Talk Elections

General Politics => Political Geography & Demographics => Topic started by: Brittain33 on June 07, 2009, 07:24:53 PM



Title: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 07, 2009, 07:24:53 PM
Anyone else playing with this toy? I've redistricted Missouri with 8 districts, including a VRA-compliant district covering all of St. Louis City, and played around with the Twin Cities.

There is tremendous potential here. I hope he keeps improving it.

http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/launchapp.html


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on June 07, 2009, 07:32:54 PM
Sounds good. Too bad not all the states are supported.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 07, 2009, 08:53:18 PM
I just played around with it trying to make a black-majority district in New Orleans. I had to go into Baton Rouge to do it, and even then it was only barely black-majority. Louisiana's next map is going to look interesting, to say the least.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 07, 2009, 11:20:11 PM
I spent a couple of hours using the tool in OH where I've spent a good deal of time looking at maps during the last two months. The tool was interesting but it was cumbersome compared to real GIS software. I couldn't grab groups of blocks easily, and I couldn't find pieces that were inadvertently missed. The tool also assumes that within a county each block will change as the county does, so it really can only approximate what has happened this decade within some of the urban counties.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on June 08, 2009, 12:29:31 AM
I spent a couple of hours using the tool in OH where I've spent a good deal of time looking at maps during the last two months. The tool was interesting but it was cumbersome compared to real GIS software. I couldn't grab groups of blocks easily, and I couldn't find pieces that were inadvertently missed. The tool also assumes that within a county each block will change as the county does, so it really can only approximate what has happened this decade within some of the urban counties.

Clicking on the "next unassigned" button will take you to any unassigned blocks.  I had to click multiple times occasionally.  Sometimes the first click would take me off the northwest corner of the map.

Although GIS is probably much more accurate, I found this Dave's App much easier to play with.  The software used for the Ohio competition was very slow IMO and it was difficult to correct mistakes.  It took me about 6 hours to make one map using the GIS software whereas it took me less than 2 hours to complete a map using Dave's App.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: MaxQue on June 08, 2009, 01:07:35 AM
That thing is a nightmare. That doesn't work.

Loading stop after one fitfh, so I'm not able to do anything.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 08, 2009, 02:02:07 AM
Thanks for sucking up my night. I spent it drawing a 50-district Minnesota.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: MaxQue on June 08, 2009, 02:15:21 AM
Thanks for sucking up my night. I spent it drawing a 50-district Minnesota.

At least, that is working at your house.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 08, 2009, 02:21:53 AM
Thanks for sucking up my night. I spent it drawing a 50-district Minnesota.

At least, that is working at your house.

I don't have a house.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: MaxQue on June 08, 2009, 02:27:49 AM

House in the sense of a place where you live.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on June 08, 2009, 02:35:18 AM
I just played around with it trying to make a black-majority district in New Orleans. I had to go into Baton Rouge to do it, and even then it was only barely black-majority. Louisiana's next map is going to look interesting, to say the least.

On a 6 district map, I made a 66/27 African-American district that went as followed

New Orleans (most of it outside of parts of NW Orleans next to Jefferson Parish)
African-American Majority Parts of Jefferson Parish
St. Charles tracts near the river
Southern St. John the Baptist Parish (and river tracts)
St. James Parish (all of it)
Assumption Parish (all of it)
Ascension Parish (river, parts of Gonzales)
Iberville Parish (river)
West Baton Rouge
East Baton Rouge

and a 37% African-American 4th district too.

Quote
I've redistricted Missouri with 8 districts, including a VRA-compliant district covering all of St. Louis City, and played around with the Twin Cities.

I don't think Missouri has to comply with VRA. So which district did you hack into pieces?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on June 08, 2009, 04:15:36 AM
Here's the map of Ohio I made.  All districts are have a deviation from the ideal population of less than 1000.  I used the new estimates for population and made 16 districts since Ohio is projected to lose 2 after the next census.

()

Blue: A safer district for Dreihaus-D (OH-1)
Dark Green: Schmidt-R (OH-2), Jordan-R (OH-4), and Austria-R (OH-7) are pitted against each other.  Jordan would likely move to represent the red district.  Austria defeats the reviled Schmidt in the primary
Magenta: Turner-R (OH-3) gets a slightly less friendly district and could face a stiffer challenge.
Red: As I mentioned, Jordan probably moves into this open seat.
Yellow: An open seat which Latta-R (OH-5) may move in on.  This district is more Dem friendly than the current OH-5 but is probably still around R+5 or more.
Blue-Green: This is an open seat and would probably be hotly contested despite the Republican lean.  Wilson-D (OH-6) may move in here giving the Dems a semi-incumbent advantage.
Gray: Boccieri-D (OH-16) Gets a much safer district and cruises to re-election.
Purple: Boner Boehner remains safe.
Cyan: Kaptur-D (OH-9) faces off against Latta-R (OH-5) in a contest she'd almost certainly win.  As mentioned earlier, Latta will likely move to the yellow district.
Pink: I don't think I've take the elf Kucinich out of this district.  Safe Dem regardless.
Yellow-Green: Fudge-D (OH-11) is safe but the district drops below 50% black.
Lilac: Tiberi-R (OH-12) trades most of his black constituents for suburban whites and becomes considerably safer.
Peach: Sutton-D (OH-13) sees a dramatic change in her district but remains safe
Bronze: LaTourette-R (OH-14) faces off against Ryan-D (OH-17) in what will surely be the most contested race in the state.  However, the district has a distinct Democratic tilt to it which will probably put Ryan over the top.
Orange:: I think Kilroy-D (OH-15) is still in this district and it becomes much easier for her to hold.
Neon Green: This district pits Space-D (OH-18) against Wilson-D (OH-6) but Wilson may move.  This district is much more Dem friendly than Space's current district and he should have little trouble holding it even though it probably leans Rep.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on June 08, 2009, 04:17:29 AM
Here are some zooms of Columbus, Cleveland-Akron, and Cincinnati-Dayton:

()

The light green district in Cuyahoga County is only 48.56% black but it is still a majority-minority district if you include the 3.52% Hispanic, 2.07% Asian, and 1.28% "other."

()

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 08, 2009, 08:14:44 AM
I don't think Missouri has to comply with VRA. So which district did you hack into pieces?

I dismembered Carnahan's district as part of my goal of a Republican map.

I put all of St. Louis City and chunks of north St. Louis County in the 1st to make a 49% African-American district. Since the App doesn't have political data yet, ethnicity is the only way to carefully play with precincts. I think it's impossible to get to 50%. The district ends up fairly erose, but not ridiculous. You do get a sense of how segregated some neighborhoods are... blocks that are diverse bump up against others with fewer than 10 African-American residents.

The rest of St. Louis County and parts of St. Charles go into the 2nd district. The minority population is <5%, I think.

For Luetkemeyer, I drew a 3rd district stretching west along the Missouri River from exurban St. Charles to Columbia and Jefferson City and one country further to his hometown. I didn't split any counties other than St. Charles. It looks different from any current district, but is visually pleasing.

Jefferson and St. Genevieve were added to an 8th district that still hugs the Mississippi all the way down to the Bootheel.

The 7th district shifts east but remains a Springfield-based Ozarks district.

I put Joplin and Neosho in the 4th district, which continues to sprawl all over the west central part of the state but sheds its Jackson County portions. Ike Skelton's home of Lafayette County is in the district.

The 5th district links all of Buchanan, Platte, and Clay County with the urban parts of Jackson County.

The rest of Jackson County joins all of the farm counties of the northern part of the state, including most of the old 9th, in Sam Graves's 6th district.

Without splitting counties, I got all the districts within about 2,000 people. I could move rural precincts around the middle of the state for equality, but who would care?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 08, 2009, 08:26:32 AM
Thanks for sucking up my night. I spent it drawing a 50-district Minnesota.

I drew a 6-district Oregon that might go 5-1. Originally I was trying to put Bend in a coastal district to rescue some Democratic votes, but instead I found myself putting much of Linn and Douglas County in the eastern district. I wish I'd had political data so I could see if the coastal districts were as efficiently Democratic as I thought; the Obama numbers do overstate Democratic strength, but they're what we have.

I divided Portland in three, creating a new district connecting enough of Portland to the south suburbs to make a reasonably Democratic district. The 1st and 3rd districts were able to shed precincts without too much trouble; The 3rd moves east to take up more Columbia River counties that went for Obama; the 1st extends south for some more rural areas.

The 5th includes Salem and Corvallis and then jogs west and runs all the way down the coast to California. The 4th connects Eugene and Springfield to Medford and Ashland while holding onto as little rural and small town territory between as possible. Everything else goes into the 2nd, including all of Bend and much of Linn and Douglas counties. I may have put Albany in the 2nd.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 08, 2009, 10:31:08 AM
Quote
I've redistricted Missouri with 8 districts, including a VRA-compliant district covering all of St. Louis City, and played around with the Twin Cities.

I don't think Missouri has to comply with VRA. So which district did you hack into pieces?
Everybody has to comply with Section 2 Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_2/about_sec2.php).  For example the DOJ has recently filed a complaint regarding the at-large election of members of the Euclid, OH school district (and a few years ago had filed a similar action against the city of Euclid).

If you were to split St. Louis city and St. Louis County among 3 districts extending out into the suburbs - even it produced 3 Democratic seats, they would consider what would happen in primaries (eg say Dick Gephardt vs. William Clay or their successors).

You might get by with a two-way split, as long as there was no question that one of the districts was going to be the Black district.   A similar split in Kansas City probably would not be approved since you could end up with two Republican districts.

Only certain areas are subject to Section 5, where any change in voting regulations must be pre-cleared by the DOJ (or the federal court in DC).

 Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act  (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/about.php)

The main difference is that under Section 2 the plaintiff has to prove the violation by the State (or its subdivision), whereas under Section 5, the State has to demonstrate that its changes in laws have no negative effect.

If Section 5 is overturned by the Supreme Court, I would expect that Congress would simply extend its application to the entire country, rather than trying to justify its arbitrary coverage area.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 08, 2009, 11:00:49 AM
You might get by with a two-way split, as long as there was no question that one of the districts was going to be the Black district.   A similar split in Kansas City probably would not be approved since you could end up with two Republican districts.

Republicans can do whatever they want to Jackson County without regard for VRA or partisanship. 5th district demographics: 68.8% White, 24.4% Black, 1.3% Asian, 5.6% Hispanic, 0.5% Native American, 0.4% other. The representative is African-American, but the constituency does not come close to any levels that would merit protection to avoid retrogression.

I don't know if you could gerrymander away the possibility of a Democratic district from the region.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 08, 2009, 11:02:07 AM
If Section 5 is overturned by the Supreme Court, I would expect that Congress would simply extend its application to the entire country, rather than trying to justify its arbitrary coverage area.

I can not imagine that enough representatives would willingly impose these procedures on their local governments, given that local elected officials are among the people with best access to representatives and could all agree on opposing them.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on June 08, 2009, 12:11:44 PM
You might get by with a two-way split, as long as there was no question that one of the districts was going to be the Black district.   A similar split in Kansas City probably would not be approved since you could end up with two Republican districts.

Republicans can do whatever they want to Jackson County without regard for VRA or partisanship. 5th district demographics: 68.8% White, 24.4% Black, 1.3% Asian, 5.6% Hispanic, 0.5% Native American, 0.4% other. The representative is African-American, but the constituency does not come close to any levels that would merit protection to avoid retrogression.

I don't know if you could gerrymander away the possibility of a Democratic district from the region.

that.. and if you put Eastern KC in a Republican district, it'd be 90/10 black, and vote 95/5 Democratic, and it'd be hard to cancel that out unless the district was south of KC.

Also, my Ohio map paired Schmidt and Boehner.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 08, 2009, 10:28:10 PM
You might get by with a two-way split, as long as there was no question that one of the districts was going to be the Black district.   A similar split in Kansas City probably would not be approved since you could end up with two Republican districts.

Republicans can do whatever they want to Jackson County without regard for VRA or partisanship. 5th district demographics: 68.8% White, 24.4% Black, 1.3% Asian, 5.6% Hispanic, 0.5% Native American, 0.4% other. The representative is African-American, but the constituency does not come close to any levels that would merit protection to avoid retrogression.

I don't know if you could gerrymander away the possibility of a Democratic district from the region.
Let's say you brought a finger from MO-4 into KC.  And if not at the congressional level, there would likely be application of Section 2 for legislative or city council districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 08, 2009, 11:07:40 PM
The map I got for Iowa using the type of standards they use is very bad news for Latham. He only survives if he can pull an upset against King in the primary, but that won't be easy with the district in question more similar to King's now, and the very conservative GOP primary electorate.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 08, 2009, 11:22:24 PM
If Section 5 is overturned by the Supreme Court, I would expect that Congress would simply extend its application to the entire country, rather than trying to justify its arbitrary coverage area.
I can not imagine that enough representatives would willingly impose these procedures on their local governments, given that local elected officials are among the people with best access to representatives and could all agree on opposing them.
If your alternatives are:

(1) No Section 5.
(2) Universal coverage under Section 5.
(3) Selective coverage under Section 5 based on objective standard (eg only Hawaii qualifies)

Which are you going to choose?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 09, 2009, 08:08:47 AM
(1) No Section 5.
(2) Universal coverage under Section 5.
(3) Selective coverage under Section 5 based on objective standard (eg only Hawaii qualifies)

Which are you going to choose?

(1) has the advantage of being the path of least resistance because it involves no legislative action. Are there 218 legislators who are going to vote to impose Section 5 coverage on their local officials vs. 218 legislators who are willing to pretend they don't even know about this case? 


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 09, 2009, 08:15:43 AM
Let's say you brought a finger from MO-4 into KC.

The district is unprotected by VRA concerns. This would be similar to the incorporation/submergence of minority areas of TX-24 into suburban/affluent districts TX-26 and TX-32 in the 2004 Texas redistricting. Cleared by the Justice Department and Supreme Court, and TX-24 was a district drawn to be minority-opportunity, unlike MO-5 which has no such designation. 24.4% African-American means that the minority community in the district does not have the ability to "elect the candidate of their choice" now and could not be expected to in the future.

Granted, an Obama Justice Department would not have cleared the dismemberment of TX-24, so it's not a perfect analogy. But, again, MO-5 has a smaller minority population than Frost's TX-24 and multiple Republican-held districts today.

I also refer to the recent Supreme Court decision whose name I forget, covering legislative districts in North Carolina, that essentially said any district with fewer than 50% minority population is not inherently protected by VRA. MO-5 falls far short of that standard.

Jim, can you cite any examples of congressional districts--or even legislative districts--with as small a minority population as MO-5 being protected by VRA against redistricting that produced a chance of Republican representation? (This is not a ridiculous or contrived situation at all, no matter how it sounds.) 

Quote
  And if not at the congressional level, there would likely be application of Section 2 for legislative or city council districts.

Certainly. I'm talking only about MO-5, where the minority population share is so low so as not to raise concerns about retrogression. Subunits of MO-5 at the legislative or city council level could have majority-minority populations.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on June 09, 2009, 11:48:01 PM
Brittain33 the law is a mess in this area, a total mess, and therefore the precedents (which your characterization thereof strikes me as more or less correct  but I am not sure), are more fragile than is typically the case in SCOTUS jurisprudence in my little opinion, for what it is worth.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: CultureKing on June 10, 2009, 03:02:42 AM
Hmm... I made a map of Washington with 10 districts but I am not exactly sure how to save from the program to my computer (yes, I do feel like an idiot if any of you are wondering).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 10, 2009, 07:45:38 AM
Brittain33 the law is a mess in this area, a total mess, and therefore the precedents (which your characterization thereof strikes me as more of less correct  but I am not sure), are more fragile than is typically the case in SCOTUS jurisprudence in my little opinion, for what it is worth.

They may be a mess, but I'm not aware of any precedent at all that extends protection to a district like MO-5. When you have a district with such a small minority population, it become a difference in kind rather than degree, and we are discussing protected populations on the scale of the number of righteous men in Sodom.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 10, 2009, 10:38:53 AM
(1) No Section 5.
(2) Universal coverage under Section 5.
(3) Selective coverage under Section 5 based on objective standard (eg only Hawaii qualifies)

Which are you going to choose?

(1) has the advantage of being the path of least resistance because it involves no legislative action. Are there 218 legislators who are going to vote to impose Section 5 coverage on their local officials vs. 218 legislators who are willing to pretend they don't even know about this case? 
(2) Has the advantage that it requires only minimal legislative action.  I'm sure that there will be other representatives and other persons who will remind any who may not have heard of the decision.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 10, 2009, 10:58:24 AM
(2) Has the advantage that it requires only minimal legislative action.  I'm sure that there will be other representatives and other persons who will remind any who may not have heard of the decision.

You're a stubborn one. ;)

I stand by my argument that congressmen aren't going to pick fights with all of the elected officials in their districts by imposing this burden, but we can agree to disagree.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 10, 2009, 11:52:41 AM
Hmm... I made a map of Washington with 10 districts but I am not exactly sure how to save from the program to my computer (yes, I do feel like an idiot if any of you are wondering).
In the upper left corner under File Menu, there is a Save and Save As menu.  You might need to set a File Name as well.  The plans are placed in a directory that is well-hidden.  

It is confusing when you restart.  You first select the State, and then an Open File option will appear in the File Menu, and you can retrieve your plan.  If you haven't selected a State, there will be no "Open File" option.

You can also save your maps the same way using the Save Maps buttons in the middle of the menu.  A "map" is essentially just saving the current zoom and position settings.  Be sure to set a name for maps.

If you run the map to jpg converter program, then you have to navigate down through all the directories to find the map files.  You can specify an ordinary directory for the jpg files.

The Help file (click on the upper right) is pretty complete, though brief.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 10, 2009, 04:45:05 PM
Let's say you brought a finger from MO-4 into KC.
The district is unprotected by VRA concerns.

,,,,

I also refer to the recent Supreme Court decision whose name I forget, covering legislative districts in North Carolina, that essentially said any district with fewer than 50% minority population is not inherently protected by VRA. MO-5 falls far short of that standard.

 Bartlett v. Strickland  (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-689.pdf)

 ALEC press release on Bartlett v. Strickland  (http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/amicus/Integrity_of_Redistricting.pdf)

The majority opinion explicitly says it does not apply to cases of intentional discrimination.  In North Carolina, the legislature had deliberately violated the state constitution under a mistaken belief that it was required to do so to avoid violating the VRA and the 15th Amendment.

In my scenario, the Missouri legislature not only brought a finger of CD-4 into Kansas City, they did it to fragment the black community.

Anyhow, the whole point was whether or not Section 2 applies to the entire country, and not how it might apply in individual instances.

Jim, can you cite any examples of congressional districts--or even legislative districts--with as small a minority population as MO-5 being protected by VRA against redistricting that produced a chance of Republican representation? (This is not a ridiculous or contrived situation at all, no matter how it sounds.) 
The VRA does not protect voting districts, but voters.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 10, 2009, 05:08:52 PM
(2) Has the advantage that it requires only minimal legislative action.  I'm sure that there will be other representatives and other persons who will remind any who may not have heard of the decision.

You're a stubborn one. ;)

I stand by my argument that congressmen aren't going to pick fights with all of the elected officials in their districts by imposing this burden, but we can agree to disagree.
Congressmen would rather pick a fight with local elected officials who are claiming to be concerned about bureaucracy than with civil rights groups.  The Congressmen can tell the elected officials that if they don't discriminate they have no reason for concern.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 10, 2009, 06:46:31 PM
Okay, so I can save and load files, but I can't convert them to jpgs, because I can't find the files. The supposed directory that contains them doesn't exist.

Edit: I've discovered Vista's "snipping tool", which seems to be much less cumbersome than trying to use that jpg converter thing.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 10, 2009, 07:35:10 PM
Florida Map 25 districts based on the 2000 Census.  Maximum deviation 185, average deviation 96, standard deviation 115. 

I was trying to pretty much follow county boundaries, at least down through about Orlando.  That explains the Volusia-Lake district, and the Orange-Seminole districts.  You could arrange those districts some to make them more compact.  There might be some combinations of counties that work better along the west coast below Tampa, but I didn't spend any time looking for them.  The big lime green district in the south looks OK but really is a lot areas around the edges combined together.

()

Three area maps.  Note that the lilac area around Jacksonville is part of the purple district to the west.  Cities are shown in a lighter color, and most of Duval County has been merged with Jacksonville.

()


()


()

Some area details.  The first two are along the SE coast.  Practically nobody lives in the interior of Dade, and Broward counties.  Almost all of the population of Monroe County is on the Florida Keys.  There is a relatively small population around Belle Glade on the SE short of Lake Okeechobee in NW Palm Beach County, but the districts should largely be thought of as a stack going up the coast.  The interior areas are attached to whichever district was handy.

The population in the puce-colored district is along the coast south of Miami, with little south of Homestead, plus the population on the Keys.  It should simply be thought of the district south of the purple district.  I probably could have done a better job of following city boundaries but the application has problems with polygons with enclaves.  So you could keep all of Miami in a district.

()


()

The next map is of the Tampa-St.Petersburg area.  The gray district to the north almost exactly matched the edge of the Pasco County line, so I simply started with the St Petersburg district, and then drew the purple district to avoid splitting the main part of Tampa, so it really is more of a leftovers district.

()

This is the Orlando area.  Lake and Volusia together were close to a CD in population, and Orange and Seminole, so you could probably do a better job in this area if you would split Seminole County.

()

And finally Jacksonville.  I mainly just selected the larger block groups around western, northern and eastern edges of Duval County figuring that these were more suburban, and also to make it look like Nassau County belongs with the district to the
west.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 10, 2009, 07:46:18 PM
Okay, so I can save and load files, but I can't convert them to jpgs, because I can't find the files. The supposed directory that contains them doesn't exist.

Edit: I've discovered Vista's "snipping tool", which seems to be much less cumbersome than trying to use that jpg converter thing.
I am using XP, but the files were where the help file said they were.

C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Silverlight\is\<junkdir1>\<junkdir2>\1\s\<junkdir3>\f\DavesRedistrictingFiles\<state>

The <junkdirs> are literally strings of letters run together.  You could probably search for drf.xml or map.xml files created in the last few days.

I scrunched my jpg files in the east-west direction by cos(latitude).  The application works in lat/long so as you go further north east west directions are stretched.  It should be very noticeable in Washington.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 10, 2009, 09:23:46 PM
I encountered the same problem with polygons in Franklin County, OH where Columbus has lots of unincorporated pocket. It was so bad there that the actual boundaries of Columbus and most of its suburbs were obscured.


()

The population in the puce-colored district is along the coast south of Miami, with little south of Homestead, plus the population on the Keys.  It should simply be thought of the district south of the purple district.  I probably could have done a better job of following city boundaries but the application has problems with polygons with enclaves.  So you could keep all of Miami in a district.



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 11, 2009, 06:40:32 AM
4-district Iowa:

()

CD1 (blue) - 58.5 - 40.4 Obama
CD2 (green) - 58.0 - 40.8 Obama
CD3 (purple) - 55.0 - 43.6 Obama
CD4 (red) - 53.7 - 45.2 McCain

Basically, I ended up preserving two Democratic-leaning districts, a Republican district, and a Dem-leaning swing district. I have to say, Iowa is ridiculously easy to redistrict -- nice square lines, decentralized population, homogenous population. I don't know how strict their requirements are, but I got all the districts within the same population by a thousand or so except for the 3rd, which is 5,000 under. I also didn't take into account where any of the Congresspeople live -- Dave Loebsack lives in Linn County, apparently, so he'd have to move one county south to stay in CD2, and Tom Latham is in Story County, which put him in the 3rd with Boswell.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 11, 2009, 08:37:21 AM
Beautiful map! The Pembroke Pines-Hialeah district would make for some very interesting elections.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on June 11, 2009, 09:40:11 PM
South Carolina on the current population estimates with seven districts, two of which are black-majority (purple and gray). All are within 1,000 of ideal; all but purple are within 200 of ideal (purple is about 600 oversized).

() (http://img15.imageshack.us/i/southcarolina.png/)

The gerrymander was even nastier before I cleaned it up as I realized I didn't need quite as rigorous a gerrymander as I had originally done to achieve two black-majority districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 11, 2009, 10:04:34 PM
Amusingly I tried a 4 district Nevada map splitting Reno in half and found out both districts also have to include parts of Las Vegas. West Las Vegas + southern Reno and northern Reno + North Las Vegas, that's kind of an amusing setupu.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on June 12, 2009, 02:58:44 AM
Amusingly I tried a 4 district Nevada map splitting Reno in half and found out both districts also have to include parts of Las Vegas. West Las Vegas + southern Reno and northern Reno + North Las Vegas, that's kind of an amusing setupu.

I was also surprised by the Nevada map.  I was expecting to fit almost 3 entire districts into Clark County with the fourth being everything else.  It'll be interesting to see how the 4 districts actually end up being drawn and if the Dems win the new district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 12, 2009, 07:48:58 AM
Minnesota with seven districts:

()

CD-01 - yellow (Walz and Kline put in same district)
CD-02 - red (Paulsen)
CD-03 - green (Ellison)
CD-04 - blue (McCollum and Bachmann put in same district)
CD-05 - purple (no incumbent)
CD-06 - teal (Oberstar)
CD-07 - grey (Peterson)

I do these things without knowing where the incumbents live, so I dismantled Kline's district and accidentally put him in Walz rather than Paulsen as I intended. Also, Bachmann ends up in McCollum's district, but she'd obviously move to the safe new CD-05. I haven't figured out the Obama/McCain percentages for these districts, since districts 1 through 3 have partial counties in them. Any comments from the Minnesota crowd?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 12, 2009, 07:58:35 AM
Minnesota with seven districts:
CD-01 - yellow (Walz and Kline put in same district)
CD-02 - red (Paulsen)

What's the population differential between the suburban Dakota parts of CD-01 and the rural counties of CD-02? What was the thinking behind stretching CD-01 up to the inner suburbs?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 12, 2009, 08:56:42 AM
4-district Iowa:

()

CD1 (blue) - 58.5 - 40.4 Obama
CD2 (green) - 58.0 - 40.8 Obama
CD3 (purple) - 55.0 - 43.6 Obama
CD4 (red) - 53.7 - 45.2 McCain

Basically, I ended up preserving two Democratic-leaning districts, a Republican district, and a Dem-leaning swing district. I have to say, Iowa is ridiculously easy to redistrict -- nice square lines, decentralized population, homogenous population. I don't know how strict their requirements are, but I got all the districts within the same population by a thousand or so except for the 3rd, which is 5,000 under. I also didn't take into account where any of the Congresspeople live -- Dave Loebsack lives in Linn County, apparently, so he'd have to move one county south to stay in CD2, and Tom Latham is in Story County, which put him in the 3rd with Boswell.

Don't worry about where IA congressmen live. IA doesn't use incumbent residences as a factor. Because IA is easy, you should try to get the districts to within about 100 people. Last time the deviations were +37, -24, +40, +40, and -94 from the ideal population, I assume that the mapmakers will try for the same goal next time.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: CultureKing on June 12, 2009, 06:10:43 PM
Here is Washington with 10 districts. I am not completely sure what the political leans would be for each district. Though I think it would probably turn into 7 dems and 3 reps (or perhaps a 6-4 scenario).
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 12, 2009, 09:29:29 PM
Minnesota with seven districts:

()

CD-01 - yellow (Walz and Kline put in same district)
CD-02 - red (Paulsen)
CD-03 - green (Ellison)
CD-04 - blue (McCollum and Bachmann put in same district)
CD-05 - purple (no incumbent)
CD-06 - teal (Oberstar)
CD-07 - grey (Peterson)

I do these things without knowing where the incumbents live, so I dismantled Kline's district and accidentally put him in Walz rather than Paulsen as I intended. Also, Bachmann ends up in McCollum's district, but she'd obviously move to the safe new CD-05. I haven't figured out the Obama/McCain percentages for these districts, since districts 1 through 3 have partial counties in them. Any comments from the Minnesota crowd?

Actually, that doesn't put Kline and Walz in the same district, it put Walz's home and my former home of Mankato into MN-7. Kline would be the only incumbent in the new MN-01, but he would likely lose. Adding Mankato back into the district and ditching the Dakota county suburbia would be more logical, and would likely result in a less ugly MN-02. Kline's home is also very close to the border, so he could easily be put in MN-02, resulting in an open MN-01 seat, which probably leans Dem. Walz could move to Albert Lea or Rochester I suppose, but Mankato/North Mankato is his super-solid base. I also don't see the reasoning in keeping Carver County out of MN-02 either. No one in Minnesota would like that map, the legislature would never pass it.

Not much reshuffling is needed though, Blue Earth and Nicollet and the connecting counties back to MN-01, Carver into MN-02, some of the northern parts of that purple district to MN-06, the cede some of the western parts to MN-7, clean up the southern rural part of MN-02 a bit as well which would result in some ceding to MN-07 and splitting up the Dakota county suburbs between MN-02 and MN-04, and you have a map that would look nicer, and would likely elect the same incumbents, and make them happier. I should try a map except I'm not sure how to post them, maybe I'll just upload the XML file and let someone else do it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on June 12, 2009, 11:03:26 PM
Here's a redo of Indiana.  I'm not really sure why their districts were so funky looking in the first place.

()

Indianapolis close-up:

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 12, 2009, 11:27:50 PM
Here's a redo of Indiana.  I'm not really sure why their districts were so funky looking in the first place.

Because it was basically a Democratic gerrymander.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 13, 2009, 02:47:20 AM

Don't worry about where IA congressmen live. IA doesn't use incumbent residences as a factor. Because IA is easy, you should try to get the districts to within about 100 people. Last time the deviations were +37, -24, +40, +40, and -94 from the ideal population, I assume that the mapmakers will try for the same goal next time.


The legislature actually rejected the first plan because its deviation was too large (I think around 150).  I always figured they just didn't like what the computer drew, but had to have a rationale for rejecting the map.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: bgwah on June 13, 2009, 02:56:34 AM
I have recent census tract estimates from the state government that would be much more accurate than their method of applying Census estimates. Their estimates method might work in some states, but my county alone has almost 2 million people and some parts have grown way faster than others, so it's not very helpful. I wish there were a way I could use the state tract estimates instead... :(


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on June 13, 2009, 05:05:15 AM
Here's Georgia with 14 and a detail of Atlanta.  I'm not sure how this model estimates minority populations for the "new estimates" but if the numbers are in any way accurate then it makes for some interesting demographic shifts.

()

()

GA-1 (blue): Not a huge difference from the current 1st.  Some territory from the current 8th added.
GA-2 (green): Again, not a big change.  The racial make-up shifts slightly with a drop in whites and blacks and an increase in Hispanics and Asians.
GA-3 (deep purple): This district becomes less suburban Atlanta based and more rural.  The black population is nearly halved.
GA-4 (red): A cleaned-up version of the current 4th contained entirely within DeKalb County.  White population decreases by about 5% and is replaced mostly by Hispanics.
GA-5 (yellow): Another "clean-up."  District is mostly unchanged.
GA-6 (blue-green): Loses Cherokee and portions of northern Fulton counties and gains more of Cobb county.  Significant increases to minority population here could make this a competitive district. 
Current 6th: 85.6% White, 7.0% Black, 4.0% Asian, 4.5% Hispanic, 0.2% Native American, 0.1% other
My 6th: 66.6% White, 14.2% Black, 6.0% Asian, 11.4% Hispanic, 0.3% Native American, 1.6% other

GA-7 (gray): Shifting entirely within Gwinnett County creates the most dramatic demographic change on the map creating a majority-minority district and an almost certain Democratic pick-up.
Current 7th: 85.2% White, 7.1% Black, 3.8% Asian, 5.4% Hispanic, 0.3% Native American, 0.1% other
My 7th: 46.7% White, 22.1% Black, 10.4% Asian, 19.1% Hispanic, 0.3% Native American, 1.5% other

GA-8 (lilac): The biggest geographic change from the current map.  Loses its northern and southern "tails" and extends east into territory mostly in the current 12th.  There's also a significant demo shift as well.  Current Rep. Marshall (D) could potentially do better or worse depending on how well he does with Rep. Barrow's (D) former constituents.
Current 8th: 64.0% White, 32.6% Black, 0.8% Asian, 2.8% Hispanic, 0.2% Native American, 1.4% other
My 8th: 57.7% White, 36.3% Black, 1.1% Asian, 3.8% Hispanic, 0.2% Native American, 0.9% other

GA-9 (cyan): Swaps some territory with the current 10th.  Mostly unchanged.
GA-10 (pink): Mostly unchanged.
GA-11 (lime green): This district moves out of Cobb county and into the northern parts of the current 6th causing the percentage of black voters to drop by 20%
GA-12 (light blue): Loses some heavily Republican territory to the new 8th making the new 12th a safe Dem district.
GA-13 (peach): Fairly similar to the current 13th but blacks become a near majority with 49%.
GA-14 (bronze): This new district takes in parts of the current 3rd and 8th to the south and west and parts of the current 7th and 10th to the north and east.  This could be a swing district with a Republican lean.
Demographics: 65.1% White, 26.0% Black, 2.0% Asian, 5.5% Hispanic, 0.2% Native American, 1.2% other


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 13, 2009, 08:32:24 AM

Don't worry about where IA congressmen live. IA doesn't use incumbent residences as a factor. Because IA is easy, you should try to get the districts to within about 100 people. Last time the deviations were +37, -24, +40, +40, and -94 from the ideal population, I assume that the mapmakers will try for the same goal next time.


The legislature actually rejected the first plan because its deviation was too large (I think around 150).  I always figured they just didn't like what the computer drew, but had to have a rationale for rejecting the map.

Apparently the idea that a computer drew the map is somewhat of a myth. I spoke to someone who was involved, and learned that the IA maps were actually drawn by hand on paper. The computer was used to check variances for a court challenge.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 13, 2009, 11:26:31 AM
Minnesota with seven districts:
CD-01 - yellow (Walz and Kline put in same district)
CD-02 - red (Paulsen)

What's the population differential between the suburban Dakota parts of CD-01 and the rural counties of CD-02? What was the thinking behind stretching CD-01 up to the inner suburbs?

I was trying to compact CD-01 and get rid of some of the more Republican counties. I don't understand your other question.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 13, 2009, 01:15:20 PM
Georgia 13 districts based on 2000 census.

Average deviation 91, Standard deviation 111.
Atlanta 6 (average 57, sd 68)
Outstate 7 (average 116, sd 139)

Atlanta 6 = 5.9997/13 of population.  Outstate is 7 block groups away from matching county boundaries.

()

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 03:02:38 PM
Here's the map of Ohio I made.  All districts are have a deviation from the ideal population of less than 1000.  I used the new estimates for population and made 16 districts since Ohio is projected to lose 2 after the next census.

()

Blue: A safer district for Dreihaus-D (OH-1)
Dark Green: Schmidt-R (OH-2), Jordan-R (OH-4), and Austria-R (OH-7) are pitted against each other.  Jordan would likely move to represent the red district.  Austria defeats the reviled Schmidt in the primary
Magenta: Turner-R (OH-3) gets a slightly less friendly district and could face a stiffer challenge.
Red: As I mentioned, Jordan probably moves into this open seat.
Yellow: An open seat which Latta-R (OH-5) may move in on.  This district is more Dem friendly than the current OH-5 but is probably still around R+5 or more.
Blue-Green: This is an open seat and would probably be hotly contested despite the Republican lean.  Wilson-D (OH-6) may move in here giving the Dems a semi-incumbent advantage.
Gray: Boccieri-D (OH-16) Gets a much safer district and cruises to re-election.
Purple: Boner Boehner remains safe.
Cyan: Kaptur-D (OH-9) faces off against Latta-R (OH-5) in a contest she'd almost certainly win.  As mentioned earlier, Latta will likely move to the yellow district.
Pink: I don't think I've take the elf Kucinich out of this district.  Safe Dem regardless.
Yellow-Green: Fudge-D (OH-11) is safe but the district drops below 50% black.
Lilac: Tiberi-R (OH-12) trades most of his black constituents for suburban whites and becomes considerably safer.
Peach: Sutton-D (OH-13) sees a dramatic change in her district but remains safe
Bronze: LaTourette-R (OH-14) faces off against Ryan-D (OH-17) in what will surely be the most contested race in the state.  However, the district has a distinct Democratic tilt to it which will probably put Ryan over the top.
Orange:: I think Kilroy-D (OH-15) is still in this district and it becomes much easier for her to hold.
Neon Green: This district pits Space-D (OH-18) against Wilson-D (OH-6) but Wilson may move.  This district is much more Dem friendly than Space's current district and he should have little trouble holding it even though it probably leans Rep.

How did you get yours up here?  I've tried everything.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 04:49:50 PM
Well, fellas, I had a pretty decent map, but its either not saving mine to my computer, or... I don't even have an alternative.  That could have been a good two hours I just wasted, there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 13, 2009, 04:52:05 PM
Well, fellas, I had a pretty decent map, but its either not saving mine to my computer, or... I don't even have an alternative.  That could have been a good two hours I just wasted, there.

You have to type in a file name in the box on the left-hand side and select "save as". Your map will only come back up once you select the state it's for when you open the program. Really, this program is a perfect example of how not to design a user interface.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 04:55:24 PM
Well, fellas, I had a pretty decent map, but its either not saving mine to my computer, or... I don't even have an alternative.  That could have been a good two hours I just wasted, there.

You have to type in a file name in the box on the left-hand side and select "save as". Your map will only come back up once you select the state it's for when you open the program. Really, this program is a perfect example of how not to design a user interface.

To save it to my computer from the internet... I have to save it there, and then reopen it there?  I really must be missing something.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 13, 2009, 05:00:02 PM
Well, fellas, I had a pretty decent map, but its either not saving mine to my computer, or... I don't even have an alternative.  That could have been a good two hours I just wasted, there.
If you clicked on the Save under the File menu it probably saved it.  It is to an application data area.  When you restart the application, you have to first select the State and then after it loads all the base data, you can use the File menu to open up your plan.  The Open option does not appear until you have loaded up the data for a State.

Alternatively, search for a file with "drf.xml" in its name and created in the past few days.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 05:05:00 PM
Well, fellas, I had a pretty decent map, but its either not saving mine to my computer, or... I don't even have an alternative.  That could have been a good two hours I just wasted, there.
If you clicked on the Save under the File menu it probably saved it.  It is to an application data area.  When you restart the application, you have to first select the State and then after it loads all the base data, you can use the File menu to open up your plan.  The Open option does not appear until you have loaded up the data for a State.

Alternatively, search for a file with "drf.xml" in its name and created in the past few days.

Okay, well I did all of that.  I still can' find the file on my computer... which is odd, because I am going to assume it must have saved it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 13, 2009, 05:05:32 PM
I have recent census tract estimates from the state government that would be much more accurate than their method of applying Census estimates. Their estimates method might work in some states, but my county alone has almost 2 million people and some parts have grown way faster than others, so it's not very helpful. I wish there were a way I could use the state tract estimates instead... :(
Send an e-mail to Dave Bradlee.  He appears to be receptive to assistance to make his program better.  Since block groups nest within census tracts, it should be relatively easy to adjust the data for your estimates, especially if you are willing to do the grunt work.




Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 05:16:28 PM
I am searching my entire C Drive and it is coming up with absolutely nothing.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 13, 2009, 05:28:25 PM
Here's a redo of Indiana.  I'm not really sure why their districts were so funky looking in the first place.
You need to draw a 10-district plan first.

Then choose a district in the middle of the state to dismantle, and it can't include the Marion County seat.  To the extent possible, add 11% of the dismantled district to each of the 9 remaining districts.  If you could do this, the old representative won't be able to find enough of his old district available to challenge anyone.

If that isn't possible, try to spread the additions from among several adjoining districts (eg for the Gary district, add 5% going east and 6% going south).  But be careful that you don't disrupt the other districts too much.

Alternatively, combine two districts in the middle of the state in a way that the incumbents can't really avoid a primary battle and the distribute the rest of the combined districts as above.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 05:30:50 PM
Is there, perhaps, another way I can do this, since either I am missing a step in this process that everyone else is hitting, or as usual, Vista sucks?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 05:31:43 PM
I mean, if I even has a "Documents and Settings" folder, that might help.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 13, 2009, 05:32:17 PM
Well, fellas, I had a pretty decent map, but its either not saving mine to my computer, or... I don't even have an alternative.  That could have been a good two hours I just wasted, there.
If you clicked on the Save under the File menu it probably saved it.  It is to an application data area.  When you restart the application, you have to first select the State and then after it loads all the base data, you can use the File menu to open up your plan.  The Open option does not appear until you have loaded up the data for a State.

Alternatively, search for a file with "drf.xml" in its name and created in the past few days.

Okay, well I did all of that.  I still can' find the file on my computer... which is odd, because I am going to assume it must have saved it.

You might not have searched your computer in the right place.  You might have to search the whole C drive or look here.

*  On Windows XP files are saved in:
      C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Silverlight\is\<junkdir1>\<junkdir2>\1\s\<junkdir3>\f\DavesRedistrictingFiles\<state>
* On Windows Vista files are saved in:
      C:\Users\<username>\AppData\LocalLow\Microsoft\Silverlight\is\<junkdir1>\<junkdir2>\1\s\<junkdir3>\f\DavesRedistrictingFiles\<state>


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 05:35:34 PM
Well, fellas, I had a pretty decent map, but its either not saving mine to my computer, or... I don't even have an alternative.  That could have been a good two hours I just wasted, there.
If you clicked on the Save under the File menu it probably saved it.  It is to an application data area.  When you restart the application, you have to first select the State and then after it loads all the base data, you can use the File menu to open up your plan.  The Open option does not appear until you have loaded up the data for a State.

Alternatively, search for a file with "drf.xml" in its name and created in the past few days.

Okay, well I did all of that.  I still can' find the file on my computer... which is odd, because I am going to assume it must have saved it.

You might not have searched your computer in the right place.  You might have to search the whole C drive or look here.

*  On Windows XP files are saved in:
      C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Silverlight\is\<junkdir1>\<junkdir2>\1\s\<junkdir3>\f\DavesRedistrictingFiles\<state>
* On Windows Vista files are saved in:
      C:\Users\<username>\AppData\LocalLow\Microsoft\Silverlight\is\<junkdir1>\<junkdir2>\1\s\<junkdir3>\f\DavesRedistrictingFiles\<state>

Yeah, I just found that, and went to "Users"... oh, but what is this... I don't have an AppData Folder!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 13, 2009, 05:44:43 PM
I mean, if I even has a "Documents and Settings" folder, that might help.
* On Windows Vista files are saved in:

      C:\Users\<username>\AppData\LocalLow\Microsoft\Silverlight\is\<junkdir1>\<junkdir2>\1\s\<junkdir3>\f\DavesRedistrictingFiles\<state>

See if you can find the "Silverlight" directory.

When you were drawing the plan, did you do a Save As or a Save?  You might also have to actually type a file name in the box up by the File menu.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 05:51:58 PM
I mean, if I even has a "Documents and Settings" folder, that might help.
* On Windows Vista files are saved in:

      C:\Users\<username>\AppData\LocalLow\Microsoft\Silverlight\is\<junkdir1>\<junkdir2>\1\s\<junkdir3>\f\DavesRedistrictingFiles\<state>

See if you can find the "Silverlight" directory.

When you were drawing the plan, did you do a Save As or a Save?  You might also have to actually type a file name in the box up by the File menu.

As I said, I don't have an AppData.

I searched for Silverlight and according to my computer it doesn't exist.  I honeslt don't know what the Hell is going on.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 13, 2009, 05:54:57 PM
I mean, if I even has a "Documents and Settings" folder, that might help.
* On Windows Vista files are saved in:

      C:\Users\<username>\AppData\LocalLow\Microsoft\Silverlight\is\<junkdir1>\<junkdir2>\1\s\<junkdir3>\f\DavesRedistrictingFiles\<state>

See if you can find the "Silverlight" directory.

When you were drawing the plan, did you do a Save As or a Save?  You might also have to actually type a file name in the box up by the File menu.

As I said, I don't have an AppData.

I get this sort of stuff at my job all the time.

Make sure you have it set up to show hidden files and folders.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 06:07:44 PM
I mean, if I even has a "Documents and Settings" folder, that might help.
* On Windows Vista files are saved in:

      C:\Users\<username>\AppData\LocalLow\Microsoft\Silverlight\is\<junkdir1>\<junkdir2>\1\s\<junkdir3>\f\DavesRedistrictingFiles\<state>

See if you can find the "Silverlight" directory.

When you were drawing the plan, did you do a Save As or a Save?  You might also have to actually type a file name in the box up by the File menu.

As I said, I don't have an AppData.

I get this sort of stuff at my job all the time.

Make sure you have it set up to show hidden files and folders.

Thank you.  That seems to have done it.

Remember the good old days when you had the ability to see, access, and edit all your files without jumping through hoops?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 06:24:04 PM
Okay, I figured it out.  Thanks everyone, especially BRTD since there is no way I would have thought of that.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 06:39:40 PM
Dammit... was anyone else having this problem where it was cutting off the bottom, or other area of your map, after you converted it to JPG?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 13, 2009, 07:11:03 PM
Dammit... was anyone else having this problem where it was cutting off the bottom, or other area of your map, after you converted it to JPG?
Did you save a "state map" eg click the check box?  Or did you try to show the whole plan and then create that as an "area map"?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 07:51:15 PM
Dammit... was anyone else having this problem where it was cutting off the bottom, or other area of your map, after you converted it to JPG?
Did you save a "state map" eg click the check box?  Or did you try to show the whole plan and then create that as an "area map"?

No, its a state map.  The entire map shows up in the "open map" screen, and continue to stay intact until I go to open it up after I "Save Map as JPG" after which the bottom is cut off, for some reason.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 09:12:07 PM
I have built this thing up so much, I fell like I can't match expectations.  HA  But I finally got it to work. 


()



I would do close ups for you guys, but I don't really think I need them.  Really, all I did with this map is try to make it so that it respected municipal, county, and some natural boundaries as much as possible, without it violating socioeconomic common sense, to much.

I didn't actually try to gerrymander, but for one exception...

I did everything I could to dispose of Murthaland, and its glorious leader with it.  While my 5th district looks ugly, its not nearly as ugly as Murtha's current districts and it makes for a much more clear cut Southwest, on the whole.  Murtha could never win this district, as, not only does it lean Republican, but it strips him of the majority of his base.

Beyond that, things get a little ugly near Reading, with what I call the "Reading Wrap Around" but the population in the "Wrap Around" area is surprisingly light, and it serves the function of putting that entire belt (Allentown, Reading, Bethlehem) under one roof.  I was amazed with how well the Southeast came out in general.

My estimate, is that this map contains 7 safe or near-safe Republican districts, 7 safe or near-safe Democrat districts, with the remaining 4 as possible pickups in a 50-50... and all without even trying.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 13, 2009, 10:33:29 PM
OK I uploaded the file for my Bachmann-free map here. Anyone else able to convert it into a JPEG? Not sure how.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/xurq37


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 10:54:35 PM
OK I uploaded the file for my Bachmann-free map here. Anyone else able to convert it into a JPEG? Not sure how.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/xurq37

I think it is wrong and childish of you to target any one elected official, in particular, for elimination.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: MaxQue on June 13, 2009, 11:05:36 PM
OK I uploaded the file for my Bachmann-free map here. Anyone else able to convert it into a JPEG? Not sure how.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/xurq37

I think it is wrong and childish of you to target any one elected official, in particular, for elimination.

