, the guy likely to run against Cooper, thinks Sharia law is the biggest challenge facing Tennessee. Lol, he should do very well in Rutherford County.

I don't know what's taking the Tennessee Republicans so long.  Tennessee is an easy draw.

8-1 map clean respectable map is so easy it's ridiculous

()

()

Davidson Co. doesn't need to been split 3 or 4 ways.

In my draw I split Davidson exactly in half 360,000 people in each district, and each half is 60.6% Obama.  Both districts as a whole are 54.6% McCain.  Cooper=gone

This is your idea of a "clean" and "respectable" map? Granted, it's not a Maryland-style gerrymander, but it still destroys communities of interest (namely Nashville) for partisan gain.
There is no reason other than partisanship why Davidson County should not remain intact.

Ah, too much new territory in that map for the Pub incumbents, and at least Marsha Blackburn (unless she runs in TN-05 rather than TN-07), if not others, have been drawn out of their home. :) My map above does the job the way I think it is more likely to be done. My map went for the max without going over the edge (it was a very careful balancing test), but whether the Pubs will go so far as to make TN-05 a 55% McCain CD remains to be seen. They may be more cautious, to not get quite so close to the "responsible edge."

Your pet name for Republicans is pretty creepy.  Pubbie?  Really?

I've never taken incumbent residency into account in any map I've drawn.  I don't care about incumbents


Splitting a city into two districts doesn't "destroy a community of interest."  It's a partisan play.  All of downtown Nashville is in the yellow district.    Let's compare my split of Davidson Co, and the Dems shreading of Baltimore City/Co and see which one is better..

Torie's use of "Pubbie" used to annoy me, but now I don't mind it.

Your map is clean in that the districts are pretty compact.

I understand, but that is about all the map makers care about: taking care of incumbents of their own party is job one. :P

I trademarked the term "Pubbie." It's mine - all mine!  :)

This isn't about the Maryland gerrymander. I've already admitted that your map is far less egregious than the monstrosity that has been puked up by Maryland Democrats.

This is about you splitting the second-largest city in the state of Tennessee, which has formed the core of a Congressional district for decades, for no other purpose than partisan gain, and passing it off as "clean and respectable" (your very own words). That is the very definition of a gerrymander.

And yes, your map does destroy the community of interest that is the city of Nashville. Nashville residents would be far better served by one district encompassing the entire city than by two districts dominated by its politically polar opposite suburbs.

It's also not clear that 54.6% McCain will do the trick of removing Cooper. Having two districts like that, then, runs the risk (not a large risk by any means, but it's there) of losing both districts. They won't want to take that.

The other reason why it takes so long is of course that Memphis Republicans really want to have their own district (or rather congressperson) - Blackburn has had primary challenges based on the issue.
Which also means that neither Fincher nor Blackburn are going to be overjoyed with taking all of the Republican parts of Shelby.

Until it's applied across the board, this is what you're gonna have...

Well duh.

^ My point from the start

If you consider metro Nashville to be a "community of interest," then the posted map actually consolidates Metro into two districts, while most other maps split Nashville suburbanites into several districts stretching as far away as Memphis.

You can go back and forth about capricious concepts such as "communities of interest." In redistricting "communities of interest," generally, means, "An area that would benefit me to consolidate into one district!," and not much more.

I consider the city of Nashville to be a community of interest, and its completely politically different suburbs to be a separate community of interest. Timothy's map does indeed consolidate Metro Nashville into two districts. The problem is that both districts are dominated by the suburbs and exurbs, which have very different interests from those of the city itself. As a result, a city with over 600,000 residents is effectively left without representation. The same area can and should be drawn in such a way as to create one district dominated by they city, and one dominated by the suburbs and exurbs.


Who's accusing you of inconsistency? It certainly isn't me. If anything, I've accused you of being consistently wrong! :)

I'm also not the one who dug up a six-month-old post in another thread, apparently as an addendum to the discussion in this thread. If you have a point, I'd like to hear it. It's not as if I have anything better to do on the internet.

()

Like this?
(Strictly speaking, Metro Nashville as I'd define it is somewhat too large for two districts; you do need to chop some outer edges.)

Here's my whole county version of the map. All districts are within 0.5% of the ideal, and the maximum deviation is 2506. CD 9 is entirely within Shelby and is 56.0% BVAP. At least one county must be split around Nashville to stay within the population range, and Davidson was split since it is the largest.

()

Hey, Mike, if this were in the Midwest, your TN-05 would have a GOP leaning PVI!  But TN isn't in the Midwest, so it doesn't. Darn!  :)

()

In any case it's pretty easy to change the grouping of CD5 and 6 to create two districts each with about 51% McCain and 53-53% Rep in the DRA. For example, The six counties can be split as below without losing much compactness. CD 5 is 51.6% R, 54.9% McCain; CD 6 is 51.0% R, 53.8% McCain.

()

Yes, but I like my 55.1% McCain number for TN-05 better.  It needs to get up to about that, for the GOP to have a distinct edge. Marginal CD's are for good government types, not for gerrymanderers! So Davidson gets a tri-chop: tame stuff as compared to some other states we know and love no, like say, inter alia, Illinois, to pick a state at random? :P

Hey, my TN-05 isn't even particularly erose, and outside Davidson, has but one county chop (albeit cutting into a county seat to grab the Dems who hang out there). That is very restrained for me. :)


()

And, I consider you wrong. The Census Bureau defines metro areas the way they do because they are unified wholes, not an arbitrary mixture of suburbs with urban cores. People in the suburbs often work in the cities, shop in the cities, eat in the cities, etc., while people whom live in the cities often work outside the city, and shop outside the city as well.


In every election there is a winner and a loser. The people whom vote for the loser aren't as happy with the result as those that vote for the winner. No matter how you divvy up the lines, elections will result in large numbers of voters voting for the loser.

For you to specify one group of losers are being particular aggrieved by backing the losing candidate is just another example of using self-serving standards.

Frankly, the political interests of most Americans are safe streets, safety from foreign threats, good schools, decent roads, etc.  Crossing the county line outside of Davidson doesn't particularly alter those priorities.


Again, no matter how you slice the lines hundreds of thousands of voters in the metro area will back the losing candidates. According to you, they will be, "effectively without representation."


That is a perfectly valid split, as was the proposed map. It is simply a political question as to which of the two to implement.


I said,


Your comments only re-enforce my belief in the correctness of my observation.

There are, of course, links between the city and its suburbs. However, there are also differences. Those differences are, in this case as in most cases, bigger than the differences within the city or the differences between the various suburbs. It makes far more sense to me to have separate representation for the city and for its suburbs than to split both.


They are not aggrieved by backing the losing candidate. They are aggrieved because the mapmakers decided that those people in particular should be the ones who back the losing candidate.


Political differences arise from how each person thinks those ends should be achieved. Crossing the county line may not alter those fundamental priorities, but by affecting who gets elected, it can substantially alter how those priorities are addressed in Congress.


Again, the issue is not that people back losing candidates, it's that the mapmakers effectively determine who the losing candidates are, and by extension, deny representation to the voters who back those candidates.


Therein lies the problem. It shouldn't be a political question at all. A neutral map would give one district to the city and one to the suburbs. Only a partisan map would split both.


That's as may be, but where have you been accused of inconsistency, as you so claim? It is obvious that you care nothing for communities of interest. You don't have to reinforce that point.

This was the core of an argument made by the IL League of Women Voters in their attack on the legislative and congressional maps drawn by the Dems this year. It's an argument that has lost in the past at SCOTUS, but not without sympathetic words from the justices. This year they took the novel step of attaching that argument to the recent Citizens United and Freedom Club PAC rulings. Unfortunately, the federal district court panel had their case consolidated with the GOP state case and then their claims were dismissed. There may yet be further legal action along this line.

The argument might fly for classes of people, and, seems to have been legislated for minorities in the VRA. Arguments that protect zip codes, not classes of people, are going to go nowhere.

And, as I noted before, the notion of members of political party being deemed a protected class is outrageous and dangerous. I'd rather lose in Illinois that throw in with the notion that the government, and the courts, should decide the partisan composition of legislatures rather than the voters.

I would largely agree if it were the case that the voters were choosing the partisan composition of the IL legislature. In this case the government in power chose the partisan composition for the next decade by their map. There were no checks by the people on that use of government power. Even in OH and MI there are some checks imposed on the government's power to lock in a specific partisan result. In IL there are none.

Unless the legislature passes maps in which every district is a swing district, or as many as possible in states like California or Texas, the final maps will have districts that favor certain parties, and/or certain incumbents. That outcome is completely unavoidable.

You are selectively objecting to that fact when it doesn't favor you in one area. That's ridiculous.

Second, this simply wasn't your initial claim. Your initial claim was that Davidson County is entitled to at least one Representative in Congress. Davidson simply does not have the necessary 705 thousand voters to warrent a full district. It is a mathematical fact that not every block of 626 thousand people are entitled to at least one representative because the average district must be larger than that!

Somehow, you are claiming that the residents of Davidson has an absolute right that every other block of 626 voters in the country doesn't have.

Baker vs Carr guarantees that every individual has an equal level of representation. I'm not going to take seriously arguments that some people should be made to have more equal representation than others.