You did the same thing to Murtha.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 11:07:01 PM
On a more serious note, though, looking at my map makes me kinda sad to realize how depopulated the old industrial Central part of the state has become.  Even when I was little, which is to say before the 1990 census, we had four representatives covering that area.  Now, its down to two.  Similarly, the Northwest once had two reps, and now they can barely support one.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 13, 2009, 11:08:50 PM
OK I uploaded the file for my Bachmann-free map here. Anyone else able to convert it into a JPEG? Not sure how.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/xurq37

I think it is wrong and childish of you to target any one elected official, in particular, for elimination.

If a district is lost someone has to go, why not make it my least favorite person in the delegation, not to mention also the most likely target of the legislature as well? And as noted you did the same for Murtha.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 13, 2009, 11:10:05 PM
OK I uploaded the file for my Bachmann-free map here. Anyone else able to convert it into a JPEG? Not sure how.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/xurq37

I think it is wrong and childish of you to target any one elected official, in particular, for elimination.

You did the same thing to Murtha.

I was being quite facetious, I assure you.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 13, 2009, 11:25:54 PM
Arizona with 8 districts.  Maybe if Arizona had an independent redistricting commission they could get something like this rather than the mess that they have.

The Tucson district (purple) includes the city proper and densely populated areas nearby.  Marana, Oro Valley, and Green Valley are in the Southern Arizona (red).

()

I tried to follow city boundaries as much as I could, though Phoenix gets chopped up.   I couldn't quite get all of Mesa in the green district.  The yellow district should be Tempe, Chandler, and southern Phoenix.  The grey district should be Glendale, Peoria, and points west, plus parts of western Phoenix south of Glendale.  The purple district is Scottsdale and northern Phoenix, with the aqua district the central part of Phoenix.


()


()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on June 14, 2009, 12:11:58 AM
Arizona with 8 districts.  Maybe if Arizona had an independent redistricting commission they could get something like this rather than the mess that they have.

Part of the problem is Arizona's policy on Native Americans with regards to redistricting.  I doubt even an independent commission would put the Hopi and Navajo tribes in the same district as you've done.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 14, 2009, 12:17:33 AM
Arizona with 8 districts.  Maybe if Arizona had an independent redistricting commission they could get something like this rather than the mess that they have.

Part of the problem is Arizona's policy on Native Americans with regards to redistricting.  I doubt even an independent commission would put the Hopi and Navajo tribes in the same district as you've done.

I've talked with one of the experts who worked on the 2000 remap. Padfoot is quite correct in his assessment of the issue.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 14, 2009, 02:33:41 AM
Arizona does use an independent commission actually.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on June 14, 2009, 03:24:02 AM
Here's some shots of my Arizona map

()
()
()

CD1 (Blue) is 23% Native American and 22% Hispanic
CD3 (Purple) is 46% White and 42% Hispanic
CD4 (Red) is 65% Hispanic and CD7 (Gray) is 57% Hispanic

The two new districts are CD3 and CD9, which should split between the parties. Shadegg would have his best shot in CD10.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Hash on June 14, 2009, 06:45:54 AM
I challenge people to do maps, for fun, with Canadian (100,000) or French (125,000)-sized constituencies.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 14, 2009, 09:57:32 AM

I read his comment as a joke...


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Frodo on June 14, 2009, 02:07:49 PM
How different would a redistricted Virginia look compared to what it is now?

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 14, 2009, 03:55:29 PM
How different would a redistricted Virginia look compared to what it is now?

()

I'm hoping he adds Virginia eventually, because I'd like to take a stab at it. The exploding population in NoVa will probably make the 8th, 10th, and 11th districts shrink. I expect there will end up being a bipartisan incumbent protection map.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 14, 2009, 06:15:43 PM
I think they have the population now to have 3 districts bounded by and including Loudoun and Prince William counties. The 10th should be completely suburban in the next round of redistricting, and the 9th will have to expand ever outward to gobble up population.

Something's got to give with districts like the 6th, 7th, and 1st being pulled into northern Virginia. It would be ridiculous to have Richmond suburbs and Williamsburg sharing districts with exurban NoVa, but that's where we're heading.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 14, 2009, 07:18:33 PM
How different would a redistricted Virginia look compared to what it is now?

()

I'm hoping he adds Virginia eventually, because I'd like to take a stab at it. The exploding population in NoVa will probably make the 8th, 10th, and 11th districts shrink. I expect there will end up being a bipartisan incumbent protection map.

You would be surprised.  I have started maps from each separate corner of PA, and one started from the middle, and each one looks somewhat different.

The one started from the middle, especially looked so different from the map I posted that I kinda wondered if it was how they made the current map.  HA  The reason I say that is because I usually had to do funny things with the districts that I would never consider, just to make it work.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 14, 2009, 08:48:37 PM
Indiana must practically draw itself.  Our maps are quite similar except for the colors.  I wanted to avoid using the gray color for the Indianapolis district since it is hard to see when there are a lot of city boundaries.

A 3-2-2 paln with 2 for Indianapolis is pretty natural.  You probably could not draw a reasonable district that linked Gary and South Bend or South Bend and Fort Wayne; though you might be able to do Fort Wayne and Elkhart.

And a cross-state district north or south of Indianapolis is going to be be pretty ugly and skinny.

It might be harder to draw an 8-district plan.  Perhaps 3 districts centered on Indianapolis but exteding out further, and the corner districts edging extending along the Ohio and Illinois borders.

I think the main difference in our plans is that I drew the Gary district to include Michigan City, splitting LaPorte Couty, rather than going south.  This put all of Kosciusko Countyin the South Bend district.

Did you use the 2000 population or the estimates?

()


Here's a redo of Indiana.  I'm not really sure why their districts were so funky looking in the first place.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 15, 2009, 07:39:06 AM
Ohio with 16 districts:

()

CD-01 (dark blue) - shored-up Democratic Cincinatti district.
CD-02 (dark green) - Cincinatti suburbs, safe Republican.
CD-03 (dark purple) - Dayton-based district that would be a 50-50 swing district.
CD-04 (dark red) - safe Republican rural district.
CD-05 (grey) - another safe Republican rural district.
CD-06 (light purple) - Dem-leaning Toledo-based district.
CD-07 (very light purple) - Dem-leaning surburban Cleveland-area district.
CD-08 (yellow-green) - west half of Cleveland, basically. Democratic district.
CD-09 (magenta) - VRA coalition district; couldn't get it to 51% black, it's about 49% black.
CD-10 (orange) - yet another Dem-leaning NE corner district.
CD-11 (pink) - Canton/Akron district. Maybe has a slight Dem lean.
CD-12 (brown) - Youngstown and Appalachia. Swing district, although Youngstown would probably give it an edge for the Dems.
CD-13 (light green) - Republican-leaning SE Ohio district.
CD-14 (forest green) - Columbus suburbs. Republican district.
CD-15 (yellow) - Columbus-based Dem district.
CD-16 (light blue) - north-central Ohio, rural Republican district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 15, 2009, 08:02:50 AM
As to who would go where:

CD-01 - Driehaus.
CD-02 - Schmidt.
CD-03 - I think a non-incumbent Dem would be elected here.
CD-04 - Turner.
CD-05 - Boehner.
CD-06 - Kaptur.
CD-07 - Sutton.
CD-08 - Kucinich.
CD-09 - Fudge.
CD-10 - LaTourette.
CD-11 - Boccieri.
CD-12 - Ryan. Wilson might challenge him here, but I doubt he could win.
CD-13 - Austria and Space would fight it out. Don't know who would come out on top.
CD-14 - Tiberi.
CD-15 - Kilroy.
CD-16 - Jordan and Latta fight for the nomination.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 15, 2009, 10:32:52 AM
There's a quite good redistricting of Louisiana with 6 districts in this comment. The mark of Zorro returns, tidied up and ready for review.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/showComment.do?commentId=76095


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on June 15, 2009, 03:27:06 PM
()
()

In this map, Pitts and Platts are in the same district.

As for the rest... the rest of the incumbents stay in place. Shuster gets a weird district, the 6th looks more normal, the 13th is more compact, the City of Chester goes to the 7th..

any thoughts?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 15, 2009, 03:59:42 PM
Great job, but why not put Platts and all of York County in Shuster's district and keep Lancaster County intact? Do the populations pencil out? Having Shuster represent northern Lancaster seems weird, even though I can see exactly how you were backed into the corner by trying to keep Holden's district as-is and rational.

I started PA yesterday and didn't get very far... your map tempts me to try again without a 5th district, having the 10th and the 3rd meet somewhere in the middle of the state and with Centre County all in Shuster's district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 15, 2009, 04:28:58 PM
()
()

In this map, Pitts and Platts are in the same district.

As for the rest... the rest of the incumbents stay in place. Shuster gets a weird district, the 6th looks more normal, the 13th is more compact, the City of Chester goes to the 7th..

any thoughts?

Last night, I unintentionally created a map that was maximally favorable to the Republicans, essentially by starting in the middle and working my way out.

By contrast, this map would likely produce the most favorable possible outcome for the Democrats.  I am curious, did you start out intending for that? 


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 15, 2009, 04:33:19 PM
P.S.  Unfortunately, the file was corrupted, and I could post the map I created.  I am going to try to recreate it at some point, because it was a good one.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on June 15, 2009, 04:38:55 PM
considering that the delegation is 12-7 Dem, it's slightly hard to top that by much..

but yes.. the map would likely flip the 6th and create a 13-5 delegation, at worst.

And the York/Lancaster town results make it possible that the 16th (Pitts/Platts) could be easier to flip.

The Republican seats would be the 5th, 9th, 15th, 16th, and 18th.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 15, 2009, 05:03:29 PM
considering that the delegation is 12-7 Dem, it's slightly hard to top that by much..

but yes.. the map would likely flip the 6th and create a 13-5 delegation, at worst.

And the York/Lancaster town results make it possible that the 16th (Pitts/Platts) could be easier to flip.

The Republican seats would be the 5th, 9th, 15th, 16th, and 18th.

Assuming that the color scheme is always the same, the 3rd (Dark Purple) would be Republican as well.  Elk county is majority Democratic, but it only votes that way under very specific circumstances.

At the same time is voted for the Democrat President, it also elected my conservative Republican friend over a moderate-left Democratic incumbent for State Rep.

Warren County is very much the same way.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on June 15, 2009, 06:26:55 PM
Isn't Elk County a fairly Catholic place? Dahlkemper is a pro-life Catholic, IIRC.

Plus, Erie County gave Dahlkemper the win, and Mercer (a Dahlkemper county) is completely in the 3rd.

The 12th might be a lot tougher post-Murtha, and idk how feasible it is to make a solid Republican 18th and solid Dem 12th.

Unless the 14th is made a bit more red, and the 18th gets some of those 60% McCain areas north of Pittsburgh.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on June 15, 2009, 10:35:32 PM
Indiana must practically draw itself.  Our maps are quite similar except for the colors.  I wanted to avoid using the gray color for the Indianapolis district since it is hard to see when there are a lot of city boundaries.

A 3-2-2 paln with 2 for Indianapolis is pretty natural.  You probably could not draw a reasonable district that linked Gary and South Bend or South Bend and Fort Wayne; though you might be able to do Fort Wayne and Elkhart.

And a cross-state district north or south of Indianapolis is going to be be pretty ugly and skinny.

It might be harder to draw an 8-district plan.  Perhaps 3 districts centered on Indianapolis but exteding out further, and the corner districts edging extending along the Ohio and Illinois borders.

I think the main difference in our plans is that I drew the Gary district to include Michigan City, splitting LaPorte Couty, rather than going south.  This put all of Kosciusko County in the South Bend district.

Did you use the 2000 population or the estimates?


I used the estimates.  Despite their inaccuracies I figure they give at least a general idea of major population shifts.  As we only have one election left with the current districts I'm not really interested in seeing how they could be redone.  I'm more interested in seeing what the districts could potentially look like in 2012.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on June 15, 2009, 10:52:22 PM
Isn't Elk County a fairly Catholic place? Dahlkemper is a pro-life Catholic, IIRC.

Plus, Erie County gave Dahlkemper the win, and Mercer (a Dahlkemper county) is completely in the 3rd.

The 12th might be a lot tougher post-Murtha, and idk how feasible it is to make a solid Republican 18th and solid Dem 12th.

Unless the 14th is made a bit more red, and the 18th gets some of those 60% McCain areas north of Pittsburgh.

Well, yes, with someone like Dahlkemper that would be a Dem seat, but that was my point.  Without a specific type of Democrat, some of those, like the your 12th, easily become Republican seats. Even with the right Democrat, its tricky.  All it would take is a good Republican year, and those areas have proven kind to Republican incumbents, just so long as they don't screw up.

A populist Republican would have no trouble taking the your 12th, even with Murtha in the saddle.  Really, even in his current district, which has been tailor made for him, the Republicans could have defeated him in any of those elections this decade if they had only found the right candidate and ran a very aggressive campaign.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on June 16, 2009, 07:37:04 AM
I will work on a North Carolina map.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 16, 2009, 09:03:22 AM
I have not been able to create jpg files for my maps. I save the state map from the app, and I can find it on my drive. However, the map tp jpg converter on the site can't open the file. Has anyone else encountered this, and if so what fix is there?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 16, 2009, 05:36:09 PM
I have not been able to create jpg files for my maps. I save the state map from the app, and I can find it on my drive. However, the map tp jpg converter on the site can't open the file. Has anyone else encountered this, and if so what fix is there?

That's another confusing thing about this app -- you use the save on the left-hand size to save the actual map, but the save on the right side to save pictures of the map that the converter uses.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 16, 2009, 06:52:38 PM
I have not been able to create jpg files for my maps. I save the state map from the app, and I can find it on my drive. However, the map tp jpg converter on the site can't open the file. Has anyone else encountered this, and if so what fix is there?

That's another confusing thing about this app -- you use the save on the left-hand size to save the actual map, but the save on the right side to save pictures of the map that the converter uses.

After three tries withe left control for the state, I was able to get something that would open and convert to jpg. I made a zoomed area, saved the area, and I still don't get something I can open and convert, at best I get the state map back. ???


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 17, 2009, 12:17:33 AM
I have not been able to create jpg files for my maps. I save the state map from the app, and I can find it on my drive. However, the map tp jpg converter on the site can't open the file. Has anyone else encountered this, and if so what fix is there?

That's another confusing thing about this app -- you use the save on the left-hand size to save the actual map, but the save on the right side to save pictures of the map that the converter uses.

After three tries withe left control for the state, I was able to get something that would open and convert to jpg. I made a zoomed area, saved the area, and I still don't get something I can open and convert, at best I get the state map back. ???
You have to click the state and area boxes under the Save Maps, and it might not hurt to specify a file name.  When you run the map to jpg converter it generates jpgs for all the maps, but only the state map is displayed by the conversion program.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on June 17, 2009, 01:08:00 AM
As to who would go where:

CD-01 - Driehaus.
CD-02 - Schmidt.
CD-03 - I think a non-incumbent Dem would be elected here.
CD-04 - Turner.
CD-05 - Boehner.

CD-06 - Kaptur.
CD-07 - Sutton.
CD-08 - Kucinich.
CD-09 - Fudge.
CD-10 - LaTourette.
CD-11 - Boccieri.
CD-12 - Ryan. Wilson might challenge him here, but I doubt he could win.
CD-13 - Austria and Space would fight it out. Don't know who would come out on top.
CD-14 - Tiberi.
CD-15 - Kilroy.
CD-16 - Jordan and Latta fight for the nomination.

Some of these aren't quite accurate, IMO.

In CD-2 you have Boehner giving up his home base of Butler County to Schmidt.  I highly doubt he'll be moving districts for the likes of her.  If she gets put into any other Republican's district she'll go down in the primary.  Republicans will probably jump at the chance to dump her anyways.
In CD-3 Turner would almost certainly run even if he was defeated.  The Republicans wouldn't increase their chances of losing this seat by having Turner leave it open.
In CD-4 Austria is the most likely Republican to run here.  There's no reason for him to run in CD-13 as he lives in Green County near Dayton.
In CD-5 and CD-16 You'd have Latta and Jordan.  There's no need for them to fight in a primary.  You've actually drawn Latta into the Toledo district and Jordan into the red southwest district but I'm sure they would relocate easily.
In CD-10 it is distinctly possible that Ryan might take on LaTourette.  Ryan is considered a rising star and the Dems have been looking for a strong challenger for LaTourette for some time.  This drawing of the district might be Dem friendly enough to give Ryan the victory.
In CD-12 you could see a primary battle between Wilson and Space.  However, Wilson may opt to run in the open CD-13 instead.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 17, 2009, 06:46:45 AM
All right, well, this time I've actually taken into account where the people live. Here's Georgia with a new district:

()

CD-01 (red) - Jack Kingston I had to displace from his district because I needed all of Savannah for Barrow's district. It's still safe Republican, so all he needs to do is move a bit south.
CD-02 (brown) - Sanford Bishop's district is now a coalition district -- 50.5% non-white. Should be safer to hold once he retires.
CD-03 (pink) - Lynn Westmoreland remains in a pretty similar district.
CD-04 (green) - Hank Johnson's district, basically all of DeKalb County now. 51% black.
CD-05 (dark blue) - John Lewis, again, 51% black and pretty much all of the urban Fulton County district.
CD-06 (light blue) - Tom Price has a much more compact district now, but it includes enough of the ultra-Republican suburbs to remain safe.
CD-07 (light green) - Same for John Linder.
CD-08 (very light purple) - I tried to make Jim Marshall's district a little more favorable to him, but it's tough when he's just slapped down in the middle of the state. It's about 37% black.
CD-09 (light purple) - Nathan Deal remains in solidly-Republican northern Georgia.
CD-10 (teal) - Paul Broun, picking up some of the Republican counties of Barrow's district.
CD-11 (magenta) - Phil Gingrey is yet another Republican in a compressed, although Republican, district.
CD-12 (yellow) - John Barrow's district. I tried to excise some of the Republican territory and give him some more favorable counties. The district is 41% black now.
CD-13 (dark purple) - David Scott remains in the inner suburbs of Atlanta and the district remains majority (51%) black.
CD-14 (grey) - This is the new district, and it's exurban and white enough to be pretty solidly Republican.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 17, 2009, 08:28:42 PM
I challenge people to do maps, for fun, with Canadian (100,000) or French (125,000)-sized constituencies.
Iowa with 29 districts, with average population of 100,908, maximum deviation 4.0%, average deviation of 1.9%.

6 counties have a population in excess of one district and one or more whole districts was formed within: Polk County (Des Moines) 3.712; Linn (Cedar Rapids) 1.900; Scott (Davenport-Bettendorf) 1.572; Black Hawk (Waterloo-Cedar Falls) 1.269; Johnson (Iowa City) 1.100; Woodbury (Sioux City) 1.029.  Woodbury was not split, since it is only slightly over the limit.

Jackson County was also split.  Dubuque County (Dubuque) was short by about 11.7%, and adding the entirety of a neighboring county would create an excess of at least 6.5%.  The area of Jackson County placed with Dubuque County is largely along the Mississippi River south of Dubuque.

Des Moines, unlike most large city has not been fused with its township so Polk County was divided by townships.  Western Des Moines is Des Moines township with an almost ideal population of 100.4% of the target district population.  Most of the rest of the city is included in Lee township (east) and Bloomfield township (south).  This eastern district also includes Pleasant Hill and Carlisle.  The western suburban district includes large parts of West Des Moines, Windsor Heights, Clive, Urbandale, Grimes, and Johnston.  The northern suburban district, which includes Boone County, contains Ankeny, Saylorville, Altoona, and Bondurant.

Cedar Rapids is the only city that was split.  With a population of 119.6% of the target, area in the far southern part of the city were trimmed off and placed with the rest of Linn County and northern Johnson County.  Johnson County only has a slight overage, and the boundary is north of Iowa City and its suburbs.

Davenport is almost the ideal size of a district (97.5%), leaving the rest of Scott County, including Bettendorf to be paired with Muscatine County.

Waterloo and Cedar Falls together have a population equivalent to 104.0% of the target population, leaving the relatively small excess population of Black Hawk County to be placed in a district with 3 other counties.



()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 17, 2009, 09:30:31 PM
I challenge people to do maps, for fun, with Canadian (100,000) or French (125,000)-sized constituencies.
Iowa with 29 districts, with average population of 100,908, maximum deviation 4.0%, average deviation of 1.9%.

6 counties have a population in excess of one district and one or more whole districts was formed within: Polk County (Des Moines) 3.712; Linn (Cedar Rapids) 1.900; Scott (Davenport-Bettendorf) 1.572; Black Hawk (Waterloo-Cedar Falls) 1.269; Johnson (Iowa City) 1.100; Woodbury (Sioux City) 1.029.  Woodbury was not split, since it is only slightly over the limit.

Jackson County was also split.  Dubuque County (Dubuque) was short by about 11.7%, and adding the entirety of a neighboring county would create an excess of at least 6.5%.  The area of Jackson County placed with Dubuque County is largely along the Mississippi River south of Dubuque.

Des Moines, unlike most large city has not been fused with its township so Polk County was divided by townships.  Western Des Moines is Des Moines township with an almost ideal population of 100.4% of the target district population.  Most of the rest of the city is included in Lee township (east) and Bloomfield township (south).  This eastern district also includes Pleasant Hill and Carlisle.  The western suburban district includes large parts of West Des Moines, Windsor Heights, Clive, Urbandale, Grimes, and Johnston.  The northern suburban district, which includes Boone County, contains Ankeny, Saylorville, Altoona, and Bondurant.

Cedar Rapids is the only city that was split.  With a population of 119.6% of the target, area in the far southern part of the city were trimmed off and placed with the rest of Linn County and northern Johnson County.  Johnson County only has a slight overage, and the boundary is north of Iowa City and its suburbs.

Davenport is almost the ideal size of a district (97.5%), leaving the rest of Scott County, including Bettendorf to be paired with Muscatine County.

Waterloo and Cedar Falls together have a population equivalent to 104.0% of the target population, leaving the relatively small excess population of Black Hawk County to be placed in a district with 3 other counties.



()


A different question with IA has to do with their reapportionment. Assuming that they lose one congressional seat, what happens to the nesting of Senate and House seats within each CD? Currently the 5 CDs are divided into 10 Senate districts and each Senate district into 2 House districts. 50 doesn't divide into 4 so either IA changes the nesting rules or the number of State Senators.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 18, 2009, 10:34:02 PM
A different question with IA has to do with their reapportionment. Assuming that they lose one congressional seat, what happens to the nesting of Senate and House seats within each CD? Currently the 5 CDs are divided into 10 Senate districts and each Senate district into 2 House districts. 50 doesn't divide into 4 so either IA changes the nesting rules or the number of State Senators.
Quote from:  Iowa Code Chapter 42.4.6
  In order to minimize electoral confusion and to facilitate communication within state legislative districts, each plan drawn under this section shall provide that each representative district is wholly included within a single senatorial district and that, so far as possible, each representative and each senatorial district shall be included within a single congressional district.  However, the standards established by subsections 1 through 5 shall take precedence where a conflict arises between these standards and the requirement, so far as possible, of including a senatorial or representative district within a single congressional district.

Nesting of legislative districts within congressional districts is not an absolute standard.  Even when the number of senate districts is a multiple of the number of congressional districts, it may be possible to divide fewer counties with senate district boundaries if CD's are ignored.

Of the 50 senate districts, 17 are contained wholly within one county, but only 4 of the other 33 are comprised solely of whole counties.  Within most CDs, you can draw chains of senate districts that split counties (eg the boundary between SD 9 and SD 12 split a county; as does the 12-16 boundary; the 16-13 boundary; and the 13-42 boundary.  This is the NE CD, with 5 senate districts wholly contained in single counties (2 in Black Hawk (Waterloo-Cedar Falls), 2 in Scott (Davenport-Bettendorf) and 1 in Dubuque (Dubuque).

OTOH, since CDs have a population almost ideal for 10 senate districts, a perimeter of county boundaries, and a tight standard for legislative district populations, it may not be possible to do much better ignoring CDs.  The maximum average absolute deviation for legislative districts is 1%, and largest to smallest is 5%.

Practical answer for 2010 would be to have 12 senate districts wholly within each CD, and have each of the remaining two senate districts span a pair of CDs, such that one house district is within each CD.

The nesting standard is:

SD nest in CD
HD nest in CD
HD nest in SD

Not:

HD nest in SD nest in CD.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on June 19, 2009, 12:04:29 PM
I have two maps of NC, one with 15 and one with 16, but I can't seem to find it, can someone help me?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 19, 2009, 01:10:08 PM
I have two maps of NC, one with 15 and one with 16, but I can't seem to find it, can someone help me?
Vista or XP?  Do a search for "Silverlight" in your file system.  You may have to set a search option to search for hidden files.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on June 19, 2009, 03:25:52 PM
I have two maps of NC, one with 15 and one with 16, but I can't seem to find it, can someone help me?
Vista or XP?  Do a search for "Silverlight" in your file system.  You may have to set a search option to search for hidden files.

I have XP.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on June 19, 2009, 03:39:36 PM
Ok, I found it, now how do you trun it into a picture?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on June 20, 2009, 11:45:31 AM
Here's Oregon on six districts, using new population estimates. The growth around Portland means a lot more than a full district fits into Multnomah County, which made for some interesting splits. I tried to do a district running along the coast to group those relatively similar communities together, while the outer Multnomah and Clackamas district takes in Bend, which doesn't fit well with rural Oregon. I'm not sure what the partisan split of the map would be, but I would guess 5 Democrats and 1 Republican. Maybe 4-2.

() (http://img14.imageshack.us/i/oregonstate.jpg/)



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on June 20, 2009, 12:23:49 PM
I should mention that all districts are within 1,000 of ideal.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on June 20, 2009, 12:39:50 PM
Massachusetts on 9 districts with current estimates. For some reason, the program makes a weird error involving Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, but the boundaries should be clear anyway.

() (http://img194.imageshack.us/i/massachusettsstater.jpg/)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 20, 2009, 01:00:52 PM
Ok, I found it, now how do you trun it into a picture?
When you are running the redistricting app, you need to save a "map".    You can also save additional area maps, which are simply zoomed in areas of your plan.  The map files will be stored in the same place as the plan is saved.

Then on the help page for the redistricting app, look for:

   Map2JPG.exe

This is a program that converts maps into jpg.  You don't need to install it, so can either download it and run it, or click and run it directly.  I had to install Net 3.5 to make it work.

When you run the program you specify the directory and file name where the jpgs are stored.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 20, 2009, 01:20:19 PM
14-district Michigan, unfortunately a little cut off:

()

MI-01 (dark blue) - Bart Stupak's district, mostly unchanged, although I removed some of the Republican counties.
MI-02 (magenta, formerly MI-15) - John "Methuselah" Dingell gets a slightly-expanded suburban district, taking in Lenawee County now.
MI-03 (red, includes the former MI-02) - Created by combining MI-02 and MI-03, since Hoekstra is retiring. Won by Obama (I assume Grand Rapids voted more Democratic than Kent County as a whole), but Vern Ehlers would probably be re-elected.
MI-04 (dark green) - Dave Camp's district. Safe Republican.
MI-05 (dark purple) - This is Dale Kildee's district and remains a safe Dem district consisting of Saginaw, Flint, and some surrounding territory.
MI-06 (yellow) - Made more Republican for Fred Upton.
MI-07 (teal) - Made more Democratic for Mark Schauer by including Lansing and removing some more Republican portions.
MI-08 (grey) - Safe Republican seat for Mike Rogers.
MI-09 (light purple) - Joe Knollenberg's district is more or less the same, taking in most of Oakland County.
MI-10 (brown) - Candice Miller's district is more or less unchanged, except for picking up most of Tuscola County.
MI-11 (light blue) - How to get rid of Thad McCotter? Put Ann Arbor in his district! Yes, most of Washtenaw County, won 69-29 by Obama, is now in McCotter's district.
MI-12 (light green) - Here we have Sander Levin, whose district I don't think changed a whole lot.
MI-13 (very light purple) - Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick had to pull in some parts of Conyers' district to remain majority black.
MI-14 (pink) - Conyers remains in majority-black territory as well.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 21, 2009, 05:17:28 PM
And here's New Jersey with 12:

()

My intention was to put two Republicans in one district, and the only way to do that was to eliminate one of Frelinghuysen, Garrett, and Lance, and Frelinghuysen got the axe because his home is closer to the center of the northwestern Republican strongholds, so it was easier to carve up his district between Garrett and Lance.

NJ-01 (dark blue) - Rob Andrews' district. Takes in more area, but is still solidly Democratic.
NJ-02 (dark purple) - LoBiondo's district made more Republican.
NJ-03 (dark green) - shored up John Adler by removing Ocean County and adding in Trenton instead.
NJ-04 (light blue) - Chris Smith in a district that is not much changed, except to give Trenton to Adler. It's a funny shape because (like a lot of NJ Reps) Smith lives on the western edge of the district.
NJ-05 (grey) - Scott Garrett's district takes in the Republican northern end of New Jersey.
NJ-06 (yellow) - Frank Pallone's district is probably a little more Republican now, but shouldn't be hard for him to hold.
NJ-07 (teal) - Leonard Lance and Rodney Frelinghuysen are put in the same district. The winner will hold the district, as it should be fairly Republican.
NJ-08 (light purple) - Bill Pascrell's district, still safe for the Democrats.
NJ-09 (magenta) - Steve Rothman, see above.
NJ-10 (very light purple, on the east side of NJ-08) - I couldn't get this district to be majority-black, so I had to settle on it being a coalition district. Still locked up tight for Don Payne.
NJ-11 (light green, formerly NJ-13) - Albio Sires' district, safe Dem and about 45% Latino. It's currently about 47-48%, so not much of a change there.
NJ-12 (red) - Rush Holt's district, taking in the Democratic areas of Somerset and Middlesex, and eschewing the Monmouth portion. More Democratic now.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Holmes on June 21, 2009, 08:57:59 PM
I have no idea if I did a Democratic or Republican gerrymander, I just tried to make pretty districts.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Platypus on June 23, 2009, 04:24:04 AM
I have no idea if I did a Democratic or Republican gerrymander, I just tried to make pretty districts.

()

That's almost the same as mine, but my split between red, yellow and green was a bit different.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 23, 2009, 09:28:03 PM
I have no idea if I did a Democratic or Republican gerrymander, I just tried to make pretty districts.
You should make the Portland district yellow so it looks like the beak of bird, and then the southern coastal district green for the wings.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on June 24, 2009, 04:13:25 PM
Here's an SC gerrymander

SC-1 (blue):
()

SC-3 (purple):
()

SC-4 (red):
()

SC-5 (yellow):
()

SC-7 (gray):
()

Southeastern SC:
()

SC-2 is green, SC-6 is teal.

And stats

SC-1: 78% White, 15% Black (formerly 75/21 White)
SC-2: 68% White, 23% Black (formerly 70/26 White)
SC-3: 75% White, 19% Black (formerly 77/21 White)
SC-4: 81% White, 11% Black (formerly 76/20 White)
SC-5: 75% White, 18% Black (formerly 65/32 White)
SC-6: 56% Black, 37% White (formerly 57/41 Black)
SC-7: 54% Black, 42% White

Basically the 6th starts in Spartansburg/Greenville/Anderson and makes it's way to Columbia.

But basically the map creates a future 5/2 map on the retirement of Spratt, and it significantly weakens Spratt


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 24, 2009, 05:35:42 PM
Here's an SC gerrymander

SC-1 (blue):
()

SC-3 (purple):
()

SC-4 (red):
()

SC-5 (yellow):
()

SC-7 (gray):
()

Southeastern SC:
()

SC-2 is green, SC-6 is teal.

And stats

SC-1: 78% White, 15% Black (formerly 75/21 White)
SC-2: 68% White, 23% Black (formerly 70/26 White)
SC-3: 75% White, 19% Black (formerly 77/21 White)
SC-4: 81% White, 11% Black (formerly 76/20 White)
SC-5: 75% White, 18% Black (formerly 65/32 White)
SC-6: 56% Black, 37% White (formerly 57/41 Black)
SC-7: 54% Black, 42% White

Basically the 6th starts in Spartansburg/Greenville/Anderson and makes it's way to Columbia.

But basically the map creates a future 5/2 map on the retirement of Spratt, and it significantly weakens Spratt

...Good Lord. I think even Tom DeLay would consider that a bit excessive.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 24, 2009, 09:47:00 PM
10 districts for Mass on 2000 population.   Boston, 3 inner suburban, 3 outer suburban-exurban, Worcester-Springfield, Western Mass-Springfield, and Fall River-New Bedford-Cape Cod-Islands

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 24, 2009, 10:12:10 PM
10 districts for Mass on 2000 population.   Boston, 3 inner suburban, 3 outer suburban-exurban, Worcester-Springfield, Western Mass-Springfield, and Fall River-New Bedford-Cape Cod-Islands

()


A New England Republican might even win the red district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: bgwah on June 24, 2009, 10:29:36 PM
I have recent census tract estimates from the state government that would be much more accurate than their method of applying Census estimates. Their estimates method might work in some states, but my county alone has almost 2 million people and some parts have grown way faster than others, so it's not very helpful. I wish there were a way I could use the state tract estimates instead... :(
Send an e-mail to Dave Bradlee.  He appears to be receptive to assistance to make his program better.  Since block groups nest within census tracts, it should be relatively easy to adjust the data for your estimates, especially if you are willing to do the grunt work.




I took your advice, but he never responded. :(


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 24, 2009, 11:21:01 PM
...Good Lord. I think even Tom DeLay would consider that a bit excessive.

Lest we forget the true evil of Martin Frost, ex-congressman from Texas.

The red district is the part of Delay's district in West Houston, the green district is Mike Andrews-Ken Bentsen-Chris Bell's former district.  The yellow district is part of Craig Washington-Sheila Jackson_Lee's district.  The blue is Bill Archer's district.  This was a totally legal political gerrymander.

()

This is further east in SE Houston.  Delay's district is the red district at the bottom.  The magenta district is Gene Green's district.  This of course is an illegal racial gerrymander.

()

This is in north & northwest Houston.  Besides all the weird peninsulas in Green's district, you have another district wrapping around it.  The neck of the magenta district in the lower right is about 3/5 of a mile across.  To get between the yellow district on one side to the other is about 60 miles.

In the Ohio Redistricting contest the measure of compactness is area divided by perimeter squared.  A perfect circle would be 0.0796.  A square 0.0625.  The median district in the contest was about 0.029.  The worst district, which wrapped completely around Cleveland plus almost got chopped off in Parma was about 0.007.  Districts in Texas were .00115, 0.00075, 0.00056, and 0.0189.

()

This is Lubbock County.  Again a legal political gerrymander.   Guess where blacks and Hispanics are concentrated?

()

The districts meet in Midland which is east of the SE corner of New Mexico.  Dalhart is in the extreme NE corner of the panhandle.  Decatur and Granbury are exurbs of Fort Worth.  Round Rock is north of Austin and New Braunfels is NE of San Antonio.

()

This is zoomed out quite a bit.  The area in the previous map is in the far NW corner of this one.   The orange district is Austin.  It is kind of a donut hole district with one district stretching west to Midland, and the magenta district stretching SE to Galveston.  The Democrat congressman from the magenta district switched parties and then was beaten by Ron Paul in the primary.  The yellow district is central San Antonio.

()

This is San Antonio and the area to the NE around New Braunfels.  The red district stretches to El Paso, Midland, and Laredo.  The area on the north side of San Antonio was added at the request of the Democrat congressman who was building a house there.  After being caught in the Post Office Banking scandal, he was beaten by Henry Bonilla.

()

This is Fort Worth with Dallas on the eastern part of the map.  The link in the red district in the NE part of Tarrant County is by the surface of Eagle Mountain Lake.  That is why the edges are a bit fuzzier.  The yellow district is former congressman Martin Frost's district which links parts of Arlington to parts of Dallas via Waxahachie.   The red district was a legal political gerrymander.

()

The blue district is Eddie Bernice-Johnson's.

()

This is a detail of the northern part of the district, with a bit extending into Collin County.  In a deposition, she claimed that she was just trying to include her friends in her district (she was a state senator at the time the district lines were drawn, and she was elected from the new district).  Parts of this area was also thrown out as a racial gerrymander.

()

The whole state.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 24, 2009, 11:37:45 PM
Send an e-mail to Dave Bradlee.  He appears to be receptive to assistance to make his program better.  Since block groups nest within census tracts, it should be relatively easy to adjust the data for your estimates, especially if you are willing to do the grunt work.

I took your advice, but he never responded. :(
When I wrote him, he said that he had a new job and a lot less time to work on it.  Looking at his response it was pretty non-committal, though he said he was working on making it open source.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 24, 2009, 11:54:58 PM
10 districts for Mass on 2000 population.   Boston, 3 inner suburban, 3 outer suburban-exurban, Worcester-Springfield, Western Mass-Springfield, and Fall River-New Bedford-Cape Cod-Islands

()


A New England Republican might even win the red district.
It is probably the district that goes away with a 9-district plan.  You should be able to get all of the Connecticut Valley in to the western district, which makes the green district more pure Worcester.  And then the gray and light blue would slide westward taking up the rest of the red district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 25, 2009, 08:50:05 AM
Yeah, the combination of "let's create districts for white Democrats and minority Democrats" plus "ooh, computers" was ugly. Weren't the squiggly inner-city districts in Houston and Dallas overturned by the courts and redrawn?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 25, 2009, 07:07:10 PM
Yeah, the combination of "let's create districts for white Democrats and minority Democrats" plus "ooh, computers" was ugly. Weren't the squiggly inner-city districts in Houston and Dallas overturned by the courts and redrawn?
Bush v Vera, a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court found that race was the predominating factor in three of the districts 18, 29, and 30.

Justice Stevens in his dissent noted that this district was just as bad as the others, and it wasn't based on race, so this made the others OK.  The district starts in Ellis County, loops around Fort Worth and ends up in Johnson County.  Yellow are areas that were in the district before and after Bush v Vera, red areas were removed, and green areas were added.  Many of the changes appear to have been made for population balance.

13 (of 30) districts were modified to some extent and were contested as special elections concurrent with the November 1996 general election.  The results of the primaries were thrown out, and any candidate could run regardless of party, with a majority required for election.  In several cases you ended up with a rerun of a primary.

()

This is Martin Frost's district.

()

This is Eddie Bernice Johnson's district (30).  As state senator she had originally proposed a relative compact district black majority district, but it would have placed several incumbents in the district.  One of the defenses offered for the plan was that her original plan had been adjusted to protect Democrat incumbents, including Martin Frost and John Bryant, and that some Democratic areas that just happened to be black remained with their districts, so that she had to seek blacks further afield.  Since she had a lot of influence over drawing her district, it was claimed that she along with Gene Green and Ben Reyes were de facto incumbents, and it was a legislative prerogative to protect incumbents.

The majority opinion noted that the plan did not follow traditional districting values since the northern tip of the district went into Collin County and a tiny bit went into Tarrant County (the very western nob of the red area on the southern part of the western extension.  Justice O'Connor seemed to suggest that 18 and 29 were somewhat better because they were entirely in Harris County.

()

This is Tom Delay's district in Harris County.  The areas that were chopped off appear to make up for an area in Fort Bend County that was added.

()

This is Mike Andrews-Ken Bentsen-Chris Bell district, with a lot of cleanup in the middle.  The green area to the east is the Houston Ship Channel, with very few people, but providing a connection to some Hispanic areas in Baytown (the green tongue at the far east end).  This district is the main reason for the gerrymander in Houston, since they didn't want to force the district any further south into Republican areas.  Now that it has been converted to a majority black district, it is fairly compact.

()

This is CD 18 which was Craig Washington's district (and before that Barbara Jordan and Mickey Leland, and now Sheila Jackson Lee.  Major concentrations of blacks are in NW, NE, and S Houston, while Hispanics are in the E and SE, N and WNW.  One reason that the districts are weird is that you can only connect one of the districts through downtown.

The original plan had CD 18 wrapping around the Hispanic district to the far west, and then connecting the NE and NW black areas at the top (the airport - IAH) is at the far north so it isn't that heavily populated and neither is the extreme NE.

The revised plan connected the black areas through downtown.  This is still the current configuration.

()

This is CD 29, that was drawn (somewhat) as a Hispanic district, but has always elected Gene Green, who was instrumental in drawing the map.   A lot of the bizarre fingers were to include apartment complexes, which have population, but less than their share of voters.

()

This is DFW after the federal district court had adjusted the boundaries.

()

And this is Harris County afterwards.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kevinstat on June 28, 2009, 01:19:58 AM
Whichever court redrew the lines in 1994 seem to have cleaned up the lines a lot better in Houston than they did in Dallas-Fort Worth, from a worse starting point.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 28, 2009, 08:20:02 AM
I'm surprised nobody's done North Carolina yet. Here it is with a theoretical 14th district (which may or may not happen this time). You may want to open it in a new window to see it better.

()

As you can see, I've actually de-gerrymandered it to some extent. Here's the district breakdown:

NC-01 (brown, GK Butterfield - D) - I didn't bother trying to make this majority-black; it's a coalition district. I'm sure you could finagle it to 51% black if needed; currently it's about 49% or so white. Either way, easy Dem district to hold.
NC-02 (very light purple, Bob Etheridge - D) - I'm not sure how strong this district is -- it takes in half of Wake County (Raleigh) and Republican Johnston County. Probably a tossup district now.
NC-03 (pink, Walter Jones - R) - Extends the entire coastline, but is at least more contiguous now. Safe Republican.
NC-04 (green, David Price - D) - Still safe Dem, although I changed its boundaries to include Republican Alamance County, which is overwhelmed by Chapel Hill and Durham.
NC-05 (dark purple, Virginia Foxx - R) - Safe Republican district. Didn't change much.
NC-06 (light purple, Howard Coble - R) - I excised all of Greensboro, so Coble would have to move to the suburbs (or retire, he's 79), but it's safe Republican.
NC-07 (red, Mike McIntyre - D) - This was annoying, because there's not much Democratic territory in the southernmost point of North Carolina. I kept most of his district but gave Brunswick County to Jones. Still leans Republican.
NC-08 (light blue, Larry Kissell - D) - Shifted eastwards, picking up more of Fayetteville and some Republican areas of McIntyre's district. Probably a little more Republican now.
NC-09 (yellow, Sue Myrick - R) - She'll have to move to the suburbs too, but she gets a safe district still.
NC-10 (dark green, Patrick McHenry - R) - The district shrunk but is still safe Republican.
NC-11 (dark blue, Heath Shuler - D) - Also shrunk a bit, and is maybe a little more Democratic now that it doesn't have a few of the district's easternmost counties.
NC-12 (teal, Mel Watt - D) - Controversy! I dismantled his plurality-white district that snakes from Charlotte to Winston-Salem and gave him a safe, albeit majority-white, metro Charlotte district. I'm sure it probably violates VRA, but oh well.
NC-13 (magenta, Brad Miller - D) - This one shrunk as well, but remains centered in Raleigh.
NC-14 (grey, open) - A new Democratic seat that consists of Greensboro and Winston-Salem. Thanks, Mel!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 28, 2009, 08:33:24 AM
I'm surprised nobody's done North Carolina yet. Here it is with a theoretical 14th district (which may or may not happen this time). You may want to open it in a new window to see it better.

()

As you can see, I've actually de-gerrymandered it to some extent. Here's the district breakdown:

NC-01 (brown, GK Butterfield - D) - I didn't bother trying to make this majority-black; it's a coalition district. I'm sure you could finagle it to 51% black if needed; currently it's about 49% or so white. Either way, easy Dem district to hold.
NC-02 (very light purple, Bob Etheridge - D) - I'm not sure how strong this district is -- it takes in half of Wake County (Raleigh) and Republican Johnston County. Probably a tossup district now.
NC-03 (pink, Walter Jones - R) - Extends the entire coastline, but is at least more contiguous now. Safe Republican.
NC-04 (green, David Price - D) - Still safe Dem, although I changed its boundaries to include Republican Alamance County, which is overwhelmed by Chapel Hill and Durham.
NC-05 (dark purple, Virginia Foxx - R) - Safe Republican district. Didn't change much.
NC-06 (light purple, Howard Coble - R) - I excised all of Greensboro, so Coble would have to move to the suburbs (or retire, he's 79), but it's safe Republican.
NC-07 (red, Mike McIntyre - D) - This was annoying, because there's not much Democratic territory in the southernmost point of North Carolina. I kept most of his district but gave Brunswick County to Jones. Still leans Republican.
NC-08 (light blue, Larry Kissell - D) - Shifted eastwards, picking up more of Fayetteville and some Republican areas of McIntyre's district. Probably a little more Republican now.
NC-09 (yellow, Sue Myrick - R) - She'll have to move to the suburbs too, but she gets a safe district still.
NC-10 (dark green, Patrick McHenry - R) - The district shrunk but is still safe Republican.
NC-11 (dark blue, Heath Shuler - D) - Also shrunk a bit, and is maybe a little more Democratic now that it doesn't have a few of the district's easternmost counties.
NC-12 (teal, Mel Watt - D) - Controversy! I dismantled his plurality-white district that snakes from Charlotte to Winston-Salem and gave him a safe, albeit majority-white, metro Charlotte district. I'm sure it probably violates VRA, but oh well.
NC-13 (magenta, Brad Miller - D) - This one shrunk as well, but remains centered in Raleigh.
NC-14 (grey, open) - A new Democratic seat that consists of Greensboro and Winston-Salem. Thanks, Mel!

Since the SCOTUS just ruled to continue requiring preclearance for states like NC, the lack of any majority black district would kill this plan. There will be a real challenge in NC to meet the VRA but not create a gerrymander which will fail on other grounds.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 29, 2009, 06:19:58 PM
Whichever court redrew the lines in 1994 seem to have cleaned up the lines a lot better in Houston than they did in Dallas-Fort Worth, from a worse starting point.
<i>Bush v. Vera</i> was delivered in June 1996.  Originally, 24 districts were challenged, but the district court ruled that only 3 districts, two in Houston, and one in Dallas had race been the primary motivation.  In other cases the intent was merely to pack Republicans so that Democrat incumbents could hang on to their seats.  BTW, the Oyez project has a recording of the oral arguments in <i>Bush v. Vera</i>.

In the case of Houston, two districts were interlocked, one black and one Hispanic.  There were hundreds of little twitches to take in a block one way or the other based on race.  So once you defined the main areas you wanted to connect it was relatively easy to provide a connection.  And there was only one other Democratic district that they were trying to preserve,  But if you notice, Tom Delay's district has lot of little indentations and was left alone except to balance the population.  The boundaries drawn by the district court were not as balanced as perfectly as possible, and they expected the legislature to finish the job up and perhaps straighten out some other boundaries.  But that didn't happen until the district court redrew the boundaries after the 2000 census.

The Supreme Court decision was after the primaries had been held, and rather than wait until 1998, the district court ordered the elections for the new districts be held as a special election in November 1996.  In Texas, a special congressional election is held without party primaries or nominations, and requires a majority election.  Even with the minor tweaks to some of the districts, 13 districts had special elections.  In some cases, the runoff was a rerun of the party primary in the spring. 

Ironically, the only material effect of the changes was that Nick Lampson was elected, defeating Steve Stockman.  Stockman had defeated Jack Brooks, a 42-year incumbent in 1992.  Stockman had led the November vote, but had not received a majority.  The runoff was in December, and turnout was much higher in Beaumont and Port Arthur, than in Houston where the election got little coverage.  The only changes to the district were quite small, and if there had been an actual effort to avoid a special election by not making the changes, they probably could have been avoided.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 30, 2009, 07:19:25 PM
Here's a fun little gerrymander of Missouri with 8 districts:

()

MO-01 (green, Lacy Clay Emmanuel Cleaver - D) - Expands to all of Jackson County and part of Cass, but should still be a solidly Democratic district.
MO-02 (teal, Todd Akin - R) - Takes in Warren and Franklin Counties now and part of Pike. Probably doesn't change the lean of the district much, as it was 55% McCain before and all those counties went 55% McCain.
MO-03 (yellow, Russ Carnahan - D) - Once again expanding, taking in some swingy rural areas, but should still be lean Dem.
MO-04 (dark blue, Ike Skelton - D) - This is the fun part. I wanted to make a district that a Dem could hold after Skelton retires, and I came up with this T-shaped thing. McCain won the district by about 3,000 votes, if my math is correct, so it has a slight Republican lean, but is much friendlier territory than Skelton's old district.
MO-05 (red, Emmanuel Cleaver Lacy Clay - D) - Not much to say here, it just got a little bigger. Remains solidly Dem and about 47% black (it's 49.6% or so currently, so no VRA issues).
MO-06 (dark purple, Sam Graves - R) - I had to borrow a lot of the Kansas City area of Graves' district to help Skelton out, so now it has expanded to take up nearly half the state, geographically speaking. Probably even more Republican now.
MO-07 (grey, open/Blaine Luetkemeyer - R) - I dismantled Luetkemeyer's district and stuck him in Blunt's old district, since his successor and Luet would be the two least senior members of the House delegation. Another safe R district.
MO-08 (light purple, Jo Ann Emerson - R) - This district didn't change a whole lot.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on July 01, 2009, 08:55:41 AM
There's some weird inversion of the 1st district (Clay, St. Louis) and the 5th district (Cleaver, KC) in your description and color choices.

Graves/Skelton reminded me of this

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 01, 2009, 09:30:33 AM
I always get those two mixed up. I nearly swapped akin and graves, too. Really, the problem is that missouri has the least noteworthy house delegation of a state with more than one or two reps.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Frodo on July 01, 2009, 09:37:02 AM
Is anybody going to do Virginia?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 01, 2009, 09:48:33 AM
I'd love to do virginia but it's not supported on the app.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Badlands17 on July 03, 2009, 07:55:25 AM
I gave this app a crack for my native state, Indiana. I wanted to make a nonpartisan map so I made it and then looked up how it would affect the existing representatives.

()


District 1 (blue) trades in Newton, Jasper, and Benton counties for the Michigan City area; probably slightly safer for Visclosky.

District 2 (green) is adjusted a little to the east and loses Michigan City and gerrymandered Kokomo, so it's probably less safe for Joe Donnelly in the process.

District 3 (royal purple) is pushed up against the Ohio state line by the 2nd, and as a result expands southward slightly. Souter still safe in most challenges, can get down to favored.

District 4 (red) loses its gerrymandered constituencies in Bedford and the Indy suburbs and gains the Terre Haute area. While initially probably lean Rep, the Lafayette area has been becoming more Dem lately (seen by the particularly strong performance of Barack Obama last year), and this might very well be a swing district by the end of the 2010s.

District 5 (gold) is a suburban ring around Indianapolis, composed entirely of county fragments. Both Steve Buyer and Dan Burton are going to have to fight for this one, but it will be even stronger Republican than it was before.

District 6 (teal) is a belt stretching from Richmond to Kokomo made up of towns with low prospects and population growth (that were not helped by the auto industry's recent collapse, upon which it was heavily dependent). More Dem but still lean Rep.

District 7 (gray) is modified as to be stronger Dem, designed to take in as many lower-class minority constituents as possible (however, it's still three fifths white).

District 8 (grayish purple) trades the Terre Haute area for the Bloomington area; slightly safer for Ellsworth.

District 9 (turquoise) is pulled to the east and probably becomes lean Rep; Pence and Hill fight for this one.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: afleitch on July 03, 2009, 12:57:52 PM
I've been using this to create UK sized hypothetical constituencies for some seats. Cos...you know I'm bored


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Hash on July 03, 2009, 01:19:47 PM
I've been using this to create UK sized hypothetical constituencies for some seats. Cos...you know I'm bored

Post the maps!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on July 05, 2009, 01:21:51 AM
10 districts for Mass on 2000 population.   Boston, 3 inner suburban, 3 outer suburban-exurban, Worcester-Springfield, Western Mass-Springfield, and Fall River-New Bedford-Cape Cod-Islands

This is the updated version based on whole towns.  The smallest deviation is to place Milton and Winthrop with Boston.  This shifted Chelsea to the NE, and then the 3 districts north of Boston were rotated counterclockwise, producing more of a coastal Cape Anne district, and interior district that includes both Lawrence and Lowell in the same district, and a district concentrated in the densely population towns immediately north of the Charles.  In the west, I tried to balance the population from the Springfield and Worcester areas, which meant that Chicopee, and all of Hampden County east of the Connecticut river is now in the district.  This resulted in more of an L-shaped district.  Some other small changes were made to better balance population.

Maximum deviation is 0.22%, with a mean absolute deviation of 0.11% or just short of 700.

In a 9-district plan, the Central Massachusetts district between Worcester and Boston disappears.  The western districts should take in Fitchburg and Leominster, and hopefully let the western district include Springfield, while the next district will be mostly Worcester County.

The SE district should take in Taunton, while the next district takes in Quincy.  Other districts may take in Brookline and Newton, which will result in major westward shift in the Norfolk district to take in the southern parts of the Central Mass districts.

Proposed names for districts:

Western Massachusetts
Springfield and Worcester
Central Massachusetts
Lawrence and Lowell
Cape Anne
SE Middlesex
Boston
Norfolk
Brockton, Taunton and Attleboro
Fall River, New Bedford, Cape Cod, and Islands

()

()



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 05, 2009, 05:35:47 PM
Took another stab at Ohio, minus two districts:

()

OH-01 (light purple, Steve Driehaus - D) - Again, the only logical thing to do with this district is make it metro Cincinnati.
OH-02 (light blue, Jean Schmidt - R) - A Republican shouldn't lose this district; Schmidt should hold on despite the crazy factor.
OH-03 (magenta, Mike Turner - R) - Made this a swing district, with Dayton as the center of population.
OH-04 (yellowish-green, Jim Jordan - R and Pat Tiberi - R) - Safe R, but I drew it to include Jordan and Tiberi. Primary time!
OH-05 (brown, Bob Latta - R) - Fun stretchy shape because I had to have someone take up those counties in the upper middle of the state.
OH-06 (light green, Charlie Wilson - D) - Added the non-Youngstown parts of Mahoning and removed some of the southernmost counties, so it should be a little more Democratic now.
OH-07 (grey, Steve Austria - R) - This one didn't change a whole lot, and is still safe R.
OH-08 (yellow, John Boehner - R) - Another safe R district that didn't change much.
OH-09 (red, Marcy Kaptur - D) - Had to take in some swingy areas to make up for the loss in population, but should still be safe D, as it's still anchored in Toledo.
OH-10 (dark green, Dennis Kucinich - D) - Expands to include part of Lorain, but still safe for the leprechaun.
OH-11 (dark blue, Marcia Fudge - D) - I really don't think there's any way to keep this majority-black. It's a coalition district now.
OH-12 (orange, Zack Space - D) - formerly OH-18, there's not a whole lot I could do to make Space's district safer. I stretched it up to Huron to make it somewhat less Republican.
OH-13 (pink, Betty Sutton - D) - All of Summit and Portage Counties now, should still have been won by Obama by 10 or 11 points.
OH-14 (dark purple, Tim Ryan - D and Steve LaTourette - R) - The fun really starts here. Includes Ryan's base of Youngstown and LaTourette's base of Lake. I'd give Ryan a slight edge in this matchup.
OH-15 (teal, Mary Jo Kilroy - D) - Metro Columbus, an easier district for Kilroy to win.
OH-16 (very light purple, John Boccieri - D) - Another gerrymander to make Boccieri's district more Democratic.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on July 06, 2009, 12:56:57 AM
Took another stab at Ohio, minus two districts:

()

OH-06 (light green, Charlie Wilson - D) - Added the non-Youngstown parts of Mahoning and removed some of the southernmost counties, so it should be a little more Democratic now.
OH-12 (orange, Zack Space - D) - formerly OH-18, there's not a whole lot I could do to make Space's district safer. I stretched it up to Huron to make it somewhat less Republican.
OH-16 (very light purple, John Boccieri - D) - Another gerrymander to make Boccieri's district more Democratic.

Wilson's current district already includes Mahoning minus Youngstown.  Also, that OH-12 would probably be the end of Zach Space.  Not that there's much you can do to shore him up, but any major constituent shift like that is going to hurt him a lot unless its all D friendly territory.  I think there's a better way to try to keep Space around but it puts Wilson in a swingy and probably R leaning district.  Here's what I cam up with after going at it again:

()

Incumbents, Dreihaus (Blue), Schmidt (Green), Kucinich (Pink), Fudge(Yellow-Green), Tiberi (Lilac), Sutton (Peach), Kilroy (Orange), and Boccieri (Bright Green) are all safe.

The Purple district wrapping around Dayton pits Boehner and Jordan against each other in a primary.  I wonder who would win that one?  ;)

The Yellow district has no incumbent and Jordan might be under pressure to move in there.

The Cyan district pits Kaptur against Latta rather than ensuring he won't get stomped by her.  He might opt for the Yellow district regardless of Jordan's decision.

The Dayton based Dark Purple district pits Austria against Turner and is more Dem friendly than Turner's current 3rd district but is probably still R-leaning

The Gray district is empty and Austria might move in here as it should be fairly easy for a Republican to take.

I also sent Ryan into a match with LaTourette and I agree that Ryan has the advantage on paper.

I gave the rest of Mahoning to Boccieri (Bright Green) making him pretty safe.

In the Red district I gave all of Lorain County to Space.  This should be more than enough to counterbalance the smaller R-heavy Ashland and Holmes Counties making this a naturally D-leaning district which Space should have to trouble in.

Wilson (Blue-Green) gets the shaft in my map.  His district is probably still a swing district though and Democrats are currently doing a pretty good job of holding onto economically depressed rural areas despite any slight Republican presidential leanings.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 06, 2009, 05:41:19 PM
Took another stab at Ohio, minus two districts:

()

OH-06 (light green, Charlie Wilson - D) - Added the non-Youngstown parts of Mahoning and removed some of the southernmost counties, so it should be a little more Democratic now.
OH-12 (orange, Zack Space - D) - formerly OH-18, there's not a whole lot I could do to make Space's district safer. I stretched it up to Huron to make it somewhat less Republican.
OH-16 (very light purple, John Boccieri - D) - Another gerrymander to make Boccieri's district more Democratic.

Wilson's current district already includes Mahoning minus Youngstown.  Also, that OH-12 would probably be the end of Zach Space.  Not that there's much you can do to shore him up, but any major constituent shift like that is going to hurt him a lot unless its all D friendly territory.  I think there's a better way to try to keep Space around but it puts Wilson in a swingy and probably R leaning district.  Here's what I cam up with after going at it again:

()

Incumbents, Dreihaus (Blue), Schmidt (Green), Kucinich (Pink), Fudge(Yellow-Green), Tiberi (Lilac), Sutton (Peach), Kilroy (Orange), and Boccieri (Bright Green) are all safe.

The Purple district wrapping around Dayton pits Boehner and Jordan against each other in a primary.  I wonder who would win that one?  ;)

The Yellow district has no incumbent and Jordan might be under pressure to move in there.

The Cyan district pits Kaptur against Latta rather than ensuring he won't get stomped by her.  He might opt for the Yellow district regardless of Jordan's decision.

The Dayton based Dark Purple district pits Austria against Turner and is more Dem friendly than Turner's current 3rd district but is probably still R-leaning

The Gray district is empty and Austria might move in here as it should be fairly easy for a Republican to take.

I also sent Ryan into a match with LaTourette and I agree that Ryan has the advantage on paper.

I gave the rest of Mahoning to Boccieri (Bright Green) making him pretty safe.

In the Red district I gave all of Lorain County to Space.  This should be more than enough to counterbalance the smaller R-heavy Ashland and Holmes Counties making this a naturally D-leaning district which Space should have to trouble in.

Wilson (Blue-Green) gets the shaft in my map.  His district is probably still a swing district though and Democrats are currently doing a pretty good job of holding onto economically depressed rural areas despite any slight Republican presidential leanings.

It certainly looks like one of Space or Wilson is going to be screwed in redistricting. There are just too many Democratic Reps packed into the northeastern quadrant of the state (Wilson, Space, Boccieri, Ryan, Sutton, Kucinich and Fudge) to support them all. I would rather try to save Wilson -- he seems to be a little to the left of Space, and Space has a better shot at holding a Republican district anyway (although he's been lucky to have two dud opponents so far).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 10, 2009, 06:56:55 AM
I took another shot at Minnesota, this time aiming for a 6-1 Democratic map:

()

MN-01 (blue, Tim Walz - D) - Took out a few Republican counties to shore up his district a bit.
MN-02 (green, Erik Paulsen - R) - Paulsen gets the safe R district here, taking in a lot of the exurbs that were in Bachmann's district.
MN-03 (purple, Betty McCollum - D and John Kline - R) - I put Kline in McCollum's district so he would either have to lose, retire, or move and challenge Bachmann or Paulsen.
MN-04 (yellow, Keith Ellison - D) - Not much changed here. Safest district in the state.
MN-05 (grey, Michele Bachmann - R) - To get rid of Bachmann I removed her base of the exurbs and put in most of the inner suburbs of the Twin Cities. Heck, it may even have been won by Obama now. A sane Republican could hold it, but probably not Bachmann.
MN-06 (red, Collin Peterson - D) - Slightly more Republican now, but safe for Peterson.
MN-07 (teal, Jim Oberstar - D) - I'm somewhat unhappy with this one, because now it has to go all the way to the Twin Cities suburbs. Probably pushes it closer to a swing district now.

Now, Minnesota people, tell me how stupid I am (again).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 12, 2009, 02:46:22 PM
I know how to get people to comment on my maps...

()

Less a district. I gave Kanjo the boot.

PA-01 (dark green, Bob Brady - D) - Super-safe Philly district. Yawn.
PA-02 (dark blue, Chaka Fattah - D) - See above, 51% black.
PA-03 (purple district in the NW corner, Kathy Dahlkemper - D) - Had to expand southward, but shouldn't have changed the partisan composition much, as I did remove some of the more Republican counties in the district to compensate.
PA-04 (magenta, Jason Altmire - D) - Western half of Allegheny County and its environs; probably a little more Democratic now.
PA-05 (pink, GT Thompson - R) - Safe Republican district, most of the T.
PA-06 (dark red, Jim Gerlach - R) - This is actually better for the Republicans now that it's most of Chester and all of Berks. Oh well, still 54% Obama or whatever.
PA-07 (yellow one in the SE corner, Joe Sestak - D) - All of Delaware and a bit of Chester, probably close to a safe Dem district now.
PA-08 (yellow-green in the SE corner, Patrick Murphy - D) - Chopped off the top end of Berks and put in some more of Philly. A little more Democratic now?
PA-09 (light purple, Bill Shuster - R) - Actually, this is about the same district as before. Super-safe Republican.
PA-10 (teal, Chris Carney - D) - Takes in Luzerne and Lackawanna and becomes a much more Democratic district.
PA-11 (gold one in between PA-09 and grey, formerly PA-19, Todd Russell Platts - R) - Who? This one didn't change much either. Safe Republican.
PA-12 (dark purple snake, John Murtha - D) - Okay, I had no desire to keep the Murthamander, but I didn't want to just give away a district, so I made this intersting little fellow. I was really trying to make the districts more comprehensible than the current gerrymander, but SW PA is all jacked up. Three Congressmen that live in Allegheny County? Seriously?
PA-13 (light purple in the SE, Allyson Schwarz - D) - Nearly all of Montgomery County and is pretty safe.
PA-14 (orange, Mike Doyle - D) - Most of Pittsburgh and the eastern suburbs. Also safe, I would assume.
PA-15 (brown, Charlie Dent - R) - Didn't change much, but it took the northern end of Berks from Murphy. Should still be around 56% Obama, but I'm sure Dent will hold it until he dies.
PA-16 (grey, Joe Pitts - R) - Mostly unchanged, just weird at the bottom because Pitts lives in Chester, but his district is Lancaster-based.
PA-17 (light blue, Tim Holden - D) - The rest of Kanjo's district got put in with Holden to make a district that is probably around 50-50, if not a little Dem-leaning now.
PA-18 (green one in the west, Tim Murphy - R) - Yeah, I don't know why the dude lives outside of Pittsburgh. Anyway, his district is safe R.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on July 13, 2009, 12:30:10 AM
10 districts for Mass on 2000 population.   Boston, 3 inner suburban, 3 outer suburban-exurban, Worcester-Springfield, Western Mass-Springfield, and Fall River-New Bedford-Cape Cod-Islands.

Plus a modified version based on 2007 estimates.  10 towns were shifted:

(1) + Ashburnham
(2) no change.
(3) - Ashburnham, - Ayer.
(4) + Ayer, + Merrimac, + West Newbury, - Wilmington
(5) + Melrose, - Merrimac, -Wakefield, - West Newbury
(6) - Melrose, +Wakefield, + Wilmington
(7) no change
(8 ) + Plainville
(9) + Freetown, - Kingston, - Plainville
(10) - Freetown, + Kingston

For the new plan maximum absolute deviation 0.16% (1015); mean absolute deviation 0.05% (329)

2000
()
2007
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on July 14, 2009, 03:07:23 AM
My map is much meaner to LaTourette.

()

I resisted the urge to put Kucinich's district in Lake County too

Other parts of the map

()
()
()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on July 14, 2009, 08:08:36 AM
Is population decline going to screw LaTourette no matter what happens? It looks like any direction he goes in is going to add Democrats, sometimes in large numbers.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on July 14, 2009, 05:04:47 PM
2000 10 districts:
()
2007 9 districts:

Mean absolute deviation 0.1% or about 694.  As expected, the Central Mass district disappears.  It is possible to get most of the more populous Connecticut Valley into the West Mass district.  The plan pretty much follows county boundaries with Franklin County minus one town with Worcester; and all of Hampden county, and all of Hampshire County minus 3 towns with Berkshire County.  Fitchburg and Leominster were shifted to the west.  The city of Worcester is close to the edge of its district, but I'm not sure that that there are better alternatives.

Quincy and Milton are the best fit with Boston (0.003%) which meant that the suburban districts ended up being shifted clockwise, to account for the shift in Quincy.

Given the slow growth of the State, something like this plan could be stable until Massachusetts loses its ninth district, though the Boston district could have major shifts in order to maintain population equality and not splitting towns.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on July 15, 2009, 02:29:33 AM
Is population decline going to screw LaTourette no matter what happens? It looks like any direction he goes in is going to add Democrats, sometimes in large numbers.

Yes and no.  His base of Lake County is growing along with Geauga County which is far more Republican friendly than its neighbors.  So really, his district has to expand because the Democratic counties are bleeding population.  I guess you could say his district has to gain more Democrats because it's lost too many.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on July 15, 2009, 08:04:28 AM
Is population decline going to screw LaTourette no matter what happens? It looks like any direction he goes in is going to add Democrats, sometimes in large numbers.

Yes and no.  His base of Lake County is growing along with Geauga County which is far more Republican friendly than its neighbors.  So really, his district has to expand because the Democratic counties are bleeding population.  I guess you could say his district has to gain more Democrats because it's lost too many.

Right... "population decline" was unclear, I meant in terms of the state's relative decline which is causing it to lose two districts and which will make his district take in territory because even if it's doing well for Ohio, the 14th is lagging the country as a whole.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on July 15, 2009, 08:32:11 PM
I created an 8 district Missouri.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on July 15, 2009, 11:49:55 PM
Here's my take on Missouri. Lacy Clay's district is ever-so-slightly plurality black (by just under 2000 people).

()

Luetkemeyer and Graves, being freshmen, get tossed together in MO-06. MO-04 now stretches along the Missouri River to take in the similar communities along its banks instead of combining them with the ultra-rural counties surrounding them. MO-05 is a mere 21% black despite being represented by a black congressman, but he should be in no danger. MO-03 stretches out into rural-ish areas a bit but not so far as to make Carnahan vulnerable. It's also bleached down even further, losing most of its previous black-majority precincts in St. Louis City and down to a mere 4% black, hardly above the Republican districts. Overall, this map makes three safe Democratic districts (MO-01, MO-03 and MO-05), one district that would be competitive/lean Republican but has a popular Democratic incumbent (MO-04) and four safe Republican districts (MO-02, MO-06, MO-07 and MO-08).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 16, 2009, 06:14:13 AM
Here's my take on Missouri. Lacy Clay's district is ever-so-slightly plurality black (by just under 2000 people).

()

Luetkemeyer and Graves, being freshmen, get tossed together in MO-06. MO-04 now stretches along the Missouri River to take in the similar communities along its banks instead of combining them with the ultra-rural counties surrounding them. MO-05 is a mere 21% black despite being represented by a black congressman, but he should be in no danger. MO-03 stretches out into rural-ish areas a bit but not so far as to make Carnahan vulnerable. It's also bleached down even further, losing most of its previous black-majority precincts in St. Louis City and down to a mere 4% black, hardly above the Republican districts. Overall, this map makes three safe Democratic districts (MO-01, MO-03 and MO-05), one district that would be competitive/lean Republican but has a popular Democratic incumbent (MO-04) and four safe Republican districts (MO-02, MO-06, MO-07 and MO-08).

Looks like we had pretty similar intentions:

Here's a fun little gerrymander of Missouri with 8 districts:
()

Graves is not a freshman, however; whoever replaces Blunt will be, which is why I put Luetkemeyer in that district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on July 16, 2009, 10:44:28 PM
I don't know why I thought Graves was a freshman. Oh well, I like my map a lot better anyway. It's much neater. Although I realize now that I used the old population figures rather than the new estimates, so it's not a great map. Still, I could probably make up all of the differences by fiddling around with the split counties.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on July 18, 2009, 01:02:52 AM
Here's my take on Washington with ten districts. This map *may* actually be 8-2, which is not what I intended; I'm not sure whether the changes make Reichert more or less safe. (His district is obviously WA-07 on this map.) WA-04 is also competitive, although not extremely so (the parts of Yakima in it are all very Native American and thus Democratic).

()

For fun:

WA-01: Spokane
WA-02: Bellingham, Wenatchee and the Islands
WA-03: Yakima, Walla Walla and the Tri-Cities
WA-04: Vancouver and the Columbia Gorge
WA-05: Olympia and the Olympics
WA-06: Tacoma and Olympia East
WA-07: Renton
WA-08: Seattle Center
WA-09: Everett and Shoreline
WA-10: Bellevue and Seattle North


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 18, 2009, 06:47:34 AM
Here's my take on Washington with ten districts. This map *may* actually be 8-2, which is not what I intended; I'm not sure whether the changes make Reichert more or less safe. (His district is obviously WA-07 on this map.) WA-04 is also competitive, although not extremely so (the parts of Yakima in it are all very Native American and thus Democratic).

()

For fun:

WA-01: Spokane
WA-02: Bellingham, Wenatchee and the Islands
WA-03: Yakima, Walla Walla and the Tri-Cities
WA-04: Vancouver and the Columbia Gorge
WA-05: Olympia and the Olympics
WA-06: Tacoma and Olympia East
WA-07: Renton
WA-08: Seattle Center
WA-09: Everett and Shoreline
WA-10: Bellevue and Seattle North

If Reichert's district has a higher proportion of Pierce to King now (which I think it does, it looks so), he's safer. He won King 51-49 in 2008 but Pierce 59-41.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on July 18, 2009, 12:25:41 PM
Here's my take on Washington with ten districts. This map *may* actually be 8-2, which is not what I intended; I'm not sure whether the changes make Reichert more or less safe. (His district is obviously WA-07 on this map.) WA-04 is also competitive, although not extremely so (the parts of Yakima in it are all very Native American and thus Democratic).

()

For fun:

WA-01: Spokane
WA-02: Bellingham, Wenatchee and the Islands
WA-03: Yakima, Walla Walla and the Tri-Cities
WA-04: Vancouver and the Columbia Gorge
WA-05: Olympia and the Olympics
WA-06: Tacoma and Olympia East
WA-07: Renton
WA-08: Seattle Center
WA-09: Everett and Shoreline
WA-10: Bellevue and Seattle North

If Reichert's district has a higher proportion of Pierce to King now (which I think it does, it looks so), he's safer. He won King 51-49 in 2008 but Pierce 59-41.

It's more than that, though. The district loses some of his strongholds in King like Sammamish and Medina while gaining somewhat more urban parts of King and Pierce. It also loses Bellevue, though, which is I assume the most Democratic part of current WA-08.

The precinct maps of King and Pierce Counties that Alcon did back in November/December would be useful here.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 19, 2009, 11:25:26 AM
Democratic gerrymander of Louisiana:

()

I've created a map that could theoretically go 4-2 Dem, although it could always just go 6-0 Republican. Though I doubt Cassidy could survive his district being turned into a majority-minority one.

LA-01 (red, Steve Scalise - R) - Still an uber-safe white district.
LA-02 (teal, Joseph Cao - R) - This becomes a plurality-white district (45% white, 43% black, 6% Hispanic, 2% Asian), so Cao would have a shot at re-election here (assuming he were to win in 2010).
LA-03 (green, Charles Boustany - R) - Boustany's district shifts east and takes in a lot of counties that would be favorable to a Melancon-like Democrat.
LA-04 (yellow, John Fleming - R) - Those little tendrils to the south and east make this district 52% white and 42% black. Would make it tougher for Fleming to hold.
LA-05 (purple, Rodney Alexander - R) - Loses nearly half its black population and becomes safer for the Republicans.
LA-06 (blue, Bill Cassidy - R) - Apparently a majority-black district outside of New Orleans in possible. 51% black, 43% white.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Nhoj on July 25, 2009, 11:41:40 AM
He has added new york now. He doesn't have it yet listed as so but it is there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 25, 2009, 12:33:44 PM
Does it load for you? My browser keeps crashing when it tries to load the "new population estimates" part. I've never had this problem with any of the other states.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Nhoj on July 25, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Does it load for you? My browser keeps crashing when it tries to load the "new population estimates" part. I've never had this problem with any of the other states.
yes it froze my browser up on me. but it eventually loaded.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 26, 2009, 06:44:04 AM
Well, having done New York, I can say it's a really boring state to redistrict. Here it is losing a district; I axed NY-23.

()

NY-01 through NY-17 - These districts didn't change much, if any. All safe D, except for NY-01, which leans D, NY-03, which leans R, and NY-13, which is a swing district.
NY-18 (purple, Westchester-based district; Nita Lowey - D) - Picks up Republican Putnam County, which should be balanced out by Westchester.
NY-19 (ugly green Dutchess/Orange district; John Hall - D) - Loses Putnam and is basically all of Orange and Dutchess now, making it slightly more Democratic.
NY-20 (brown, Scott Murphy - D) - Chopped off the southern part of the district and added parts of NY-23. A couple points more Democratic now.
NY-21 (pink, Albany-based district; Paul Tonko - D) - Slightly more Republican due to some Republican parts of NY-23 added, but still safe D.
NY-22 (dark red, Maurice Hinchey - D) - Lost quite a bit of Dem territory, but still Dem-leaning.
NY-23 (pink, backwards-C shaped district, Eric Massa - D, formerly NY-29) - Cut out a lot of the Republican parts and added Tompkins, Seneca, and more of Monroe. Probably won by Obama now.
NY-24 (dark purple, Mike Arcuri - D) - Still a 50-50 district. If Scozzafava wins in NY-23, she'll be in this district, so Arcuri's going to have to learn how to campaign better.
NY-25 (pale green in the middle of the state, Dan Maffei - D) - Picked up Cortland and part of Chenango. Probably a little more R now, but still leans D.
NY-26 (grey, Chris Lee - R) - Safe R district! Pretty much every Republican county in Western NY.
NY-27 (dark pink, Erie-based; Brian Higgins - D) - Didn't change much.
NY-28 (green, Niagra/Orleans/Monroe/Erie district, Louise Slaughter - D) - Nor this one.

So, there you have it. If the Democrats pick up NY-23 this year, it's going to be hard for them to preserve the district, because NY-29 has a lot of Republican territory that would have to be split up.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on July 27, 2009, 08:39:23 AM
Louise Slaughter lives in Fairport, southeast of Rochester, FWIW. The current gerrymander loops her in.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on July 27, 2009, 08:45:55 AM
Massa's district could definitely be made more safe by switching Steuben and maybe parts (all?) of Chemung for parts/all of Ontario, which only barely voted for McCain. That would also make the district boundaries neater. Unless Massa lives in Steuben/Chemung? (Ontario was 49-49; Steuben was 41-58 while Chemung was 49-50.)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 27, 2009, 05:36:59 PM
Massa does indeed live in Steuben, the only reason that county is in his district.

Was not aware Slaughter lived in that part. Wikipedia's maps showing the location of towns in NY are crappy.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on July 28, 2009, 03:56:03 PM
Massa does indeed live in Steuben, the only reason that county is in his district.

Was not aware Slaughter lived in that part. Wikipedia's maps showing the location of towns in NY are crappy.

I was at the Fairport High School 20th reunion this weekend with my partner. He's not particularly political but he knows Louise Slaughter is local. :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on July 29, 2009, 12:14:29 AM
All right, New York!

NY-01: Outer Suffolk
Largely unchanged, border with NY-02 neatened up

NY-02: Inner Suffolk
Also largely unchanged, borders neatened up

NY-03: Nassau South
In an effort to actually combine communities of interest in Nassau instead of the pell-mell gerrymandering of the current map, I reorganized the districts into a South Shore and a North Shore district. This one covers the South Shore now.

NY-04: Nassau North
Similar to Nassau South, this district takes in the North Shore of Nassau County. The relatively slow growth of Nassau County means this district expands while NY-05 contracts into Queens.

NY-05: Queens North East
This district contracts into Queens, and now contains Flushing, Bayside, College Point and a handful of other outer Queens neighborhoods. Plurality white (42%) with a very substantial Asian minority (33%)

NY-06: Queens South East
Containing Jamaica, Far Rockaway and a few adjacent areas in Nassau, this district is the first majority-black district at exactly 50%. Whites are only 18%, though; Hispanics are 16% and Asians 11%. The boundaries of this CD have been neatened up somewhat.

NY-07: Queens North West
Containing Jackson Heights, Corona, Astoria, Long Island City and numerous other inner Queens neighborhoods, this district has withdrawn entirely out of the Bronx and therefore declined slightly in Hispanic population, but it’s still strongly plurality Hispanic at 43%, to 24% white and 23% Asian.

NY-08: I’d rather not talk about this one.
The result of my neatening up in New York City was that Anthony Weiner’s district disappeared and reappeared in the Bronx and Westchester. Also, because I wanted to create a black-plurality district around the Bronx, Mount Vernon and Yonkers (NY-17, below), this district ends up misshapen. If one were not trying to create a black-plurality district, it would be easy enough to neaten things up substantially by moving one of the two districts entirely into the Bronx and the other northward into Westchester.

NY-09: Brooklyn South and Rockaway
Containing Coney Island, Gravesend and Rockaway Point, this district withdraws entirely from non-Rockaway Queens and becomes a solidly Brooklyn-based district. It’s also probably not strongly Democratic, although I can’t imagine it actually electing a Republican. (It’s probably D+8 or so.)

NY-10: Brooklyn East
Containing East Flatbush, New Lots, Canarsie, Cypress Hills and a few adjacent areas in Queens, this is the second black-majority district, at 54%.

NY-11: Brooklyn Central
Containing Bed-Stuy and the neighborhoods adjacent to Prospect Park, this is the third black-majority district, at 56%.

NY-12: Brooklyn North and the Lower East Side
The bulk of this district’s population is in Brooklyn, but it does make forays into both Manhattan and Queens to take in extra population in these boroughs and to achieve a Hispanic plurality. Unlike the extremely gerrymandered monstrosity that preceded it, however, this version is only 38% Hispanic, and 35% white, which may be objectionable.

NY-13: Staten Island and Brooklyn South West
More or less the same as the current district, maybe marginally more Democratic than previous due to a rearrangement of which Brooklyn areas are in the district.

NY-14: Manhattan South and Central
This is the Silk Stocking District reimagined. The old version contained a big chunk of Queens in Astoria and LIC; this version is entirely within Manhattan and takes in the wealthy neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan as well as the ultra-liberal neighborhoods along the Hudson. Since Anthony Weiner’s district went *poof*, he probably inherits this one from Carolyn Maloney.

NY-15: Manhattan North
Charlie Rangel will eventually lose a primary as demographics shift; that is inevitable. This district is only 27% black, and even with valiant (abandoned) gerrymandering attempts I couldn’t get blacks to second-place status, let alone a plurality. (Whites are 32% in this CD; Hispanics are 34%.) This district contracts southward slightly, now taking in all of the Upper West Side but losing part of Inwood.

NY-16: Bronx Southwest
Containing Inwood in Manhattan as well as the southwestern neighborhoods of the Bronx, this district is overwhelmingly Hispanic at 66%, and only 4% white, probably the lowest percentage in the nation. (It’s 25% black.) Otherwise, it’s not terribly exciting and little changed, other than the new foray into Manhattan and the loss of some areas of the Bronx to…

NY-17: Bronx North and Mount Vernon
This surprisingly compact district has a black plurality. It’s a reimagining of Eliot Engel’s district to focus on the black population concentrated in extreme southern Westchester and the central and northern Bronx. At 35% black and 34% Hispanic, it might not elect a black Congressman, but it probably would. Whites make up only 22% of the district; they live mostly in Riverdale and around Van Cortlandt Park.

NY-18: Tarrytown and Rockland
This district is shoved further upstate, losing big chunks of Westchester for more of Rockland and a small part of Orange. Despite the change, it’s still solidly Democratic; the Westchester portion is the bulk of the district and voted around 60% for Obama.

NY-19: Hudson Valley East
John Hall breathes a sigh of relief. Containing Democratic-leaning Dutchess and Columbia Counties as well as the most Democratic portions of Orange County, this district easily makes up for the Republican lean of exurban Putnam County to make a reasonably secure district for Hall. D+3 would be my guess.


NY-20: Adirondacks
This district migrates northward dramatically, taking in many of the rural counties previously associated with NY-23 (indeed, it may be considered a renumbering of NY-23). However, it contains Scott Murphy’s strongholds in Washington and Warren Counties and loses some Republican areas to the west. Overall, it is probably around D+1, and it would be a fierce battle between Murphy and Scozzafava, assuming the latter wins the NY-23 special election.

NY-21: Albany North and Schenectady
The splitting of Albany is regrettable but a geographic necessity to reach the required population for NY-22. Nonetheless, this district is reasonably compact and reasonably Democratic, probably similar to its current partisanship or only a slight decline. It moves northward and eastward, losing much of Albany County and areas beyond it while gaining the rest of Rensselaer and most of Saratoga.

NY-22: Albany South and Hudson Valley West
This district loses its ridiculous extension to Ithaca and instead takes in more rural areas. Anchored around Kingston and also containing some very Democratic suburbs of Albany and even a part of the city itself, it’s still not likely to go Republican, although maybe more so than previously. D+5?

NY-23: Syracuse and Rome
Okay, this district bears almost no resemblance to the old NY-23. It takes in Syracuse and some surrounding counties, but is overall reasonably solidly Democratic due to Syracuse. Likely D+3 or so.

NY-24: Ithaca and Binghamton
It’s pretty much impossible to draw a Republican district containing Ithaca; this district is no different. It’s probably the most Democratic of the non-urban upstate districts, although that still means it’s only about D+4.

NY-25: Rochester
Yawn. This district could have been drawn just in Monroe County, but either way it’s solidly Democratic. Louise Slaughter lives in this district although it little resembles her previous district.

NY-26: Southern Tier
a.k.a the Burned Over District, a.k.a Republican-land. Not much to say about this one other than that Lee is very safe.

NY-27: Buffalo South
Less solid for Higgins due to gaining Cattaraugus County and losing more of Buffalo, but he should still be safe in this D+4 or so district.

NY-28: Buffalo North and Niagara Falls
I think the Buffalo parts of this district anchor it as Democratic, but I’m not certain. Well over half of the district is in Erie County, much of that in Buffalo, but the rest of the district leans Republican; although it resembles Louise Slaughter’s district, this one is a very different beast. I’m guessing D+2 or so.


()

Also, could someone explain to me how you do area maps?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 08, 2009, 12:34:56 PM
Here's a map of Louisiana with 150k population districts (29 in total):

()

I wanted to see how many majority black districts I could make; I ended up with 9, although as you can see that required a little finesse in some places. There are three of them in New Orleans (yellow, dark blue, and dark green), two in Baton Rouge (light green and pink), one between those two cities (grey), one northwest of Baton Rouge (light green, sort of dog-shaped) one in Shreveport (orange), and one in the Monroe area (purple "--C"-shaped one).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 09, 2009, 05:05:58 PM
I had some time to play around with the tool this afternoon and looked at the map of MA using the 2008 data. I divided no town except for Boston as this is the primary goal of any MA map. All the districts are within 300 persons of the ideal size which is less than 0.1% maximum variation. I attempted to balance two secondary goals: to keep districts somewhat compact and to keep county fragments to a minimum.

()

Some items of interest compared to the current map which loses CD 10.

CD 1 picks up Springfield and loses the northern part.

CD 2 shifts east to pick up Worcester and Franklin County.

CD 3 becomes more compact and links the Fitchburg area to Framingham and Dedham.

CD 4 shifts south and east to take in the Cape and Islands from current CD 10.

CD 5 remains centered on Lowell and Lawrence, but dips south to the Woburn area.

CD 6 extends south all the way into the northern part of Boston including Beacon Hill.

CD 7 shifts south to pick up Newton, Brookline and the Allston-Brighton part of Boston.

CD 8 takes up the rest of Boston and the near south suburbs including Quincy.

CD 9 keeps Brockton, but otherwise extends across the south suburbs from RI to Mass Bay.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 11, 2009, 11:50:24 PM
Massachusetts with districts of approximately 100,000 persons each.  If there were 3 members per district, the 189 members would approximately comply with the cube root rule (185 for Massachusetts population).

The average deviation is 0.96%, 38 districts are within 1% of the ideal population, 55 within 2%, and all 63 are withing 3%.

Split cities/towns are Springfield, Worcester, Lowell, Newton, Somerville, Melrose, Lynn, Boston, Quincy, Fall River, and New Bedford.

()

()

()

()

1. Pittsfield & The Berkshires
2. Northern Connecticut Valley
3. Amherst, Northampton, & Central Connecticut Valley
4. Westfield, Agawam, & Southern Connecticut Valley
5. Holyoke. West Springfield, South Hadley, & Easthampton
6. Chicopee, Ludlow, Belchertown, & Palmer
7. Springfield Central
8. Springfield East & Greater Springfield
9. Worcester Southwest
10. Fitchburg, Gardner, & Worcester North
11. Middlesex Northwest & Worcester Northeast
12. Leominster & Worcester Central
13. Worcester City North
14. Worcester City South, Auburn, & Millbury
15. Shrewsbury, Worcester East, & Middlesex Southwest
16. Worcester Southwest
17. Chelmsford, Dracut, Westford, & Middlesex North
18. Lowell
19. Billerica, Tewksbury, Burlington, & Middlesex,Northeast
20. Wakefield, Reading, Stoneham, & Wilmington
21. Malden, Saugus, & Melrose
22. Medford & Arlington
23. Woburn, Lexington, Winchester, & Bedford
24. Waltham, Concord, Sudbury, & Lincoln
25. Marlborough, Acton, & Middlesex West
26. Framingham & Natick
27. Needham, Wellesley, Dedham, & MIddlesex South Central
28. Brookline & Newton South
29. Newton North, Waterton, & Belmont
30. Cambridge
31. Somerville & Everett
32. Lawrence & Andover
33. Metheun, North Andover, & Essex West
34. Haverhill & Essex North
35. Gloucester & Cape Anne
36. Salem, Beverly, & Marblehead
37. Peabody, Danvers, & Essex South
38. Lynn, Swampscott, & Nahant
39. Revere, Chelsea, & Winthrop
40. Boston (East Boston, Central Boston, & Charlestown) & Somerville South
41. Boston (Allston, Brighton, Back Bay, & Fenway)
42. Boston (Dorchester & South Boston)
43. Boston (Roxbury & South End)
44. Boston (Mattapan & South Dorchester)
45. Boston (West Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, Roslindale, & Hyde Park)
46. Franklin, Milford, Norfolk West, & Middlesex South
47. Mansfield, Easton, Norfolk Southwest, & Norton
48. Stoughton, Walpole, & Norfolk West Central
49. Randolph, Norwood, Canton, & Norfolk Central
50. Quincy & Milton
51. Weymouth, Braintree, & Quincy South
52. Attleboro, North Attleborough, & Bristol Northwest
53. Taunton, Bridgewater, Raynham, & Halifax
54. Dartmouth & Bristol Central
55. Fall River & Westport
56. New Bedford & Acushnet
57. Brockton & West Bridgewater
58. Plymouth Central
59. Marshfield & Plymouth North
60. Plymouth Town & Plymouth South
61. Falmouth, Wareham, Buzzards Bay, & Martha's Vineyard
62. Barnstable Town, Sandwich, Bourne, & Mashpee
63. Yarmouth, Cape Cod, & Nantucket


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on August 12, 2009, 08:18:15 AM
I can't believe you did that.

I've never seen MV and Nantucket split before, but the ferry routes do argue for your division, and it gets the islands double representation.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on August 12, 2009, 06:32:47 PM
The Boston City Council with 21 districts

()
()

District number- White%-Black%-Hispanic%-Asian%-Oth%

01- 79%-2%-6%-12%-1% (blue, SW Allston/Brighton)
02- 62%-6%-14%-16%-1% (green, Central Allston/Brighton)
03- 66%-4%-10%-18%-1% (purple, East Allston/Brighton, Boston University)
04- 77%-4%-12%-7%-1% (red, Charlestown)
05- 41%-3%-51%-4%-2% (yellow, East Boston)
06- 53%-10%-10%-26%-1% (teal, Chinatown and surrounding areas)
07- 87%-2%-4%-6%-1% (gray, Back Bay)
08- 87%-1%-9%-2%-0% (blueish, East Boston)
09- 68%-10%-10%-11%-1% (skyblue, SE of 3, NW of 16)
10- 26%-22%-47%-4%-1% (fuchsia, east of 20)
11- 90%-2%-4%-3%-1% (Green, SW Boston)
12- 42%-23%-20%-12%-2% (skyblue, East, with an extension into central)
13- 12%-53%-23%-8%-4% (pinkish, North of 14)
14- 4%-68%-21%-3%-4% (gold, NW of 17)
15- 39%-32%-26%-2%-1% (orange, S/SE of 10)
16- 32%-35%-25%-5%-3% (green, SE of 9)
17- 48%-25%-9%-16%-2% (blueish, NE of 18)
18- 18%-66%-10%-3%-2% (yellow, south, east of 19)
19- 16%-69%-12%-1%-1% (olive, south)
20- 63%-12%-15%-9%-1% (soft pink, west of 10)
21- 54%-25%-16%-3%-1% (maroon, SW corner)

Any thoughts


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 12, 2009, 09:39:54 PM
I can't believe you did that.

I've never seen MV and Nantucket split before, but the ferry routes do argue for your division, and it gets the islands double representation.
I would have had to split Barnstable town if I had left Nantucket out of the Cape Cod district.  And then if I had gone from Martha's Vineyard to Wood's Hole and then northward towards the Cape Cod Canal, I would have had to get two districts where there was just one line of towns.  And Plymouth has a fairly substantial population so it might have needed to be split.

So this worked out pretty good population-wise.  I probably could have tried to include the ferry landings in New Bedford, but it ended up that just a small bit of that city, so I took an area adjacent to Fairhaven.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 12, 2009, 11:10:22 PM
I can't believe you did that.

I've never seen MV and Nantucket split before, but the ferry routes do argue for your division, and it gets the islands double representation.
I would have had to split Barnstable town if I had left Nantucket out of the Cape Cod district.  And then if I had gone from Martha's Vineyard to Wood's Hole and then northward towards the Cape Cod Canal, I would have had to get two districts where there was just one line of towns.  And Plymouth has a fairly substantial population so it might have needed to be split.

So this worked out pretty good population-wise.  I probably could have tried to include the ferry landings in New Bedford, but it ended up that just a small bit of that city, so I took an area adjacent to Fairhaven.

That will be an interesting quandary in MA if splitting the islands keeps a town intact.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 12, 2009, 11:38:05 PM
The Boston City Council with 21 districts

()
()

District number- White%-Black%-Hispanic%-Asian%-Oth%

01- 79%-2%-6%-12%-1% (blue, SW Allston/Brighton)
02- 62%-6%-14%-16%-1% (green, Central Allston/Brighton)
03- 66%-4%-10%-18%-1% (purple, East Allston/Brighton, Boston University)
04- 77%-4%-12%-7%-1% (red, Charlestown)
05- 41%-3%-51%-4%-2% (yellow, East Boston)
06- 53%-10%-10%-26%-1% (teal, Chinatown and surrounding areas)
07- 87%-2%-4%-6%-1% (gray, Back Bay)
08- 87%-1%-9%-2%-0% (blueish, East Boston)
09- 68%-10%-10%-11%-1% (skyblue, SE of 3, NW of 16)
10- 26%-22%-47%-4%-1% (fuchsia, east of 20)
11- 90%-2%-4%-3%-1% (Green, SW Boston)
12- 42%-23%-20%-12%-2% (skyblue, East, with an extension into central)
13- 12%-53%-23%-8%-4% (pinkish, North of 14)
14- 4%-68%-21%-3%-4% (gold, NW of 17)
15- 39%-32%-26%-2%-1% (orange, S/SE of 10)
16- 32%-35%-25%-5%-3% (green, SE of 9)
17- 48%-25%-9%-16%-2% (blueish, NE of 18)
18- 18%-66%-10%-3%-2% (yellow, south, east of 19)
19- 16%-69%-12%-1%-1% (olive, south)
20- 63%-12%-15%-9%-1% (soft pink, west of 10)
21- 54%-25%-16%-3%-1% (maroon, SW corner)

Any thoughts
()

The census bureau data for voting precincts is organized by wards, but in Boston it appears that the wards are no longer used for political purposes, since they have quite variable populations and are reasonably compact.  In other cities in Massachusetts, it appears the wards are still used for city council elections.  In many cases there will be some fingers coming out from the city centers, trying to maintain the basic district alignment (as opposed to completely eliminating a district in one area, and creating a replacement elsewhere).

I started by trying to get enough population for a whole number of districts.  Boston is just short of 6 districts.  Most of the towns around Boston have significant population which makes it difficult to find combinations that would work together.  Cambridge and the other three Suffolk County towns (Chelsea, Revere, and Winthrop) are almost perfect for a district each.  It would be nice to use Brookline since Boston surrounds about 80% of it, but it doesn't get anywhere near the target population.  So that is how Boston ended up being matches up with Somerville and Everett.  The connection from Boston is OK since Somerville is adjacent to Charlestown and gives some more weight to Charlestown which is rather small.  I don't think you can actually drive from Somerville to Everett so those two are somewhat iffy.  And to avoid separating those two, the part of Somerville placed with Boston is a long finger along the Cambridge line.