Of course it is. It doesn't become an issue, though, until communities are split for obvious partisan reasons. The split of the second-largest city in Tennessee, and the state capital to boot, constitutes such partisan intent. To deny so would be naive at best and ignorant at worst.


This is simply untrue. I am against any sort of partisan gerrymandering, and have made that position known on this forum multiple times. Maybe I haven't been as vocal about that fact in discussions of Illinois and Maryland because of some deep-seated belief that those maps are some sort of karmic justice for maps like Ohio and North Carolina, but I oppose the gerrymanders in those states nonetheless.


My initial claim was that Davidson County should not be split. A district centered in Davidson County would probably elect someone from Davidson County.


You're splitting hairs. A district that contains Davidson County in its entirety would be dominated, electorally speaking, by Davidson County. Obviously some suburban areas would have to be included in such a district to meet equal population criteria. That fact does not detract from the crux of my argument.


The premise behind this statement is so absurd that I am not even going to bother rebutting it.


Some people, such as residents of suburban Nashville, perhaps? A map that splits Davidson County creates two districts dominated by the suburbs. The suburbs do not have the population for two districts.

And, Davidson County doesn't have the population for one. Downtown Nashville could "dominate" one district, and the suburbs could "dominate" two districts.

The Davidson County line defines a County/city, not a "community of interest." Currently, the legislative delegation from Davidson is heavily Democratic because they baconmandered the inner city areas with the surrounds residential areas. Republican mappers have been able to redraw the county to "pack" the inner city areas into inner city districts, and the residential areas into Republican leaning districts. I'm sure if you asked the Republican folks on the periphery of Davidson whom they feel more a shared sense of "community" with, the residential folks on the other side of the county line, or the folks in the inner city, I'm pretty sure they would side with their fellow Republican suburbanites.

That said, we are talking about a million Republican-leaning suburbanites, be they inside, or outside Davidson County, and four-hundred thousand heavily-Democratic leanings inner city residents. Somehow, I'm suppose to believe that the only fair distribution of two seats between 400,000 and 1,000,000. is 1-1!

Metro Nashville has the population for two districts, plus. None of the Counties have the population for one district. Some county has to be split. Davidson is a natural choice. The failure to split  it would result in a huge ring district that isn't nearly as compact as simply splitting Davidson.

There seems to be an unstated premise on your part that when splitting counties it is the larger county that should be the last one to be split. I don't see why Wilson doesn't have as much as right to be kept whole in redistricting as Davidson county.

There are two reasonable enough options for dividing the Nashville metro area. One is dividing Davidson resulting in two compact districts. Another is creating suburban-ring district with a donut-hole district in the middle. Democrats have an obvious partisan interest in the latter, while Republican would see their self-interest in the former.

Gerrymandering" is taking egregious political decisions. Neither option is "gerrymandering." It is simply a political choice that has to be taken one way or the other.   

This gets you 57% McCain at the minimum (and 54% generic GOP) in all districts besides the 9th. Didn't pay huge attention to residences.

The other issue with suburban Memphis is that they probably want to keep heavy GOP donor areas out of the black district. A decade ago its likely inconceivable that the 9th would snake like this, but the area lost too much population.

() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/707/viable.png/)


Yellow district is Cooper's and combined with East Shelby with Nashville blacks.
Grey district is for Marsha Blackburn and contains almost all of Williamson County. Safer for a primary.
Teal district is for Diane Black and drops a bunch of rural counties.



This moves both Fincher and Blackburn away from the Memphis area and gives Memphis Republicans their own district.

Heh, clever.
Of course, one issue may be that trends in such a Cooper district are not too friendly for the GOP, so the window of opportunity of getting a Republican in there may be short. But yeah, I could see them come up with that.

I would think actually that the slate green district for Black is the weakest of the 3. East Shelby never ever votes for Democrats, and deep inner city areas typically don't have much population growth. The district is actually 20% black due to it taking the most black areas of Nashville.

but neither do these rural counties, and inner suburbs can go Dem (and, in Memphis, go Black) hard. The district doesn't seem to have that much of hard R outer suburbia.

Well, it has about 325k population in Shelby (voted 69% McCain, 67% R), and 200k in Davidson (69% Obama, 69% D). It actually includes almost the entirety of hard R memphis metro areas (Lakeland, Germantown, Bartlett, etc, the 80% McCain areas). And of course Walnut Grove (70% McCain) in Memphis itself just east of the University. All the blacks in Shelby live immediately to the west; its a very racially split area it seems.

Cooper asks for the Republican parts of Davidson back.

http://wpln.org/?p=32652

That would be the common sense map. I doubt they actually do that; it's not as if it's enough to put Cooper into any sort of trouble.