Starting with East Boston and Charlestown, the only adjacent areas are in the central area including North End, Beacon Hill, etc.) to make up enough population.    Allston/Brighton is about 3/4 of a district and by the time you include Fenway about the only choice is to include Back Bay.  If you head south you're just wandering around to pick up enough population with no focus.

I had thought the Black population was generally moving southwest, perhaps because I mentally connect West Roxbury and Roxbury.  But the growth is more to the south into Mattapan and parts of Dorchester.

I was surprised that there were two Hispanic majority districts in Boston.  One in East Boston and the other in Roxbury.  Are these mostly Puerto Rican?  Or Dominican or something else.  Are Azoreans counted as Hispanic, and are there signficant concentrations in Boston, moving up from New Bedford, Fall River, and Providence?

So I was thinking that I had drawn two White districts in from South Boston through Mattapan, and a Black district and a mixed district from Roxbury to West Roxbury and Hyde Park.

I had played around a bit with putting South Boston and the South End together.  Note that #8 on your map is South Boston not East Boston, though it does include Logan Airport.  This is a weird precinct that also includes the Old Harbor between South Boston and Quincy, and likely the islands in the Harbor.  I'm not sure where the people actually live.

If I had included South Boston with the South End then I could also have included the more northern and eastern parts of Dorchester.  And then the Roxbury district could have gone somewhat more  southward.  This would have rotated the Forest Green, Brown, and Slate districts about 1/3 or a district counter-clockwise.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 12, 2009, 11:47:50 PM
That will be an interesting quandary in MA if splitting the islands keeps a town intact.
According to my atlas, there is not year-round ferry service from Martha's Vineyard to Nantucket, nor from Falmouth to Martha's Vineyard.

Instead year-round service is from Yarmouth (Hyannis Port) to Nantucket; and from New Bedford to Martha's Vineyard.  So my districts actually comply with the transportation links.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on August 13, 2009, 08:09:49 AM
I was surprised that there were two Hispanic majority districts in Boston.  One in East Boston and the other in Roxbury.  Are these mostly Puerto Rican?  Or Dominican or something else.  Are Azoreans counted as Hispanic, and are there signficant concentrations in Boston, moving up from New Bedford, Fall River, and Providence?

East Boston has, I think, a large Mexican population that only recently developed in the city.

There is a large Puerto Rican community in part of the South End that shades into Roxbury. There are public housing projects in the middle of substantially gentrified streets of townhouses. One of them is called Villa Victoria and is located on Dartmouth Street; it has a strong identity as a Puerto Rican community built literally into its walls and includes both high rises and 1960s-style modern townhomes.

I know very little about Roxbury, but parts of the South End I do know about may be classed as Roxbury for official purposes. Blame the realtors for pushing "the South End" out to the west and south.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on August 14, 2009, 10:24:18 PM
Gerrymander theater

()

District 1 (55948 people): 52% Hispanic, 40% White
District 2 (55795 people): 74% White, 22% Hispanic
District 3 (55461 people): 59% Hispanic, 27% White, 11% Native American
District 4 (55377 people): 85% White, 10% Hispanic

this is with the 2000 numbers, which are 56% white, 36% Hispanic, 4% Native American

the estimates would probably make a real electable majority in two Hispanic districts possible.

For those unfamiliar with the map of Yakima County, District 1 is East Yakima, District 4 is West Yakima, District 2 is rural, District 3 is rural and Hispanic.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 16, 2009, 04:30:39 PM
10 districts of Arizona excitement, brilliantly cut off by the stupid jpg converter:

()

AZ-01 (magenta, Ann Kirkpatrick - D) - Pretty much unchanged.
AZ-02 (teal, Trent Franks - R) - Also mostly the same. I kept the stupid little gerrymander the state law requires.
AZ-03 (red, John Shadegg - R) - Once again, kept close to the original.
AZ-04 (purple, Ed Pastor - D) - Moved a bit to the left, but still majority-Hispanic.
AZ-05 (yellow, Harry Mitchell - D) - Chopped off the northeastern parts and made it more Democratic.
AZ-06 (blue, Jeff Flake - R) - Shifted north to pick up the aforementioned removed parts of Mitchell's district.
AZ-07 (light purple, Raul Grijalva - D) - Removed the La Paz and Santa Cruz portions of the district. Still 54% or so Hispanic.
AZ-08 (gray, Gabrielle Giffords - D) - Took out the Oro Valley part of the district and added the heavily-Hispanic part of Santa Cruz to make it more Democratic.
AZ-09 (green, new district) - Majority-Hispanic district, safe Dem.
AZ-10 (teal, new district) - Stretches from the Oro Valley up to the southeastern tip of Maricopa. Should be safe Republican.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 21, 2009, 06:22:24 AM
Dem gerrymander of Michigan:

()

MI-01 (dark blue, Bart Stupak - D) - I didn't change Stupak's district much. At best it's added a couple of Dem-leaning counties.
MI-02 (pink, Vern Ehlers - R) - Combination of Hoekstra's district and the Grand Rapids portion of Ehlers'. Should be a fairly Democratic district.
MI-03 (brown, open) - A safe Republican district encompassing the suburbs of Grand Rapids and the Republican counties north of there. Ehlers would probably move here.
MI-04 (red, Dave Camp - R) - Added Saginaw to Camp's district, making his re-election much harder.
MI-05 (dark green, Dale Kildee - D) - He lost Saginaw but retains heavily-Democratic Flint. Also picks up some Democratic portions of Candace Miller's district. Should still be safe.
MI-06 (light purple, Fred Upton - R) - Expands east to take in the Republican territory from Schauer's district. Safe Republican.
MI-07 (light green, Mark Schauer - D) - Basically a Battle Creek/Lansing district, so it'll be much safer for Schauer.
MI-08 (teal, Mike Rogers - R and Thad McCotter - R) - I put Rogers and McCotter in a new, Ann Arbor-based district. Either one would lose the general. Rogers might move and challenge Kildee in his district, but that would still be an uphill climb for him.
MI-09 (grey, Gary Peters - D) - Not much changed here, although he did lose a few Republican bits at the top of his district.
MI-10 (purple, Candace Miller - R) - Safe Republican district, didn't change much.
MI-11 (light blue, John Dingell - D) - Dingell's district expanded southwest to include the slightly-Republican county of Lenawee. It should still be balanced out by the Wayne portions of the district.
MI-12 (yellow, Sander Levin - D) - Not much changed here.
MI-13 (magenta, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick - D) - Expanded a bit, but still majority-black (51%).
MI-14 (light purple, John Conyers - D) - Same here, 53% black.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 28, 2009, 08:53:53 PM
Dave's added Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, and Virginia. I will be posting a Virginia map shortly.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Badger on August 28, 2009, 09:09:27 PM
Here's the map of Ohio I made.  All districts are have a deviation from the ideal population of less than 1000.  I used the new estimates for population and made 16 districts since Ohio is projected to lose 2 after the next census.

()

Blue: A safer district for Dreihaus-D (OH-1)
Dark Green: Schmidt-R (OH-2), Jordan-R (OH-4), and Austria-R (OH-7) are pitted against each other.  Jordan would likely move to represent the red district.  Austria defeats the reviled Schmidt in the primary
Magenta: Turner-R (OH-3) gets a slightly less friendly district and could face a stiffer challenge.
Red: As I mentioned, Jordan probably moves into this open seat.
Yellow: An open seat which Latta-R (OH-5) may move in on.  This district is more Dem friendly than the current OH-5 but is probably still around R+5 or more.
Blue-Green: This is an open seat and would probably be hotly contested despite the Republican lean.  Wilson-D (OH-6) may move in here giving the Dems a semi-incumbent advantage.
Gray: Boccieri-D (OH-16) Gets a much safer district and cruises to re-election.
Purple: Boner Boehner remains safe.
Cyan: Kaptur-D (OH-9) faces off against Latta-R (OH-5) in a contest she'd almost certainly win.  As mentioned earlier, Latta will likely move to the yellow district.
Pink: I don't think I've take the elf Kucinich out of this district.  Safe Dem regardless.
Yellow-Green: Fudge-D (OH-11) is safe but the district drops below 50% black.
Lilac: Tiberi-R (OH-12) trades most of his black constituents for suburban whites and becomes considerably safer.
Peach: Sutton-D (OH-13) sees a dramatic change in her district but remains safe
Bronze: LaTourette-R (OH-14) faces off against Ryan-D (OH-17) in what will surely be the most contested race in the state.  However, the district has a distinct Democratic tilt to it which will probably put Ryan over the top.
Orange:: I think Kilroy-D (OH-15) is still in this district and it becomes much easier for her to hold.
Neon Green: This district pits Space-D (OH-18) against Wilson-D (OH-6) but Wilson may move.  This district is much more Dem friendly than Space's current district and he should have little trouble holding it even though it probably leans Rep.
I think you missd a good oppoortunity not connecting Montgomery and Clark counties, or at least greater Springfield. Turner would likely still be safe, but the district turns notably more Democratic whil maintaining contiguity. Also I think you're throwing in the towel way too fast on Tiberi's district. It's an Obama district rapidly growing Democratic. In a good year where Franklin County Dems aren't focusing on getting Kilroy (re) elected this district will flip.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 28, 2009, 10:08:28 PM
No time wasted...

()

Click to embiggen. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/va-state.jpg)

VA-01 (teal, Rob Wittman - R) - Wittman's district is reconfigured to stretch from the Northern Neck (eastern edge) to the West Virginia border, taking in the exurbs of Northern Virginia along the way. Safe Republican district.
VA-02 (dark green, Glenn Nye - D) - I excised the Republican portions of Virginia Beach, added all of Norfolk and minority-heavy parts of Chesapeake and Suffolk. The district is 35% black now and probably voted pretty strongly for Obama, I'd guess in the high-50s.
VA-03 (dark blue, Bobby Scott - D) - Not much changed here. Removed Norfolk, added Petersburg and some more territory around Richmond. 53% black.
VA-04 (purple, Randy Forbes - R) - Pretty much all the population here is Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Chesterfield. The district is solidly Republican now.
VA-05 (red, Tom Perriello - D) - The heavily-Republican southwestern part of the district is removed, and instead it stretches both down southeast to the Greensville/Emporia area and northeast to Caroline/Essex/King & Queen, both Democratic areas. Also included most of Lynchburg, not a heavily Democratic city but friendlier territory than the Bedford area. District probably voted for Obama in the low-50s. Now 27% black.
VA-06 (light green, Bob Goodlatte - R) - Picked up the aforementioned Bedford area, and lost Lynchburg and the Democratic parts of Roanoke. Safe Republican.
VA-07 (yellow, Eric Cantor - R) - Instead of stretching up almost to NoVa, the district now spreads east to the Jamestown/York/Williamsburg historic triangle. Sorry, Williamsburg.
VA-08 (grey, Jim Moran - D) - Alexandria, part of Arlington, and eastern Fairfax. Safe D. Interestingly, this district is only 54% white.
VA-09 (magenta, Rick Boucher - D) - Poor Rick Boucher, can't do much for him. Added the Democratic parts of Roanoke and snaked up to Bath County, so Creigh Deeds could give it a try in the future if he felt like it.
VA-10 (light blue, Frank Wolf - R) - Wondering about the population growth in NoVa? Well, this district now consists solely of Loudoun, Prince William, Clarke, and a sliver of Fairfax. Probably won by Obama with around 55%, Wolf would be able to hold it but it would be a tossup (slightly Dem-leaning) in an open seat.
VA-11 (light purple, Gerry Connolly - D) - western Fairfax, Falls Church, part of Arlington, Manassas/Manassas Park and one or two precincts of Prince William. Safe Dem seat, probably 60%+ for Obama.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 30, 2009, 02:56:07 PM
I've used the tool to divide Illinois into 18 Congressional districts with the 2008 data. His app uses voting districts which corresponds to the year 2000 precincts. These precincts have changed over the decade, since IL law requires them to adjust to congressional and legislative boundaries after the 2001 remap, and they can split and merge to accommodate growth patterns for each election cycle.

The goal in the map was to create 3 Black and 2 Latino districts in Chicago and suburbs, wiuth detail shown in the second map. The remaining districts were designed to be reasonably compact with minimal numbers of county fragments. No voting data was applied for this version. The maximum population deviation is under 200.

()

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on August 31, 2009, 07:49:36 AM
Who does this map pair? It looks like Halvorson and Biggert, would that be accurate?

Where do Quigley and Gutierrez fall in the two earmuff successor districts?

I did some research and saw that Melissa Bean now has a Cook County district and Bill Foster is in the district to the west.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 31, 2009, 01:32:32 PM
Who does this map pair? It looks like Halvorson and Biggert, would that be accurate?

Where do Quigley and Gutierrez fall in the two earmuff successor districts?

I did some research and saw that Melissa Bean now has a Cook County district and Bill Foster is in the district to the west.
I think the northern earmuff is the Puerto Rican district, and the red district by the stockyards is the Mexican district, so I'd guess Gutierrez has the northern district.   The question then does the Mexican district have enough US adult citizens to be an effective minority majority district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on August 31, 2009, 03:18:57 PM
Gerrymandering Maryland is extremely fun. This map should make Kratovil reasonably safe (or, rather, not really vulnerable), as his district would be at least D+1. It now includes very Democratic Annapolis proper and some very Democratic areas in MontCo. Ruppersberger probably becomes less safe, but not radically so.

Overall, the new map relies on unpacking MD-08, which is now still D+10 or so but not the ultra-Democratic bastion it was before, and taking advantage of the Democratic areas in Frederick and Washington counties that previously went unexploited. That allowed MD-03 to completely reorient, taking in large, heavily Democratic areas of MontCo to allow for more freedom to spread the Baltimore and Annapolis Democratic vote around among the other districts.

MD-07 is 50% black; MD-04 is 54% black.

()

The two islands in the southeast are in Kratovil's district. I didn't fill them in for the map because the program doesn't handle islands well in its rendering. Also, Maryland has the wackiest census tracts I've seen so far.

Edit: I notice Ruppersberger has been drawn out of his district. That explains why the district has the weird northern arm. Oh, well, that would be easy enough to fix by fiddling around with the MD-03/MD-02 border. Same goes for Donna Edwards, but I really only rearranged how PG County was split to make the MD-04/MD-05 border look better. MD-04 would actually be more heavily black if it included her home town and dropped College Park and environs to MD-05.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 31, 2009, 05:36:31 PM
Dave has switched to using voting districts for the maps. Since they're bigger than census tracts, it's presumably less work for him.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on August 31, 2009, 07:06:06 PM
Here's Maryland de-gerrymandered. This map is actually awful for the Democrats because their vote is very "naturally packed" in Maryland. The map results in three moderately Republican districts (R+5 to R+10), one moderately Democratic district, and four ultra-Democratic districts (D+20 or more). A Republican gerrymander could probably make the Baltimore County district at least vulnerable.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 31, 2009, 09:52:11 PM
Who does this map pair? It looks like Halvorson and Biggert, would that be accurate?

Where do Quigley and Gutierrez fall in the two earmuff successor districts?

I did some research and saw that Melissa Bean now has a Cook County district and Bill Foster is in the district to the west.
I think the northern earmuff is the Puerto Rican district, and the red district by the stockyards is the Mexican district, so I'd guess Gutierrez has the northern district.   The question then does the Mexican district have enough US adult citizens to be an effective minority majority district.

The standard in Bartlett v. Strickland uses a threshold of 50% of the voting age population. Argument before the SCOTUS raised the question of non-citizens, but the opinion used voting-age population. The app only had population, but I am confident that my percentages are sufficiently above the threshold so the the voting-age standard would also be met.

I started the map by drawing the two Latino districts. New CD 4 (red) is 62% Hispanic and CD 5 (yellow) is 56% Hispanic. New CD 4 gets its additional population from the parts of current CD 3 in Chicago and Berwyn, Stickney and part of Lyons Township in Cook County. New CD 5 takes the northern muff from old CD 4 plus neighboring Chicago areas and suburban Leyden Township from old CD 5 as well as the heavily Hispanic areas in northeast DuPage from current CD 6. I think it is hard to see something significantly different from these two districts drawn without a legal challenge. Gutierrez has talked about retirement in the last couple of cycles, so they could well also both be open in 2012. Quigley's old county district is almost entirely out of this new CD 5.

Next I drew the three Black districts, all of which needed to add substantial population to meet the new district size. New CD 1 (blue) is 53% Black, CD 2 (dark green) is 57% Black, and CD 7 (grey) is 54% Black. CD 7 was drawn first and had to add most of its new population along the lakefront since an expansion into suburban Cook would bring the population dangerously close to 50%. To add enough population new CD 1 picks up White areas of Chicago and Worth Township from current CD 3 and then swaps some with current CD 2 to stay above 50%. CD 2 has the easiest expansion path to the south and easily stays above 50%. As with the Latino districts, and other than some swaps between CDs 1 and 2, I have a hard time picturing any substantial departure from these districts.

With those five districts largely locked in place the other districts and options become clearer. The new CD 3 (purple) is more current CD 13 and both Lipinsky and Biggert live in that district. Given the need for the minority districts, the new CD 3 largely has to move into current 13 or 11 and will likely be a competitive district in 2012. Halvorson actually lives in CD 2 as I've drawn it, but a move elsewhere in the district would not be hard. I've also drawn both Quigley and Schakowsky into the new CD 9 (light blue), though I could see a gerrymander that puts Schkowsky and the city of Evanston in the new CD 10 (pink) and moves CD 5 out to the suburbs by O'Hare.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 01, 2009, 07:14:28 AM
Colorado:

()

CO-01 (gray, Diana DeGette - D) - Chopped off the northeastern part of Denver and added some of the suburbs. Remains solid Dem.
CO-02 (green, Jared Polis - D) - Drops the Weld County portion of the district and extends west to take in some of the Republican rural counties and south to the Denver suburbs and Park County. Should remain a Democratic district.
CO-03 (blue, John Salazar - D) - Removed a few heavily Republican counties. Maybe slightly more Democratic now.
CO-04 (purple, Betsy Markey - D) - Removed all the heavily Republican rural counties on the eastern third of the state. Added parts of Adams and Denver. Should be significantly more friendly to the Democrats now.
CO-05 (red, Doug Lamborn - R) - Takes in some of the Republican counties from CO-04, but since they're sparsely populated it shouldn't shift the population base much.
CO-06 (yellow, Mike Coffman - R) - Same as above.
CO-07 (teal, Ed Perlmutter - D) - Drops most of the Adams County portion and adds part of Denver to make the district more Democratic.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 01, 2009, 02:40:56 PM
Here's my take on Colorado. Basically, Betsy Markey is less vulnerable, John Salazar is more vulnerable, Jared Polis is less safe but still safe, and Mike Coffman is now a little bit vulnerable. CO-07, CO-01 and CO-05 are largely unaffected in partisanship. Although CO-07 changes its shape dramatically, few actual voters have been moved; CO-05 does actually lose a lot of voters to the west and picks them back up to the east. CO-01 loses the northern extension of Denver and the inner southern Arapahoe County suburbs and instead has some eastern Arapahoe County suburbs that are otherwise difficult to pair with any district without some contortion. Generally, I think this map is very fair, given the population shifts.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on September 02, 2009, 08:27:08 PM
A 12 District Virginia:
()

VA-01: 72% White, 20% Black, 1% Asian, 4% Hispanic, 4% Other
VA-02: 68% White, 18% Black, 4% Asian, 5% Hispanic, 5% Other
VA-03: 47% White, 44% Black, 1% Asian, 4% Hispanic, 4% Other
VA-04: 52% White, 39% Black, 2% Asian, 3% Hispanic, 4% Other
VA-05: 69% White, 24% Black, 1% Asian, 2% Hispanic, 4% Other
VA-06: 85% White, 8% Black, 1% Asian, 3% Hispanic, 3% Other
VA-07: 63% White, 27% Black, 3% Asian, 4% Hispanic, 3% Other
VA-08: 61% White, 10% Black, 10% Asian, 15% Hispanic, 4% Other
VA-09: 92% White, 3% Black, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, 1% Other
VA-10: 76% White, 8% Black, 6% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 3% Other
VA-11: 57% White, 9% Black, 17% Asian, 13% Hispanic, 4% Other
VA-12: 57% White, 17% Black, 7% Asian, 16% Hispanic, 3% Other


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 02, 2009, 08:56:45 PM
I have two version of Virginia to present to you tonight.

The first was basically just cleaning up the current map, with the only major changes happening in the Hampton Roads area (basically, Norfolk and Hampton are now completely in Nye's district except for one voting precinct in Hampton, and Virginia beach is almost entirely in Forbes's district in order to both make both safer and allow Forbes's district to contract into just the Hampton Roads area and not snake over to the Richmond suburbs for population. (Also, I have no idea where in Chesapeake Forbes lives, so he may have ended up in Nye's district, although that would be easy to fix.)

The second hit me after I finished the first version, when I realized what a golden opportunity those Democratic-voting counties in eastern rural Virginia were for shoring up Tom Perriello and when I was annoyed with how long and spindly Bob Goodlatte's district had become. It only rearranges three of the eleven districts, but it makes Perriello, well, not safe, but reasonably secure in a district that may have voted for Obama, and it makes Goodlatte's district much more compact.

For those interested in the splitting of Roanoke City, I made the probably safe assumption that Goodlatte does not live in one of the majority-black precincts, all of which I gave to Boucher.

()

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 02, 2009, 09:12:04 PM
I have two version of Virginia to present to you tonight.

The first was basically just cleaning up the current map, with the only major changes happening in the Hampton Roads area (basically, Norfolk and Hampton are now completely in Nye's district except for one voting precinct in Hampton, and Virginia beach is almost entirely in Forbes's district in order to both make both safer and allow Forbes's district to contract into just the Hampton Roads area and not snake over to the Richmond suburbs for population.

The second hit me after I finished the first version, when I realized what a golden opportunity those Democratic-voting counties in eastern rural Virginia were for shoring up Tom Perriello and when I was annoyed with how long and spindly Bob Goodlatte's district had become. It only rearranges three of the eleven districts, but it makes Perriello, well, not safe, but reasonably secure in a district that may have voted for Obama, and it makes Goodlatte's district much more compact.

For those interested in the splitting of Roanoke City, I made the probably safe assumption that Goodlatte does not live in one of the majority-black precincts, all of which I gave to Boucher.

()

()


My map at the top of the page is remarkably similar to your second map -- VA-09 looks to be one or two voting districts different, but is virtually the same, and we both had the same double-armed approach for Perriello and Cantor's districts. I would never put Poquoson and York in a district with a Democrat, though.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 02, 2009, 09:21:19 PM
There are precincts in Newport News that are bigger than and as Republican as Poquoson. York's not all that Republican, either. Nye's district is easily D+8 on my map; you forget that it includes all of Norfolk and almost all of Hampton.

Anyway, you appear to have left Fredericksburg out of Perriello's district in favor of Danville and Henry County, but those areas are trending away from the Democrats while the Fredericksburg area is becoming much friendlier to the Democrats, especially Perriello-types (while Perriello is really too intellectual to get much traction in southern/southwestern VA).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 02, 2009, 09:25:35 PM
There are precincts in Newport News that are bigger than and as Republican as Poquoson. York's not all that Republican, either. Nye's district is easily D+8 on my map; you forget that it includes all of Norfolk and almost all of Hampton.

Anyway, you appear to have left Fredericksburg out of Perriello's district in favor of Danville and Henry County, but those areas are trending away from the Democrats while the Fredericksburg area is becoming much friendlier to the Democrats, especially Perriello-types (while Perriello is really too intellectual to get much traction in southern/southwestern VA).

Fredericksburg is a Democratic city, but the surrounding counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford (despite Obama cutting the margin) remain solidly Republican. They're a guaranteed vote in the mid-50s for just about any non-joke Republican. I've got another map in the works that does something different from either approach for VA-05 which I will post tomorrow morning.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 02, 2009, 10:41:42 PM
My take on CO tried to minimize county fragments while bring population deviations down to 100 or less. Presumably, adjustments at the block level could get perfect equality without significant change to the map. While I only split 4 counties while maintaining some compactness, I also note that the result is remarkably similar to the current map. The major difference is that Aurora and Arapahoe County move to CD 7 from 6 and 1, and Lakewood moves into CD 6 from 1.

()

Edit: I switched to a split of El Paso as suggested in the comments that followed this original post.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on September 03, 2009, 02:42:58 AM
My take on CO tried to minimize county fragments while bring population deviations down to 100 or less. Presumably, adjustments at the block level could get perfect equality without significant change to the map. While I only split 4 counties while maintaining some compactness, I also note that the result is remarkably similar to the current map. The major difference is that Aurora and Arapahoe County move to CD 7 from 6 and 1, and Lakewood moves into CD 6 from 1.

()
This is a good map.  I'd drop the split of Lake County, you can't get from Lake to Pitkin in the winter.  Go ahead and take a few 1000 from southern El Paso instead.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 03, 2009, 07:10:17 AM
Bipartisan incumbent protector:

()

VA-01 (blue, Rob Wittman - R) - Wittman picks up all of Stafford and part of heavily-Republican Hanover and loses some of the counties that went for Obama, and the parts of Williamsburg and Newport News as well. Also picks up the more Republican part of Hampton from Glenn Nye, as well as the Eastern Shore. This may seem weird, but while the Eastern Shore is not physically connected to VA-01, it is culturally much more like parts of the district than Virginia Beach.
VA-02 (green, Glenn Nye - D) - Dropping the Republican parts of Virginia Beach and Hampton and picks up all of Norfolk, Portsmouth, most of Suffolk and the minority-heavy part of Chesapeake. I've actually gotten it to a coalition district, as it's 49% white. Should be a safe district now, although Nye may not be safe from a primary challenge from the left unless he moves left accordingly.
VA-03 (purple, Bobby Scott - D) - Ladies and gentlemen, may I present a contiguous VA-03. Removing the Southside Hampton Roads parts of the district, I've added all of Newport News, Sussex/Greensville/Emporia, and Petersburg and the black parts of Hopewell. Remains 53% black.
VA-04 (red, Randy Forbes - R) - Losing the black parts of Chesapeake and parts of the district given to Bobby Scott, and adding the Republican parts of Virginia Beach and more of Chesterfield should make Forbes' district more Republican.
VA-05 (yellow, Tom Perriello - D) - District shifts north to Northern Virginia. Dropped all the southern part of the district and pushed it up north to Prince William. The tradeoff for Perriello is having to run in the expensive DC media market.
VA-06 (Bob Goodlatte - R) - Didn't change this district much, it just shifted south a bit.
VA-07 (grey, Eric Cantor - R) - Cantor's district is possibly even more Republican now, taking in much of the heavily-Republican Southside counties and a few Democratic counties out of Wittman's district instead of pushing northwest towards the Shenandoah Valley.
VA-08 (light purple, Jim Moran - D) - Alexandria, Arlington, and eastern Fairfax. Safe Democratic.
VA-09 (light blue, Rick Boucher - D) - Picks up Danville and drops the Ronaoke area. Not much you can do for Rick.
VA-10 (magenta, Frank Wolf - R) - Dropping Prince William and going west into the Shenandoah Valley should make this district more Republican.
VA-11 (light green, Gerry Connolly - D) - Western Fairfax, should be safe Dem.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 03, 2009, 07:37:32 AM
My take on CO tried to minimize county fragments while bring population deviations down to 100 or less. Presumably, adjustments at the block level could get perfect equality without significant change to the map. While I only split 4 counties while maintaining some compactness, I also note that the result is remarkably similar to the current map. The major difference is that Aurora and Arapahoe County move to CD 7 from 6 and 1, and Lakewood moves into CD 6 from 1.

()
This is a good map.  I'd drop the split of Lake County, you can't get from Lake to Pitkin in the winter.  Go ahead and take a few 1000 from southern El Paso instead.

I've driven Independence Pass (12,093 ft) between Piktin and Lake so I know what you are saying about the connection. Actually, my preference was to split Custer, but the voting districts didn't provide fine control to get to my target of a 100 person deviation. With block-level projections, that's probably where I'd go.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on September 03, 2009, 10:46:25 PM
This is a good map.  I'd drop the split of Lake County, you can't get from Lake to Pitkin in the winter.  Go ahead and take a few 1000 from southern El Paso instead.

I've driven Independence Pass (12,093 ft) between Piktin and Lake so I know what you are saying about the connection. Actually, my preference was to split Custer, but the voting districts didn't provide fine control to get to my target of a 100 person deviation. With block-level projections, that's probably where I'd go.
My quality measure for a county split would be the relative size of the smaller fragment to the population of the county.  I'd still go for a couple thousand from El Paso rather than splitting either Lake or Custer counties.

The election officials in larger counties are going to be able to handle multiple legislative districts, and probably have an integrated GIS system to draw updated precincts.  A smaller county might have hand drawn maps, and the only reason they have precincts is to match up with the comissioner districts.



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 03, 2009, 11:10:23 PM
This is a good map.  I'd drop the split of Lake County, you can't get from Lake to Pitkin in the winter.  Go ahead and take a few 1000 from southern El Paso instead.

I've driven Independence Pass (12,093 ft) between Piktin and Lake so I know what you are saying about the connection. Actually, my preference was to split Custer, but the voting districts didn't provide fine control to get to my target of a 100 person deviation. With block-level projections, that's probably where I'd go.
My quality measure for a county split would be the relative size of the smaller fragment to the population of the county.  I'd still go for a couple thousand from El Paso rather than splitting either Lake or Custer counties.

The election officials in larger counties are going to be able to handle multiple legislative districts, and probably have an integrated GIS system to draw updated precincts.  A smaller county might have hand drawn maps, and the only reason they have precincts is to match up with the comissioner districts.



In that case, I would keep Park intact and use a bit of NW El Paso for CD 6 (teal) instead.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 05, 2009, 10:53:34 AM
Alabama with two majority-black districts:

()

AL-01 (purple, Jo Bonner - R) - Removing Mobile and adding the heavily-Republican southern counties has probably made this one of the most Republican districts in the country.
AL-02 (blue, Bobby Bright - "D") - Added all of Montgomery and stretched it west in order to make this district the primary majority-black district in the state. It is 56% black, 39% white. Bright would almost assuredly get knocked out in the primary by a black Democrat, who might actually vote with the Democrats sometimes.
AL-03 (yellow, Mike Rogers - R) - Of course, the sacrifice here is that Rogers' district is pretty much unwinnable for the Dems now. Removing the parts of Montgomery in the district has dropped the black population from about 32% to 24%.
AL-04 (teal, Robert Aderholt - R) - This district didn't change very much, although it did take in the northern hook of AL-06. Very, very, very safe Republican.
AL-05 (grey, Parker Griffith - "D") - Also didn't change this one much. Can't say I care what happens to Griffith at this point.
AL-06 (red, Spencer Bachus - R) - Loses the aforementioned northern hook around Birmingham and moves a bit to the southeast, which is not going to hurt Bachus any.
AL-07 (green, open) - This is what remains of Artur Davis's seat after giving a lot of it to AL-02. Takes in more of the Birmingham area to compensate, but remains 52% black, 43% white.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on September 05, 2009, 04:06:46 PM
If you were to reduce the blue district to 51%-52% African-American, how might that tidy up the lines? Not that it isn't an impressively acceptable gerrymander as it is... Is there any way to trade the SE corner to that district so the yellow district doesn't extend that far south?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 06, 2009, 10:26:18 AM
If you were to reduce the blue district to 51%-52% African-American, how might that tidy up the lines? Not that it isn't an impressively acceptable gerrymander as it is... Is there any way to trade the SE corner to that district so the yellow district doesn't extend that far south?

It's possible, but unfortunately my map didn't save in the app so I don't have it available to play around with.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 06, 2009, 12:29:24 PM
If you were to reduce the blue district to 51%-52% African-American, how might that tidy up the lines? Not that it isn't an impressively acceptable gerrymander as it is... Is there any way to trade the SE corner to that district so the yellow district doesn't extend that far south?

It's possible, but unfortunately my map didn't save in the app so I don't have it available to play around with.

My guess is that it would be hard to move the SE corner since Houston County is roughly 100 K. You would have to see what that does to your CD 2 percentages.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 06, 2009, 02:35:56 PM
If you were to reduce the blue district to 51%-52% African-American, how might that tidy up the lines? Not that it isn't an impressively acceptable gerrymander as it is... Is there any way to trade the SE corner to that district so the yellow district doesn't extend that far south?

It's possible, but unfortunately my map didn't save in the app so I don't have it available to play around with.

My guess is that it would be hard to move the SE corner since Houston County is roughly 100 K. You would have to see what that does to your CD 2 percentages.

I took a look at the AL map on the App, and found a way to solve the SE corner issue, keep both black-majority CDs, and minimize county splits to make nicer district lines. All districts are within 200 persons of the ideal size. The Birmingham district is 57% black and the Montgomery-Mobile district is 52% black. CD 1 connects western Mobile County to the rest of the district through Dauphin Island and the ferry to Fort Morgan in Baldwin County.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Hash on September 07, 2009, 08:42:45 AM
Any ways to gerrymander Alabama so there is NO black-majority district? I know it's illegal, but just for fun.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 07, 2009, 10:57:14 AM
Easy peasy. It even looks like a reasonable map:

()

Districts 1-5 are 29-33% black, 6-7 (the top two) are 11-14% black. When the black population is concentrated in a band in the middle third of the state, it's easy to dilute their voting strength.

As a bonus, here's MS under the same auspices:

()

The non-red districts are 36-38% black, the red one is 32% black.

Edit: Mississippi is harder to draw since there's a higher proportion of black voters and a fewer districts to spread them out over. This is kind of fun, in a perverse sort of way. I may do the rest of the Southern states available on the app.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 07, 2009, 03:17:26 PM
The other interesting task is to see how close in population the districts can be without splitting any counties. MS has lots of counties and few districts, so it's possible to get quite close. This is my version maintaining one black district. The four deviations are -339, +143, -165, +363. Note that the map converter has obscured the image somewhat, and Walthall and Marion Counties are in CD 3 (purple)

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 07, 2009, 08:53:40 PM
Another flagrant violation of VRA:

()

Green 35% AA, blue and red 33%, yellow 30%, purple 28%, teal 21%, grey 14%.



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 08, 2009, 06:39:18 PM
Another in the Jim Crow series, Louisiana this time:

()

Nice, clean lines, huh? Teal district is 35% AA, purple and yellow are 34%, blue is 32%, green is 28%, and red is 24%.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on September 08, 2009, 09:59:50 PM
Given the results of the 2008 election I wonder if VRA districts are really even necessary in some parts of the country.  I'd wager that in most places a minority candidate wouldn't have too much trouble getting elected in a 35% minority district.  If the minority votes as a bloc for their candidate it would take less than 25% of the white vote to reach 50%.  I honestly think we've reached a point where VRA districts don't really need to be majority-minority districts anymore.  Perhaps 35% is a little optimistic but I think we could realistically move the "requirement" from 50% to 40% and there would be no decrease in the number of minority Congresspeople.  In fact, I would be slightly surprised if there wasn't an increased number of minorities in Congress if states were permitted to draw their districts that way.  Instead of packing all the minorities into one district they could be spread a little thinner giving them more opportunities for success.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 08, 2009, 10:35:49 PM
Given the results of the 2008 election I wonder if VRA districts are really even necessary in some parts of the country.  I'd wager that in most places a minority candidate wouldn't have too much trouble getting elected in a 35% minority district.  If the minority votes as a bloc for their candidate it would take less than 25% of the white vote to reach 50%.  I honestly think we've reached a point where VRA districts don't really need to be majority-minority districts anymore.  Perhaps 35% is a little optimistic but I think we could realistically move the "requirement" from 50% to 40% and there would be no decrease in the number of minority Congresspeople.  In fact, I would be slightly surprised if there wasn't an increased number of minorities in Congress if states were permitted to draw their districts that way.  Instead of packing all the minorities into one district they could be spread a little thinner giving them more opportunities for success.

But it would decrease the level to which such seats are fiefdoms, and you can bet the CBC would oppose it tooth and nail.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 08, 2009, 11:26:47 PM
Given the results of the 2008 election I wonder if VRA districts are really even necessary in some parts of the country.  I'd wager that in most places a minority candidate wouldn't have too much trouble getting elected in a 35% minority district.  If the minority votes as a bloc for their candidate it would take less than 25% of the white vote to reach 50%.  I honestly think we've reached a point where VRA districts don't really need to be majority-minority districts anymore.  Perhaps 35% is a little optimistic but I think we could realistically move the "requirement" from 50% to 40% and there would be no decrease in the number of minority Congresspeople.  In fact, I would be slightly surprised if there wasn't an increased number of minorities in Congress if states were permitted to draw their districts that way.  Instead of packing all the minorities into one district they could be spread a little thinner giving them more opportunities for success.

That may be true but the SCOTUS ruled otherwise this spring in Bartlett v Strickland (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-689.ZS.html). There's no obligation to protect districts with less than 50% of a minority group within. If there is 50% or more available the need to protect them is subject to the Gingles test. The test is such that most states will assume that the test applies and create districts that will pass the VRA with that test. With the Bartlett decision, that will mean 50% or more in a district.

The maps I created for IL, AL, and MS on this thread have all been consistent with my understanding of the VRA since Bartlett.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on September 09, 2009, 11:53:06 PM
Given the results of the 2008 election I wonder if VRA districts are really even necessary in some parts of the country.  I'd wager that in most places a minority candidate wouldn't have too much trouble getting elected in a 35% minority district.  If the minority votes as a bloc for their candidate it would take less than 25% of the white vote to reach 50%.  I honestly think we've reached a point where VRA districts don't really need to be majority-minority districts anymore.  Perhaps 35% is a little optimistic but I think we could realistically move the "requirement" from 50% to 40% and there would be no decrease in the number of minority Congresspeople.  In fact, I would be slightly surprised if there wasn't an increased number of minorities in Congress if states were permitted to draw their districts that way.  Instead of packing all the minorities into one district they could be spread a little thinner giving them more opportunities for success.

That may be true but the SCOTUS ruled otherwise this spring in Bartlett v Strickland (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-689.ZS.html). There's no obligation to protect districts with less than 50% of a minority group within. If there is 50% or more available the need to protect them is subject to the Gingles test. The test is such that most states will assume that the test applies and create districts that will pass the VRA with that test. With the Bartlett decision, that will mean 50% or more in a district.

The maps I created for IL, AL, and MS on this thread have all been consistent with my understanding of the VRA since Bartlett.

Although I see how these rules were necessary historically, it is unfortunate that they are still being enforced in the same ways today.  I can't see any kind of reform making it through Congress in the near-term though.  Perhaps another 50 years and a few more minority presidents, senators, and governors and people will finally be able to admit that the VRA is outdated.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 10, 2009, 07:10:57 AM
Illinois with 18 districts:

()

Click to embiggen. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/ilnew-state.jpg)

IL-01 (dark blue, Bobby Rush - D) - Extends southwest to Will County, but remains majority-black, if only just barely (52%).
IL-02 (dark green, Jesse Jackson Jr. - D) - Same as IL-01, except it takes in more of Will County and is 53% black.
IL-03 (dark purple, Dan Lipinski - D and Judy Biggert - R) - Extends into the DuPage County suburbs, taking in Judy Biggert's home. The population is still centered in Cook County, so Lipinski should be safe, but it's a more appropriate district for his moderate views.
IL-04 (dark red, Luis Gutierrez - D) - Somewhat of a gerrymander still, but much less so than before. I hope Gutierrez doesn't live in the old northern part of the district. 70% Hispanic.
IL-05 (yellow, Michael Quigley - D) - Didn't change this one much. It's only 54% white.
IL-06 (teal, Pete Roskam - R) - Now stretches up from DuPage around to take in some Republican parts of northern Cook and Lake Counties. Probably somewhat more Republican now.
IL-07 (grey, Danny Davis - D) - I had a hell of a time getting three black-majority districts out of Illinois. This one is 52% black. I think we'll be seeing the loss of one of the black-majority districts and gaining another Hispanic-majority district in Illinois either in 2010 or 2020.
IL-08 (light purple, Melissa Bean - D) - Reconfigured the district to drop McHenry and add more of northwestern Cook County. Should be more Democratic.
IL-09 (very light blue, Jan Schakowsky - D) - Pretty unchanged, solidly Dem district.
IL-10 (magenta, Mark Kirk - R) - Pretty much unchanged, so it should still be a Democratic district. If only a Democrat can win it in 2010.
IL-11 (very light green, Will County-based district, Debbie Halvorson - D) - Shrunk this district to just Will and Kendall Counties. Should be easy for Halvorson to hold.
IL-12 (very light purple in the southwest, Jerry Costello - D) - More or less unchanged, added some swing counties in the north of the district and dropped some Republican parts in the southeast.
IL-13 (pink, John Shimkus - R) - Formerly the 19th district, pretty much all Republican territory in the south of the state.
IL-14 (brown, Bill Foster - D) - Replacing the phallic old district, IL-14 now stretches from Foster's home base of Aurora/Batavia, through DuPage and up to Rockford. Should be more Democratic now.
IL-15 (orange, Timothy Johnson - R) - Created a slightly Republican-leaning district that should be competitive in an open seat, but Johnson probably wouldn't break a sweat holding.
IL-16 (light green district in the northwest corner, Don Manzullo - R) - Takes in all the swingy and Republican territory in the northwest, should be safe for Manzullo.
IL-17 (purple district with spidery tendrils, Phil Hare - D) - Still a gerrymander but much less ridiculous; shouldn't change the partisan composition much.
IL-18 (yellow, Aaron Schock - R) - Takes in all the Republican territory in the middle of the state. Safe Republican.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 10, 2009, 07:39:54 AM
Illinois with 18 districts:

()

Click to embiggen. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/ilnew-state.jpg)

IL-01 (dark blue, Bobby Rush - D) - Extends southwest to Will County, but remains majority-black, if only just barely (52%).
IL-02 (dark green, Jesse Jackson Jr. - D) - Same as IL-01, except it takes in more of Will County and is 53% black.
IL-03 (dark purple, Dan Lipinski - D and Judy Biggert - R) - Extends into the DuPage County suburbs, taking in Judy Biggert's home. The population is still centered in Cook County, so Lipinski should be safe, but it's a more appropriate district for his moderate views.
IL-04 (dark red, Luis Gutierrez - D) - Somewhat of a gerrymander still, but much less so than before. I hope Gutierrez doesn't live in the old northern part of the district. 70% Hispanic.
IL-05 (yellow, Michael Quigley - D) - Didn't change this one much. It's only 54% white.
IL-06 (teal, Pete Roskam - R) - Now stretches up from DuPage around to take in some Republican parts of northern Cook and Lake Counties. Probably somewhat more Republican now.
IL-07 (grey, Danny Davis - D) - I had a hell of a time getting three black-majority districts out of Illinois. This one is 52% black. I think we'll be seeing the loss of one of the black-majority districts and gaining another Hispanic-majority district in Illinois either in 2010 or 2020.
IL-08 (light purple, Melissa Bean - D) - Reconfigured the district to drop McHenry and add more of northwestern Cook County. Should be more Democratic.
IL-09 (very light blue, Jan Schakowsky - D) - Pretty unchanged, solidly Dem district.
IL-10 (magenta, Mark Kirk - R) - Pretty much unchanged, so it should still be a Democratic district. If only a Democrat can win it in 2010.
IL-11 (very light green, Will County-based district, Debbie Halvorson - D) - Shrunk this district to just Will and Kendall Counties. Should be easy for Halvorson to hold.
IL-12 (very light purple in the southwest, Jerry Costello - D) - More or less unchanged, added some swing counties in the north of the district and dropped some Republican parts in the southeast.
IL-13 (pink, John Shimkus - R) - Formerly the 19th district, pretty much all Republican territory in the south of the state.
IL-14 (brown, Bill Foster - D) - Replacing the phallic old district, IL-14 now stretches from Foster's home base of Aurora/Batavia, through DuPage and up to Rockford. Should be more Democratic now.
IL-15 (orange, Timothy Johnson - R) - Created a slightly Republican-leaning district that should be competitive in an open seat, but Johnson probably wouldn't break a sweat holding.
IL-16 (light green district in the northwest corner, Don Manzullo - R) - Takes in all the swingy and Republican territory in the northwest, should be safe for Manzullo.
IL-17 (purple district with spidery tendrils, Phil Hare - D) - Still a gerrymander but much less ridiculous; shouldn't change the partisan composition much.
IL-18 (yellow, Aaron Schock - R) - Takes in all the Republican territory in the middle of the state. Safe Republican.

How does it survive a court challenge? The map fails to create a second majority-Hispanic district in Chicago/Cook yet there are demonstrably enough Hispanic adults in close proximity to justify the creation of one under section 2 of the VRA.

I point this out because this is what puts the squeeze on CD-3 and 5. I'm curious to see your Dem gerrymander to protect those D-incumbents yet comply with the VRA. I went for compactness in my map below and didn't look at incumbent protection, but you could take it a different direction.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 10, 2009, 11:02:33 AM
Quigley's district could be made Hispanic-majority with just a little bit of fiddling along the border with Gutierrez's district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 10, 2009, 04:17:04 PM
Quigley's district could be made Hispanic-majority with just a little bit of fiddling along the border with Gutierrez's district.

When I looked at it it took more than a little fiddling. As JL points out it's hard balancing 3 black and 2 hispanic districts. I agree that IL-5 becomes the second majority-hispanic district, but it probably needs that entire northern lobe of IL-4 to do it. That pushes IL-4 into IL-3 which is why I talked about a squeeze there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 10, 2009, 06:06:45 PM
I just tried to play around with the borders of my map, and I managed to get Quigley's district up to 44% Hispanic before I gave up, because there's nowhere else I could take territory from except for IL-7, which would have ended up going under 50% black. So while it's possible to make another Hispanic-majority district, it's still difficult, and I doubt they'd enforce VRA in this case.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 10, 2009, 11:00:07 PM
I just tried to play around with the borders of my map, and I managed to get Quigley's district up to 44% Hispanic before I gave up, because there's nowhere else I could take territory from except for IL-7, which would have ended up going under 50% black. So while it's possible to make another Hispanic-majority district, it's still difficult, and I doubt they'd enforce VRA in this case.

That's why I added my map - to show that it was possible without extreme gerrymandering. If a map is presented that does not create the five minority districts, there would be a court challenge. I can't find an argument that a federal judge would support allowing only four minority-majority districts.

I solved the IL-7 problem by taking it out to the western edge of Cook where there is a significant black population in Proviso township. But it looks like you use parts of Proviso to keep IL-3 sufficiently Democratic, and use the rest to keep IL-5 from moving to the north. I think the Dems have a real challenge to protect IL-3, since I think the VRA section 2 argument for IL-4 and 5 will be hard to overcome.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: nclib on September 11, 2009, 08:05:10 PM
Does anyone want to take a stab at making a McCain district in New England or a white-majority Obama district in the Deep South.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on September 11, 2009, 09:04:44 PM
Does anyone want to take a stab at making a McCain district in New England or a white-majority Obama district in the Deep South.

It might be possible in N.H. if you can draw a district linking the seacoast towns to the Connecticut River Valley via a very thin line up the Maine border and over Coos County. What's left in the middle and along the Mass. border could be a McCain district.