And the repost from the Pub legislator was that keeping Davidson whole was not high on the Dem's agenda with their little gerry a decade ago, when Pub areas of Davidson were removed, and she appreciates their little epiphany towards a good government map now that they are the ones left out in the cold. No, the Pubs are going to gut Cooper it seems. Why wouldn't they? AZ must be avenged!  :P

WA was revenge for AZ wasn't it?

You think WA was as egregious as that lawless (yes lawless) thing that McNulty drew in AZ with Mathis in her pocket? Really?

Tennessee has nothing to do with Washington or Arizona or California.  It has to do with many of the same factors that were in play in North Carolina.

I'm reading on Twitter that the 7-2 map might be preserved, but we will have to see what happens.

If that is the case, I wonder if they give Cooper a "Blue Dog" R+2 seat so they can pick it up when he retires.  Alternatively, if they are concerned about the growth of blue Nashville, they could vote-sink Cooper into a 60%+ Obama seat...

http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2012/01/05/democrats-threaten-lawsuit-over-redistricting-theyre-trying-to-go-to-a-one-party-state



Turner said Republicans did their worst with their map, handing their party “eight or nine potential pickups” in this year’s elections. That would give Republicans as many as 73 of the 99 seats in the House, turning that chamber into a Tennessee version of the Politburo. Before the map was made public, Turner seemed to be tempering his remarks to the media, but he apparently has decided there’s no longer any point in playing nice.



Heh. Vengeance is certainly having the day. Not too long ago the GOP only had 40 seats.

Torie,

Washington was a very fair map.  The new WA 1 is a dem leaning tossup with a PVI of D +1.5.  Arizona is a Dem Gerrymander.  I'm not familiar with the legality as you are, but from a partisan standpoint, that map is a pure dem gerrymander.

If you give him everything blue or 50/50 in Davidson and draw the district down to Murfreesboro, you get a 61% Obama seat.  If they don't give him an R+8, I'll bet this is what they do.

this is the south. You need to get up to R+6/R+7 for a republican to win. There aren't many Sherwood Boehlerts in this neck of the woods.

Washington is the maximum Republicans could theoretically get. Arizona actually is not the maximum Democrats could theoretically get. Both maps include some parts that are actually quite sensible, some parts that make no sense outside of partisan gerrymandering, and some parts that make no sense whatsoever.

Yes, it is. Have you taken a look at the 2nd district in Washington? It makes no sense other than to help Republicans win another seat. It's still a swing district, but so is that Dem leaning swing district wrongfully drawn in the Phoenix area. On the other hand the Tuscon district is perfectly fine. Taking it for a ride into Cochise is a Republican gerrymander, and I frankly don't care if it was drawn like that on the silly grid map. Who draws that anyways? So basically we have a ridiculous gerrymandered Democratic district in Phoenix and one gerrymandered for the Republicans in Washington. About the same amount of ridiculousness I think. I wish neither existed but that's life.

And of course Sam is right. Tennessee doesn't have anything to do with either Washington or Arizona. This is all about getting revenge for what the democrats did to them in years past.

That is a statement of profound ignorance. For instance, Slade Gordon's proposal was five Republican, four Democratic, and one swing seat.

Okay, and the best Democrats could possibly do (think MD or IL) is 8 Democratic, one swing seat, and one Republican.  A fair map produced by negotiation between the two parties should fall roughly in the middle of the partisan extremes.  We ended up with 5D-4R-1S, which is an awful lot closer to 4D-5R-1S than 8D-1R-1S. Therefore, Republicans got a better deal here, just like Democrats got a better deal in AZ.

No, if the best the Democrats can do is 8-1-1, then, the best the Republicans can do is three districts strongly favoring the Democrats, and seven Republican leaning ones. The constraints of the system don't allow for either map to be a realistic possibility.

Likewise, in Arizona, a 6-3 map in favor of the Democrats, with two Hispanic seats, respecting county lines,  being compact, etc., etc., is not possible.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/redist/Tennessee%20Cong%20Map.pdf

Jim Cooper is just fine. 58% Obama district.

Huh, the Republicans really went easy on Cooper. I don't know how good of an idea it would have been to create a real Republican district for him, due to what it would do to the surrounding districts, but they could have created a more Republican district for him while keeping everyone safe. I guess they really want to protect their gains from 2010. Wise move, even if the 5th could have been made more Republican.

What's the likelihood of a primary challenge to Fincher from the Memphis burbs?

So they did move Rutherford into the 4th...DesJarlias could very well have a strong primary challenge.