In Connecticut it's certainly impossible, and it's almost certainly impossible in Massachusetts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 11, 2009, 11:57:01 PM
In response to the Jim Crow series, here's an anti-Jim Crow map for SC. It uses the 2008 data to create 7 CDs since SC may gain one. All seven districts are within 100 of the ideal population. Both CD-6 (teal) and CD-7 (grey) have just over 50% black population.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Joe Cooper on September 12, 2009, 02:06:39 AM
Does someone have a special map for Joe Wilson in South Carolina?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 14, 2009, 08:33:08 PM
Georgia has been on the app for a while, but it didn't have up-to-date population data available until some time recently. Without further ado, Georgia with 14 districts:

()

GA-01: Loses its remaining urban areas for more white rural areas. Ultra-Republican although historically Democratic.
GA-02: This district is more black than previously due to population changes, rising to 46% black (and 47% white). Therefore considerably more Democratic.
GA-03: Outer Atlanta suburbs to the west and rural western Georgia, safe Republican
GA-04: Remains just over 50% black, loses a lot of territory but expands into increasingly black areas of Gwinnett
GA-05: No longer black-majority despite containing the city of Atlanta, although still black plurality (this is combated below, when GA-13 rises to majority black and the new GA-14 is majority black). Takes in the most liberal whites in the state anyway, easily safely Democratic
GA-06: Atlanta suburbs to the north, very safe Republican
GA-07: Rearranges somewhat, now outer Atlanta suburbs to the south and east as well as rural white areas between Atlanta and the Black Belt. Safely Republican.
GA-08: Up to 37% black from 32.6% black, this district loses its extension to the Atlanta exurbs but gains Athens and some eastern Black Belt counties, making it more Democratic but still around R+4 at least (Edit: Actually, just did the calcs, and this district voted 51.16% for Obama, making it only about R+2. Not bad.)
GA-09: Contracts into the northeastern Atlanta suburbs, very safely Republican
GA-10: Loses Athens for more of rural northern Georgia, very Republican
GA-11: Shifts northward to get Dalton but mostly the same, northeastern exurban Atlanta and rural northeastern Georgia
GA-12: Gains the rest of Augusta and Savannah as well as Hinesville, loses some rural white areas (as well as couple of rural black areas), overall more Democratic than previous and moderately safe
GA-13: Shifts eastward to take in the expanding black population in the southern and southeastern Atlanta exurbs, now majority black at 51%
GA-14: A new district containing the black areas southwest and west of Atlanta, majority black at 50%

There's a bug with the voting districts in Cobb County, but GA-14 is definitely contiguous.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on September 19, 2009, 01:24:15 AM
here's my ultra-VRA Mississippi map

MS-1: 73/22 white
MS-2: 72/24 black
MS-3: 66/28 white
MS-4: 70/23 white

()
()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on September 19, 2009, 02:50:18 AM
Ultra-VRA Alabama

()
()

AL1 (pop 665985): 76/18 white
AL2 (pop 665935): 69/25 white
AL3 (pop 665972): 76/18 white
AL4 (pop 666057): 86/6 white
AL5 (pop 665961): 75/18 white
AL6 (pop 665796): 77/16 white
AL7 (pop 666194): 79/17 black


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 19, 2009, 09:53:31 PM
Ultra-VRA Alabama

()
()

AL1 (pop 665985): 76/18 white
AL2 (pop 665935): 69/25 white
AL3 (pop 665972): 76/18 white
AL4 (pop 666057): 86/6 white
AL5 (pop 665961): 75/18 white
AL6 (pop 665796): 77/16 white
AL7 (pop 666194): 79/17 black


Actually this is anti-VRA since it maximizes packing into 1 majority black district. Packing is generally disallowed when it prevents multiple minority districts from forming. Both Johnny Longtorso and I have versions with 2 majority black districts, and they presumably would have precedence under the VRA.

If you were to reduce the blue district to 51%-52% African-American, how might that tidy up the lines? Not that it isn't an impressively acceptable gerrymander as it is... Is there any way to trade the SE corner to that district so the yellow district doesn't extend that far south?

It's possible, but unfortunately my map didn't save in the app so I don't have it available to play around with.

My guess is that it would be hard to move the SE corner since Houston County is roughly 100 K. You would have to see what that does to your CD 2 percentages.

I took a look at the AL map on the App, and found a way to solve the SE corner issue, keep both black-majority CDs, and minimize county splits to make nicer district lines. All districts are within 200 persons of the ideal size. The Birmingham district is 57% black and the Montgomery-Mobile district is 52% black. CD 1 connects western Mobile County to the rest of the district through Dauphin Island and the ferry to Fort Morgan in Baldwin County.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on September 29, 2009, 07:20:26 PM
Ultra-racial gerrymander of Georgia, using 2000 numbers.

Most districts are 60% white, a couple are 58% white. Nothing less than that. The peach one at the top is like 75%.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 09, 2009, 01:05:16 PM
This is just formidable. The man who invented this deserves a Nobel Prize. :D


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Hash on October 09, 2009, 02:07:23 PM
This is just formidable. The man who invented this deserves a Nobel Prize. :D

He'd probably deserve it more than a lot of past recipients.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 10, 2009, 01:14:25 PM
But why doesn't it save me the files when I ask it ? ???


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Joe Cooper on October 10, 2009, 05:00:24 PM
I used a tool called "snipping tool" it to save the image in jpg.

Bring up in Paint, and I could write the district number on the image.

I tried to paste a printed number, but could not, so the district number was done freehand

Microsoft.



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 10, 2009, 05:54:24 PM
But why doesn't it save me the files when I ask it ? ???

Saving the files is not as straightforward as one would like. The saved files are not jpg and they are in an obscure directory. I followed the help info given by the app which includes the location of the files, and then I used the map2jpg tool to make the images.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 11, 2009, 05:07:06 PM
Dave's added California and Kentucky to the app, and apparently will be adding all the remaining states with more than one CD soon.

Edit: It looks like all the 2+ CD states are added at this point. Wow.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: MaxQue on October 12, 2009, 10:42:58 PM
Dave's added California and Kentucky to the app, and apparently will be adding all the remaining states with more than one CD soon.

Edit: It looks like all the 2+ CD states are added at this point. Wow.

Except Rhode Island and Oklahoma, because of technical problems, his email said.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 13, 2009, 08:49:04 PM
Utah:

()

UT-01 (blue, Rob Bishop - R) - Ridiculous population growth causes this one to shrink to the counties north of Salt Lake City. Probably voted around 68-69% McCain.
UT-02 (green, Jim Matheson - D) - Perhaps the Republicans can dispense with the ridiculous attempts at getting rid of Matheson and resign themselves to the fact that, yes, there's going to be one seat in the state that the Democrats can hold. Consists of Summit County, Salt Lake City proper, and some of the surrounding suburbs. Almost undoubtedly voted for Obama.
UT-03 (red, Jason Chaffetz - R) - Made this the "rural district", but the part of Utah County that is in the district is still a large chunk of the population. Really shows you how few people live outside of the SLC/Provo area of the state. Went 70+% for McCain easily.
UT-04 (purple, open) - New suburban district, gonna go out on a limb and guess it's safe Republican. Probably mid-60s for McCain.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 14, 2009, 07:21:12 AM
Kentucky:

()

KY-01 (blue, Ed Whitfield - R) - Removed the stupid little tail coming off the southeast end of the district. May have moved a couple of points toward the Dems, but still solidly Republican.
KY-02 (green, Brett Guthrie - R) - Not much changed here, aside from taking in part of the aforementioned stupid tail. Safe Republican.
KY-03 (purple, John Yarmuth - D) - Almost completely unchanged; all but a couple precincts of Louisville. Fairly safe for the Dems.
KY-04 (red, Geoff Davis - R) - Stretch of Republican territory along the Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia borders. Should be pretty safe for the Republicans.
KY-05 (yellow, Hal Rogers - R) - Takes in all the Republican areas of SE Kentucky. Safe Republican.
KY-06 (teal, Ben Chandler - D) - Reconfigured this district to take in all of the most Democratic areas of eastern Kentucky. It's gone from a 12-point McCain margin to about a 3-point McCain margin.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on October 16, 2009, 09:19:52 PM
I managed to create a 43% African-American district in Arkansas. Fun times

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

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 18, 2009, 05:07:08 PM
Thought I'd take a look at the other side of the aisle. Given Tennessee's trend towards the Republicans, here's a GOP gerrymander of the state (I used the Ford/Corker numbers from 2006 as a 50/50 baseline for federal elections) intending a 6-3 Republican map:

()

Click for bigger. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/tennessee-state.jpg)

TN-01 (blue, Phil Roe - R) - Didn't change this one much, just reconfigured it to give some of its territory to the Democrats. still uber-safe Republican.
TN-02 (green, John Duncan - R) - Stretches west to take in some Democratic counties from TN-04 and TN-06, but the population remains centered in Knoxville. Will shift the margins for the Republican candidate from the 70s to the 60s, but still a safe seat.
TN-03 (purple, currently open R) - Also stretches out to take some Democratic territory from TN-06, but should remain Republican.
TN-04 (red, Lincoln Davis - D) - Screwed over Lincoln by chopping out most of his district and adding in parts of TN-01 and TN-06. A strong Republican should flip this seat.
TN-05 (yellow, Jim Cooper - D) - One of the two safe Dem seats on the map. Metro Nashville and Robertson County. 58-42 Obama.
TN-06 (teal, Bart Gordon - D) - Again, removed most of the existing district (only three counties of the old TN-06 remain) and added in some Republican territory in the south of the state. As with Lincoln, would probably flip with a strong Republican candidate.
TN-07 (grey, Marsha Blackburn - R) - Didn't change too much, but it did take in a couple Democratic counties. Still safe R though.
TN-08 (light purple, John Tanner - D) - All the most Democratic parts of western Tennessee that aren't Memphis. Tanner should be able to hold it easily, although an open seat might be more interesting.
TN-09 (light blue, Steve Cohen - D) - Memphis! 64% black! 80-20 margins for Democrats!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 21, 2009, 11:43:21 PM
Here's a remap of CA with 53 districts using the 2008 data. All districts are within 1000 of the ideal population. There are 17 Hispanic-majority districts, 1 Asian-majority district and 1 Black-majority district. The other districts were drawn to maintain compactness and minimize county splits.

()

Zooming into LA:

()

Zooming into the Bay Area:

()

I'll let the local experts speculate on the partisan balance in these districts.

edit: maps modified to reflect some of the comments, including the addition of an Asian-majority district in and around San Jose, and modifying the northern part of LA county.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 22, 2009, 12:28:28 AM
San Jose is split into three districts, and combining the coast between Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay with Alviso, Milpitas and Fremont isn't a very good idea. But the rest o fthe Bay Area looks fine.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on October 22, 2009, 03:10:36 AM
That district in northwest Orange County and overlapping parts of LA county would be very interesting. I think it would be a swing district with a slight republican lean. Good job joining the Chino hills area with northeast OC. Those areas are pretty similar.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Joe Cooper on October 22, 2009, 03:59:48 AM
cd 01 blue
likely d.  Napa, Mendocino, Humboldt strong d, but you include some very high r areas inland, with relatively low population

cd02, green.Yolo, with UC Davis is rabidly Democratic.   Butte County swing. The rest is rabidly R.  Rs outnumber d  lean r

cd03 Sacramento. Probably d, depending on where exactly the lines are drawn

cd04 reed  Republican

cd05 yellow overwhelmingly d. 

cd06 marin.  solid d.

cd 07 grey  solid democratic.   If you expand north, instead of going into Contar Costa County, you will make more d voters from Contra costa available for San Joaquin, which will need them. Solano has 2/3 of the population, and combined with UC Davis in Yolo county could take in almost any R territory north of it. The way you have it, it is taking in some the the most democratic territory in the nation in western contra costa county. then western contra costa county could take in the suburban areas[lean d] of cd 10 to the east of it. cd 4, which is heavily R could take some of the r areas of cd 11, which we just took away from the Rs 3 years ago with some difficulty.  Also, if you give Solano county the area in Sacramento county you gave San Joaquin, Garimendi, who will be elected on November 3, 2009, will be able to live in his district.

cd08 San Francisco. No republican has a ghost of a chance. Independents outnumber republicans by a wide margin.

cd09 light blue. solid d

cd10. contra costa  pink  solid d

cd11  San Joaquin.  tossup. needs some d voters from contra costa


cd 12 San Mateo. solid d

cd 13 Alameda  democratic

cd 14  Santa Cruz, San Mateo. dem

cd 15   Santa Clara democratic.  Once the figures from 2010 are available, a majority Asian district or a majority hispanic district could be drawn in Santa Clara county.

cd 16 Santa Clara democratic

cd 17 Monterey  democratic

cd 18  yellow not too sure, but might be a tossup or  lean r

cd 19  east of 18.  republican

cd20   kings, Fresno republican. parts of the district have 40% unemployment because their water has been cut off. An alternative would be to give Fresno a district all its own, which is almost the exact size.  you cut it up into little pieces.  But then 19 would have to acquire all the desert that is light brown now, Tulare would get kings, and Kern would have a district wholly within the county.

cd 21 Tulare republican.  solid.  Another district with exceptional high unemployment. The water shut down affects the entire San Joaquin valley- San Joaquin county to Kern county.  This area is the bread basket of the nation, so expect higher food prices.

cd 22. Kern and the desert  republican.

City of Fresno would qualify for a district all of its own.

cd 23.  south west coast light blue solid d 

cd 24 inland of 23  solid republican.

i am inclined to think that if San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara is combined in one district, you will have a likely d district. Ventura would be lean or likely r, but improving.

northern Los Angeles and Ventura county: this area has shown explosive growth.  Any district based on Dave's figures would be illusive.

most of the population figures for central Los Angeles county would overestimate the actual population.

minor: why do you include the one channel island in cd 24 to San Luis Obispo and inland Ventura.  Connect it to cd23, which you have on the coast of Ventura.  I know it has, effectively, no population but it looks weird.

northern Santa Clara county.  cd 14, San Mateo, Alameda county connected to each other by some swamps and salt ponds.

Go ahead and give the eastern part of Santa Clara county in 16  to cd17.  both are rural areas and you're already in Santa Clara county with cd17.  somewhere like 500 people would be affected. most of it is state parkland or owned by the City of San Francisco for the Hetch Hetchy project. And the rest is ranchland.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on October 22, 2009, 06:47:41 AM
I have a North Carolina map, but I seem to can't get it to save as a map.xlm or whatever it's called so I can change it into a .jpg, help.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: cannonia on October 22, 2009, 07:12:24 AM
cd03 Sacramento. Probably d, depending on where exactly the lines are drawn

It looks like Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, Folsom, etc.  Republican district in a normal year; probably democrat in 2008, but close.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on October 22, 2009, 07:34:48 AM
for the sake of fun, you too can create a Hawaii map that has Kauai and most of Honolulu in one county, and Maui/Big Island with the rest of Honolulu in the other district.

Or, create a legal district where Honolulu isn't the majority of voters.

I don't think the Big Island has had a primary or general election where they went en bloc for someone from their island over the opposition. Kauai gave a victory to Gary Hooser in 2006 (and gave him half of their votes).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: platypeanArchcow on October 22, 2009, 09:14:21 AM
San Jose is split into three districts, and combining the coast between Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay with Alviso, Milpitas and Fremont isn't a very good idea. But the rest o fthe Bay Area looks fine.

Combining Lancaster with Glendale is similarly inadvisable.  I can't really tell what you did to LA in the absence of landmarks, and therefore can't comment thereon.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on October 22, 2009, 06:57:47 PM
Here is a map of NC with 14 districts(16EVs), (best map I could do with screen shot).

()

CD 1: (Blue): Has New Bern and Elizabeth City in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the slight to lean Democratic range. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: G. K. Butterfield (D) )

CD 2: Dark Green: Has Goldboro, Kinston and Southern Wake County in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the slight Democratic to Lean Democratic range. Due to popular Congressman, Lean Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Bob Etheridge (D) )

CD 3: Purple: Has Greenville, Jacksonville and Wilmington in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the Slight to Strong Republican range.  Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Walter B. Jones (R) )

CD 4: Red: Has Chaple Hill, Durham and Northern Wake County in it. I'm sure this is strong Democratic.  Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: David Price (D) )

CD 5: Yellow: Wilkesboro, Lexington and Mount Airy are in it. I'm sure this is strong Republican.  Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Virginia Foxx (R) )

CD 6: Tealish color: Winston-Salem, High Point and Western Guilford County are in it. I believe this is somewhere in the Lean to Strong Democratic. Democratic Pick-up (Current Congressperson: None ) *Note Coble doesn't live in this district any more.*

CD 7: Grey: Lumberton and Fayetteville are in it. I believe this would be Lean Democratic. Democratic Hold  (Current Congressperson: Mike McIntyre (D) )

CD 8: Light Purple: Salisbury, Albemarle and Sanford are in it: I believe this is in the toss-up range. IToss-up (Current Congressperson: Larry Kissell (D) )

CD 9: Light Tealish: Southern Charlotte, Monroe and eastern Gastonia are in it. I'm sure this is Strong Republican. Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Sue Myrick (R) )

CD 10: Pink: Hickory, Statesville, Western Gasonia are in it. I'm sure this is strong Republican. Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Patrick McHenry (R) )

CD 11: Lime: Asheville and Boone are in it: I believe this would be Slight Democratic. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Heath Shuler (D) )

CD 12: Light Blueish : Northern Charlotte and Concord are in it. I'm sure this is Strong Democratic.  Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Mel Watt (D) )

CD 13: Paleish Color: Raleigh and Cary are in it. I believe this would be in he Strong Democratic range. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Brad Miller (D) )

CD 14: Dark Yellow: Western Guilford County, Burlington and Eden are in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the toss-up range: Toss-up (Current Congressperson: Howard Coble (R) ) *Note: If Howard Coble does run in 2012, he will win hands down. But when it's open it is toss-up*



Make up before Redistricting: 8 Democratic Congressmember, 5 Republican Congressmember
Make up after Redistricting: 8 Democratic Congressmember, 4 Republican Congressmebmeber, 2 toss-up CD.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 23, 2009, 09:40:20 AM
GOP gerrymander of Kansas:

()

KS-01 (blue, currently open R) - Took heavily Democratic Wyandotte County from KS-03, but remains safe Republican.
KS-02 (green, Lynn Jenkins - R) - Took the rest of Douglas County from KS-03 and expands west to the heavily Republican counties to compensate. 56-44 McCain.
KS-03 (purple, Dennis Moore - D) - Loses all his Democratic territory and gains a bunch of rural Republican counties. 57-43 McCain.
KS-04 (red, currently open R) - Stretches east to take in the one Democratic county in SE Kansas, but the population remains centered in Sedgwick County. 58-42 McCain.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on October 23, 2009, 09:53:42 AM
Here is a map of NC with 14 districts(16EVs), (best map I could do with screen shot).

()

CD 1: (Blue): Has New Bern and Elizabeth City in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the slight to lean Democratic range. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: G. K. Butterfield (D) )

CD 2: Dark Green: Has Goldboro, Kinston and Southern Wake County in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the slight Democratic to Lean Democratic range. Due to popular Congressman, Lean Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Bob Etheridge (D) )

CD 3: Purple: Has Greenville, Jacksonville and Wilmington in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the Slight to Strong Republican range.  Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Walter B. Jones (R) )

CD 4: Red: Has Chaple Hill, Durham and Northern Wake County in it. I'm sure this is strong Democratic.  Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: David Price (D) )

CD 5: Yellow: Wilkesboro, Lexington and Mount Airy are in it. I'm sure this is strong Republican.  Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Virginia Foxx (R) )

CD 6: Tealish color: Winston-Salem, High Point and Western Guilford County are in it. I believe this is somewhere in the Lean to Strong Democratic. Democratic Pick-up (Current Congressperson: None ) *Note Coble doesn't live in this district any more.*

CD 7: Grey: Lumberton and Fayetteville are in it. I believe this would be Lean Democratic. Democratic Hold  (Current Congressperson: Mike McIntyre (D) )

CD 8: Light Purple: Salisbury, Albemarle and Sanford are in it: I believe this is in the toss-up range. IToss-up (Current Congressperson: Larry Kissell (D) )

CD 9: Light Tealish: Southern Charlotte, Monroe and eastern Gastonia are in it. I'm sure this is Strong Republican. Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Sue Myrick (R) )

CD 10: Pink: Hickory, Statesville, Western Gasonia are in it. I'm sure this is strong Republican. Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Patrick McHenry (R) )

CD 11: Lime: Asheville and Boone are in it: I believe this would be Slight Democratic. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Heath Shuler (D) )

CD 12: Light Blueish : Northern Charlotte and Concord are in it. I'm sure this is Strong Democratic.  Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Mel Watt (D) )

CD 13: Paleish Color: Raleigh and Cary are in it. I believe this would be in he Strong Democratic range. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Brad Miller (D) )

CD 14: Dark Yellow: Western Guilford County, Burlington and Eden are in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the toss-up range: Toss-up (Current Congressperson: Howard Coble (R) ) *Note: If Howard Coble does run in 2012, he will win hands down. But when it's open it is toss-up*



Make up before Redistricting: 8 Democratic Congressmember, 5 Republican Congressmember
Make up after Redistricting: 8 Democratic Congressmember, 4 Republican Congressmebmeber, 2 toss-up CD.

What do you guys think about this? Good, bad?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 23, 2009, 10:08:36 AM
NC-01 is probably not majority-black, which runs into VRA issues. Also, NC-12 goes too far into the suburbs to be safe for Mel Watt.

I also don't know that NC-11 needs to be shored up that much for Shuler. He seems perfectly capable of holding that district, since no serious Republican seems to want to run against him.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 23, 2009, 10:24:18 AM
San Jose is split into three districts, and combining the coast between Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay with Alviso, Milpitas and Fremont isn't a very good idea. But the rest o fthe Bay Area looks fine.

I adjusted San Jose but I still split it into 3 districts. I combined Cupertino, eastern Fremont, Milpitas and SE San Jose to create an Asian-majority district CD-16. It's just barely over 50%, so there wasn't much I could do about the shape. That puts all of Santa Cruz Co into CD-14 but that CD still has Newark and part of Fremont. Central San Jose adds to CD-17 as an Hispanic-majority district with 54%.

()

minor: why do you include the one channel island in cd 24 to San Luis Obispo and inland Ventura.  Connect it to cd23, which you have on the coast of Ventura.  I know it has, effectively, no population but it looks weird.

northern Santa Clara county.  cd 14, San Mateo, Alameda county connected to each other by some swamps and salt ponds.

Go ahead and give the eastern part of Santa Clara county in 16  to cd17.  both are rural areas and you're already in Santa Clara county with cd17.  somewhere like 500 people would be affected. most of it is state parkland or owned by the City of San Francisco for the Hetch Hetchy project. And the rest is ranchland.

I fixed the Ventura Co islands. I used your comment to connect CD-17 to the Hispanic areas of central SJ. The connection in CD-14 is on the border which I think includes the South Bay and Nimitz freeways.

Combining Lancaster with Glendale is similarly inadvisable.  I can't really tell what you did to LA in the absence of landmarks, and therefore can't comment thereon.

I didn't have a lot of good choices for Glendale in CD-25 without compromising the Hispanic districts CD-28 to the west or CD-31 to the south. I've edited the area to link Glendale to Santa Clarita and southern Palmdale. That put Lancaster and northern Palmdale with eastern Kern in CD-22. It also caused west Bakersfield to move to CD-24 linking it to SLO.

()

As I reviewed the LA area it seems that I could create an additional Hispanic-majority district by combining CD-32 (orange: Pico Rivera to Asuza) with either CD-29 (Montebello to Pasadena and Monrovia) to the west or CD-38 (Whittier to Glendora and Claremont) to the east then redividing into a northern and southern piece. Would one of these make more sense than the other?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on October 23, 2009, 10:56:00 AM
NC-01 is probably not majority-black, which runs into VRA issues. Also, NC-12 goes too far into the suburbs to be safe for Mel Watt.

I also don't know that NC-11 needs to be shored up that much for Shuler. He seems perfectly capable of holding that district, since no serious Republican seems to want to run against him.

I tried to get NC-1 majority-black, but I couldn't!! Also, NC-12 is almost majority-black. I'll try to work on another that makes an majoity-black district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 23, 2009, 11:13:00 AM
2-2 map of Arkansas:

()

AR-01 (green, Marion Berry - D) - Eastern part of the state, pretty much. 74% white, 21% black. Formerly 60-40 McCain, now 58-42 McCain and probably won by Kerry in 2004.
AR-02 (blue, Vic Snyder - D) - Expands southwards to take in some of the better for Obama areas of Ross's district. 63% white, 29% black. Formerly 55-45 McCain, now 51-49 Obama.
AR-03 (red, John Boozman - R) - I think this district actually contracted. All the population growth must be in the Walmartistan part of the state. 80% white, 2% black, 11% Hispanic. Formerly 66-34 McCain, now 65-35 McCain.
AR-04 (purple, Mike Ross - D) - Loses some historically-Democratic territory in the south-central part of the state and stretches northeast to take in the more Republican parts of AR-01 and AR-02. 84% white, 8% black. Formerly 60-40 McCain, now 69-31 McCain (ouch!).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on October 23, 2009, 11:18:45 AM
NC-01 is probably not majority-black, which runs into VRA issues. Also, NC-12 goes too far into the suburbs to be safe for Mel Watt.

I also don't know that NC-11 needs to be shored up that much for Shuler. He seems perfectly capable of holding that district, since no serious Republican seems to want to run against him.

Where can I find the VRA rules?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 23, 2009, 11:49:54 AM
NC-01 is probably not majority-black, which runs into VRA issues. Also, NC-12 goes too far into the suburbs to be safe for Mel Watt.

I also don't know that NC-11 needs to be shored up that much for Shuler. He seems perfectly capable of holding that district, since no serious Republican seems to want to run against him.

Where can I find the VRA rules?

Basically, the rule is that you can't dilute the minority presence in a majority-minority (at least 50.1% black or Hispanic) district. Coalition districts (say, one that was 40% black and 15% Hispanic) are not protected, however.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 23, 2009, 09:50:07 PM
NC-01 is probably not majority-black, which runs into VRA issues. Also, NC-12 goes too far into the suburbs to be safe for Mel Watt.

I also don't know that NC-11 needs to be shored up that much for Shuler. He seems perfectly capable of holding that district, since no serious Republican seems to want to run against him.

Where can I find the VRA rules?

Basically, the rule is that you can't dilute the minority presence in a majority-minority (at least 50.1% black or Hispanic) district. Coalition districts (say, one that was 40% black and 15% Hispanic) are not protected, however.

You also cannot pack minority votes into a district such that it would deny them an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in more than that one district. For example a district with 90% minority next to one with 35% minority would likely be struck down since it is likely that two districts each with over 50% of the minority could be created.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vepres on October 24, 2009, 09:18:57 PM
Just started playing around with this. Here's my R gerrymander of Colorado attempt:

()

CO-1 (Blue): Pretty much unchanged, solid D.

CO-2 (Green): Removed Summit and Eagle counties as well as the few Denver suburbs it had, replaced them with the conservative northeastern part of the state. Still, Boulder is a big place, I'd say swing district with perhaps a slight D lean.

CO-3 (Purple): NE Colorado was given to CO-2, but in its place CO-3 gets the more conservative SW Colorado. This is a slight lean R district.

CO-4 (Red): Lost SW Colorado, but gained the conservative eastern suburbs of Colorado Springs and the lean-R Jackson county. This is a lean R district, only a very strong Democrat could win.

CO-5 (Yellow): This was once strong-R, but given the fact it lost east El Paso and gained Summit and most of Eagle counties, which are liberal. However, it's still lean R.

CO-6 (Teal): Very similar to the original, strong R lean.

CO-7 (Gray): Lost eastern Adams, but relatively unchanged. This is lean D, though not out of reach for Republicans.

So that makes the state 3 Republican, 1 Democrat, and 3 toss-up (or 4R, 2D, 1T if you include leaners).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 25, 2009, 09:14:55 AM
Here is a map of NC with 14 districts(16EVs), (best map I could do with screen shot).

()

CD 1: (Blue): Has New Bern and Elizabeth City in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the slight to lean Democratic range. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: G. K. Butterfield (D) )

CD 2: Dark Green: Has Goldboro, Kinston and Southern Wake County in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the slight Democratic to Lean Democratic range. Due to popular Congressman, Lean Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Bob Etheridge (D) )

CD 3: Purple: Has Greenville, Jacksonville and Wilmington in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the Slight to Strong Republican range.  Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Walter B. Jones (R) )

CD 4: Red: Has Chaple Hill, Durham and Northern Wake County in it. I'm sure this is strong Democratic.  Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: David Price (D) )

CD 5: Yellow: Wilkesboro, Lexington and Mount Airy are in it. I'm sure this is strong Republican.  Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Virginia Foxx (R) )

CD 6: Tealish color: Winston-Salem, High Point and Western Guilford County are in it. I believe this is somewhere in the Lean to Strong Democratic. Democratic Pick-up (Current Congressperson: None ) *Note Coble doesn't live in this district any more.*

CD 7: Grey: Lumberton and Fayetteville are in it. I believe this would be Lean Democratic. Democratic Hold  (Current Congressperson: Mike McIntyre (D) )

CD 8: Light Purple: Salisbury, Albemarle and Sanford are in it: I believe this is in the toss-up range. IToss-up (Current Congressperson: Larry Kissell (D) )

CD 9: Light Tealish: Southern Charlotte, Monroe and eastern Gastonia are in it. I'm sure this is Strong Republican. Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Sue Myrick (R) )

CD 10: Pink: Hickory, Statesville, Western Gasonia are in it. I'm sure this is strong Republican. Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Patrick McHenry (R) )

CD 11: Lime: Asheville and Boone are in it: I believe this would be Slight Democratic. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Heath Shuler (D) )

CD 12: Light Blueish : Northern Charlotte and Concord are in it. I'm sure this is Strong Democratic.  Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Mel Watt (D) )

CD 13: Paleish Color: Raleigh and Cary are in it. I believe this would be in he Strong Democratic range. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Brad Miller (D) )

CD 14: Dark Yellow: Western Guilford County, Burlington and Eden are in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the toss-up range: Toss-up (Current Congressperson: Howard Coble (R) ) *Note: If Howard Coble does run in 2012, he will win hands down. But when it's open it is toss-up*



Make up before Redistricting: 8 Democratic Congressmember, 5 Republican Congressmember
Make up after Redistricting: 8 Democratic Congressmember, 4 Republican Congressmebmeber, 2 toss-up CD.

What do you guys think about this? Good, bad?

You are assuming of course that NC gains a seat, which isn't currently projected. That said, it's a nice looking map but the loss of both black-majority seats would be fatal at the DOJ. NC is covered under the stringent review of section 5 of the VRA and retrogression is not legal. So some unusual line drawing will be needed to be in compliance.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smid on October 25, 2009, 07:20:57 PM
I was thinking of doing a timeline in which Nixon refuses to resign and instead there was Constitutional change to dilute the presidency, ushering in a US Parliament. Anyway, I probably won't write it, but I've been using Dave's application and combined it with the suggestion from the cube root rule thread that the US would have 675 seats (and decided to give DC one of the 675 seats). I'm thinking I might turn it into a PM4E scenario. I can show you some of the maps I've drawn if anyone's interested. Since I don't like gerrymandering (and don't know internal state voting patterns anyway) I'm focusing predominantly on population equality with a secondary intention of not dividing counties (although that's more the case in some states than others), and I'm ignoring the VRA (since it's a scenario and since it's PM4E and elections rather than the more serious consequences of governance and minority representation). Anyway, if you're interested in seeing some of the maps I've drawn and perhaps guessing how they'd vote, I could start a new thread (so as to not clutter this one).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on October 25, 2009, 07:36:51 PM
Smid, that would be awesome :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 25, 2009, 08:58:39 PM
I was thinking of doing a timeline in which Nixon refuses to resign and instead there was Constitutional change to dilute the presidency, ushering in a US Parliament. Anyway, I probably won't write it, but I've been using Dave's application and combined it with the suggestion from the cube root rule thread that the US would have 675 seats (and decided to give DC one of the 675 seats). I'm thinking I might turn it into a PM4E scenario. I can show you some of the maps I've drawn if anyone's interested. Since I don't like gerrymandering (and don't know internal state voting patterns anyway) I'm focusing predominantly on population equality with a secondary intention of not dividing counties (although that's more the case in some states than others), and I'm ignoring the VRA (since it's a scenario and since it's PM4E and elections rather than the more serious consequences of governance and minority representation). Anyway, if you're interested in seeing some of the maps I've drawn and perhaps guessing how they'd vote, I could start a new thread (so as to not clutter this one).

It sounds like an interesting project. A new thread would probably work best. However, I'm not sure if it fits better on the Elections What If board or better here. In any case if you are looking for advice, you should also define how close in population equality districts must be and what county splitting rules would be in effect. Since this happened after the 1960's I would expect the VRA to still apply.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smid on October 25, 2009, 09:33:10 PM
I was thinking of doing a timeline in which Nixon refuses to resign and instead there was Constitutional change to dilute the presidency, ushering in a US Parliament. Anyway, I probably won't write it, but I've been using Dave's application and combined it with the suggestion from the cube root rule thread that the US would have 675 seats (and decided to give DC one of the 675 seats). I'm thinking I might turn it into a PM4E scenario. I can show you some of the maps I've drawn if anyone's interested. Since I don't like gerrymandering (and don't know internal state voting patterns anyway) I'm focusing predominantly on population equality with a secondary intention of not dividing counties (although that's more the case in some states than others), and I'm ignoring the VRA (since it's a scenario and since it's PM4E and elections rather than the more serious consequences of governance and minority representation). Anyway, if you're interested in seeing some of the maps I've drawn and perhaps guessing how they'd vote, I could start a new thread (so as to not clutter this one).

It sounds like an interesting project. A new thread would probably work best. However, I'm not sure if it fits better on the Elections What If board or better here. In any case if you are looking for advice, you should also define how close in population equality districts must be and what county splitting rules would be in effect. Since this happened after the 1960's I would expect the VRA to still apply.

Yeah - I was going to put it on Elections What-If and then I was thinking, since it's based on changes to the structure of the elections, maybe it would belong better on Alternate History, or perhaps, since I'm thinking of making it a bit of a PM4E scenario, putting it on the Election Games thread. I'll probably go with Elections What-If, though.

Fair enough - I'll go with the VRA. The only Southern State I've done so far is Arkansas, so I don't think it will change anything I've already done, anyway. I might actually go back and re-do some of the ones I've done because I've been keeping the population to a difference of less than 1,500 voters (while Electorates contain around 440,000 voters), so the margin for error is probably smaller than necessary and a larger margin for error would lead to fewer county splits. Generally, I've tried to keep cities together because I think there is more likely to be a "community of interest" keeping a city in a single district (or combining a couple of cities together) and keeping rural areas in a state in a separate district, rather than combining rural and city areas in a single district. In other words, not like Regina in Saskatchewin (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98141.msg2069872#msg2069872), where the city is divided across about four different ridings and each is combined with a large rural area. I'll start that new thread soon, and I think I'll go with the Elections What-If board.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on October 25, 2009, 10:37:24 PM
Here is a map of NC with 14 districts(16EVs), (best map I could do with screen shot).

()

CD 1: (Blue): Has New Bern and Elizabeth City in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the slight to lean Democratic range. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: G. K. Butterfield (D) )

CD 2: Dark Green: Has Goldboro, Kinston and Southern Wake County in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the slight Democratic to Lean Democratic range. Due to popular Congressman, Lean Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Bob Etheridge (D) )

CD 3: Purple: Has Greenville, Jacksonville and Wilmington in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the Slight to Strong Republican range.  Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Walter B. Jones (R) )

CD 4: Red: Has Chaple Hill, Durham and Northern Wake County in it. I'm sure this is strong Democratic.  Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: David Price (D) )

CD 5: Yellow: Wilkesboro, Lexington and Mount Airy are in it. I'm sure this is strong Republican.  Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Virginia Foxx (R) )

CD 6: Tealish color: Winston-Salem, High Point and Western Guilford County are in it. I believe this is somewhere in the Lean to Strong Democratic. Democratic Pick-up (Current Congressperson: None ) *Note Coble doesn't live in this district any more.*

CD 7: Grey: Lumberton and Fayetteville are in it. I believe this would be Lean Democratic. Democratic Hold  (Current Congressperson: Mike McIntyre (D) )

CD 8: Light Purple: Salisbury, Albemarle and Sanford are in it: I believe this is in the toss-up range. IToss-up (Current Congressperson: Larry Kissell (D) )

CD 9: Light Tealish: Southern Charlotte, Monroe and eastern Gastonia are in it. I'm sure this is Strong Republican. Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Sue Myrick (R) )

CD 10: Pink: Hickory, Statesville, Western Gasonia are in it. I'm sure this is strong Republican. Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Patrick McHenry (R) )

CD 11: Lime: Asheville and Boone are in it: I believe this would be Slight Democratic. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Heath Shuler (D) )

CD 12: Light Blueish : Northern Charlotte and Concord are in it. I'm sure this is Strong Democratic.  Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Mel Watt (D) )

CD 13: Paleish Color: Raleigh and Cary are in it. I believe this would be in he Strong Democratic range. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Brad Miller (D) )

CD 14: Dark Yellow: Western Guilford County, Burlington and Eden are in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the toss-up range: Toss-up (Current Congressperson: Howard Coble (R) ) *Note: If Howard Coble does run in 2012, he will win hands down. But when it's open it is toss-up*



Make up before Redistricting: 8 Democratic Congressmember, 5 Republican Congressmember
Make up after Redistricting: 8 Democratic Congressmember, 4 Republican Congressmebmeber, 2 toss-up CD.

What do you guys think about this? Good, bad?

You are assuming of course that NC gains a seat, which isn't currently projected. That said, it's a nice looking map but the loss of both black-majority seats would be fatal at the DOJ. NC is covered under the stringent review of section 5 of the VRA and retrogression is not legal. So some unusual line drawing will be needed to be in compliance.


I used the App to try to remake NC-1(The one with a black majorty) and it seems like it isn't at 50.1% anymore, but at 48-43 black majorty.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 25, 2009, 11:44:25 PM
Here is a map of NC with 14 districts(16EVs), (best map I could do with screen shot).

()

CD 1: (Blue): Has New Bern and Elizabeth City in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the slight to lean Democratic range. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: G. K. Butterfield (D) )

CD 2: Dark Green: Has Goldboro, Kinston and Southern Wake County in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the slight Democratic to Lean Democratic range. Due to popular Congressman, Lean Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Bob Etheridge (D) )

CD 3: Purple: Has Greenville, Jacksonville and Wilmington in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the Slight to Strong Republican range.  Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Walter B. Jones (R) )

CD 4: Red: Has Chaple Hill, Durham and Northern Wake County in it. I'm sure this is strong Democratic.  Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: David Price (D) )

CD 5: Yellow: Wilkesboro, Lexington and Mount Airy are in it. I'm sure this is strong Republican.  Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Virginia Foxx (R) )

CD 6: Tealish color: Winston-Salem, High Point and Western Guilford County are in it. I believe this is somewhere in the Lean to Strong Democratic. Democratic Pick-up (Current Congressperson: None ) *Note Coble doesn't live in this district any more.*

CD 7: Grey: Lumberton and Fayetteville are in it. I believe this would be Lean Democratic. Democratic Hold  (Current Congressperson: Mike McIntyre (D) )

CD 8: Light Purple: Salisbury, Albemarle and Sanford are in it: I believe this is in the toss-up range. IToss-up (Current Congressperson: Larry Kissell (D) )

CD 9: Light Tealish: Southern Charlotte, Monroe and eastern Gastonia are in it. I'm sure this is Strong Republican. Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Sue Myrick (R) )

CD 10: Pink: Hickory, Statesville, Western Gasonia are in it. I'm sure this is strong Republican. Republican Hold (Current Congressperson: Patrick McHenry (R) )

CD 11: Lime: Asheville and Boone are in it: I believe this would be Slight Democratic. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Heath Shuler (D) )

CD 12: Light Blueish : Northern Charlotte and Concord are in it. I'm sure this is Strong Democratic.  Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Mel Watt (D) )

CD 13: Paleish Color: Raleigh and Cary are in it. I believe this would be in he Strong Democratic range. Democratic Hold (Current Congressperson: Brad Miller (D) )

CD 14: Dark Yellow: Western Guilford County, Burlington and Eden are in it. I believe this would be somewhere in the toss-up range: Toss-up (Current Congressperson: Howard Coble (R) ) *Note: If Howard Coble does run in 2012, he will win hands down. But when it's open it is toss-up*



Make up before Redistricting: 8 Democratic Congressmember, 5 Republican Congressmember
Make up after Redistricting: 8 Democratic Congressmember, 4 Republican Congressmebmeber, 2 toss-up CD.

What do you guys think about this? Good, bad?

You are assuming of course that NC gains a seat, which isn't currently projected. That said, it's a nice looking map but the loss of both black-majority seats would be fatal at the DOJ. NC is covered under the stringent review of section 5 of the VRA and retrogression is not legal. So some unusual line drawing will be needed to be in compliance.


I used the App to try to remake NC-1(The one with a black majorty) and it seems like it isn't at 50.1% anymore, but at 48-43 black majorty.

This is my version with 13 CDs.

()

Both CD 1 and 12 are just barely over 50%. Since the districts are smaller in population for 14 CDs they should be easier to make.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on October 25, 2009, 11:55:16 PM
Show off :P I'm going to work on it again! Also, in your map I live in CD 6, in the one I made I live in CD 14.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on October 26, 2009, 12:57:45 AM
NC-01 is probably not majority-black, which runs into VRA issues. Also, NC-12 goes too far into the suburbs to be safe for Mel Watt.

I also don't know that NC-11 needs to be shored up that much for Shuler. He seems perfectly capable of holding that district, since no serious Republican seems to want to run against him.

Where can I find the VRA rules?

Basically, the rule is that you can't dilute the minority presence in a majority-minority (at least 50.1% black or Hispanic) district. Coalition districts (say, one that was 40% black and 15% Hispanic) are not protected, however.

Worst.  Law.  Ever.  BTW

By its very nature it ensures ridiculous gerrymandering, and it's positive effects for minority representation are highly questionable.  It often leads to the creation of a couple of districts with a 60 percent or greater minority presence when almost any redistricting without the rules would create several districts with 30 percent minority representation.  When you want to dilute the chances of an opposition party picking up more seats, you generally create as many districts with super-majorities of that parties voters as possible.  If your goal were to ensure the election of fewer black candidates, and lessen overall minority political power, then I couldn't think of a much better way to do so than the regulations of the VRA.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on October 26, 2009, 01:22:10 AM
NC-01 is probably not majority-black, which runs into VRA issues. Also, NC-12 goes too far into the suburbs to be safe for Mel Watt.

I also don't know that NC-11 needs to be shored up that much for Shuler. He seems perfectly capable of holding that district, since no serious Republican seems to want to run against him.

Where can I find the VRA rules?

Basically, the rule is that you can't dilute the minority presence in a majority-minority (at least 50.1% black or Hispanic) district. Coalition districts (say, one that was 40% black and 15% Hispanic) are not protected, however.

Worst.  Law.  Ever.  BTW

By its very nature it ensures ridiculous gerrymandering, and it's positive effects for minority representation are highly questionable.  It often leads to the creation of a couple of districts with a 60 percent or greater minority presence when almost any redistricting without the rules would create several districts with 30 percent minority representation.  When you want to dilute the chances of an opposition party picking up more seats, you generally create as many districts with super-majorities of that parties voters as possible.  If your goal were to ensure the election of fewer black candidates, and lessen overall minority political power, then I couldn't think of a much better way to do so than the regulations of the VRA.

You'd probably still have to maintain at least a 40% black minority in order for black candidates to win in most of the South.  30% might be sufficient in some of the northern cities but Southern whites are nearly as polarized towards Republicans as blacks voters are towards Democrats.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on October 26, 2009, 02:43:12 AM
NC-01 is probably not majority-black, which runs into VRA issues. Also, NC-12 goes too far into the suburbs to be safe for Mel Watt.

I also don't know that NC-11 needs to be shored up that much for Shuler. He seems perfectly capable of holding that district, since no serious Republican seems to want to run against him.

Where can I find the VRA rules?

Basically, the rule is that you can't dilute the minority presence in a majority-minority (at least 50.1% black or Hispanic) district. Coalition districts (say, one that was 40% black and 15% Hispanic) are not protected, however.

Worst.  Law.  Ever.  BTW

By its very nature it ensures ridiculous gerrymandering, and it's positive effects for minority representation are highly questionable.  It often leads to the creation of a couple of districts with a 60 percent or greater minority presence when almost any redistricting without the rules would create several districts with 30 percent minority representation.  When you want to dilute the chances of an opposition party picking up more seats, you generally create as many districts with super-majorities of that parties voters as possible.  If your goal were to ensure the election of fewer black candidates, and lessen overall minority political power, then I couldn't think of a much better way to do so than the regulations of the VRA.

You'd probably still have to maintain at least a 40% black minority in order for black candidates to win in most of the South.  30% might be sufficient in some of the northern cities but Southern whites are nearly as polarized towards Republicans as blacks voters are towards Democrats.

I can't speak for the rest of the south, but I know here, in North Carolina. Places that have a high black population, are very liberal areas anyways.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 26, 2009, 07:10:37 AM
NC-01 is probably not majority-black, which runs into VRA issues. Also, NC-12 goes too far into the suburbs to be safe for Mel Watt.

I also don't know that NC-11 needs to be shored up that much for Shuler. He seems perfectly capable of holding that district, since no serious Republican seems to want to run against him.

Where can I find the VRA rules?

Basically, the rule is that you can't dilute the minority presence in a majority-minority (at least 50.1% black or Hispanic) district. Coalition districts (say, one that was 40% black and 15% Hispanic) are not protected, however.

Worst.  Law.  Ever.  BTW

By its very nature it ensures ridiculous gerrymandering, and it's positive effects for minority representation are highly questionable.  It often leads to the creation of a couple of districts with a 60 percent or greater minority presence when almost any redistricting without the rules would create several districts with 30 percent minority representation.  When you want to dilute the chances of an opposition party picking up more seats, you generally create as many districts with super-majorities of that parties voters as possible.  If your goal were to ensure the election of fewer black candidates, and lessen overall minority political power, then I couldn't think of a much better way to do so than the regulations of the VRA.

You'd probably still have to maintain at least a 40% black minority in order for black candidates to win in most of the South.  30% might be sufficient in some of the northern cities but Southern whites are nearly as polarized towards Republicans as blacks voters are towards Democrats.

The Gingles test requires an analysis of ethnic bloc voting. If that pattern is present and there is 50% in a compact area then the VRA requirements come into play. It's possible that some VRA districts don't currently have bloc voting that prevents the minority group from electing the candidate of their choice, but most mappers will err on the side of judicial safety by creating the district anyway.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on October 26, 2009, 01:57:14 PM
How do you save a map off of the app?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 26, 2009, 09:03:19 PM
The help link on the app actually worked pretty well for me. If you have any problems after those steps let me know and I'll try to fill in.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on October 26, 2009, 11:13:07 PM
()

CD-1(Blue): 50-42 Black majorty.
CD-12(Light Blue): 52-30 Black Majorty.

So what do you guys think about this one? Good Bad?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on October 29, 2009, 08:41:45 PM
NC-01 is probably not majority-black, which runs into VRA issues. Also, NC-12 goes too far into the suburbs to be safe for Mel Watt.

I also don't know that NC-11 needs to be shored up that much for Shuler. He seems perfectly capable of holding that district, since no serious Republican seems to want to run against him.

Where can I find the VRA rules?

Basically, the rule is that you can't dilute the minority presence in a majority-minority (at least 50.1% black or Hispanic) district. Coalition districts (say, one that was 40% black and 15% Hispanic) are not protected, however.