Numbers from DKE:

CD1: 29% Obama/ 35% D
CD2: 35% Obama/ 42% D
CD3: 33% Obama/ 41% D
CD4: 36.5% Obama/ 43% D
CD5: 58% Obama/60% D
CD6: 34% Obama/42% D
CD7: 37% Obama/ 43% D
CD8: 36% Obama/ 42% D
CD9: 76% Obama/ 70% D/ 61% black VAP

Woah.

It's redistmas!

Yes, very cautious indeed. What the Pubs did was make sure that no rural Middle Tennessee reversion to its Jacksonian Dem voting habits would threaten any of their incumbents, because everyone gets a suburban county or two as a Pub anchor. The GOP incumbents clearly just want to dial it in. This map was not part of a "national" strategy.

What a shame.

Yeah, I got that impression as well. And get Blackburn out of Memphis. Fincher's probably not too happy.

Well, the first thing a party must do while redistricting is protect their incumbents. This map does a perfect job of that, although Fincher won't be happy, but Memphis Republicans will be. This is not like Ohio or Pennsylvania where Republicans had to heavily gerrymander just to save their incumbents. Trying to go after Cooper would have weakened one or more districts and the other incumbents must not have been interested in that.

Not really. They screwed DesJarlias. He'll probably have a primary with state Sen. Bill Ketron.

Who wants to explain what happened in TN-2, TN-3, and TN-4?

I did some more numbers for CDs 4 and 6. Ford didn't run much above the D average; at least in those districts.

Corker won the new 6th 53-45 and the 4th 55-44.

Corker also won the non-Shelby parts of the 8th by 52-47...so, probably about 53-45 districtwide.

I don't think this is a great map, but I am relieved that Cooper is safe. 6th and 8th are moved out of reach, but may have been already (esp. 6th).

Tanner would I think have won the 8th due to the Memphis blacks being cracked in two. 2000 and 2004 results show this district to have about an even PVI.

They're not. The old TN-8 has about 30,000 Memphis blacks. TN-9 has about about 350,000. And Tanner never had a competitive race. Even in 1994.

Where are the parts that make no sense whatsoever in Washington?

I do see them in Arizona, mostly in the Republican districts where only Republican districts could be drawn anyway, yet still insane things happened. Like Florence.

Wenatchee? That ridiculous first district? Oh wait, those are the parts that make no sense outside of partisan gerrymandering. The parts that make no sense whatsoever are the split of Seattle, the three-way split of Tacoma, and when I wrote that I was thinking of the three way split of the Eastside as well - but that was done to distribute congressional contenders onto the districts.

Hmm. Cohen gets a blacker district and he loses most of his Jewish constituents.  (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/jan/09/redistricting-plan-would-take-most-jewish-vote-rep/)

It's hard to tell exactly where the lines are, but it appears he's losing most of his white constituents, Jewish or otherwise. There aren't that many Jews in metro Memphis anyway, and half of them live in Germantown, and so, are already not in Steve's district. At most, the old TN-9 is 2% Jewish. The GOP is obviously trying to pack the blacks as tight as possible to keep TN-8 GOP. It was a very safe Dem district (at the House level, anyway) until 2010. And Fincher's a really bad candidate. If this map passes, half the new 8th will be metro Memphis, which will mean that Fincher will be toast. We'll get somebody more like Marsha, who knows how to speak to a suburban constituency. I really want to see the new lines. I'll be pissed if Cohen isn't my Rep anymore.

How can Cohen lose that many people? He needs to gain 90k, net. 30odd k of that is Frayser. I don't think there were more than 60k worth of Blacks in Blackburn's district - maybe he's gaining some southeastern suburban areas that are more likely to become Black in the future than the remaining White sections in the center of town, though.

You have got to love how TN-04 wraps around Chattanooga to suck up some of uber GOP Bradley County to the east. Even I would not have had the guts to draw that. :) The Pubs just don't trust those rural Middle Tennessee voters much, and wanted to render them toothless, even if they revert to their previously "bad" voting habits.

That would precisely constitute 2 pieces. It is quite telling that the Democrats 10 years ago chose to split Memphis like so while pushing the existing TN-9 into the suburbs.

Fincher certainly would not be interested in campaigning in that 89% Obama territory.

The SE suburbs of the old TN-9 are the black flight suburbs. It's our version of Clayton, GA or Prince William, MD. And as one would expect, they're uber Democratic. If you want to read a 350,000 to 30,000 split as a "crack", that's your excessive hyperbole. Pardon the Dems for creating a logical district instead of packing as many blacks in as possible. If you want to talk about who represents whom, at the moment, Marsha almost certainly has more Shelby blacks than Fincher, but whatever. You're not interested in facts. You're interested in creating a paranoid narrative.