Worst.  Law.  Ever.  BTW

By its very nature it ensures ridiculous gerrymandering, and it's positive effects for minority representation are highly questionable.  It often leads to the creation of a couple of districts with a 60 percent or greater minority presence when almost any redistricting without the rules would create several districts with 30 percent minority representation.  When you want to dilute the chances of an opposition party picking up more seats, you generally create as many districts with super-majorities of that parties voters as possible.  If your goal were to ensure the election of fewer black candidates, and lessen overall minority political power, then I couldn't think of a much better way to do so than the regulations of the VRA.

You'd probably still have to maintain at least a 40% black minority in order for black candidates to win in most of the South.  30% might be sufficient in some of the northern cities but Southern whites are nearly as polarized towards Republicans as blacks voters are towards Democrats.

And yet one could easily argue that this kind of segregation increases polarization by decreasing political interaction.

90% of the South never has an opportunity to take a good look at a Black candidate, while that's all 105 of the South sees.  In the meantime, by creating this black/white, liberal/conservative polemic, you insure that the most extreme candidates will be elected, especially in terms of racial issues.  It becomes an issue of the "ultra-conservative, reactionary, racist cracker" in one districts vs the "ultra-liberal, socialist, damn complaining, lazy n***er" in the other.  The perception is fed by the separation, which in turn causes a greater separation.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: ag on October 30, 2009, 05:10:31 PM
The right way to achieve minority representation (if that is what is desired) is not gerrymander, but elements of PR. Might require constitutional changes (or, at least, new court rulings), but it would get to the objective without the present-day contortions.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Joe Cooper on December 05, 2009, 08:26:56 PM
http://www.redstate.com/merrimackman/2009/12/05/maryland-2012-redistricting-map/

Red state has a redistricting plan using daves tool



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on December 05, 2009, 09:42:55 PM
Hmm, well, that's interesting, I guess.

Here are some random maps that I've had for a while but haven't bothered to post.

First, a Democratic gerrymander of Idaho. Still two Republican districts, but the blue one is as Democratic a district as you'll be able to make in the state.

()

Reversed situation for Maine. Green district takes in as much Republican territory as possible (and may have been won by Bush 2000, but I wouldn't know):

()

My attempt to make an Obama district in West Virginia. By my calculations, I came up short, but the blue district still probably voted around 48-49% for Obama:

()

And finally, what the Republicans will probably do in Utah, turn Salt Lake County into a replica of the Four Corners Monument, with Matheson in the green district, so he gets to run in the last part of the state he hasn't had to run in yet:

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on December 06, 2009, 01:02:19 AM
http://www.redstate.com/merrimackman/2009/12/05/maryland-2012-redistricting-map/

Red state has a redistricting plan using daves tool



I had put together a map of MD a couple of years ago based on 2010 projections. I adapted it to the 2008 data on the App to get the following map.

()

The districts are all within 100 persons of the ideal number, and were designed to minimize the number of split counties. There are Two majority Black districts. Using the voting data on the App, here's how they come out with the percentage of the two-party 2008 presidential vote:

CD-1 (blue) R+16
CD-2 (green) R+9
CD-3 (purple) R+3
CD-4 (red) D+41
CD-5 (yellow, 67% Black) D+73
CD-6 (teal) D+2
CD-7 (gray, 63% Black) D+76
CD-8 (lavender) D+48


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kevinstat on December 06, 2009, 05:22:08 PM
Reversed situation for Maine. Green district takes in as much Republican territory as possible (and may have been won by Bush 2000, but I wouldn't know):

()

Dave's app for Maine is rather useless because Maine's "voting districts" according to the Census Bureau (which Dave uses in his app) are chunks of territory in the same State House, State Senate and (County) Commissioner districts from before the 2003 redistricting in Maine.  Congressional districts didn't matter: Albion and Benton in Kennebec County were in different CDs back then (and still are, but the other way), but were both (along with Unity Township which was and still is in all the same election districts as Albion) in "Voting District 141063, Kennebec County" as they were all in the Senate District 14, House District 106 and Commissioner District 3.  Wayne and Fayette in Kennebec County were also in different CDs back then but shared all state and county elected officials (they're now in the same CD but in different House districts) and are thus shown as being in the same voting district by both the Census Bureau and Dave's app.  Some of the voting districts are incorrect even by that standard (Cape Elizabeth and Limington were split between House districts but are shown as being entirely in one of them (in Cape Elizabeth's case the district entirely in that municipality that included most of that town; Limington didn't have a whole district but a majority of its population was probably in the same House district the entire town is shown as being in).  Some islands and island towns and one of the two chunks of Lewiston that were in the southern Lewiston House district but in the all-Lewiston Senate district (the rest of that House district was in a Senate district based in Auburn) are shown on Dave's app as having no people even though they did as of the 2000 census and probably the estimates used as the entire popluation of that "voting district" is attributed to another island or a portion of the mainland in all the same districts in the first case or the other chunk of Lewiston with those same districts in the second case.

Perhaps Dave could be persuaded to use Block Groups for Maine as they would be smaller and be confined to one municipality in much of the state.  Maybe the Census Bureau also has polygons for county subdivisions.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on December 12, 2009, 10:47:02 AM
Dave's added partisan data to New York now; you have to click the "Use Test Data" button before loading the map to get it to work. If you want to create a 57-42 McCain district in Brooklyn, now you can.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Joe Cooper on December 12, 2009, 11:24:36 PM
http://i781.photobucket.com/albums/yy92/Joe_Cooper/ny-59McCain.jpg


59% McCain district


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: ag on December 13, 2009, 01:01:06 PM
http://i781.photobucket.com/albums/yy92/Joe_Cooper/ny-59McCain.jpg


59% McCain district

Eagle on a cactus? Anybody sees a Mexican conspiracy here?

Let's call it tequilamander.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: ag on December 13, 2009, 03:18:57 PM
Dave's added partisan data to New York now; you have to click the "Use Test Data" button before loading the map to get it to work. If you want to create a 57-42 McCain district in Brooklyn, now you can.

Where is the button?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Nhoj on December 13, 2009, 04:28:26 PM
Dave's added partisan data to New York now; you have to click the "Use Test Data" button before loading the map to get it to work. If you want to create a 57-42 McCain district in Brooklyn, now you can.

Where is the button?
Should be on the right side of the page just below help and about.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: ag on December 13, 2009, 07:18:39 PM
tnx


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on December 21, 2009, 05:44:07 PM
http://www.redstate.com/merrimackman/2009/12/05/maryland-2012-redistricting-map/

Red state has a redistricting plan using daves tool



I had put together a map of MD a couple of years ago based on 2010 projections. I adapted it to the 2008 data on the App to get the following map.

()

The districts are all within 100 persons of the ideal number, and were designed to minimize the number of split counties. There are Two majority Black districts. Using the voting data on the App, here's how they come out with the percentage of the two-party 2008 presidential vote:

CD-1 (blue) R+16
CD-2 (green) R+9
CD-3 (purple) R+3
CD-4 (red) D+41
CD-5 (yellow, 67% Black) D+73
CD-6 (teal) D+2
CD-7 (gray, 63% Black) D+76
CD-8 (lavender) D+48


This is a great Republican gerrymander of Maryland. I would make CD-01 less Republican just to make the three remaining Republican-leaning/swing districts even more Republican.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on December 21, 2009, 09:53:05 PM
That somewhat reminds me of the Maryland map that I just created.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on December 21, 2009, 10:05:26 PM
()

District 1 (blue): Obama 42%, McCain 56%
District 2 (green): Obama 47%, McCain 51%
District 3 (violet): Obama 54%, McCain 43%
District 4 (red): Obama 87%, McCain 12%. 65% black.
District 5 (yellow): Obama 72%, McCain 27%
District 6 (teal): Obama 42%, McCain 56%
District 7 (gray): Obama 86%, McCain 12%. 63% black.
District 8 (lavender): Obama 72%, McCain 27%


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on December 21, 2009, 10:28:08 PM

I had put together a map of MD a couple of years ago based on 2010 projections. I adapted it to the 2008 data on the App to get the following map.

()

The districts are all within 100 persons of the ideal number, and were designed to minimize the number of split counties. There are two majority Black districts. Using the voting data on the App, here's how they come out with the percentage of the two-party 2008 presidential vote:

CD-1 (blue) R+16
CD-2 (green) R+9
CD-3 (purple) R+3
CD-4 (red) D+41
CD-5 (yellow, 67% Black) D+73
CD-6 (teal) D+2
CD-7 (gray, 63% Black) D+76
CD-8 (lavender) D+48


This is a great Republican gerrymander of Maryland. I would make CD-01 less Republican just to make the three remaining Republican-leaning/swing districts even more Republican.

The combination of majority-minority districts and minimizing county splits tends to help the GOP. I could have gone for a true pro-GOP gerrymander, but that wasn't the goal of the map. It was nice to see my CD-3 and 6 be highly competitive (partisan diff < 5) and CD-2 be reasonably competitive (< 10).

Note that TC's map below still has a heavy GOP lean in district 1, since it's hard to change it a lot without crossing the Chesapeake at Annapolis. Note that from a GOP view he's sacrificed the suburban Baltimore district to a D+11 while strengthening CD-6 to R+14 so it looks more like an incumbent protection map.

()

District 1 (blue): Obama 42%, McCain 56%
District 2 (green): Obama 47%, McCain 51%
District 3 (violet): Obama 54%, McCain 43%
District 4 (red): Obama 87%, McCain 12%. 65% black.
District 5 (yellow): Obama 72%, McCain 27%
District 6 (teal): Obama 42%, McCain 56%
District 7 (gray): Obama 86%, McCain 12%. 63% black.
District 8 (lavender): Obama 72%, McCain 27%


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on December 23, 2009, 10:58:50 AM
I know that Maryland is unlikely to gain a district in 2010 but I decided to try it out anyway.

()

District 1 (blue): Obama 41%, McCain 57%
District 2 (green): Obama 48%, McCain 51%
District 3 (violet): Obama 87%, McCain 13%. 66% black.
District 4 (red): Obama 45%, McCain 52%
District 5 (yellow): Obama 81%, McCain 18%. 40% white and 36% black.
District 6 (teal): Obama 40%, McCain 58%
District 7 (gray): Obama 89%, McCain 10%. 68% black.
District 8 (lavender): Obama 66%, McCain 32%
District 9: Obama 70%, McCain 29%


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on December 23, 2009, 05:47:18 PM
Here is my North Carolina Map, with 13 CDs.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on December 24, 2009, 05:19:07 PM
Republican gerrymander of Indiana:

()

IN-01 (blue, Pete Visclosky - D) - Took LaPorte County form neighboring IN-02 and dropped the Republican-leaning counties in the south of the district. Easily went for Obama by about a 2-1 margin.
IN-02 (green, Joe Donnelly - D) - Shifted the district east; basically the only old parts are St. Joseph County and Elkhart. Went from 54-45 Obama to about 51-48 McCain. Donnelly might have a shot at holding this one, but it would be much tougher.
IN-03 (purple, Mark Souder - R) - Remains centered in Fort Wayne, but the rest of the district goes south now. Formerly a 56-43 McCain district; my rough estimate is about a 55-44 McCain margin now.
IN-04 (red, Steve Buyer - R) - Shifts from the Indianapolis suburbs to the north central part of the state, but I scooped out about half of Tippecanoe County to compensate for losing those Republican suburbs. Another formerly 56-43 McCain district, I'm guessing it's about the same now, maybe a point less Republican.
IN-05 (yellow, Dan Burton - R) - Shrinks down to mostly the northern Indy suburbs, although I did add in part of the aforementioned Tippecanoe. Was 59-40 McCain, I'd say the margin's more like 57-42 now.
IN-06 (teal, Mike Pence - R) - Stretchy! Instead of comprising the mid-eastern part of the state, it goes from Muncie, around the outskirts of the Indy area, up to the northwest end of the state. Was 53-46 McCain, actually I think it's a little more Republican now, around 55-44 McCain.
IN-07 (grey, Andre Carson - D) - Pretty much unchanged, although slightly bigger, easily high-60s for Obama.
IN-08 (light purple, Brad Ellsworth - D) - Interestingly-shaped to remove Bloomington from IN-09, this one now includes pretty much all the Dem-friendly territory in the southwest of the state. Formerly 51-47 McCain, this flips to around 53-46 Obama.
IN-09 (light blue, Baron Hill - D) - Loses Baron's most favorable territory and adds in some Republican parts on the west and northeast sides. Was 50-49 McCain, now a whopping 58-41 McCain.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on December 25, 2009, 12:12:15 AM
For fun, here's a detailed breakdown on a Democratic gerrymander for New York (eliminating Pete King while keeping all Democrats safe-ish and solidifying holds on the marginal upstate seats).

NY-01 (Suffolk Outer): 53% Obama, 47% McCain
NY-02 (Suffolk Inner): 54% Obama, 45% McCain
NY-03 (Nassau North and Suffolk North): 54% Obama, 45% McCain
NY-04 (Nassau South): 56% Obama, 44% McCain
NY-05 (Queens Southeast and Nassau Central): 76% Obama, 24% McCain; 50% black

The final district is the key to this gerrymander; the very Republican areas of central Nassau County get combined with the black areas of Jamaica, Laurelton and other parts of Southeast Queens, which far outvote them in NY-05 and leave the rest of the Long Island districts at or above Obama's national numbers. King probably could survive in NY-03 (it's not possible to draw the districts in such a way as to guarantee his defeat), but he would be much more vulnerable.

()

NY-06 (Queens South Central and Brooklyn South): 63% Obama, 36% McCain
NY-07 (Queens East, Bronx Southeast and West and Manhattan Northwest): 81% Obama, 18% McCain; 52% Hispanic
NY-08 (Queens East Central and Bronx South): 88% Obama, 12% McCain; 50% Hispanic
NY-09 (Queens Central and Northwest): 71% Obama, 28% McCain
NY-10 (Queens North Central and Brooklyn Northeast): 85% Obama, 15% McCain; 57% Hispanic
NY-11 (Brooklyn Southeast): 79% Obama, 21% McCain; 51% black
NY-12 (Brooklyn Central): 82% Obama, 18% McCain, 51% black
NY-13 (Staten Island and Brooklyn Southwest): 52% Obama, 47% McCain
NY-14 (Brooklyn Northwest and Manhattan South): 87% Obama, 12% McCain
NY-15 (Manhattan Central): 82% Obama, 17% McCain
NY-16 (Manhattan North and Bronx Northeast): 94% Obama, 6% McCain; 50% black

Some shuffling around of the Hispanic districts makes the Staten Island district a little bit more Democratic by including some ultra-Hispanic areas near Greenwood. The two Brooklyn black districts share the ultra-Republican areas of South-central Brooklyn between them, diluting it completely. A new black-majority district, NY-16, is created by combining Harlem with the Northwest Bronx and the city of Mount Vernon; this is sort of Rangel's district rejigged.

NY-07 and NY-08 are nasty pieces of work, drawn in that way to create an extra Hispanic district. Originally, I had the South Bronx and Washington Heights together, and then the Southwest Bronx and the Queens areas together, but that made a 66% Hispanic and a 36% Hispanic district (more or less the way it is now) when two majority Hispanic districts were definitely possible. Of course, NE Queens residents could claim disenfranchisement on this map because they do not form a majority in either district. Partisan considerations don't really matter as even the 36% Hispanic district was only 22% white (substantially Asian and black, obviously) and something around 70+% for Obama.

Only in Manhattan can a 65% white district be 82% for Obama and also be the wealthiest CD (probably by far) in the country. NY-15 is basically the Upper East and Upper West Sides, although it did add East Harlem for population and to keep the Hispanics out of the new black majority district, NY-16.

()

NY-17 (Westchester East and Bronx East Central): 60% Obama, 39% McCain
NY-18 (Westchester West, Bronx Northwest and Rockland): 59% Obama, 40% McCain
NY-19 (Hudson Valley West): 54% Obama, 45% McCain
NY-20 (Hudson Valley East): 54% Obama, 44% McCain

Not a whole lot to say. Putnam County is actually not cracked on this map; every town in the Hudson Valley East district voted for Obama, while the areas in the Westchester district voted for McCain. Eliot Engel is pretty much the only Democrat who becomes substantially less safe, but 59% Obama is nothing to scoff at.

()

NY-21 (Albany and Schenectady): 56% Obama, 42% McCain
NY-22 (Adirondacks): 53% Obama, 45% McCain
NY-23 (Utica and Syracuse East): 54% Obama, 44% McCain
NY-24 (Ithaca, Binghampton and Syracuse South): 54% Obama, 45% McCain

Pretty boring, not much going on. NY-22 obviously has a huge Republican registration advantage but is stronger for Obama than the previous NY-23 and thus shouldn't be too hard for Owens to hold in the near-term.

()

NY-25 (Rochester East and Syracuse West): 57% Obama, 42% McCain
NY-26 (Rochester West and Buffalo North): 58% Obama, 41% McCain
NY-27 (Southern Tier): 43% Obama, 56% McCain
NY-28 (Buffalo South): 56% Obama, 42% McCain

The Republicans are packed into NY-27, the only McCain-voting district in the state, which is now very safe for Lee. It's pretty much impossible to get rid of him. You could try, but the resultant map would put all four districts in danger for the Democrats (around 51-52% Obama), really not worth it. Every Democratic district in the state was drawn to be more Democratic than the nation as a whole except the outer Suffolk and Staten Island districts, where that just wasn't possible geographically, and doing any districts less than that is a huge risk.

()

Maps to be inserted in a moment. Bah, the maps aren't working. Anyway, descriptions should suffice. Images are now showing up. Enjoy.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on December 25, 2009, 12:28:12 AM
Republican gerrymander of Indiana:

()

IN-01 (blue, Pete Visclosky - D) - Took LaPorte County form neighboring IN-02 and dropped the Republican-leaning counties in the south of the district. Easily went for Obama by about a 2-1 margin.
IN-02 (green, Joe Donnelly - D) - Shifted the district east; basically the only old parts are St. Joseph County and Elkhart. Went from 54-45 Obama to about 51-48 McCain. Donnelly might have a shot at holding this one, but it would be much tougher.
IN-03 (purple, Mark Souder - R) - Remains centered in Fort Wayne, but the rest of the district goes south now. Formerly a 56-43 McCain district; my rough estimate is about a 55-44 McCain margin now.
IN-04 (red, Steve Buyer - R) - Shifts from the Indianapolis suburbs to the north central part of the state, but I scooped out about half of Tippecanoe County to compensate for losing those Republican suburbs. Another formerly 56-43 McCain district, I'm guessing it's about the same now, maybe a point less Republican.
IN-05 (yellow, Dan Burton - R) - Shrinks down to mostly the northern Indy suburbs, although I did add in part of the aforementioned Tippecanoe. Was 59-40 McCain, I'd say the margin's more like 57-42 now.
IN-06 (teal, Mike Pence - R) - Stretchy! Instead of comprising the mid-eastern part of the state, it goes from Muncie, around the outskirts of the Indy area, up to the northwest end of the state. Was 53-46 McCain, actually I think it's a little more Republican now, around 55-44 McCain.
IN-07 (grey, Andre Carson - D) - Pretty much unchanged, although slightly bigger, easily high-60s for Obama.
IN-08 (light purple, Brad Ellsworth - D) - Interestingly-shaped to remove Bloomington from IN-09, this one now includes pretty much all the Dem-friendly territory in the southwest of the state. Formerly 51-47 McCain, this flips to around 53-46 Obama.
IN-09 (light blue, Baron Hill - D) - Loses Baron's most favorable territory and adds in some Republican parts on the west and northeast sides. Was 50-49 McCain, now a whopping 58-41 McCain.

Johnny, that is a great map, but I have one suggestion. I would give Tippecanoe County to Ellsworth (since it voted for Obama by a large margin) and give some rural McCain countries in southwestern Indiana that previously belonged to IN-08 to IN-09. That would make Ellsworth's district more solidly Democratic and allow Republicans to make the remaining six districts even more Republican (just in case to prevent them from losing any seats even in a very bad year like 2006 or 2008).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Free Palestine on January 06, 2010, 03:46:30 PM
Here is (most of) Los Angeles County, if the House were to be reapportioned to one representative for every fifty thousand people.

()

Movement is really hard in the program - it would be great if you could move simply by center-clicking and dragging.  Also, it would be nice if saving/loading was less complicated.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 06, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Movement is really hard in the program - it would be great if you could move simply by center-clicking and dragging.  Also, it would be nice if saving/loading was less complicated.

It is awkward to use compared to commercial redistricting tools. Beside the unusual pan and zoom controls, polygon captures are missing and that would speed up the task enormously. An undo would also be of great use.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Free Palestine on January 07, 2010, 01:51:49 PM
Maine, with twelve districts, each with approximately a hundred thousand people.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 07, 2010, 07:59:02 PM
That island district is really wacky. There's no way to get from Mt Desert Island to the rest of the district, but there are roads connecting Mt Desert Island to the mainland. Same goes for Deer Isle/Stonington.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on January 08, 2010, 10:05:31 AM
I know we were asked not to post every swing state diary map here when people can see them there on their own, but this "New York 28-0" takes the cake for treating redistricting as an abstraction. I'm actually offended that someone submitted it.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6166/#108516


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Joe Republic on January 08, 2010, 10:20:38 AM
I know we were asked not to post every swing state diary map here when people can see them there on their own, but this "New York 28-0" takes the cake for treating redistricting as an abstraction. I'm actually offended that someone submitted it.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6166/#108516

That is a work of art.  Major kudos to the creator for putting parts of Buffalo into Jerry Nadler's district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on January 09, 2010, 01:57:38 AM
I know we were asked not to post every swing state diary map here when people can see them there on their own, but this "New York 28-0" takes the cake for treating redistricting as an abstraction. I'm actually offended that someone submitted it.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6166/#108516

That is a work of art.  Major kudos to the creator for putting parts of Buffalo into Jerry Nadler's district.
What is up with that weird Rochester district though?

He also didn't take advantage of the Queens-Richmond and Westchester-Nassau contiguity.

BTW, NY at one time had a Kings-Richmond-Rockland district.





Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Free Palestine on January 09, 2010, 02:01:54 AM
Rhode Island, with ten districts.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smash255 on January 09, 2010, 02:34:33 AM
For fun, here's a detailed breakdown on a Democratic gerrymander for New York (eliminating Pete King while keeping all Democrats safe-ish and solidifying holds on the marginal upstate seats).

NY-01 (Suffolk Outer): 53% Obama, 47% McCain
NY-02 (Suffolk Inner): 54% Obama, 45% McCain
NY-03 (Nassau North and Suffolk North): 54% Obama, 45% McCain
NY-04 (Nassau South): 56% Obama, 44% McCain
NY-05 (Queens Southeast and Nassau Central): 76% Obama, 24% McCain; 50% black

The final district is the key to this gerrymander; the very Republican areas of central Nassau County get combined with the black areas of Jamaica, Laurelton and other parts of Southeast Queens, which far outvote them in NY-05 and leave the rest of the Long Island districts at or above Obama's national numbers. King probably could survive in NY-03 (it's not possible to draw the districts in such a way as to guarantee his defeat), but he would be much more vulnerable.

()


Hard to tell exactly where some of the town borders are on here, and you don't have to live in the district to run in it, but you probably don't want to have Dems run in districts they do not live in or in districts with other Democrats.  It appears you have McCarthy in the same district as Meeks, though possibly in the same district as Ackerman (depending on where exactly the community borders are.  McCarthy lives in Mineola, which is a marginal area in central nassau, just to the north of heavily Republican Garden City.  Meeks lives in heavily Democratic Far Rockaway in SE Queens, Ackerman in heavily Democratic Roslyn Estates (NW Nassau)  In this map King would actually be in NY-4, he lives in Seaford (SE Nassau).

 



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 09, 2010, 11:11:08 PM
I know we were asked not to post every swing state diary map here when people can see them there on their own, but this "New York 28-0" takes the cake for treating redistricting as an abstraction. I'm actually offended that someone submitted it.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6166/#108516

I was bothered by the fact that the author of this reduced the minority levels so much in CD-15 that whites are the largest group by a significant amount, and then called it a VRA district. So I decided to retaliate with a VRA-based map that maximizes minority-majority districts.

In my map below I assume 28 districts and all are within 100 using 2008 data on the App. NYC has 8 districts with a single minority majority:

CD-16 (bright green - Bronx) 58% Hispanic.
CD-15 (orange - New York, Bronx, and some Queens) 51% Hispanic
CD-12 (blue - Kings, Queens, and a bit of New York) 51% Hispanic
CD-11 (lime green - Kings) 55% Black
CD-10 (magenta - Kings) 55% Black
CD-7 (grey - Bronx, Queens) 56% Hispanic
CD-6 (cyan - Queens, Nassau) 55% Black

and the drum roll please ...

CD-5 (yellow - Queens, New York, and Kings) 51% Asian

()

The majority-Asian CD-5 defines this map. It links Flushing in Queens to Chinatown in Manhattan and on to Sunset Park in Brooklyn. The other districts then work around that district. The other majority-minority districts maintain the largest group in the current CD.

I restricted the Staten Island district (CD-13) to cross into Brooklyn and that forced CD8 to run from lower Manhattan up to Yonkers, though CD-14 could have connected to Yonkers instead by crossing Central Park. On Long Island the constraints of CDs 5 and 6 forced CD3 (purple) to go from Coney Island out to Suffolk County along the Atlantic. The population shifts also caused CD-17 (dark blue-grey) to go from Westchester through Co Op City in the Bronx to cross at Throgs Neck and run along the Sound to NW Nassau.

Enjoy. :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 09, 2010, 11:40:58 PM
I know we were asked not to post every swing state diary map here when people can see them there on their own, but this "New York 28-0" takes the cake for treating redistricting as an abstraction. I'm actually offended that someone submitted it.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6166/#108516

I was bothered by the fact that the author of this reduced the minority levels so much in CD-15 that whites are the largest group by a significant amount, and then called it a VRA district. So I decided to retaliate with a VRA-based map that maximizes minority-majority districts.

In my map below I assume 28 districts and all are within 100 using 2008 data on the App. NYC has 8 districts with a single minority majority:

CD-16 (bright green - Bronx) 58% Hispanic.
CD-15 (orange - New York, Bronx, and some Queens) 51% Hispanic
CD-12 (blue - Kings, Queens, and a bit of New York) 51% Hispanic
CD-11 (lime green - Kings) 55% Black
CD-10 (magenta - Kings) 55% Black
CD-7 (grey - Bronx, Queens) 56% Hispanic
CD-6 (cyan - Queens, Nassau) 55% Black

and the drum roll please ...

CD-5 (yellow - Queens, New York, and Kings) 51% Asian

()

The majority-Asian CD-5 defines this map. It links Flushing in Queens to Chinatown in Manhattan and on to Sunset Park in Brooklyn. The other districts then work around that district. The other majority-minority districts maintain the largest group in the current CD.

I restricted the Staten Island district (CD-13) to cross into Brooklyn and that forced CD8 to run from lower Manhattan up to Yonkers, though CD-14 could have connected to Yonkers instead by crossing Central Park. On Long Island the constraints of CDs 5 and 6 forced CD3 (purple) to go from Coney Island out to Suffolk County along the Atlantic. The population shifts also caused CD-17 (dark blue-grey) to go from Westchester through Co Op City in the Bronx to cross at Throgs Neck and run along the Sound to NW Nassau.

Enjoy. :)

It's pretty cool you can make an Asian-majority district in New York. Can you see if you can make one in California?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 10, 2010, 12:03:32 AM

It's pretty cool you can make an Asian-majority district in New York. Can you see if you can make one in California?

I did one on this thread a while ago, but with so many pages, I'll repeat it. The three-lobed district in San Jose is majority-Asian.

Here's a remap of CA with 53 districts using the 2008 data. All districts are within 1000 of the ideal population. There are 17 Hispanic-majority districts, 1 Asian-majority district and 1 Black-majority district. The other districts were drawn to maintain compactness and minimize county splits.

()

Zooming into LA:

()

Zooming into the Bay Area:

()

I'll let the local experts speculate on the partisan balance in these districts.

edit: maps modified to reflect some of the comments, including the addition of an Asian-majority district in and around San Jose, and modifying the northern part of LA county.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smash255 on January 10, 2010, 09:57:20 PM
I was about to start my own map for NY, but the data for the 08 Presidential race does not seem to be loading.  Anyone know if that data is down or if I need to click something in order for it to work?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: enlightened despot on January 10, 2010, 10:13:28 PM
Smash,

Have you clicked the "test data" box before you select New York from the drop down menu?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smash255 on January 10, 2010, 11:06:23 PM
Smash,

Have you clicked the "test data" box before you select New York from the drop down menu?

Ahh I was hitting the test data box after I selected New York, not before.  Working now, thanks.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 11, 2010, 02:02:41 PM
Also, the only way to get both new population data and the electoral data for NY is to load Maryland first, select both, then switch to New York. A pain.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 11, 2010, 06:07:10 PM
Can anyone create two black-majority districts in Virginia?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 11, 2010, 06:16:31 PM
Can anyone create two black-majority districts in Virginia?

Definitely not possible. Creating one already requires severe gerrymandering.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 11, 2010, 07:08:11 PM

The green district (where I live) is fascinating.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 12, 2010, 12:28:15 AM
Can anyone create two black-majority districts in Virginia?

Definitely not possible. Creating one already requires severe gerrymandering.

Actually I tried it and was successful. Basically what you do is you take the black-majority precincts (and ones with a very large black minority) in Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake.  That gets you one black-majority district. Then you take the black majority precincts in Richmond and Henrico County, and precincts with a very large black minroity in Chesterfield, Nottoway, Dinwiddle, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Halifax, and Charlotte Countries and add the city of Danville. Also, you should stretch this district to Lynchburg or even Roanoke (even though just Lynchburg is fine) and you should get a second black-majority district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 12, 2010, 12:41:20 AM

So far, that district in San Jose and adjacent areas and the one in NYC are the only two Asian-majority districts I've found. If that were the CA map in 2012, who do you think would win the district?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 12, 2010, 03:17:59 AM
Can anyone create two black-majority districts in Virginia?

Definitely not possible. Creating one already requires severe gerrymandering.

Actually I tried it and was successful. Basically what you do is you take the black-majority precincts (and ones with a very large black minority) in Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake.  That gets you one black-majority district. Then you take the black majority precincts in Richmond and Henrico County, and precincts with a very large black minroity in Chesterfield, Nottoway, Dinwiddle, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Halifax, and Charlotte Countries and add the city of Danville. Also, you should stretch this district to Lynchburg or even Roanoke (even though just Lynchburg is fine) and you should get a second black-majority district.

Plurality, or majority? I have no doubt that you could get two 45% black districts that are 43% white. But 50% black seems highly unlikely.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 12, 2010, 06:26:24 PM
Can anyone create two black-majority districts in Virginia?

Definitely not possible. Creating one already requires severe gerrymandering.

Actually I tried it and was successful. Basically what you do is you take the black-majority precincts (and ones with a very large black minority) in Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake.  That gets you one black-majority district. Then you take the black majority precincts in Richmond and Henrico County, and precincts with a very large black minroity in Chesterfield, Nottoway, Dinwiddle, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Halifax, and Charlotte Countries and add the city of Danville. Also, you should stretch this district to Lynchburg or even Roanoke (even though just Lynchburg is fine) and you should get a second black-majority district.

Plurality, or majority? I have no doubt that you could get two 45% black districts that are 43% white. But 50% black seems highly unlikely.

I said majority, as in 50+% African American. I experimented with Dave's Redistricting App and managed to get 2 black majority districts. If you follow my directions you should get two as well.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 12, 2010, 06:38:02 PM

So far, that district in San Jose and adjacent areas and the one in NYC are the only two Asian-majority districts I've found. If that were the CA map in 2012, who do you think would win the district?

Democratic victories all across the board. Mike Honda would certainly have no trouble holding the district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 12, 2010, 06:53:10 PM

So far, that district in San Jose and adjacent areas and the one in NYC are the only two Asian-majority districts I've found. If that were the CA map in 2012, who do you think would win the district?

Democratic victories all across the board. Mike Honda would certainly have no trouble holding the district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 14, 2010, 11:25:19 AM
Can anyone create two black-majority districts in Virginia?

Definitely not possible. Creating one already requires severe gerrymandering.

Actually I tried it and was successful. Basically what you do is you take the black-majority precincts (and ones with a very large black minority) in Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake.  That gets you one black-majority district. Then you take the black majority precincts in Richmond and Henrico County, and precincts with a very large black minroity in Chesterfield, Nottoway, Dinwiddle, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Halifax, and Charlotte Countries and add the city of Danville. Also, you should stretch this district to Lynchburg or even Roanoke (even though just Lynchburg is fine) and you should get a second black-majority district.

Plurality, or majority? I have no doubt that you could get two 45% black districts that are 43% white. But 50% black seems highly unlikely.

I said majority, as in 50+% African American. I experimented with Dave's Redistricting App and managed to get 2 black majority districts. If you follow my directions you should get two as well.

I played around with it last night, and I also got two districts by separating Richmond from Norfolk/Newport News. CD3 (purple) is just over 50% and CD4 (red) is 53%. CD1 (blue) becomes a long snaky district from Prince William Co almost down to NC.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 14, 2010, 09:28:30 PM
Can anyone create two black-majority districts in Virginia?

Definitely not possible. Creating one already requires severe gerrymandering.

Actually I tried it and was successful. Basically what you do is you take the black-majority precincts (and ones with a very large black minority) in Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake.  That gets you one black-majority district. Then you take the black majority precincts in Richmond and Henrico County, and precincts with a very large black minroity in Chesterfield, Nottoway, Dinwiddle, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Halifax, and Charlotte Countries and add the city of Danville. Also, you should stretch this district to Lynchburg or even Roanoke (even though just Lynchburg is fine) and you should get a second black-majority district.

Plurality, or majority? I have no doubt that you could get two 45% black districts that are 43% white. But 50% black seems highly unlikely.

I said majority, as in 50+% African American. I experimented with Dave's Redistricting App and managed to get 2 black majority districts. If you follow my directions you should get two as well.

I played around with it last night, and I also got two districts by separating Richmond from Norfolk/Newport News. CD3 (purple) is just over 50% and CD4 (red) is 53%. CD1 (blue) becomes a long snaky district from Prince William Co almost down to NC.

()

That's a good map. Randy Forbes would probably choose to run in VA-02 in this scenario. However, you can make it neater by removing the top part (counties) of VA-04 (the red district) and adding areas of Henry County and Lynchburg that have large black populations (or just areas of Henry County). This would make your map somewhat neater.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 14, 2010, 09:55:20 PM

Actually I tried it and was successful. Basically what you do is you take the black-majority precincts (and ones with a very large black minority) in Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake.  That gets you one black-majority district. Then you take the black majority precincts in Richmond and Henrico County, and precincts with a very large black minroity in Chesterfield, Nottoway, Dinwiddle, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Halifax, and Charlotte Countries and add the city of Danville. Also, you should stretch this district to Lynchburg or even Roanoke (even though just Lynchburg is fine) and you should get a second black-majority district.

Plurality, or majority? I have no doubt that you could get two 45% black districts that are 43% white. But 50% black seems highly unlikely.

I said majority, as in 50+% African American. I experimented with Dave's Redistricting App and managed to get 2 black majority districts. If you follow my directions you should get two as well.

I played around with it last night, and I also got two districts by separating Richmond from Norfolk/Newport News. CD3 (purple) is just over 50% and CD4 (red) is 53%. CD1 (blue) becomes a long snaky district from Prince William Co almost down to NC.

()

That's a good map. Randy Forbes would probably choose to run in VA-02 in this scenario. However, you can make it neater by removing the top part (counties) of VA-04 (the red district) and adding areas of Henry County and Lynchburg that have large black populations (or just areas of Henry County). This would make your map somewhat neater.

Thanks. Having VA-04 go into either Lynchburg or Henry did not significantly change the Black percentages. Lynchburg only has two significantly Black precincts, so using it in VA-04 would require a split of the city. Henry is a little better, but it extends the line along the NC border more than I'd like. Cumberland was the better choice for me.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 14, 2010, 10:56:35 PM

Actually I tried it and was successful. Basically what you do is you take the black-majority precincts (and ones with a very large black minority) in Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake.  That gets you one black-majority district. Then you take the black majority precincts in Richmond and Henrico County, and precincts with a very large black minroity in Chesterfield, Nottoway, Dinwiddle, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Halifax, and Charlotte Countries and add the city of Danville. Also, you should stretch this district to Lynchburg or even Roanoke (even though just Lynchburg is fine) and you should get a second black-majority district.

Plurality, or majority? I have no doubt that you could get two 45% black districts that are 43% white. But 50% black seems highly unlikely.

I said majority, as in 50+% African American. I experimented with Dave's Redistricting App and managed to get 2 black majority districts. If you follow my directions you should get two as well.

I played around with it last night, and I also got two districts by separating Richmond from Norfolk/Newport News. CD3 (purple) is just over 50% and CD4 (red) is 53%. CD1 (blue) becomes a long snaky district from Prince William Co almost down to NC.

()

That's a good map. Randy Forbes would probably choose to run in VA-02 in this scenario. However, you can make it neater by removing the top part (counties) of VA-04 (the red district) and adding areas of Henry County and Lynchburg that have large black populations (or just areas of Henry County). This would make your map somewhat neater.

Thanks. Having VA-04 go into either Lynchburg or Henry did not significantly change the Black percentages. Lynchburg only has two significantly Black precincts, so using it in VA-04 would require a split of the city. Henry is a little better, but it extends the line along the NC border more than I'd like. Cumberland was the better choice for me.

In regards to Lynchburg and Henry, I am suggesting splitting the city/country so that the black areas go to the fourth district and that the white areas go to other congressional districts. I know that splitting countries/cities is not always desirable, but I think it is very effecient in these sorts of cases. There are many areas in Henry County with 50% or more black population, while there are none (I believe) in Cumberland County.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 14, 2010, 11:09:08 PM
That's a good map. Randy Forbes would probably choose to run in VA-02 in this scenario. However, you can make it neater by removing the top part (counties) of VA-04 (the red district) and adding areas of Henry County and Lynchburg that have large black populations (or just areas of Henry County). This would make your map somewhat neater.

Thanks. Having VA-04 go into either Lynchburg or Henry did not significantly change the Black percentages. Lynchburg only has two significantly Black precincts, so using it in VA-04 would require a split of the city. Henry is a little better, but it extends the line along the NC border more than I'd like. Cumberland was the better choice for me.

In regards to Lynchburg and Henry, I am suggesting splitting the city/country so that the black areas go to the fourth district and that the white areas go to other congressional districts. I know that splitting countries/cities is not always desirable, but I think it is very effecient in these sorts of cases. There are many areas in Henry County with 50% or more black population, while there are none (I believe) in Cumberland County.

With the 2008 data the App has no majority black precincts in Henry, but there is one in Cumberland. Henry offers a link to Martinsville which has 2 heavily black precincts. To get to Martinsville requires a link across western Pittsylvania which has a relatively low black percentage. The net result is no better than going north as I did in my map.

Going to Lynchburg is fractionally better, but I think that the marginal improvement does not justify the extra splits.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 15, 2010, 01:09:12 AM
Can someone create a minority-majority district in MA?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on January 15, 2010, 12:31:25 PM
Can someone create a minority-majority district in MA?

Tom Finneran proposed one in 2001. It involved connecting the minority-majority parts of MA-8 and Milton to Lynn. With 9 districts, it's probably impossible.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 15, 2010, 08:13:12 PM
Can someone create a minority-majority district in MA?

Tom Finneran proposed one in 2001. It involved connecting the minority-majority parts of MA-8 and Milton to Lynn. With 9 districts, it's probably impossible.

Isn't the current 8th minority-majority (even using year 2000 numbers)?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 16, 2010, 01:14:15 AM
Can someone create a minority-majority district in MA?

Tom Finneran proposed one in 2001. It involved connecting the minority-majority parts of MA-8 and Milton to Lynn. With 9 districts, it's probably impossible.

Isn't the current 8th minority-majority (even using year 2000 numbers)?

The current ACS estimates for MA have a black population of just under 400 K. A majority-black district would need at least 360-370 K in one district in 2010, so it isn't possible given the spread in the state.

The Hispanic population isn't much better with over 500 K spread across the state, and 360-370 need to be within one district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 16, 2010, 09:26:58 AM
I just made a majority-minority (not majority-black) district connecting most of Boston with parts of Quincy, Chelsea, Cambridge, and Somerville. It's 49% white, 21% black, 18% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 2% other. This is with new population estimates and nine districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 16, 2010, 09:50:43 AM
I just made a majority-minority (not majority-black) district connecting most of Boston with parts of Quincy, Chelsea, Cambridge, and Somerville. It's 49% white, 21% black, 18% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 2% other. This is with new population estimates and nine districts.

That makes sense, but as a coalition district it wouldn't count for the VRA. It also probably would not pass since MA has such a strong tradition of keeping towns intact as much as possible.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 16, 2010, 12:06:44 PM
I just made a majority-minority (not majority-black) district connecting most of Boston with parts of Quincy, Chelsea, Cambridge, and Somerville. It's 49% white, 21% black, 18% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 2% other. This is with new population estimates and nine districts.

You mind posting your map here? I'd like to see what you came up with.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: enlightened despot on January 16, 2010, 01:21:52 PM
() or http://i49.tinypic.com/qyu33r.jpg (http://i49.tinypic.com/qyu33r.jpg)

Total Population: 720, 584 (-1412 from ideal w/ new population estimates)
White Population: 334, 050 (46%)
Black Population: 161, 746 (22%)
Native Population: 1, 920 (0%)
Asian Population: 68, 915 (10%)
Hispanic Population: 140, 107 (19%)
Other Population: 13, 846 (2%)

Combines all of Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Chelsea with parts Boston.

Edit: This district is similar to Mike Capuano's 8th district, but does anyone know if I also included Stephen Lynch's residence?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on January 16, 2010, 02:28:33 PM
Edit: This district is similar to Mike Capuano's 8th district, but does anyone know if I also included Stephen Lynch's residence?

Almost surely not, Stephen Lynch lives in South Boston which demographically would never be included in this district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 16, 2010, 02:31:00 PM
I'd like to see someone do a strong Democratic gerrymander of Virginia, as in an 8-3 Democratic map (with Boucher included).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: enlightened despot on January 16, 2010, 02:49:43 PM
Almost surely not, Stephen Lynch lives in South Boston which demographically would never be included in this district.

Thanks!

I tried to make a nine-district map with the assumption that Lynch was either in the above minority-majority district or sharing one with Delahunt. It got very ugly thanks to no incumbents living south of Quincy. It's a long way off, but is there any clue to a retirement or which incumbents might be forced into a primary?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on January 16, 2010, 03:00:42 PM
I tried to make a nine-district map with the assumption that Lynch was either in the above minority-majority district or sharing one with Delahunt. It got very ugly thanks to no incumbents living south of Quincy. It's a long way off, but is there any clue to a retirement or which incumbents might be forced into a primary?

Olver is getting up there in years and represents a part of the state with declining population and little political clout. The last two districts cut in '82 and '92 were from the western Boston suburbs and from the city of Boston, respectively, so the likelihood is that a western district will go. You can't really do two full districts west of the Worcester area any longer. I've tried, and I end up tethering the city of Worcester to towns far to the east or southeast.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 16, 2010, 05:42:28 PM
I tried to make a nine-district map with the assumption that Lynch was either in the above minority-majority district or sharing one with Delahunt. It got very ugly thanks to no incumbents living south of Quincy. It's a long way off, but is there any clue to a retirement or which incumbents might be forced into a primary?

Olver is getting up there in years and represents a part of the state with declining population and little political clout. The last two districts cut in '82 and '92 were from the western Boston suburbs and from the city of Boston, respectively, so the likelihood is that a western district will go. You can't really do two full districts west of the Worcester area any longer. I've tried, and I end up tethering the city of Worcester to towns far to the east or southeast.

When I looked at this in August, I cam to the conclusion that CD-2 would have to pick up Worcester.  Here's my post and map from then:

I had some time to play around with the tool this afternoon and looked at the map of MA using the 2008 data. I divided no town except for Boston as this is the primary goal of any MA map. All the districts are within 300 persons of the ideal size which is less than 0.1% maximum variation. I attempted to balance two secondary goals: to keep districts somewhat compact and to keep county fragments to a minimum.

()

Some items of interest compared to the current map which loses CD 10.

CD 1 picks up Springfield and loses the northern part.

CD 2 shifts east to pick up Worcester and Franklin County.

CD 3 becomes more compact and links the Fitchburg area to Framingham and Dedham.

CD 4 shifts south and east to take in the Cape and Islands from current CD 10.

CD 5 remains centered on Lowell and Lawrence, but dips south to the Woburn area.

CD 6 extends south all the way into the northern part of Boston including Beacon Hill.

CD 7 shifts south to pick up Newton, Brookline and the Allston-Brighton part of Boston.

CD 8 takes up the rest of Boston and the near south suburbs including Quincy.

CD 9 keeps Brockton, but otherwise extends across the south suburbs from RI to Mass Bay.

I'm sure a real map would divide Boston along different lines, but it does give a sense of how much the non-Boston districts would have to shift to pick up population.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on January 16, 2010, 07:07:07 PM
If the courts draw the lines in Mass, because in 2010 the Pubbies get more than one third of the seats in one of the houses of the legislature, and a GOP governor is elected, causing a deadlock, what would a non partisan map look like that comports with the law, and would that cause any seat to have a GOP lean, or close to it?  Just curious.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 16, 2010, 09:02:31 PM
If the courts draw the lines in Mass, because in 2010 the Pubbies get more than one third of the seats in one of the houses of the legislature, and a GOP governor is elected, causing a deadlock, what would a non partisan map look like that comports with the law, and would that cause any seat to have a GOP lean, or close to it?  Just curious.

There's a map in the logo for Red Mass Group (http://www.redmassgroup.com/frontPage.do) that has a number of towns colored red, presumably due to GOP support of some kind there. If I knew what the red specifically represented, I'd be happy to speculate on whether any districts in a neutral map like mine would have any hope for the GOP.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 16, 2010, 09:09:36 PM
If the courts draw the lines in Mass, because in 2010 the Pubbies get more than one third of the seats in one of the houses of the legislature, and a GOP governor is elected, causing a deadlock, what would a non partisan map look like that comports with the law, and would that cause any seat to have a GOP lean, or close to it?  Just curious.

I think nonpartisan maps often tend to be incumebent-protection maps, so it is unlikely that one district will have a Republican lean.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: enlightened despot on January 16, 2010, 09:11:40 PM
The Red Mass Group's FAQ says the red areas are where Kerry Healey or Healey plus Christy Mihos had more votes than Deval Patrick in the 2006 gubernatorial election.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on January 16, 2010, 09:30:56 PM
If the courts draw the lines in Mass, because in 2010 the Pubbies get more than one third of the seats in one of the houses of the legislature, and a GOP governor is elected, causing a deadlock, what would a non partisan map look like that comports with the law, and would that cause any seat to have a GOP lean, or close to it?  Just curious.

I think nonpartisan maps often tend to be incumebent-protection maps, so it is unlikely that one district will have a Republican lean.

That obtains more for federal court maps (least change principle), than state court maps (which can be anything, and are often more partisan). The matter of how these map drawing get into federal or  state courts in one of those great riddles within the mystery of an enigma or something.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 16, 2010, 09:35:12 PM
The Red Mass Group's FAQ says the red areas are where Kerry Healey or Healey plus Christy Mihos had more votes than Deval Patrick in the 2006 gubernatorial election.


Thanks. Based on that, it would seem that a modified version of MA-10 should be close. The area in MA-05 looks promising, except for the large population in Lowell and Lawrence.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on January 16, 2010, 09:59:07 PM
The Red Mass Group's FAQ says the red areas are where Kerry Healey or Healey plus Christy Mihos had more votes than Deval Patrick in the 2006 gubernatorial election.


Thanks. Based on that, it would seem that a modified version of MA-10 should be close. The area in MA-05 looks promising, except for the large population in Lowell and Lawrence.

Your map does not have a CD 10. Maybe what you meant, is that Mass Pubbies would be competitive in Atlantis. :P I assume the old CD 10 is based on the Cape, no? That might be trending GOP a bit now, since the gays by and large have moved on now from Provincetown.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on January 17, 2010, 07:43:39 AM
Your map does not have a CD 10. Maybe what you meant, is that Mass Pubbies would be competitive in Atlantis. :P I assume the old CD 10 is based on the Cape, no? That might be trending GOP a bit now, since the gays by and large have moved on now from Provincetown.

The gays are still in Provincetown, but the town is such a tiny share of the Cape population (1.5%) that until recently their state house representative was a Republican who survived a 2004 challenge by a lesbian Democrat. (Who later succeeded her when she retired.) 


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on January 17, 2010, 08:10:33 AM
() or http://i49.tinypic.com/qyu33r.jpg (http://i49.tinypic.com/qyu33r.jpg)

Total Population: 720, 584 (-1412 from ideal w/ new population estimates)
White Population: 334, 050 (46%)
Black Population: 161, 746 (22%)
Native Population: 1, 920 (0%)
Asian Population: 68, 915 (10%)
Hispanic Population: 140, 107 (19%)
Other Population: 13, 846 (2%)

Combines all of Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Chelsea with parts Boston.

The three parts of Boston that are included: Brighton, East Boston, and Roxbury and points south are only connected through the other towns, and it appears that you have split the rest of Boston into 7 separate areas: Back Bay, West Roxbury-Jamaica Plain, 3 areas along the southeastern border, South Boston-Downtown-North End-Charlestown, and part of East Boston near the airport.

So can you slide your district SE to match the border, and then link to East Boston through the harbor.   This will give you two segments for the rest of Boston, and you can simply treat Brookline as an inclusion.  IIRC, the area between Quincy and South Boston just to the east of the main Boston part of your district is actually in Dorchester Harbor and actually iincludes the harbor islands and is part of the East Boston ward (I think the people actually live on the island south of Winthrop).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on January 17, 2010, 08:24:28 AM
What does including those precincts from Dorchester do to the demographics?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on January 17, 2010, 08:50:40 AM
If the courts draw the lines in Mass, because in 2010 the Pubbies get more than one third of the seats in one of the houses of the legislature, and a GOP governor is elected, causing a deadlock, what would a non partisan map look like that comports with the law, and would that cause any seat to have a GOP lean, or close to it?  Just curious.
()

This is based on 2007 town estimates, but 2010 should not be too much different - though the key is which towns fit best with Boston.  On the 2007 estimates, Quincy and Milton were almost a perfect match, but in another year it could be towns on the other side of Boston which could mean shifting about 100,000 people around as the suburban districts rotate.

The federal court (in my better world) will rule that it should not be picking winners and losers as Massachusetts loses a representative, and so incumbents are totally ignored.  Three districts outside the immediate Boston area are created, and the districts are compact and equipopulous.

The Republicans would be hopeful about the light blue district in the western suburbs, and fantasize about winning the yellow western district (Worcester) and the southern and the other three outer suburban districts.



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on January 17, 2010, 09:05:35 AM
What does including those precincts from Dorchester do to the demographics?

I'd guess that it is about 20,000 population total?  So even if it were all white it would be around a 3% shift.  But the direction of growth in the black population is to the south and southeast.  The black population of Quincy has about doubled between the 2000 census and the 2006-2008 ACS (still under 10%) but indicative of what is happening on the other side of the line.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 17, 2010, 09:06:10 AM
Here's my Dem gerrymander of Virginia from a few months back for Rochambeau. Of course, this is before Deeds totally collapsed, and I don't think there's anything that can save Boucher. The best possible occurrence would be 8-3, but Frank Wolf isn't going anywhere until he retires, and the Republicans are still alive and kicking in Loudoun and Prince William.

No time wasted...

()

Click to embiggen. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/va-state.jpg)

VA-01 (teal, Rob Wittman - R) - Wittman's district is reconfigured to stretch from the Northern Neck (eastern edge) to the West Virginia border, taking in the exurbs of Northern Virginia along the way. Safe Republican district.
VA-02 (dark green, Glenn Nye - D) - I excised the Republican portions of Virginia Beach, added all of Norfolk and minority-heavy parts of Chesapeake and Suffolk. The district is 35% black now and probably voted pretty strongly for Obama, I'd guess in the high-50s.
VA-03 (dark blue, Bobby Scott - D) - Not much changed here. Removed Norfolk, added Petersburg and some more territory around Richmond. 53% black.
VA-04 (purple, Randy Forbes - R) - Pretty much all the population here is Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Chesterfield. The district is solidly Republican now.
VA-05 (red, Tom Perriello - D) - The heavily-Republican southwestern part of the district is removed, and instead it stretches both down southeast to the Greensville/Emporia area and northeast to Caroline/Essex/King & Queen, both Democratic areas. Also included most of Lynchburg, not a heavily Democratic city but friendlier territory than the Bedford area. District probably voted for Obama in the low-50s. Now 27% black.
VA-06 (light green, Bob Goodlatte - R) - Picked up the aforementioned Bedford area, and lost Lynchburg and the Democratic parts of Roanoke. Safe Republican.
VA-07 (yellow, Eric Cantor - R) - Instead of stretching up almost to NoVa, the district now spreads east to the Jamestown/York/Williamsburg historic triangle. Sorry, Williamsburg.
VA-08 (grey, Jim Moran - D) - Alexandria, part of Arlington, and eastern Fairfax. Safe D. Interestingly, this district is only 54% white.
VA-09 (magenta, Rick Boucher - D) - Poor Rick Boucher, can't do much for him. Added the Democratic parts of Roanoke and snaked up to Bath County, so Creigh Deeds could give it a try in the future if he felt like it.
VA-10 (light blue, Frank Wolf - R) - Wondering about the population growth in NoVa? Well, this district now consists solely of Loudoun, Prince William, Clarke, and a sliver of Fairfax. Probably won by Obama with around 55%, Wolf would be able to hold it but it would be a tossup (slightly Dem-leaning) in an open seat.
VA-11 (light purple, Gerry Connolly - D) - western Fairfax, Falls Church, part of Arlington, Manassas/Manassas Park and one or two precincts of Prince William. Safe Dem seat, probably 60%+ for Obama.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 17, 2010, 01:30:24 PM
Here's my Dem gerrymander of Virginia from a few months back for Rochambeau. Of course, this is before Deeds totally collapsed, and I don't think there's anything that can save Boucher. The best possible occurrence would be 8-3, but Frank Wolf isn't going anywhere until he retires, and the Republicans are still alive and kicking in Loudoun and Prince William.

No time wasted...

()

Click to embiggen. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/va-state.jpg)

VA-01 (teal, Rob Wittman - R) - Wittman's district is reconfigured to stretch from the Northern Neck (eastern edge) to the West Virginia border, taking in the exurbs of Northern Virginia along the way. Safe Republican district.
VA-02 (dark green, Glenn Nye - D) - I excised the Republican portions of Virginia Beach, added all of Norfolk and minority-heavy parts of Chesapeake and Suffolk. The district is 35% black now and probably voted pretty strongly for Obama, I'd guess in the high-50s.
VA-03 (dark blue, Bobby Scott - D) - Not much changed here. Removed Norfolk, added Petersburg and some more territory around Richmond. 53% black.
VA-04 (purple, Randy Forbes - R) - Pretty much all the population here is Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Chesterfield. The district is solidly Republican now.
VA-05 (red, Tom Perriello - D) - The heavily-Republican southwestern part of the district is removed, and instead it stretches both down southeast to the Greensville/Emporia area and northeast to Caroline/Essex/King & Queen, both Democratic areas. Also included most of Lynchburg, not a heavily Democratic city but friendlier territory than the Bedford area. District probably voted for Obama in the low-50s. Now 27% black.
VA-06 (light green, Bob Goodlatte - R) - Picked up the aforementioned Bedford area, and lost Lynchburg and the Democratic parts of Roanoke. Safe Republican.
VA-07 (yellow, Eric Cantor - R) - Instead of stretching up almost to NoVa, the district now spreads east to the Jamestown/York/Williamsburg historic triangle. Sorry, Williamsburg.
VA-08 (grey, Jim Moran - D) - Alexandria, part of Arlington, and eastern Fairfax. Safe D. Interestingly, this district is only 54% white.
VA-09 (magenta, Rick Boucher - D) - Poor Rick Boucher, can't do much for him. Added the Democratic parts of Roanoke and snaked up to Bath County, so Creigh Deeds could give it a try in the future if he felt like it.
VA-10 (light blue, Frank Wolf - R) - Wondering about the population growth in NoVa? Well, this district now consists solely of Loudoun, Prince William, Clarke, and a sliver of Fairfax. Probably won by Obama with around 55%, Wolf would be able to hold it but it would be a tossup (slightly Dem-leaning) in an open seat.
VA-11 (light purple, Gerry Connolly - D) - western Fairfax, Falls Church, part of Arlington, Manassas/Manassas Park and one or two precincts of Prince William. Safe Dem seat, probably 60%+ for Obama.

Is there a law that says Congressmen need to live in their CD's, or do you just need to live in the states they're representing? If they just need to live in the state, then Roanoke can be given to either Boucher or Perriello since it is a heavily Democratic city. Also, here's what I would do to get rid of Frank Wolf. I'd make the 10th ditrict cover all of Loundoun, the cities of Arlington, Falls Church, and Vienna, and some other Democratic areas in western Fairfax. That will put Moran and Wolf in the same district but Moran should win since this new district will vote over 60% for Obama. You then give most of Fairfax Country to the 11th district. Then, you give Alexandria, what's left of Fairfax County, Prince William County, and Fredericksburg and some surrounding surburbs to the new 8th district. This should produce three solidly Democratic districts in Northern Virginia. BTW, is it possible for the 3rd to take some more black areas from the 2nd district (not too much through) and then give Petersburg and/or Hopewell to Perriello? This should help shore up his district.

BTW, Johnny, I previously commented on your Indiana Republican gerrymander on how to improve it. I'm not sure if you read what I wrote.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 17, 2010, 07:29:12 PM

Is there a law that says Congressmen need to live in their CD's, or do you just need to live in the states they're representing? If they just need to live in the state, then Roanoke can be given to either Boucher or Perriello since it is a heavily Democratic city. Also, here's what I would do to get rid of Frank Wolf. I'd make the 10th ditrict cover all of Loundoun, the cities of Arlington, Falls Church, and Vienna, and some other Democratic areas in western Fairfax. That will put Moran and Wolf in the same district but Moran should win since this new district will vote over 60% for Obama. You then give most of Fairfax Country to the 11th district. Then, you give Alexandria, what's left of Fairfax County, Prince William County, and Fredericksburg and some surrounding surburbs to the new 8th district. This should produce three solidly Democratic districts in Northern Virginia. BTW, is it possible for the 3rd to take some more black areas from the 2nd district (not too much through) and then give Petersburg and/or Hopewell to Perriello? This should help shore up his district.

BTW, Johnny, I previously commented on your Indiana Republican gerrymander on how to improve it. I'm not sure if you read what I wrote.

The Constitution only requires a Representative to live in the state. For instance Bean does not live in IL-8, and IL does not place any requirements. Some states do require their US Reps to live in the specific district, but many believe that it is an unconstitutional requirement that would be thrown out if challenged. It is similar to the term limits imposed by some states that goes beyond the specific constitutional requirements and were rejected by the SCOTUS.

However, in those states that do have a residency requirement, serious candidates generally do not want the negative attention that would come from a challenge to their state's law. Thus the residency requirements tend to be effective even if unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 17, 2010, 07:37:26 PM
The Red Mass Group's FAQ says the red areas are where Kerry Healey or Healey plus Christy Mihos had more votes than Deval Patrick in the 2006 gubernatorial election.


Thanks. Based on that, it would seem that a modified version of MA-10 should be close. The area in MA-05 looks promising, except for the large population in Lowell and Lawrence.

Your map does not have a CD 10. Maybe what you meant, is that Mass Pubbies would be competitive in Atlantis. :P I assume the old CD 10 is based on the Cape, no? That might be trending GOP a bit now, since the gays by and large have moved on now from Provincetown.

Ah. When I wrote that I was looking at the current MA districts, rather than the districts on my 2010 remap. In 6 of the 15 towns in Barnstable and 12 of the 27 towns in Plymouth County there were more GOP than Dem votes for Gov in 2006. In both counties Patrick was held to under 50% of the total vote, so perhaps that is where the GOP should look for Atlantis. ;)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 17, 2010, 09:49:09 PM
Here's my Dem gerrymander of Virginia from a few months back for Rochambeau. Of course, this is before Deeds totally collapsed, and I don't think there's anything that can save Boucher. The best possible occurrence would be 8-3, but Frank Wolf isn't going anywhere until he retires, and the Republicans are still alive and kicking in Loudoun and Prince William.

No time wasted...

()

Click to embiggen. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/va-state.jpg)

VA-01 (teal, Rob Wittman - R) - Wittman's district is reconfigured to stretch from the Northern Neck (eastern edge) to the West Virginia border, taking in the exurbs of Northern Virginia along the way. Safe Republican district.
VA-02 (dark green, Glenn Nye - D) - I excised the Republican portions of Virginia Beach, added all of Norfolk and minority-heavy parts of Chesapeake and Suffolk. The district is 35% black now and probably voted pretty strongly for Obama, I'd guess in the high-50s.
VA-03 (dark blue, Bobby Scott - D) - Not much changed here. Removed Norfolk, added Petersburg and some more territory around Richmond. 53% black.
VA-04 (purple, Randy Forbes - R) - Pretty much all the population here is Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Chesterfield. The district is solidly Republican now.
VA-05 (red, Tom Perriello - D) - The heavily-Republican southwestern part of the district is removed, and instead it stretches both down southeast to the Greensville/Emporia area and northeast to Caroline/Essex/King & Queen, both Democratic areas. Also included most of Lynchburg, not a heavily Democratic city but friendlier territory than the Bedford area. District probably voted for Obama in the low-50s. Now 27% black.
VA-06 (light green, Bob Goodlatte - R) - Picked up the aforementioned Bedford area, and lost Lynchburg and the Democratic parts of Roanoke. Safe Republican.
VA-07 (yellow, Eric Cantor - R) - Instead of stretching up almost to NoVa, the district now spreads east to the Jamestown/York/Williamsburg historic triangle. Sorry, Williamsburg.
VA-08 (grey, Jim Moran - D) - Alexandria, part of Arlington, and eastern Fairfax. Safe D. Interestingly, this district is only 54% white.
VA-09 (magenta, Rick Boucher - D) - Poor Rick Boucher, can't do much for him. Added the Democratic parts of Roanoke and snaked up to Bath County, so Creigh Deeds could give it a try in the future if he felt like it.
VA-10 (light blue, Frank Wolf - R) - Wondering about the population growth in NoVa? Well, this district now consists solely of Loudoun, Prince William, Clarke, and a sliver of Fairfax. Probably won by Obama with around 55%, Wolf would be able to hold it but it would be a tossup (slightly Dem-leaning) in an open seat.
VA-11 (light purple, Gerry Connolly - D) - western Fairfax, Falls Church, part of Arlington, Manassas/Manassas Park and one or two precincts of Prince William. Safe Dem seat, probably 60%+ for Obama.

Is there a law that says Congressmen need to live in their CD's, or do you just need to live in the states they're representing? If they just need to live in the state, then Roanoke can be given to either Boucher or Perriello since it is a heavily Democratic city. Also, here's what I would do to get rid of Frank Wolf. I'd make the 10th ditrict cover all of Loundoun, the cities of Arlington, Falls Church, and Vienna, and some other Democratic areas in western Fairfax. That will put Moran and Wolf in the same district but Moran should win since this new district will vote over 60% for Obama. You then give most of Fairfax Country to the 11th district. Then, you give Alexandria, what's left of Fairfax County, Prince William County, and Fredericksburg and some surrounding surburbs to the new 8th district. This should produce three solidly Democratic districts in Northern Virginia. BTW, is it possible for the 3rd to take some more black areas from the 2nd district (not too much through) and then give Petersburg and/or Hopewell to Perriello? This should help shore up his district.

BTW, Johnny, I previously commented on your Indiana Republican gerrymander on how to improve it. I'm not sure if you read what I wrote.

I'm not so sure that your proposed 10th district would be solidly Democratic. Western Fairfax (with the exception of Reston) is still fairly Republican, and Loudoun is still pretty Republican (Obama's percentage was more an aberration than a trend, I think). Moran lives in Alexandria, not Arlington, by the way.

Actually, after the terrible performance by the Dems last year, it would probably be less of a headache for the Democrats to cede the 10th and make the 11th a solidly Dem district. Give the western parts of Fairfax to the 10th and add the Democratic eastern part of Prince William County to the 11th.

I think I saw the comment on my IN map, but I probably just couldn't think of anything to respond with.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on January 17, 2010, 09:55:56 PM
Actually, after the terrible performance by the Dems last year, it would probably be less of a headache for the Democrats to cede the 10th and make the 11th a solidly Dem district. Give the western parts of Fairfax to the 10th and add the Democratic eastern part of Prince William County to the 11th.

I think I saw the comment on my IN map, but I probably just couldn't think of anything to respond with.

Ignoring the fact that you are a terrible pessimist, 2009 was not an election to base the future on.  Deeds ran a terrible campaign, and that was why he lost so badly.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 17, 2010, 10:04:54 PM
Here's my Dem gerrymander of Virginia from a few months back for Rochambeau. Of course, this is before Deeds totally collapsed, and I don't think there's anything that can save Boucher. The best possible occurrence would be 8-3, but Frank Wolf isn't going anywhere until he retires, and the Republicans are still alive and kicking in Loudoun and Prince William.

No time wasted...

()

Click to embiggen. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/va-state.jpg)

VA-01 (teal, Rob Wittman - R) - Wittman's district is reconfigured to stretch from the Northern Neck (eastern edge) to the West Virginia border, taking in the exurbs of Northern Virginia along the way. Safe Republican district.
VA-02 (dark green, Glenn Nye - D) - I excised the Republican portions of Virginia Beach, added all of Norfolk and minority-heavy parts of Chesapeake and Suffolk. The district is 35% black now and probably voted pretty strongly for Obama, I'd guess in the high-50s.
VA-03 (dark blue, Bobby Scott - D) - Not much changed here. Removed Norfolk, added Petersburg and some more territory around Richmond. 53% black.
VA-04 (purple, Randy Forbes - R) - Pretty much all the population here is Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Chesterfield. The district is solidly Republican now.
VA-05 (red, Tom Perriello - D) - The heavily-Republican southwestern part of the district is removed, and instead it stretches both down southeast to the Greensville/Emporia area and northeast to Caroline/Essex/King & Queen, both Democratic areas. Also included most of Lynchburg, not a heavily Democratic city but friendlier territory than the Bedford area. District probably voted for Obama in the low-50s. Now 27% black.
VA-06 (light green, Bob Goodlatte - R) - Picked up the aforementioned Bedford area, and lost Lynchburg and the Democratic parts of Roanoke. Safe Republican.
VA-07 (yellow, Eric Cantor - R) - Instead of stretching up almost to NoVa, the district now spreads east to the Jamestown/York/Williamsburg historic triangle. Sorry, Williamsburg.
VA-08 (grey, Jim Moran - D) - Alexandria, part of Arlington, and eastern Fairfax. Safe D. Interestingly, this district is only 54% white.
VA-09 (magenta, Rick Boucher - D) - Poor Rick Boucher, can't do much for him. Added the Democratic parts of Roanoke and snaked up to Bath County, so Creigh Deeds could give it a try in the future if he felt like it.
VA-10 (light blue, Frank Wolf - R) - Wondering about the population growth in NoVa? Well, this district now consists solely of Loudoun, Prince William, Clarke, and a sliver of Fairfax. Probably won by Obama with around 55%, Wolf would be able to hold it but it would be a tossup (slightly Dem-leaning) in an open seat.
VA-11 (light purple, Gerry Connolly - D) - western Fairfax, Falls Church, part of Arlington, Manassas/Manassas Park and one or two precincts of Prince William. Safe Dem seat, probably 60%+ for Obama.

Is there a law that says Congressmen need to live in their CD's, or do you just need to live in the states they're representing? If they just need to live in the state, then Roanoke can be given to either Boucher or Perriello since it is a heavily Democratic city. Also, here's what I would do to get rid of Frank Wolf. I'd make the 10th ditrict cover all of Loundoun, the cities of Arlington, Falls Church, and Vienna, and some other Democratic areas in western Fairfax. That will put Moran and Wolf in the same district but Moran should win since this new district will vote over 60% for Obama. You then give most of Fairfax Country to the 11th district. Then, you give Alexandria, what's left of Fairfax County, Prince William County, and Fredericksburg and some surrounding surburbs to the new 8th district. This should produce three solidly Democratic districts in Northern Virginia. BTW, is it possible for the 3rd to take some more black areas from the 2nd district (not too much through) and then give Petersburg and/or Hopewell to Perriello? This should help shore up his district.

BTW, Johnny, I previously commented on your Indiana Republican gerrymander on how to improve it. I'm not sure if you read what I wrote.

I'm not so sure that your proposed 10th district would be solidly Democratic. Western Fairfax (with the exception of Reston) is still fairly Republican, and Loudoun is still pretty Republican (Obama's percentage was more an aberration than a trend, I think). Moran lives in Alexandria, not Arlington, by the way.

Actually, after the terrible performance by the Dems last year, it would probably be less of a headache for the Democrats to cede the 10th and make the 11th a solidly Dem district. Give the western parts of Fairfax to the 10th and add the Democratic eastern part of Prince William County to the 11th.

I think I saw the comment on my IN map, but I probably just couldn't think of anything to respond with.

According to Moran's Wikipedia article, he lives in Arlington. If you want to make the 10th safer for Frank Wolf, though, I would also recommend taking the Democratic areas in Northerneastern Loundoun County and give them to Gerry Connolly. Wolf can be compensated by receiving some further territory from Western Fairfax County. BTW, it says on Wolf's Wikipedia article that he lives in Vienna, which is outside his district. If that's the case, surely it must be possible to add Roanoke City to either Perriello's or Boucher's districts, despite the fact that Bob Goodlatte lives there. BTW, I agree with Ben in saying that 2009 was a poor year to use as a baseline. Deeds severely underperfomed throughout much of Virginia, but especially in the Northern part. If you want to be fair, use the average of the Obama and Deeds percentages for a baseline. Also, you could use the PVI of each county (which isn't too hard to calculate) as a baseline.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 17, 2010, 11:53:42 PM
Here's my Dem gerrymander of Virginia from a few months back for Rochambeau. Of course, this is before Deeds totally collapsed, and I don't think there's anything that can save Boucher. The best possible occurrence would be 8-3, but Frank Wolf isn't going anywhere until he retires, and the Republicans are still alive and kicking in Loudoun and Prince William.

No time wasted...

()

Click to embiggen. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/va-state.jpg)

VA-01 (teal, Rob Wittman - R) - Wittman's district is reconfigured to stretch from the Northern Neck (eastern edge) to the West Virginia border, taking in the exurbs of Northern Virginia along the way. Safe Republican district.
VA-02 (dark green, Glenn Nye - D) - I excised the Republican portions of Virginia Beach, added all of Norfolk and minority-heavy parts of Chesapeake and Suffolk. The district is 35% black now and probably voted pretty strongly for Obama, I'd guess in the high-50s.
VA-03 (dark blue, Bobby Scott - D) - Not much changed here. Removed Norfolk, added Petersburg and some more territory around Richmond. 53% black.
VA-04 (purple, Randy Forbes - R) - Pretty much all the population here is Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Chesterfield. The district is solidly Republican now.
VA-05 (red, Tom Perriello - D) - The heavily-Republican southwestern part of the district is removed, and instead it stretches both down southeast to the Greensville/Emporia area and northeast to Caroline/Essex/King & Queen, both Democratic areas. Also included most of Lynchburg, not a heavily Democratic city but friendlier territory than the Bedford area. District probably voted for Obama in the low-50s. Now 27% black.
VA-06 (light green, Bob Goodlatte - R) - Picked up the aforementioned Bedford area, and lost Lynchburg and the Democratic parts of Roanoke. Safe Republican.
VA-07 (yellow, Eric Cantor - R) - Instead of stretching up almost to NoVa, the district now spreads east to the Jamestown/York/Williamsburg historic triangle. Sorry, Williamsburg.
VA-08 (grey, Jim Moran - D) - Alexandria, part of Arlington, and eastern Fairfax. Safe D. Interestingly, this district is only 54% white.
VA-09 (magenta, Rick Boucher - D) - Poor Rick Boucher, can't do much for him. Added the Democratic parts of Roanoke and snaked up to Bath County, so Creigh Deeds could give it a try in the future if he felt like it.
VA-10 (light blue, Frank Wolf - R) - Wondering about the population growth in NoVa? Well, this district now consists solely of Loudoun, Prince William, Clarke, and a sliver of Fairfax. Probably won by Obama with around 55%, Wolf would be able to hold it but it would be a tossup (slightly Dem-leaning) in an open seat.
VA-11 (light purple, Gerry Connolly - D) - western Fairfax, Falls Church, part of Arlington, Manassas/Manassas Park and one or two precincts of Prince William. Safe Dem seat, probably 60%+ for Obama.

Is there a law that says Congressmen need to live in their CD's, or do you just need to live in the states they're representing? If they just need to live in the state, then Roanoke can be given to either Boucher or Perriello since it is a heavily Democratic city. Also, here's what I would do to get rid of Frank Wolf. I'd make the 10th ditrict cover all of Loundoun, the cities of Arlington, Falls Church, and Vienna, and some other Democratic areas in western Fairfax. That will put Moran and Wolf in the same district but Moran should win since this new district will vote over 60% for Obama. You then give most of Fairfax Country to the 11th district. Then, you give Alexandria, what's left of Fairfax County, Prince William County, and Fredericksburg and some surrounding surburbs to the new 8th district. This should produce three solidly Democratic districts in Northern Virginia. BTW, is it possible for the 3rd to take some more black areas from the 2nd district (not too much through) and then give Petersburg and/or Hopewell to Perriello? This should help shore up his district.

BTW, Johnny, I previously commented on your Indiana Republican gerrymander on how to improve it. I'm not sure if you read what I wrote.

Johnny's map puts the black parts of Roanoke into Boucher's district. The white parts of Roanoke, where Goodlatte lives, voted for McCain anyway.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 18, 2010, 01:27:55 AM
If the courts draw the lines in Mass, because in 2010 the Pubbies get more than one third of the seats in one of the houses of the legislature, and a GOP governor is elected, causing a deadlock, what would a non partisan map look like that comports with the law, and would that cause any seat to have a GOP lean, or close to it?  Just curious.

So here is one take on a court-drawn map. I assumed that the special master appointed by the court would start by keeping district cores intact, while eliminating the more egregious gerrymander shapes. MA-1 adds Springfield, since adding Worcester creates a strange loop from Worcester across the northern edge to the Berkshires. That puts Worcester in MA-2, and a handful of towns are left over in Worcester County from the two western CDs.

MA-3 AND MA-4 had the least identifiable cores since they were the must strung out. Since MA-3 lost Worcester, I shifted MA-3 south to New Bedford, including almost all of Bristol County. The new MA-4 essentially replaces the current MA-10 in Plymouth, the Cape and Islands.

In the northeast, MA-6 adds Revere and Lawrence to bring up its population and eliminate the long finger that sticks out to Bedford. That moves MA-5 south to Marlborough and the other adjacent "-boroughs." MA-7 pushes south to gain Somerville and Cambridge and west out to Concord. MA-8 maintains its status as a 50-50 white/minority district by linking south to Brockton. That leaves MA-9 to shift west and north, picking up Allston/Brighton, Back Bay, and West Roxbury in Boston, and towns from Newton out to Framingham.

()

I can now apply the election data from the 2006 Governor's race, using just the R and D numbers, without the other two candidates. Both MA-4 and MA-5 in the map above could be interesting to the GOP. The 2006 two-party split in MA-4 favors the Dems 52.4 - 47.6, and in MA-5 it would favor the Dems 52.8 - 47.2.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 19, 2010, 08:22:35 PM
If the courts draw the lines in Mass, because in 2010 the Pubbies get more than one third of the seats in one of the houses of the legislature, and a GOP governor is elected, causing a deadlock, what would a non partisan map look like that comports with the law, and would that cause any seat to have a GOP lean, or close to it?  Just curious.

So here is one take on a court-drawn map. I assumed that the special master appointed by the court would start by keeping district cores intact, while eliminating the more egregious gerrymander shapes. MA-1 adds Springfield, since adding Worcester creates a strange loop from Worcester across the northern edge to the Berkshires. That puts Worcester in MA-2, and a handful of towns are left over in Worcester County from the two western CDs.

MA-3 AND MA-4 had the least identifiable cores since they were the must strung out. Since MA-3 lost Worcester, I shifted MA-3 south to New Bedford, including almost all of Bristol County. The new MA-4 essentially replaces the current MA-10 in Plymouth, the Cape and Islands.

In the northeast, MA-6 adds Revere and Lawrence to bring up its population and eliminate the long finger that sticks out to Bedford. That moves MA-5 south to Marlborough and the other adjacent "-boroughs." MA-7 pushes south to gain Somerville and Cambridge and west out to Concord. MA-8 maintains its status as a 50-50 white/minority district by linking south to Brockton. That leaves MA-9 to shift west and north, picking up Allston/Brighton, Back Bay, and West Roxbury in Boston, and towns from Newton out to Framingham.

()

I can now apply the election data from the 2006 Governor's race, using just the R and D numbers, without the other two candidates. Both MA-4 and MA-5 in the map above could be interesting to the GOP. The 2006 two-party split in MA-4 favors the Dems 52.4 - 47.6, and in MA-5 it would favor the Dems 52.8 - 47.2.

Do you think you can calculate how many districts in this map Scott Brown wins?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 19, 2010, 11:28:43 PM
If the courts draw the lines in Mass, because in 2010 the Pubbies get more than one third of the seats in one of the houses of the legislature, and a GOP governor is elected, causing a deadlock, what would a non partisan map look like that comports with the law, and would that cause any seat to have a GOP lean, or close to it?  Just curious.

So here is one take on a court-drawn map. I assumed that the special master appointed by the court would start by keeping district cores intact, while eliminating the more egregious gerrymander shapes. MA-1 adds Springfield, since adding Worcester creates a strange loop from Worcester across the northern edge to the Berkshires. That puts Worcester in MA-2, and a handful of towns are left over in Worcester County from the two western CDs.

MA-3 AND MA-4 had the least identifiable cores since they were the must strung out. Since MA-3 lost Worcester, I shifted MA-3 south to New Bedford, including almost all of Bristol County. The new MA-4 essentially replaces the current MA-10 in Plymouth, the Cape and Islands.

In the northeast, MA-6 adds Revere and Lawrence to bring up its population and eliminate the long finger that sticks out to Bedford. That moves MA-5 south to Marlborough and the other adjacent "-boroughs." MA-7 pushes south to gain Somerville and Cambridge and west out to Concord. MA-8 maintains its status as a 50-50 white/minority district by linking south to Brockton. That leaves MA-9 to shift west and north, picking up Allston/Brighton, Back Bay, and West Roxbury in Boston, and towns from Newton out to Framingham.

()

I can now apply the election data from the 2006 Governor's race, using just the R and D numbers, without the other two candidates. Both MA-4 and MA-5 in the map above could be interesting to the GOP. The 2006 two-party split in MA-4 favors the Dems 52.4 - 47.6, and in MA-5 it would favor the Dems 52.8 - 47.2.

Do you think you can calculate how many districts in this map Scott Brown wins?

I haven't run the details, but it looks like Brown wins 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Coakley wins 1, 7, 8 and 9. That would be 55-44 and is a good match to the vote split in the race. When the districts split at the same percentage as the statewide election, it's considered to be one sign of a fair map. :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on January 19, 2010, 11:41:53 PM

()

I can now apply the election data from the 2006 Governor's race, using just the R and D numbers, without the other two candidates. Both MA-4 and MA-5 in the map above could be interesting to the GOP. The 2006 two-party split in MA-4 favors the Dems 52.4 - 47.6, and in MA-5 it would favor the Dems 52.8 - 47.2.
Do you think you can calculate how many districts in this map Scott Brown wins?
Maybe 5.

NYT election results (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/01/19/us/politics/massachusetts-election-map.html)

Coakley would win the 3 inner districts around Boston (6, 7, and 9), and 1.

You might be able to get it up to 6, if you split 7&9 more on north/south basis and really pack the eastern district, and then split CD2 and 5 into 3 districts and crack the remnant of 7&9.

You might be able to bring CD4 north, to get Quincy and Brockton, and shift CD3 eastward.  The northern part of CD3 could then be used to bulk up the new districts.  CD6 could probably be adjusted a bit to take in some suburbs in the eastern part of CD7.

In a more conventional election this might go back9-0 Democrat.  

Some pretty big differential turnouts vs 2008 presidential election:

Metheun 67%, Lawrence 50%

Westfield 71%, Springfield 55%.

Boston 67%, Dedham 84%, Chelsea 52%.

New Bedford 59%, Fall River 58%, Dartmouth 82%.

Norfolk 88%, Wrentham 87%, Walpole 83% (only 3 towns in Norfolk carried by McCain).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 21, 2010, 09:10:45 PM
I'd like to see if it's possible to create an Obama district in Arkansas.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smash255 on January 22, 2010, 04:37:42 AM
I'd like to see if it's possible to create an Obama district in Arkansas.

A district in Pulaski and Jefferson counties combined with some counties in east-central Arkansas would get one.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on January 22, 2010, 04:37:26 PM
Here's a stab at redistricting SC into 7 districts.

()

Probably not the real district boundaries as there is a good chance this would put two Representatives in the same district, and I didn't try to gerrymander it into a potential 6 GOP/1 Dem map.

The 6th District remains majority black (53-41) which probably would pass VRA scrutiny, but it could be made blacker and thereby make neighboring seats safer for the GOP by splitting up even more counties than this does.  A 61-34 black majority contiguous district is constructable with no split precincts if you want a really ugly gerrymander.





Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 23, 2010, 09:33:18 AM
Here's an Arkansas map I did a few months ago that has an Obama district (the blue one):

2-2 map of Arkansas:

()

AR-01 (green, Marion Berry - D) - Eastern part of the state, pretty much. 74% white, 21% black. Formerly 60-40 McCain, now 58-42 McCain and probably won by Kerry in 2004.
AR-02 (blue, Vic Snyder - D) - Expands southwards to take in some of the better for Obama areas of Ross's district. 63% white, 29% black. Formerly 55-45 McCain, now 51-49 Obama.
AR-03 (red, John Boozman - R) - I think this district actually contracted. All the population growth must be in the Walmartistan part of the state. 80% white, 2% black, 11% Hispanic. Formerly 66-34 McCain, now 65-35 McCain.
AR-04 (purple, Mike Ross - D) - Loses some historically-Democratic territory in the south-central part of the state and stretches northeast to take in the more Republican parts of AR-01 and AR-02. 84% white, 8% black. Formerly 60-40 McCain, now 69-31 McCain (ouch!).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 23, 2010, 01:50:45 PM
Here's a stab at redistricting SC into 7 districts.

()

Probably not the real district boundaries as there is a good chance this would put two Representatives in the same district, and I didn't try to gerrymander it into a potential 6 GOP/1 Dem map.

The 6th District remains majority black (53-41) which probably would pass VRA scrutiny, but it could be made blacker and thereby make neighboring seats safer for the GOP by splitting up even more counties than this does.  A 61-34 black majority contiguous district is constructable with no split precincts if you want a really ugly gerrymander.





If SC gets seven seats, the Justice Department will likely demand a second black-majority seat. Thus the Republican legislature will likely turn Spratt's district into a black-majority one in addition to keeping Clyburn's black-majority. This will allow the GOP to strengthen its hold on the remaning five seats.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on January 23, 2010, 03:01:38 PM
If SC gets seven seats, the Justice Department will likely demand a second black-majority seat. Thus the Republican legislature will likely turn Spratt's district into a black-majority one in addition to keeping Clyburn's black-majority. This will allow the GOP to strengthen its hold on the remaning five seats.

I don't believe it's possible to create two majority-minority districts in South Carolina.  If it is, it would be a most hellacious gerrymander.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 23, 2010, 04:52:29 PM
If SC gets seven seats, the Justice Department will likely demand a second black-majority seat. Thus the Republican legislature will likely turn Spratt's district into a black-majority one in addition to keeping Clyburn's black-majority. This will allow the GOP to strengthen its hold on the remaning five seats.

I don't believe it's possible to create two majority-minority districts in South Carolina.  If it is, it would be a most hellacious gerrymander.

It's possible. Here is a link to a website where someone gerrymandered South Carolina to have two black-majority districts. The SC map on top is really gerrymandered, but the SC map below it is much less gerrymandered. It is the one that makes Spratt's district black-majority in addition to Clyburn's. Thus, it is possible to create two black-majority districts in South Carolina without extreme gerrymandering.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 23, 2010, 05:05:54 PM
If SC gets seven seats, the Justice Department will likely demand a second black-majority seat. Thus the Republican legislature will likely turn Spratt's district into a black-majority one in addition to keeping Clyburn's black-majority. This will allow the GOP to strengthen its hold on the remaning five seats.

I don't believe it's possible to create two majority-minority districts in South Carolina.  If it is, it would be a most hellacious gerrymander.

It's possible. Here is a link to a website where someone gerrymandered South Carolina to have two black-majority districts. The SC map on top is really gerrymandered, but the SC map below it is much less gerrymandered. It is the one that makes Spratt's district black-majority in addition to Clyburn's. Thus, it is possible to create two black-majority districts in South Carolina without extreme gerrymandering.

There are basically two ways to create 2 black-majority districts in SC using 7 districts, and I posted one on this thread back in Sept. I've posted both below. The major difficulty to making nice districts is the large non-black population along the coast - it's about enough for a district and a half. That means a connection is needed along one side of the state or the other.

The first map maintains the connection that currently exists between Hilton Head and Lexington county. However, it splits Charleston between three districts. The second way is to link Charleston and Hilton Head and avoid a three-way split, but then Myrtle Beach ends up connecting to Rock Hill.

()

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 23, 2010, 07:36:58 PM
Looking at California, it might be possible to construct an Asian-majority district in the San Gabriel Valley as well as one in the San Jose area. Anyone want to try?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 23, 2010, 10:26:20 PM
Looking at California, it might be possible to construct an Asian-majority district in the San Gabriel Valley as well as one in the San Jose area. Anyone want to try?

Already done, back on page 18.

Here's a remap of CA with 53 districts using the 2008 data. All districts are within 1000 of the ideal population. There are 17 Hispanic-majority districts, 1 Asian-majority district and 1 Black-majority district. The other districts were drawn to maintain compactness and minimize county splits.

()

Zooming into LA:

()

Zooming into the Bay Area:

()

I'll let the local experts speculate on the partisan balance in these districts.

edit: maps modified to reflect some of the comments, including the addition of an Asian-majority district in and around San Jose, and modifying the northern part of LA county.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on January 23, 2010, 11:39:59 PM
That's really squeaking by with those SC maps, muon. It won't take much of a difference between estimate and reality for those maps to be impossible.

Also your second map has CD 6 and 7 reversed, since I imagine that the GOP wouldn't be so petty as to make Clyburn change his stationary.

Also if population inflows resume after an economic recovery what you have as CD 6 in both maps would definitely not be majority black by 2020 and might well be majority white by then.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 24, 2010, 01:59:50 PM
That's really squeaking by with those SC maps, muon. It won't take much of a difference between estimate and reality for those maps to be impossible.

Also your second map has CD 6 and 7 reversed, since I imagine that the GOP wouldn't be so petty as to make Clyburn change his stationary.

Also if population inflows resume after an economic recovery what you have as CD 6 in both maps would definitely not be majority black by 2020 and might well be majority white by then.

The maps on the link I showed were better. BTW, you can always gerrymander if necessary. In addition, if one of those districts stops having a black majority in 2020 or beyond, then policymakers can always dismantle the district at a later date.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 24, 2010, 02:43:43 PM
Bipartisan incumbent protector:

()

VA-01 (blue, Rob Wittman - R) - Wittman picks up all of Stafford and part of heavily-Republican Hanover and loses some of the counties that went for Obama, and the parts of Williamsburg and Newport News as well. Also picks up the more Republican part of Hampton from Glenn Nye, as well as the Eastern Shore. This may seem weird, but while the Eastern Shore is not physically connected to VA-01, it is culturally much more like parts of the district than Virginia Beach.
VA-02 (green, Glenn Nye - D) - Dropping the Republican parts of Virginia Beach and Hampton and picks up all of Norfolk, Portsmouth, most of Suffolk and the minority-heavy part of Chesapeake. I've actually gotten it to a coalition district, as it's 49% white. Should be a safe district now, although Nye may not be safe from a primary challenge from the left unless he moves left accordingly.
VA-03 (purple, Bobby Scott - D) - Ladies and gentlemen, may I present a contiguous VA-03. Removing the Southside Hampton Roads parts of the district, I've added all of Newport News, Sussex/Greensville/Emporia, and Petersburg and the black parts of Hopewell. Remains 53% black.
VA-04 (red, Randy Forbes - R) - Losing the black parts of Chesapeake and parts of the district given to Bobby Scott, and adding the Republican parts of Virginia Beach and more of Chesterfield should make Forbes' district more Republican.
VA-05 (yellow, Tom Perriello - D) - District shifts north to Northern Virginia. Dropped all the southern part of the district and pushed it up north to Prince William. The tradeoff for Perriello is having to run in the expensive DC media market.
VA-06 (Bob Goodlatte - R) - Didn't change this district much, it just shifted south a bit.
VA-07 (grey, Eric Cantor - R) - Cantor's district is possibly even more Republican now, taking in much of the heavily-Republican Southside counties and a few Democratic counties out of Wittman's district instead of pushing northwest towards the Shenandoah Valley.
VA-08 (light purple, Jim Moran - D) - Alexandria, Arlington, and eastern Fairfax. Safe Democratic.
VA-09 (light blue, Rick Boucher - D) - Picks up Danville and drops the Ronaoke area. Not much you can do for Rick.
VA-10 (magenta, Frank Wolf - R) - Dropping Prince William and going west into the Shenandoah Valley should make this district more Republican.
VA-11 (light green, Gerry Connolly - D) - Western Fairfax, should be safe Dem.


Johnny, that it a good map. I would remove Greene, Culpepper, and Rapahannock countries, as well as the Republican areas of western Prince William County from VA-05 and put them in VA-10. I would then exapnd VA-05 into Fairfax County and then give the Democratic areas of Loundoun County to either VA-08 or VA-11 in exchange. This should make VA-05 even more Democratic while making VA-10 even more Republican. BTW, what is the white percentage in your VA-10? I'm assuming it's around 80%. Also, good job giving Boucher Henry County and the city of Danville. This makes his district more Democratic, even though it's still Republican at large. What is the white percentage of Boucher's new district? I'm assuming about 85%. I'm hoping you have saved this map.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 24, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
That's really squeaking by with those SC maps, muon. It won't take much of a difference between estimate and reality for those maps to be impossible.

Also your second map has CD 6 and 7 reversed, since I imagine that the GOP wouldn't be so petty as to make Clyburn change his stationary.

Also if population inflows resume after an economic recovery what you have as CD 6 in both maps would definitely not be majority black by 2020 and might well be majority white by then.

I think both have enough margin, that if I have block-level control of the lines instead of precinct-level, the maps can survive reasonable fluctuations in population. I will admit I didn't think about Clyburn's home, and I left CD-7 towards the northeast in creating the second map. I agree that by 2020 continued spread of the black population in the state as well as other growth make two black-majority districts hard to see in 2020, but that isn't a factor for the VRA.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: MaxQue on January 24, 2010, 11:38:24 PM
()
()
()

So, I redistricted the only state my computer is wanting to load. Here is New York State. I tried to reduce county splits and lower divisions (that were present in the app) splits. So, the lower division present in this app are townships, except in New York City and Nassau County, where they are Legislative districts. I didn't check representative residence.

NY-1 (Blue, Suffolk): Almost unchanged.
NY-2 (Forest Green, Western Suffolk): Now, all in Suffolk County, less Democrat, more white than before.
NY-3 (Purple, Eastern and Southern Nassau, Southeastern Suffolk): Less white, Obama would have won it.
NY-4 (Red, Western Nassau): No signifiant demographic change.
NY-5 (Gold, Northeastern Queens and Northwestern Nassau): Less hispanic, more Democrat.
NY-6 (Aqua, Southern Queens): Black majority district, go more south and talk whiter areas.
NY-7 (Gray, Eastern Bronx and Northern Manhattan): End of the Bronx-Queens district. Pluriality Hispanic and there is more Blacks than Whites.
NY-8 (Navy Blue, Far Southern Manhattan and Western Brooklyn): More normal shape and less serpent-like shape. Is only pluriality white now. Asians are second, Hispanics third.
NY-9 (Cyan, Western Queens): Much more northern than the previous NY-9. Take much of the former NY-6. Pluriality Hispanic, Whites are second, Asians third.
NY-10 (Pink, Eastern Brooklyn): More to the south than previous NY-10. Still Black majority, but less.
NY-11 (Green, Central Brooklyn): Still Black majority, but less.
NY-12 (Sky Blue, Western Queens and Northern Brooklyn): More normal shape, lost the tail in Manhattan and Western Brooklyn. Much less Asian, still Hispanic pluriality.
NY-13 (Salmon, Staten Island and Southwestern Brooklyn): Won by Obama on new borders, but still very Republican.
NY-14 (Swomp, Southcentral Manhattan): Now all in Manhatten, lost its Queens parts. Less hispanic, more white.
NY-15 (Orange, Northcentral Manhattan): Less hispanic, more white. Hispanics are first, Blacks are second, Whites are third)
NY-16 (Light Green, Western Bronx): Not many changes, still 3% white, Obama still won it with 95%.
NY-17 (Dark Blue, Northwestern Bronx and Southern Westchester): Seems more logic than splitting Yonkers. It is not anymore a coalition district, it is majority white now.
NY-18 (Yellow, Northern Wwestchester and Rockland): More rural, more white, less Hispanic.
NY-19 (Apple Green; Orange, Putham and Southern Dutchess): Slightly less white.
NY-20 (Skin; Washington, Northern Saratoga, Fulton, Herkimer, Southern Oneida, Madison, Chenango, Eastern Cortland and Western Broome): Ugly district created with areas that remained after the rest was drew. Very white district, barely won by Obama (a couple hundreds of votes).
NY-21 (Dark Brown; Albany, Schenectady, Southern Saratoga and Rensselaer): An Albany-based district. No signifiant demographic changes.
NY-22 (Light Brown; Northern Dutchess, Columbia, Greene, Ulster, Sullivan, Delaware, Otsego, Schoharie, Montgomery and Eastern Broome): A rural district between Birmingham, Albany and New York. Whiter and less Democrat, but Obama still won it, by 10 points.
NY-23 (Northen Oneida, Oswego, Jefferson, Lewis, St. Lawrence, Hamilton, Franklin, Clinton, Essex and Warren): North Country. Almost no change.
NY-24 (Dark Purple; Tioga, Tompkins, Chemung, Schuyler, Steuben, Yates, Ontario, Southern Monroe, Livingson, Allegany and Cattaraugus): The former NY-29, a little bit more Democrat, but McCain still won it.
NY-25 (Blood; Onondaga, Wayne, Seneca, Cayuga and Western Cortland): Former NY-25, with rural parts south of Syracuse added and with Rochester parts removed. No significant demographic change.
NY-26 (Dark Gray; Chautauqua, Wyoming, Genesee, Orleans, Niagara and Outer Erie): Former NY-26, but with areas around Buffalo added and areas around Rochester removed. Was the most Republican district in New York State, is a little bit more Republican now.
NY-27 (Light Green; Buffalo and suburbs): Now a very compact district based on Buffalo. More black than former NY-27 and is now the most Democrat upstate district.
NY-28 (Pink; Rochester and suburbs):  Now a very compact district based on Rochester. Less Democrat and black than the former NY-28, who was a Buffalo-Rochester district following the Canadian border.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on January 25, 2010, 02:36:44 PM
The maps on the link I showed were better. BTW, you can always gerrymander if necessary. In addition, if one of those districts stops having a black majority in 2020 or beyond, then policymakers can always dismantle the district at a later date.