Absolutely correct, it's very clear from just looking at the map that Memphis was not split in half or anything. TN-8 barely went into the city limits in the old map.

What is the logic in excluding 1 heavily Democratic area inside a city for 1 heavily Democratic area outside a city?

And while you are at it, what is the logic in splitting Davidson County and connecting a section with Germantown, and, as you put it, putting Shelby blacks in a Williamson County district?

Because the suburban blacks in the SE are much more integrated into the city than the poor souls stuck in Frayser, who de facto live in their own Dirty South small town. There's very little tying Frayser to Memphis other than a municipal boundary. You certainly don't feel like you're in the city should you have the misfortune to drive down Thomas Street all the way up there. It's a marshy slum down by the river several miles from anywhere. The SE suburbs have commerce and a lot more interaction with the "real" parts of the city. In any case, I believe Cohen ended up with the SE simply because Marsha didn't want them. Not that she's be endangered, but it's just not her interest.
Giving Cohen Millington, while denying him, East Memphis is an even bigger crime. Millington may as well be in Kentucky. There's no community of interest under the new plan at all. The old map made a lot more sense. You had an urban district, #9, a suburban district #7, and a rural district, #8. The new map is just a partisan mess.

LOL I just looked up the Wikipedia article on Frayser. LOL at the pic they have. Doesn't look very urban to say the least.

I'm surprised though that the suburbs and exurbs supposedly haven't reached northwest Shelby County like Millington when they've grown so much to the eastern areas.

You need a very fast-growing metro to grow in all directions alike. Memphis has been solid for decades but never really exploding. As long as people have a choice, the direction that was always "undesirable" = poor Black will see relatively little redevelopment.

Outside of Downtown, Memphis doesn't have an urban feel. We're all about front yards and big oak trees. Frayser was built as a white flight suburb in the 1950s. People didn't want an urban landscape. They wanted "the country." Half of people in Memphis, black and white, are rural folks from Mississippi and Arkansas, who were displaced when agriculture was mechanized in the mid 20th century. And even back then, Frayser wasn't a fancy suburb. It has always had a reputation for being what I'll politely call blue collar. Well, by now it's more "black slum" than "blue collar," but whatever. It's just a bunch of little crackerbox houses out away from the big bad city. In any case, it's half-rural by design.
As far as our suburban growth goes, nobody with the means to choose where they live is going to be selecting Frayser or Millington. They're just not desirable areas to say the least. Same story for West Memphis, over in Arkansas. I'm sure there are comparable areas on the fringe on any major city. There has been pretty good growth, by percent, lately in Tipton County for those same people who really want "the country" and are willing to drive an hour into town, but it's still extremely rural out there. It's not even on the radar of most people.
If you take a look at a map, you'll see that Highway 72 runs east to west right through the middle of town. All the nice neighborhoods in Memphis, and I do mean ALL of them, are within a few miles north or south of 72. And it doesn't really matter too much if you're downtown or all the way out by the Fayette County line. You want to live off of 72. Out in East Memphis, where I live (near the eastern 240 loop) is the primary business district for Memphis. Commerce got scared and moved out here from Downtown after MLK was shot and the riots and so forth several decades back. 72 has the big office buildings and the nice neighborhoods with easy 5 minute commutes are just off it.
Of course, there are suburban areas with white people not off 72. And they're much cheaper per sqaure foot, so they have that going for them. But they are ticking timebombs. They have a shelf life of about 20 years before the neighborhood "changes" and all the white people have to sell in a panic. Which, of course, sends property values in those areas into the gutter. DeSoto County is going to be such a nightmare in the 2020s.

Just for kicks, I did a Pub gerrymander light for TN, which creates a nice competitive CD for the TN-05, which should make the AZ "non-partisan" redistricting commission proud. Its underlying leitmotif is that it keeps the black community of Nashville together (a few inner white liberal precincts are excised in partial exchange), and does but one split of Davidson County. It also makes sense in other ways I think, with the Nashville metro area divided between 2 CD's.

()

That's a good gerrymander, and yes it is very comparable to what was done in the Phoenix area (the Tucson district is perfectly fine). Marsha keeps her head down mostly so she would be safe but Cooper is a powerhouse. Though that could become not safe by the end of the decade (with most of the middle class black growth happening in Rutherford county though there might be enough in Antioch too, which you drew into Coopers district). Also Nashville is becoming sort of a hipster haven so I don't know what effect that would have.

 A district that McCain only won by a point in Tennessee would probably be pretty safe for moderate to conservative Democrat. 

Your western TN and Nashville metro area looks similar to my whole county version from a year ago.


Since we've been discussing erosity as part of a series of factors, I decided to examine my plan from that perspective. This is what the link map of TN looks like.

()

The plan has seven regions (2 divided counties) and at the regional level splits 63 links for its erosity score. That increases to 68 for the internal splits of Shelby and Davidson, or 69 if I use Torie's split of 5 and 6 instead. The maximum range for the plan is 0.8% at the regional level and 0.59% at the district level. Microchops of less than 0.5% of a district can be used to get exact equality if desired.

I've done a little rearranging to see if either the erosity or range could be improved while keeping the plan at seven regions. This version has an erosity of 60 at the regional level and 63 including county splits. The range goes to 0.7% by region and 0.52% at the district level. Since it is better on these measures and there are the same number of county splits this would be Pareto preferred to my plan of a year ago.

()

I wasn't drawing it to give a particular partisan result, just following the river and major roads to the extent possible across Nashville. My CD 5 is 54.1% McCain and CD 6 is 47.0% McCain. Perhaps Torie would like to see if that tweaks as well to give his desired gerrymander.

Oh Muon2 your map above might work as a Pub gerry-lite, but I must say my tweaked map below appears to me to be superior to your algorithmic map. TN-5 is 50.0% McCain, 48.8% Obama, and TN-06 is 57.3% McCain, 41.6% Obama.

()

Your cut of Davidson appears to slice the black community by the way. I assiduously avoided that in my map (the NW black node is entirely in TN-05, albeit a handful of substantial black minority precincts in the geographically separated by white precincts SE node are in TN-06). And notice how it keeps downtown Nashville whole, and uses that lake as a barrier on the east side. Natural barriers are there to be used where possible - not ignored.

()
()

What do you think?  I am still a little confused btw what the real purpose of the regional overlay is in your formula, above and beyond county cut containment. Is to to take cognizance of metro areas, and keeping them whole, ultimately, or is there more? Is it a way to contain erosity, or limit erosity to where it ties together "regional" communities of interest?  In any event, everyone "knows" the regions of Tennessee, including most of its citizens, and my map took that into account. I like there being one middle TN rural CD, TN-04 (with rural TN-07 being 75% Middle TN, and 25% West TN by necessity to equalize population), and two CD's that cover the Nashville metro region, and no more, and fit like a glove over that metro area. That is how it should be.  I also tried to limit just visual erosity, and move towards rectangular squarish shapes. And I looked at road ties in East TN, and moved stuff around a bit accordingly, including moving Sevier County into the Knoxville CD, where it properly belongs really, rather than TN-01.

With some tweaks your plan is an appropriate one to compare to mine. I'll start by removing microchops which can always be added at the end if exact equality is required. Then, by the regional approach you have essentially placed the three eastern CDs into one region. To make that clear I have removed the chop in Lincoln county by putting all of Marshall into CD 4. I also removed the chops in Anderson and Claiborne by moving Rhea into CD 4. In the Knoxville region I then made the two required chops in a way to minimize internal erosity.

()

Overall the plan has a range of 0.8% at the region level and 0.7% at the district level. There is an erosity of 42 at the region level and 54 at the district level. Compared to my plan yours increases the range and county splits but improves erosity. That's an appropriate Pareto shift so both could be considered. A plan is excluded only if one can make another plan that improves on any one variable (splits, range, erosity) while make the others no worse.

Muon2, how did you define regions for TN (population driven, or historically driven, or both?), and the road splits only count when a CD splits a region?  I still don't quite get the mechanical aspect of regions in your methodology.

A region is a connected set of counties that has a population nearly equal to a whole number of districts. The use of roads determines connectedness, and the severed connections also serve to measure erosity. When a county is split within a region then each piece is treated as if it were a separate county for connections and erosity.

The main idea is to recognize that split counties (or cities) and erosity both point at potential gerrymandering and generally point away from maintaining communities of interest. My goal is to create a mechanism whereby those two factors can be balanced against each other and balanced against population equality.

That statement suggests regions serve no purpose whatsoever, unless road splits that hew to regional lines don't count, or regional lines must be followed except to round up or down to whole CD's in the case of the one CD that will cross regional lines. It seems more a matter of convenience in calculating where CD's will end up going. And what is to prevent erose regions, if regions are strictly driven by population?

How did you map out all those roads by the way on the computer, and then efficiently count the splits btw?  That seems like a heck of a lot of work!

By the way, does the inconveniently shaped precinct below jutting across a highway effect an additional road split?

()

It is certainly true that I could set up the same measures directly to the district level. In that case the regions would serve to guide the mapper towards possible county groupings that would likely do well in the final scoring. That's actually the way I used them when I drew my OH maps that did well in competition, since there was no score or knowledge of my intermediate steps.

If one does require a Pareto optimization of regions as well as districts it provides a constraint on the mapper that should tend to force better connected groups of counties together. That's a plus for improving maps where connectedness is presumed to relate to communities of interest.

It is also the case that the computerization of redistricting remains hard, and for the number precincts (far worse for census blocks) the problem is sufficiently hard that the best maps would be difficult to draw in reasonable times. By splitting the problem into two tiers - one for regions and one for districts, the computational problem becomes exponentially easier. This also implies that human mappers would have to focus on a reduced set of options providing a key constraint against hidden gerrymandering.


For the four states I've done (WI, WV, WA and TN) I used a paper atlas, Mapquest, and Paint to create the links. It takes a couple of hours. It's easy to visually count the cuts once I g=have a map, but it would also be straightforward to put the links in a table and have a simple program measure the plan. One could make a blank county map and have users color code them just like election prediction calculators do for region construction.


I presume that real splits would use data at a finer level than precincts. That's certainly needed to avoid chopping cities when precincts overlap the boundaries. States generally redraw precincts after a remap causes splits anyway.


But let me assume that for municipal split purposes you really want a district boundary to follow the image above. If 70S continues along the boundary to the west and eventually to the population center for the blue piece of the county then there is a link between the blue part of the west county and the east county. That link would count for erosity.

In your Nashville plan, there is no link from north Davidson (CD 5) to Rutherford county (CD 6) north of the lake, leaving only south Davidson linked to Rutherford, but that's an internal link not counting for erosity. However, as you drew it there are links from both north and south Davisdson to Cheatham county so that increases the erosity by one more than would otherwise exist on the border of those counties.
()

In my tweak to your plan I shift the boundary south of I-40 so there is no link from south Davidson to Cheatham, but south Davidson remains well connected internally along 100.
()

Yes, there is no road split between Cheatham and South Davidson, but one more road split between North Davidson and Cheatham, so why one less road split with your revision of my map?
 I am confused again. In all events, as an factual matter, there really is no greater erosity or lack of connectedness, but until I understand your program clearly, there is no point going there.

My general rule is that when a county is chopped, each chop part now acts as a new county for the purpose of connections and thence erosity. Connections between counties depend on a path of numbered federal and state highways between population nodes. The population node is determined by the largest urbanized area (census maps (http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/)) or the county seat if there is no urbanized area, or the largest population incorporated or census designated place if none of the other choices are available. Within an urban area the largest population within the county is used for the node. This can be either incorporated or unincorporated, or the downtown within a large city (typically including city hall).

It's easier to start with examples from eastern TN. This is my split of Grainger. There are no urbanized areas in Grainger so county sear Rutledge is the population node. It stays in the northern chop and Blaine is the largest place in the southern chop, so it is the population node for determining connections.

Grainger (Rutledge) is connected by state or federal highways to to Claiborne, Hancock, Hawkins, Hamblen, Jefferson, Knox, and Union. The split of the southern part around Blaine is only connected to Knox, and the remaining northern part is connected to the remaining counties, but not Knox. This is an ideal chop that has no increase in erosity.

()

This is my split of Blount. Much of the population of the county is within the Knoxville urban area which doesn't show on the DRA map. Maryville is the largest place and within that urban area and is the population node for the county which is connected to Monroe, Loudon, Knox, and Sevier. The northern part including Maryville is only connected to Knox and Sevier.

The southern part has the largest population in the urban area in unincorporated Binfield, and the largest place is the much smaller Friendsville. Binfield has the larger population in the urban area and is used as the node connecting to Monroe and Loudon. Friendsville only links to Loudon, but a connection that exists at the county level cannot vanish by the means of a district line, so the Monroe connection would have to remain there as well. This chop also separates the county connection in a way that does not increase their number.

()

Davidson county is problematic to define since Nashville includes all of the county not in the few small communities. The northern part has the downtown so that defines its node. The southern part has more population in Nashville than in the smaller separate cities and the largest part is along I-24 so that defines the node for connections.

Davidison connects to Cheatham at the county level, but doesn't need to have connections to both the northern and southern chops of Davidson depending on where the line is drawn. By following the river at the Cheatham line you provide a connection to the south Davidson node along TN-1, TN-100 and TN-254. By moving the line south as I do I remove the link from Cheatham to south Davidson. If I had controls I'd make my cut more cleanly than the course VTDs in DRA.

Yes, it may seem arbitrary that our two plans seem reasonably equal by eye in Nashville, yet differ by this measure. The difference is that without my constraint on erosity, a mapper is free to place the line at Cheatham anywhere they want and that opens the door just a bit to gerrymandering. The idea is that a reasonable set of constraints can limit gerrymandering yet provide flexibility.