First off, what link?  You mentioned a link, but there was no link.  Second, my point was mainly that a barely majority-minority district crafted based on the 2010 data might well have one or more of the five election cycles of its lifetime when it was not actually majority-minority.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 25, 2010, 06:18:14 PM
The maps on the link I showed were better. BTW, you can always gerrymander if necessary. In addition, if one of those districts stops having a black majority in 2020 or beyond, then policymakers can always dismantle the district at a later date.

First off, what link?  You mentioned a link, but there was no link.  Second, my point was mainly that a barely majority-minority district crafted based on the 2010 data might well have one or more of the five election cycles of its lifetime when it was not actually majority-minority.

Sorry about that. Here's the link:

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/5183/redistricting-south-carolina-2-blackmajority-seats

As for the second part, it is irrelevant since the district only needs to be majority-AA in the 2010 Census.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 25, 2010, 11:17:02 PM
The maps on the link I showed were better. BTW, you can always gerrymander if necessary. In addition, if one of those districts stops having a black majority in 2020 or beyond, then policymakers can always dismantle the district at a later date.

First off, what link?  You mentioned a link, but there was no link.  Second, my point was mainly that a barely majority-minority district crafted based on the 2010 data might well have one or more of the five election cycles of its lifetime when it was not actually majority-minority.

Sorry about that. Here's the link:

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/5183/redistricting-south-carolina-2-blackmajority-seats

As for the second part, it is irrelevant since the district only needs to be majority-AA in the 2010 Census.

The SC map at the link is a mess! :P I now feel like my 2 different versions of 2 black-majority districts that I offered are things of beauty by comparison.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 25, 2010, 11:22:16 PM
The maps on the link I showed were better. BTW, you can always gerrymander if necessary. In addition, if one of those districts stops having a black majority in 2020 or beyond, then policymakers can always dismantle the district at a later date.

First off, what link?  You mentioned a link, but there was no link.  Second, my point was mainly that a barely majority-minority district crafted based on the 2010 data might well have one or more of the five election cycles of its lifetime when it was not actually majority-minority.

Sorry about that. Here's the link:

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/5183/redistricting-south-carolina-2-blackmajority-seats

As for the second part, it is irrelevant since the district only needs to be majority-AA in the 2010 Census.

The SC map at the link is a mess! :P I now feel like my 2 different versions of 2 black-majority districts that I offered are things of beauty by comparison.

The second SC map in the link (below the first one--keep on scrolling down) is pretty clean. It is also the one that makes Spratt's district AA-majority in addition to Clyburn's.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 25, 2010, 11:29:56 PM
The maps on the link I showed were better. BTW, you can always gerrymander if necessary. In addition, if one of those districts stops having a black majority in 2020 or beyond, then policymakers can always dismantle the district at a later date.

First off, what link?  You mentioned a link, but there was no link.  Second, my point was mainly that a barely majority-minority district crafted based on the 2010 data might well have one or more of the five election cycles of its lifetime when it was not actually majority-minority.

Sorry about that. Here's the link:

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/5183/redistricting-south-carolina-2-blackmajority-seats

As for the second part, it is irrelevant since the district only needs to be majority-AA in the 2010 Census.

The SC map at the link is a mess! :P I now feel like my 2 different versions of 2 black-majority districts that I offered are things of beauty by comparison.

The second SC map in the link (below the first one--keep on scrolling down) is pretty clean. It is also the one that makes Spratt's district AA-majority in addition to Clyburn's.

Well it was better than the first, but it still erred by trying to come down both edges of the state to the coast. The best solution is to pick one or the other edge to reach the coast and use border counties on the other side for an AA district. The comments that assume the worst case for a GOP gerrymander, don't understand the more subtle ways the goal can be reached, IMO.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on January 25, 2010, 11:48:32 PM
I'm not certain those gerrymanders would pass scrutiny.  They not only have to make monstrous black majority districts, they make monstrous white-majority districts.  I'm going to see if I can make a more reasonable gerrymander.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 26, 2010, 02:20:22 AM
Looking at California, it might be possible to construct an Asian-majority district in the San Gabriel Valley as well as one in the San Jose area. Anyone want to try?

Already done, back on page 18.

That's not the San Gabriel Valley. The San Gabriel Valley is east of LA. It might not be possible. I've been working on it, and I currently have a 47% district that is still about 200,000 people undersized.

Also, there is a plurality Native American block group in Northeast LA, just outside of Chinatown (!!!, but probably a transposition of Asian and NA).

Another edit: Okay, 51% Asian right now with full population. The district connects the main hub of Chinese around Monterey Park to three other areas: Cerritos near the border with OC and a few heavily Asian areas right over the border in OC (mixed Chinese/Korean), the Asian neighborhoods around Rowland Heights, Walnut and Diamond Bar (mixed and wealthy), and LA's Chinatown. The racial split is 51% Asian, 27% Hispanic, 19% white. I'll post a map soon.

Map:

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 26, 2010, 01:17:56 PM
Looking back at it, dropping the Cerritos extension may be possible. There are a lot of moderately Asian (25-40%) precincts around the main bulb in the western San Gabriel Valley, and relatively few of the Cerritos-area precincts are overwhelmingly Asian, just 40-50% (and the precincts connecting them to the rest contain few Asians at all, making it overall maybe 35% Asian in the extension).

I also missed a few of the majority Asian block groups around the eastern extension.

Worth trying, anyway, when I have the time.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on January 27, 2010, 01:16:18 AM
How high of an Asian percentage can you get in NYC, assuming you can use the East River to connect areas in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 28, 2010, 01:06:36 AM
How high of an Asian percentage can you get in NYC, assuming you can use the East River to connect areas in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.

The Asian enclaves in Brooklyn are not large enough to justify extending to them; the cost in non-Asian population is too great. But muon demonstrated earlier that a 50% Asian map was possible by connecting Flushing to Woodside, Elmhurst and Chinatown. I doubt you could do much better, maybe 51-2% by fiddling at the edges. Conveniently, the Asian areas form a fairly continuous line across Queens, although you do have to dart through Sunnyside, Williamsburg and Greenpoint to get into Chinatown.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 28, 2010, 04:50:54 PM
Looking back at it, dropping the Cerritos extension may be possible. There are a lot of moderately Asian (25-40%) precincts around the main bulb in the western San Gabriel Valley, and relatively few of the Cerritos-area precincts are overwhelmingly Asian, just 40-50% (and the precincts connecting them to the rest contain few Asians at all, making it overall maybe 35% Asian in the extension).

I also missed a few of the majority Asian block groups around the eastern extension.

Worth trying, anyway, when I have the time.

You inspired me to give a fresh look as well. I found that I needed to keep Cerritos in, but I made the link through Fullerton. That also caused me to drop Chinatown, but overall I was able to get 52% Asian. I also improved my Santa Clara Asian district to 52%. I adjusted my other districts to maintain one Black-majority and 18 Hispanic-majority districts. All fall within 100 of the ideal population. Here's the full map, with detail for LA and the Bay areas, and a short description of demographics.

()

()

()

CD01 (royal blue, Redding): 76% white
CD02 (forest green, Chico): 63% white, 23% hispanic
CD03 (purple, Citrus Heights): 62% white
CD04 (red, Roseville) : 80% white
CD05 (yellow, Sacramento) : 41% white, 25% hispanic
CD06 (teal, Santa Rosa) : 71% white
CD07 (grey, Vallejo) : 37% white, 26% hispanic
CD08 (lavender, San Francisco) : 46% white, 29% asian
CD09 (baby blue, Oakland) : 34% white, 21% black, 21% asian, 20% hispanic
CD10 (magenta, Concord) : 58% white, 21% hispanic
CD11 (lime, Stockton) : 40% white, 37% hispanic
CD12 (periwinkle, San Mateo) : 45% white, 32% asian
CD13 (flesh, Hayward) : 43% white, 25% asian, 23% hispanic
CD14 (olive, Santa Cruz) : 55% white, 26% hispanic
CD15 (orange, San Jose) : 51% white, 25% hispanic
CD16 (kelly green, Milpitas) : 52% asian, 25% white
CD17 (midnight blue, Salinas) : 56% hispanic, 29% white
CD18 (lemon, Modesto-Merced) : 54% hispanic, 34% white
CD19 (moss green, Clovis) : 67% white, 21% hispanic
CD20 (pink, Fresno) : 62% hispanic, 23% white
CD21 (brick red, Visalia) : 59% hispanic, 31% white
CD22 (brown, Bakersfield) : 54% white, 34% hispanic
CD23 (pale blue, Oxnard) : 54% hispanic, 37% white
CD24 (deep purple, Santa Clarita) : 71% white, 20% hispanic
CD25 (mauve, Palmdale) : 53% white, 33% hispanic
CD26 (charcoal, Glendale) : 54% white, 25% hispanic
CD27 (sea green, LA Northridge) : 52% white, 30% hispanic
CD28 (lilac, LA Van Nuys) : 64% hispanic, 24% white
CD29 (pale olive, Alhambra) : 52% Asian, 24% hispanic, 21% white
CD30 (peach, Thousand Oaks) : 72% white
CD31 (pale yellow, LA - El Sereno) : 56% hispanic, 21% white
CD32 (tangerine, El Monte) 67% hispanic
CD33 (blue, LA - Downtown) 70% hispanic
CD34 (green, Montebello) 92% hispanic
CD35 (violet, LA - South LA) 52% black, 41% hispanic
CD36 (orange, Culver City) 52% white, 29% hispanic
CD37 (cornflower, Long Beach) 55% hispanic
CD38 (slate blue, Pomona) 52% hispanic, 31% white
CD39 (beige, Downey) 67% hispanic, 22% white
CD40 (rust, Huntington Beach) 56% white, 21% asian, 20% hispanic
CD41 (light grey, Redlands) 41% hispanic, 36% white
CD42 (bright green, Orange) 47% white, 33% hispanic
CD43 (hot pink, Rancho Cucamonga) 59% hispanic, 23% white
CD44 (maroon, Riverside) 51% hispanic, 36% white
CD45 (cyan, Indio) 51% hispanic, 40% white
CD46 (orange, Torrance) 46% white, 25% hispanic, 20% asian
CD47 (pale lilac, Santa Ana) 69% hispanic
CD48 (light orange, Irvine) 67% white
CD49 (dusty rose, Oceanside) 58% white, 30% hispanic
CD50 (sky blue, Escondido) 61% white, 22% hispanic
CD51 (brown, Chula Vista) 59% hispanic
CD52 (army green, El Cajon) 65% white, 20% hispanic
CD53 (pale grey, San Diego) 51% white, 31% hispanic


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 28, 2010, 08:09:24 PM
Looking back at it, dropping the Cerritos extension may be possible. There are a lot of moderately Asian (25-40%) precincts around the main bulb in the western San Gabriel Valley, and relatively few of the Cerritos-area precincts are overwhelmingly Asian, just 40-50% (and the precincts connecting them to the rest contain few Asians at all, making it overall maybe 35% Asian in the extension).

I also missed a few of the majority Asian block groups around the eastern extension.

Worth trying, anyway, when I have the time.

You inspired me to give a fresh look as well. I found that I needed to keep Cerritos in, but I made the link through Fullerton. That also caused me to drop Chinatown, but overall I was able to get 52% Asian. I also improved my Santa Clara Asian district to 52%. I adjusted my other districts to maintain one Black-majority and 18 Hispanic-majority districts. All fall within 100 of the ideal population. Here's the full map, with detail for LA and the Bay areas, and a short description of demographics.

()

()

()

CD01 (royal blue, Redding): 76% white
CD02 (forest green, Chico): 63% white, 23% hispanic
CD03 (purple, Citrus Heights): 62% white
CD04 (red, Roseville) : 80% white
CD05 (yellow, Sacramento) : 41% white, 25% hispanic
CD06 (teal, Santa Rosa) : 71% white
CD07 (grey, Vallejo) : 37% white, 26% hispanic
CD08 (lavender, San Francisco) : 46% white, 29% asian
CD09 (baby blue, Oakland) : 34% white, 21% black, 21% asian, 20% hispanic
CD10 (magenta, Concord) : 58% white, 21% hispanic
CD11 (lime, Stockton) : 40% white, 37% hispanic
CD12 (periwinkle, San Mateo) : 45% white, 32% asian
CD13 (flesh, Hayward) : 43% white, 25% asian, 23% hispanic
CD14 (olive, Santa Cruz) : 55% white, 26% hispanic
CD15 (orange, San Jose) : 51% white, 25% hispanic
CD16 (kelly green, Milpitas) : 52% asian, 25% white
CD17 (midnight blue, Salinas) : 56% hispanic, 29% white
CD18 (lemon, Modesto-Merced) : 54% hispanic, 34% white
CD19 (moss green, Clovis) : 67% white, 21% hispanic
CD20 (pink, Fresno) : 62% hispanic, 23% white
CD21 (brick red, Visalia) : 59% hispanic, 31% white
CD22 (brown, Bakersfield) : 54% white, 34% hispanic
CD23 (pale blue, Oxnard) : 54% hispanic, 37% white
CD24 (deep purple, Santa Clarita) : 71% white, 20% hispanic
CD25 (mauve, Palmdale) : 53% white, 33% hispanic
CD26 (charcoal, Glendale) : 54% white, 25% hispanic
CD27 (sea green, LA Northridge) : 52% white, 30% hispanic
CD28 (lilac, LA Van Nuys) : 64% hispanic, 24% white
CD29 (pale olive, Alhambra) : 52% Asian, 24% hispanic, 21% white
CD30 (peach, Thousand Oaks) : 72% white
CD31 (pale yellow, LA - El Sereno) : 56% hispanic, 21% white
CD32 (tangerine, El Monte) 67% hispanic
CD33 (blue, LA - Downtown) 70% hispanic
CD34 (green, Montebello) 92% hispanic
CD35 (violet, LA - South LA) 52% black, 41% hispanic
CD36 (orange, Culver City) 52% white, 29% hispanic
CD37 (cornflower, Long Beach) 55% hispanic
CD38 (slate blue, Pomona) 52% hispanic, 31% white
CD39 (beige, Downey) 67% hispanic, 22% white
CD40 (rust, Huntington Beach) 56% white, 21% asian, 20% hispanic
CD41 (light grey, Redlands) 41% hispanic, 36% white
CD42 (bright green, Orange) 47% white, 33% hispanic
CD43 (hot pink, Rancho Cucamonga) 59% hispanic, 23% white
CD44 (maroon, Riverside) 51% hispanic, 36% white
CD45 (cyan, Indio) 51% hispanic, 40% white
CD46 (orange, Torrance) 46% white, 25% hispanic, 20% asian
CD47 (pale lilac, Santa Ana) 69% hispanic
CD48 (light orange, Irvine) 67% white
CD49 (dusty rose, Oceanside) 58% white, 30% hispanic
CD50 (sky blue, Escondido) 61% white, 22% hispanic
CD51 (brown, Chula Vista) 59% hispanic
CD52 (army green, El Cajon) 65% white, 20% hispanic
CD53 (pale grey, San Diego) 51% white, 31% hispanic

Nice job for making 3 Asian-majority districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 28, 2010, 08:55:02 PM
I suspect that Judy Chu will insist on having the above district drawn for her in 2012, so it actually is interesting to construct. (In her current district, she is perpetually in danger of a primary challenge from a Hispanic politician who actually has union connections.)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 28, 2010, 09:23:31 PM
I suspect that Judy Chu will insist on having the above district drawn for her in 2012, so it actually is interesting to construct. (In her current district, she is perpetually in danger of a primary challenge from a Hispanic politician who actually has union connections.)

Which town is her base?

These Asian-majority districts become interesting as well if CA passes the initiative to include congressional redistricting with their commission. The commission will probably be swayed by linking communities of interest, and I would not be surprised to see a pan-Asian COI promoted.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 28, 2010, 09:39:33 PM
I was interesting in seeing what was the whitest and least-white congressional district anyone can make in any state?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 28, 2010, 10:38:31 PM
I was interesting in seeing what was the whitest and least-white congressional district anyone can make in any state?

The inner cities often have large areas with low white percentages. For example the LA area map I posted has three districts that are 5% or less white. The South LA district is only 3% white.

I suspect that CDs over 90% white are possible in states like UT.

edit: I get 93% for a CD in UT using the 2008 numbers.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 29, 2010, 02:26:32 AM
I was interesting in seeing what was the whitest and least-white congressional district anyone can make in any state?

The inner cities often have large areas with low white percentages. For example the LA area map I posted has three districts that are 5% or less white. The South LA district is only 3% white.

I suspect that CDs over 90% white are possible in states like UT.

edit: I get 93% for a CD in UT using the 2008 numbers.


Could you please post the map? The whitest district I could get in Utah was 89% white. Of course I didn't try too hard. I think it is possible to create a 96% white district in Maine. I wonder if anyone could create a 96% or 97% white district anywhere.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 29, 2010, 09:07:33 AM
It's kind of cheating, but Vermont is 98% white.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on January 29, 2010, 09:16:34 AM
It's kind of cheating, but Vermont is 98% white.

Maine surpassed Vermont as the least-diverse state this decade, and it should be possible to draw 1 district that excludes Lewiston, Portland, and Native American areas.

Utah is probably not going to work for this purpose because even heavily Mormon areas will have some Latino population.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 29, 2010, 12:02:27 PM
I suspect that Judy Chu will insist on having the above district drawn for her in 2012, so it actually is interesting to construct. (In her current district, she is perpetually in danger of a primary challenge from a Hispanic politician who actually has union connections.)

Which town is her base?

These Asian-majority districts become interesting as well if CA passes the initiative to include congressional redistricting with their commission. The commission will probably be swayed by linking communities of interest, and I would not be surprised to see a pan-Asian COI promoted.

She's from Monterey Park, which is in the Asian-majority district already. IIRC, Monterey Park is the most Asian municipality in the country outside of Hawaii.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 29, 2010, 12:58:58 PM
It's kind of cheating, but Vermont is 98% white.

No, it's 97% (non-Hispanic) white in 2005. It might be down to 96% in 2010, but I'm not sure.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: fezzyfestoon on January 29, 2010, 02:18:49 PM
I just had a lot of fun squeezing out Republican districts in Maryland.  I made the partisanship average based on the country.

MD-1: D+78% (Prince George centered, 69% black)
MD-2: D+78% (Baltimore centered, 71% black)
MD-3: D+48% (Densely populated areas in Montgomery, Prince George, and Howard Counties)
MD-4: R+7% (Southern Maryland)
MD-5: R+21% (Peninsula)
MD-6: D+2% (Inner Baltimore suburbs)
MD-7: D+1% (DC and Baltimore suburbs)
MD-8: R+17% (Western Maryland)

In a good year, Republicans could hold 5 of the 8 Maryland districts.  That was fun. :P

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 29, 2010, 02:25:04 PM
I just had a lot of fun squeezing out Republican districts in Maryland.  I made the partisanship average based on the country.

MD-1: D+78% (Prince George centered, 69% black)
MD-2: D+78% (Baltimore centered, 71% black)
MD-3: D+48% (Densely populated areas in Montgomery, Prince George, and Howard Counties)
MD-4: R+7% (Southern Maryland)
MD-5: R+21% (Peninsula)
MD-6: D+2% (Inner Baltimore suburbs)
MD-7: D+1% (DC and Baltimore suburbs)
MD-8: R+17% (Western Maryland)

In a good year, Republicans could hold 5 of the 8 Maryland districts.  That was fun. :P

()

Here's a challenge for you--make all congressional dsitricts in Maryland at least 60% Obama.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 29, 2010, 09:26:05 PM
It's kind of cheating, but Vermont is 98% white.

Maine surpassed Vermont as the least-diverse state this decade, and it should be possible to draw 1 district that excludes Lewiston, Portland, and Native American areas.

Utah is probably not going to work for this purpose because even heavily Mormon areas will have some Latino population.

The best I had in UT was 93%, but I can get 97% in ME by excluding the coast from Portland to Canada and removing the cities in Androscoggin, Kennebec and Penobscot. Of course the remainder is still 94%.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 29, 2010, 09:32:47 PM
It's kind of cheating, but Vermont is 98% white.

Maine surpassed Vermont as the least-diverse state this decade, and it should be possible to draw 1 district that excludes Lewiston, Portland, and Native American areas.

Utah is probably not going to work for this purpose because even heavily Mormon areas will have some Latino population.

The best I had in UT was 93%, but I can get 97% in ME by excluding the coast from Portland to Canada and removing the cities in Androscoggin, Kennebec and Penobscot. Of course the remainder is still 94%.

You mind posting both maps? I want to see what you came up with.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RI on January 29, 2010, 10:40:32 PM
Here's a challenge for you--make all congressional dsitricts in Maryland at least 60% Obama.

() (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2947_29_01_10_10_34_01.png)
MD-01 (Blue): 60%D-38%R
MD-02 (Green): 60%D-39%R
MD-03 (Purple): 60%D-39%R
MD-04 (Red): 61%D-37%R
MD-05 (Yellow): 60%D-39%R
MD-06 (Teal): 60%D-38%R
MD-07 (Grey): 61%D-37%R
MD-08 (Light Purple): 78%D-21%R

District 8 could be broken up more if the other districts needed to be strengthened.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: ag on January 29, 2010, 11:25:13 PM
I was interesting in seeing what was the whitest and least-white congressional district anyone can make in any state?

Based on 35 districts in Texas I easily got a district that's 3% White and 96% Hispanic. I am sure, minor play w/ boundaries would get Hispanics to 97%.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 29, 2010, 11:31:22 PM
Here's a challenge for you--make all congressional dsitricts in Maryland at least 60% Obama.

() (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2947_29_01_10_10_34_01.png)
MD-01 (Blue): 60%D-38%R
MD-02 (Green): 60%D-39%R
MD-03 (Purple): 60%D-39%R
MD-04 (Red): 61%D-37%R
MD-05 (Yellow): 60%D-39%R
MD-06 (Teal): 60%D-38%R
MD-07 (Grey): 61%D-37%R
MD-08 (Light Purple): 78%D-21%R

District 8 could be broken up more if the other districts needed to be strengthened.

What I meant was have each district be at least 60% Obama and preserve the VRA (as in having 2-black majority districts remain). I knew I should have been more specific. Do you think you can accomplish my new challenge?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: fezzyfestoon on January 30, 2010, 02:29:19 AM
I really want partisan data for more states.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on January 30, 2010, 11:19:37 AM
These Asian-majority districts become interesting as well if CA passes the initiative to include congressional redistricting with their commission. The commission will probably be swayed by linking communities of interest, and I would not be surprised to see a pan-Asian COI promoted.
The law requires that the legislature apply the same standards when drawing congressional districts, as the commission does when drawing legislative lines, except the legislature is not restricted from considering the residence of incumbents or political candidates, and may draw districts for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.

A geography-based "community of interest" would seem to be pretty ill-defined, so I would stick to cities and counties since they do have a clear definition, and then consider neighborhoods and maybe CDP (California may has alternatives defined for planning purposes) when the others had to be divided to reach population relative equality.

Incidentally, there are now 12,000+ applicants to the commission with two weeks to go.  About 10,000 appear to qualify based on legal eligibility.

The next step is for the auditors to reduce that to 60 persons (20 Democrats, 20 Republicans, and 20 other) "on the basis of relevant analytical skills, ability to be impartial, and appreciation for California’s diverse demographics and geography." 

The Phase I applicants will now be given a supplemental application which will include

Quote from: http://www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov/downloads/regulations.pdf

(1) Questions designed to elicit information from the applicant describing his or her qualifications to serve on the commission, including essay questions to be answered in 3200 character (approximately 500 words) or less.

(2) Questions designed to elicit information about the applicant, including, but not limited to:
(i) Former names, former residences, and felony convictions, if any.
(ii) Educational and employment history.
(iii) Involvements with, and financial contributions to, professional, social, political,
volunteer, and community organizations and causes.

(3) Questions about an applicant’s immediate family members.

(4) A requirement that the applicant submit three letters of recommendation from individuals
or organizations.

Based on the supplemental applications, 120 will be brought to Sacramento for personal interviews, from which 60 will be chosen.

It will be interesting to see how many persons follow through with the more extensive application.

I would be concerned that commission would be too narrowly qualified, as opposed to the sort of variety you would get if a more random process, such as that used for jury selection were used.

An interesting demographic about current applicants is that the median age appears to be about 57, which is older than I would expect - but perhaps younger persons were simply more realistic about the potential job interruption if they were selected.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on January 30, 2010, 11:22:04 PM
I really want partisan data for more states.

Amen.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on January 31, 2010, 12:19:18 AM


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 31, 2010, 07:50:19 AM
If you want it, e-mail Dave and ask if you can help implement it. It's a laborious task.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kevinstat on February 06, 2010, 10:17:01 AM
Dave should upload smaller and more sensibly-based polygons for Maine and New Hampshire before he adds any more data to states which already have useable building blocks.  Also, apps for the 1-CD states would be nice to facilitate drawing legislative districts or hypothetical congressional districts (like the kind drawn in the "The Trond can't help it... (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=49644.0)" thread) in those states.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 06, 2010, 12:34:04 PM
Will he also do one-representative States one day ? I long for Vermont... :(


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 06, 2010, 05:46:12 PM
Will he also do one-representative States one day ? I long for Vermont... :(

I asked him about it back when he finished up all the multiple-CD states, and he said he would eventually do it, but I think it's taken a back seat to the partisan data stuff.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kevinstat on February 06, 2010, 11:09:45 PM
Will he also do one-representative States one day ? I long for Vermont... :(

Me too!  I mean that was the one-representative (or 1-CD as I put it) state I am most interested in playing with a Dave's App and that I was thinking most about when I wrote the second sentence in my last post.  Do you live closer to Vermont than to any other state with only one U.S. Representative, like I do.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 07, 2010, 01:11:28 AM
I'd like for him to go back over the South Carolina data.  He has a number of precincts in growing areas that have been split because of the growth still as a single precinct.  To be fair, he might not have that data, especially at the demographic level, since precinct splitting happens in each election cycle, but some of the splits since 2000 he doesn't note have been in place for a couple of elections now.  My own county will be newly splitting four precincts for the 2010 general election cycle (and would like to do ten more but haven't found suitable places for the new precincts to hold balloting yet.)  The goal is a maximum of 2,000 voters per precinct.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 07, 2010, 03:35:08 AM
Will he also do one-representative States one day ? I long for Vermont... :(

Me too!  I mean that was the one-representative (or 1-CD as I put it) state I am most interested in playing with a Dave's App and that I was thinking most about when I wrote the second sentence in my last post.  Do you live closer to Vermont than to any other state with only one U.S. Representative, like I do.

Well, technically yes since I live near Paris. ;) And it's mostly because I like the State politically and culturally speaking, and also because I'd really like to see how its population is distributed. I alrteady managed to draw a 6-districts Vermont using the cities' population datat from wikipedia, but with Dave's app it'd be far better.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 07, 2010, 06:47:29 PM
Here's my attempt to an uber-Dem gerrymander for Oregon. Complete control of the redistricting if they go all out might look like this:

()
()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 07, 2010, 10:09:16 PM
Here's my attempt to an uber-Dem gerrymander for Oregon. Complete control of the redistricting if they go all out might look like this:

()
()
()

First of all, I think Oregon will narrowly miss gaining a sixth seat in 2010 and will have to wait until 2020 to get one. Also, shat are the demographics of each district and what are your guesstimates for the Obama-McCain percentages in each district?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on February 07, 2010, 11:55:34 PM
The estimated growth of population in OR is such that if the number of seats stays at 5, very little will need to change in the districts to meet the new Census. CD 2 in eastern OR might only need to change by a few Census blocks near Grant's Pass. Since OR has a tradition of minimizing county splits and not crossing the Cascades in the middle of the state, OR-2 may stay virtually the same, regardless of party control.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 08, 2010, 12:10:58 AM
If only I had more detailed precinct data these would be more accurate.

OR-1: 58% Obama
OR-2: 55% McCain
OR-3: 72% Obama
OR-4: 55% Obama
OR-5: 54% Obama
OR-6: 56% Obama


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 08, 2010, 12:14:11 AM
If only I had more detailed precinct data these would be more accurate.

OR-1: 58% Obama
OR-2: 55% McCain
OR-3: 72% Obama
OR-4: 55% Obama
OR-5: 54% Obama
OR-6: 56% Obama

Reduce the Democratic percentage in OR-03 to 58-60% Obama as best as you can. That district just wastes too many Democratic votes. It would also allow all the other Democratic districts to become at least 58% Obama, which would be important since they would become at least 5% more Democratic than the national average and thus be relatively easy to hold even in bad years.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 08, 2010, 12:42:58 AM
I could try that later.

Interestingly I just played around with a GOP gerrymander in Minnesota, and found out the GOP goal of combining the Twin Cities could seriously backfire and result in ALL seats being Democratic!

MN-1: I added a bunch more Republican counties to the district (Sibley, McLeod, Redwood and part of Carver) but Walz is probably too tough to be broken.
MN-2: Gets more Democratic. Loses much of Carver county and gains more Democratic areas like the _________ St. Pauls and part of southern Washington County. Kline might be safe but if he retired...
MN-3: Basically Hennepin County minus Minneapolis, Golden Valley and Robbinsdale, plus the parts of Anoka in the current MN-5. Fairly strong Democratic territory, more than the current seat. Paulsen could still survive, but not guaranteed.
MN-4: Ramsey county outside of St. Paul plus the northern suburbs, like almost all of Washington and Anoka counties. Ramsey outside of St. Paul is enough honestly. Even with Elk River in it, it ends up marginally Democratic.
MN-5: Well this is the Minneapolis + St. Paul seat so...
MN-6: Basically the current MN-8 more than Bachmann's seat, runs from the northeast corner to the exurbs and St. Cloud. Oberstar would not lose in such a seat. If he retired it would be competitive but not a sure thing.
MN-7: Gets a bit more Dem. Obviously safe for Peterson, and a likely hold if he retired.

Conversely though it could result in every seat except MN-5 flipping, so the DFL isn't likely to try it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 08, 2010, 02:07:10 AM
You're missing obvious opportunities with that Oregon map. The clear correct choice is to connect as much of Southern Oregon to Eastern Oregon as possible. This is made much easier if you connect Bend to eastern Multnomah County through Jefferson, Wasco and Hood River counties. Wasco certainly should not be in the packed Republican seat; it was more Democratic than many of the counties you left in the Democratic districts.

I'm not sure quite how well this works on a six-seat map. On a five-seat map, it works wonders: Southern Oregon (everything south of Lane County) plus Eastern Oregon sans Bend (so dropping Jefferson, Deschutes, Wasco and Hood River Counties from the current OR-02) is almost exactly one district and packs nearly all of the Republican counties in together; to reach the requisite district size, you just need to pick up a few parts of rural Deschutes County (that weird eastern panhandle is a nice place to start).

Then all you need to do is connect the Bend/Hood River corridor to eastern Portland along the Columbia, connect southern Portland through Clackamas County to Salem, connect western Portland to the northwestern areas, including parts of Republican Yamhill County, and lump the rest of the Republican and swing areas in with Eugene and Corvallis to outvote them. That creates four solidly Democratic seats.

Here's a map:

()

(Note: The splits of Marion and Clackamas Counties were to preserve transit links; the northwestern corner of Clackamas County is most accessible from Wasco County and Multnomah County, not the main areas of Clackamas County, while the river along the Marion/Linn county line is awkward because the road runs along the northern bank in Marion County but the little towns are all on the southern bank in Linn County. The towns have bridges to reach the main road, and they all have no other land connection to the rest of Linn County. The split of Yamhill County was strictly to ensure equal population, while the split of Polk County kept all of Salem together.)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 08, 2010, 10:39:23 AM
Ah, gerrymandering... ::)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 08, 2010, 12:41:37 PM
You're missing obvious opportunities with that Oregon map. The clear correct choice is to connect as much of Southern Oregon to Eastern Oregon as possible. This is made much easier if you connect Bend to eastern Multnomah County through Jefferson, Wasco and Hood River counties. Wasco certainly should not be in the packed Republican seat; it was more Democratic than many of the counties you left in the Democratic districts.

I'm not sure quite how well this works on a six-seat map. On a five-seat map, it works wonders: Southern Oregon (everything south of Lane County) plus Eastern Oregon sans Bend (so dropping Jefferson, Deschutes, Wasco and Hood River Counties from the current OR-02) is almost exactly one district and packs nearly all of the Republican counties in together; to reach the requisite district size, you just need to pick up a few parts of rural Deschutes County (that weird eastern panhandle is a nice place to start).

Then all you need to do is connect the Bend/Hood River corridor to eastern Portland along the Columbia, connect southern Portland through Clackamas County to Salem, connect western Portland to the northwestern areas, including parts of Republican Yamhill County, and lump the rest of the Republican and swing areas in with Eugene and Corvallis to outvote them. That creates four solidly Democratic seats.

Here's a map:

()

(Note: The splits of Marion and Clackamas Counties were to preserve transit links; the northwestern corner of Clackamas County is most accessible from Wasco County and Multnomah County, not the main areas of Clackamas County, while the river along the Marion/Linn county line is awkward because the road runs along the northern bank in Marion County but the little towns are all on the southern bank in Linn County. The towns have bridges to reach the main road, and they all have no other land connection to the rest of Linn County. The split of Yamhill County was strictly to ensure equal population, while the split of Polk County kept all of Salem together.)

What are the demographics of each district and your guesstimates of the Obama-McCain percentages in each district? Hopefully each district other than the 2nd is at least 58% Obama.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 08, 2010, 01:32:43 PM
Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 08, 2010, 01:39:20 PM
Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.

If OR-01 and maybe OR-05 are made more Democratic, this would be a great map. I heard that David Wu (OR-01) is a weak incumbent and campaigner and thus it would be nice to have a safer district for him.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 08, 2010, 01:41:41 PM
Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.

If OR-01 and maybe OR-05 are made more Democratic, this would be a great map. I heard that David Wu (OR-01) is a weak incumbent and campaigner and thus it would be nice to have a safer district for him.

His new district is OR-04 on this map, which is the safest one, probably around 65% Obama (due to dropping most of Yamhill and gaining NW Portland and the rest of SW Portland).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 08, 2010, 01:48:25 PM
Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.

If OR-01 and maybe OR-05 are made more Democratic, this would be a great map. I heard that David Wu (OR-01) is a weak incumbent and campaigner and thus it would be nice to have a safer district for him.

His new district is OR-04 on this map, which is the safest one, probably around 65% Obama (due to dropping most of Yamhill and gaining NW Portland and the rest of SW Portland).

All right, well that's good. However, I would still suggest making OR-01 and OR-05 more Democratic, just to increase the Demcorats' odds of retaining those seats in bad years.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 08, 2010, 02:01:50 PM
Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.

If OR-01 and maybe OR-05 are made more Democratic, this would be a great map. I heard that David Wu (OR-01) is a weak incumbent and campaigner and thus it would be nice to have a safer district for him.

His new district is OR-04 on this map, which is the safest one, probably around 65% Obama (due to dropping most of Yamhill and gaining NW Portland and the rest of SW Portland).

All right, well that's good. However, I would still suggest making OR-01 and OR-05 more Democratic, just to increase the Demcorats' odds of retaining those seats in bad years.

The polarization in these seats makes the Republicans winning them basically impossible. Oregon does not have swing voters the way other states do.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 08, 2010, 02:16:21 PM
Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.

If OR-01 and maybe OR-05 are made more Democratic, this would be a great map. I heard that David Wu (OR-01) is a weak incumbent and campaigner and thus it would be nice to have a safer district for him.

His new district is OR-04 on this map, which is the safest one, probably around 65% Obama (due to dropping most of Yamhill and gaining NW Portland and the rest of SW Portland).

All right, well that's good. However, I would still suggest making OR-01 and OR-05 more Democratic, just to increase the Demcorats' odds of retaining those seats in bad years.

The polarization in these seats makes the Republicans winning them basically impossible. Oregon does not have swing voters the way other states do.

I would still reduce the risk and make these two seats more Democratic. Remember, a Republican winning a Senate seat in MA was considered practically impossible two months ago. Besides, if a Republican wins the Presidency in a landslide, they could definitely win Oregon and cause several of these congressional seats to flip. That's why it's a good idea to further strengthen these seats.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 08, 2010, 02:23:55 PM
Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.

If OR-01 and maybe OR-05 are made more Democratic, this would be a great map. I heard that David Wu (OR-01) is a weak incumbent and campaigner and thus it would be nice to have a safer district for him.

His new district is OR-04 on this map, which is the safest one, probably around 65% Obama (due to dropping most of Yamhill and gaining NW Portland and the rest of SW Portland).

All right, well that's good. However, I would still suggest making OR-01 and OR-05 more Democratic, just to increase the Demcorats' odds of retaining those seats in bad years.

The polarization in these seats makes the Republicans winning them basically impossible. Oregon does not have swing voters the way other states do.

I would still reduce the risk and make these two seats more Democratic. Remember, a Republican winning a Senate seat in MA was considered practically impossible two months ago. Besides, if a Republican wins the Presidency in a landslide, they could definitely win Oregon and cause several of these congressional seats to flip. That's why it's a good idea to further strengthen these seats.

You'd need a Republican winning 55+% nationwide to win any of those seats, at which point any partisanship numbers have to be thrown out the window anyway because weird things will start to happen.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 08, 2010, 02:36:04 PM
Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.

If OR-01 and maybe OR-05 are made more Democratic, this would be a great map. I heard that David Wu (OR-01) is a weak incumbent and campaigner and thus it would be nice to have a safer district for him.

His new district is OR-04 on this map, which is the safest one, probably around 65% Obama (due to dropping most of Yamhill and gaining NW Portland and the rest of SW Portland).

All right, well that's good. However, I would still suggest making OR-01 and OR-05 more Democratic, just to increase the Demcorats' odds of retaining those seats in bad years.

The polarization in these seats makes the Republicans winning them basically impossible. Oregon does not have swing voters the way other states do.

I would still reduce the risk and make these two seats more Democratic. Remember, a Republican winning a Senate seat in MA was considered practically impossible two months ago. Besides, if a Republican wins the Presidency in a landslide, they could definitely win Oregon and cause several of these congressional seats to flip. That's why it's a good idea to further strengthen these seats.

You'd need a Republican winning 55+% nationwide to win any of those seats, at which point any partisanship numbers have to be thrown out the window anyway because weird things will start to happen.

Republicans can win some of those seats in bad years for the Democrats. Also, even if a Republican Presidential candidate wins 51-52% of the nationwide popular vote, good Republican candidates might be able to win some of those Oregon seats. Thus I think it is essential to make each of the four districts as Democratic as possible and pack as many Republicans as possible into Greg Walden's district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 08, 2010, 02:39:29 PM
No, they couldn't win any of those seats with a 51-52% victory. Sorry.

Also, it quite simply is not possible to pack any more Republicans into Walden's district than I did.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 08, 2010, 02:40:59 PM
No, they couldn't win any of those seats with a 51-52% victory. Sorry.

Also, it quite simply is not possible to pack any more Republicans into Walden's district than I did.

How do you post maps from Dave's Redistricting App onto here?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on February 09, 2010, 12:46:04 AM
No, they couldn't win any of those seats with a 51-52% victory. Sorry.

Also, it quite simply is not possible to pack any more Republicans into Walden's district than I did.

How do you post maps from Dave's Redistricting App onto here?

First you have to save your map in the App. Then download and run his map2jpg tool, save the files somewhere on your machine. You can upload the images to the Atlas gallery and link to them in your post. It's worked for me.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 09, 2010, 02:40:36 AM
No, they couldn't win any of those seats with a 51-52% victory. Sorry.

Also, it quite simply is not possible to pack any more Republicans into Walden's district than I did.

How do you post maps from Dave's Redistricting App onto here?

First you have to save your map in the App. Then download and run his map2jpg tool, save the files somewhere on your machine. You can upload the images to the Atlas gallery and link to them in your post. It's worked for me.

Alternatively, if the application doesn't save it as it happens to me, you can still use "print screen" and then paste it on paint. ;)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on February 09, 2010, 06:54:49 PM
No, they couldn't win any of those seats with a 51-52% victory. Sorry.

Also, it quite simply is not possible to pack any more Republicans into Walden's district than I did.

How do you post maps from Dave's Redistricting App onto here?

First you have to save your map in the App. Then download and run his map2jpg tool, save the files somewhere on your machine. You can upload the images to the Atlas gallery and link to them in your post. It's worked for me.

Alternatively, if the application doesn't save it as it happens to me, you can still use "print screen" and then paste it on paint. ;)

That's what I do.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on February 09, 2010, 07:33:20 PM
Alternatively, if the application doesn't save it as it happens to me, you can still use "print screen" and then paste it on paint. ;)

That's what I do.

Virginia is too long for that :(


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 09, 2010, 07:35:30 PM
Alternatively, if the application doesn't save it as it happens to me, you can still use "print screen" and then paste it on paint. ;)

That's what I do.

Virginia is too long for that :(

Ben, could you create a really nasty Republican gerrymander of Virginia if you have the time? Or someone else could create it, for that matter. I always want to see more Republican gerrymanders.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vepres on February 09, 2010, 07:46:07 PM
Here's my attempt to gerrymander Colorado for the GOP.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on February 09, 2010, 08:08:12 PM
Ben, could you create a really nasty Republican gerrymander of Virginia if you have the time? Or someone else could create it, for that matter. I always want to see more Republican gerrymanders.

I'm working on it; the VRA is a bitch.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 09, 2010, 08:56:59 PM
Ben, could you create a really nasty Republican gerrymander of Virginia if you have the time? Or someone else could create it, for that matter. I always want to see more Republican gerrymanders.

I'm working on it; the VRA is a bitch.

I thought the VRA was beneficial to the GOP. It allows them to pack many black voters into one district. You can make a 65% black district and pack huge amounts of Dems into it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 10, 2010, 08:09:39 AM
The current map is about as good a Republican gerrymander as you can get.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 10, 2010, 10:25:17 AM
I just drew a Michigan gerrymander that I think would go 13-1 Democratic right now, possibly 11-3 in a good year for Republicans but still intensely favoring the Democrats and mostly safe. Will post it later.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vepres on February 10, 2010, 10:54:08 AM
Here's my attempt to gerrymander Colorado for the GOP.

()

Ok, I now have time to explain this.

CO-1: Basically unchanged, except a small part of the northern suburbs are now in it instead of southern. Strong Democrat.

CO-2: Instead of taking the ski country, this eats up the more liberal parts of the Adams County. Strong Democrat.

CO-3: Takes up the Western part of the state. The conservative and relatively populous Mesa county balances out the ski counties. Lean GOP.

CO-4: Takes up the conservative Larimer and Weld counties, and the conservative eastern plains. It takes half of Pueblo. Lean GOP.

CO-5: Takes half of Pueblo and El Paso County. Strong GOP.

CO-6: Takes the very conservative suburbs in Jefferson County and the conservative Douglas county. Strong GOP.

CO-7: Most of the population is in the conservative southern Denver suburbs. Slight GOP lean.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 10, 2010, 07:32:45 PM
The current map is about as good a Republican gerrymander as you can get.

Not quite. You can make the 3rd 65% or more black and you can also split Boucher's district in two (between the 6th and the 5th, assuming Perriello loses in 2010) and create a new Republican district somewhere else in Virginia in compensation.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smash255 on February 11, 2010, 01:04:54 AM
Here's my attempt to gerrymander Colorado for the GOP.

()

Ok, I now have time to explain this.



CO-4: Takes up the eastern part of the state. The conservative and relatively populous Mesa county balances out the ski counties. Lean GOP.



Looks like someone doesn't know east from west :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 11, 2010, 01:24:07 AM
Here's my attempt to gerrymander Colorado for the GOP.

()

Ok, I now have time to explain this.



CO-4: Takes up the eastern part of the state. The conservative and relatively populous Mesa county balances out the ski counties. Lean GOP.



Looks like someone doesn't know east from west :)

The 4th is in eastern CO.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 11, 2010, 11:26:31 AM
Mesa County is not in eastern CO.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on February 11, 2010, 11:40:50 AM

According to the descriptions, one word aside, he's swapped the numbering from the current 3rd and 4th.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 11, 2010, 12:03:02 PM
Here's my new Pennsylvania:

()

PA-1: Basically the same, expands a bit into Delaware county. Currently has a slight black plurality, but that shouldn't be an issue until Brady retires. Come to think of it I probably should've traded some population with PA-7 to make the latter more black...
PA-2: Also basically the same. Majority black and safe D.
PA-3: Much better for Dahlkemper, as I've cleaned out the Butler county portion.
PA-4: Also most of Butler county is gone. Should be safe for Altmire, and strong for any white pro-life Democrat.
PA-5: Now has Butler county. Obviously safe Republican, Thompson would likely win though don't count out a Butler county Republican challenging him.
PA-6: District now has a sane shape. Gerlach would probably finally be toppled in this seat, as it contains all of Reading yet less of rural Berks, but contains a bit more of Chester, so not a sure thing.
PA-7: Largely the same, a bit outward expanded. Slightly more Republican but could still be won by a Democrat especially if there's an incumbent or Sestak opted to return. Could be made more Dem as noted by putting more blacks in, I should tweak that.
PA-8: Probably gets a bit more Republican, but Murphy should have no problem surviving.
PA-9: Population-wise is probably closer to the old PA-19 than the current PA-9. Shuster might be able to defeat Platts in the primary if he gets the teabaggers on his side through.
PA-10: Becomes slightly more Dem. If Carney survived so far, he'll win here.
PA-11: A bit more Republican, but if Kanjorski retires, should stay Dem.
PA-12: Shuster might have a better chance here than in PA-9 running against whoever takes Murtha's seat. Against a Dem he might be favored. Against a Republican in the primary it'd come down to areas' turnout.
PA-13: Ah, this old classic. Is now more Montco based, so Schwartz is fine.
PA-14: Little change, safe Dem.
PA-15: Now contains Stroudsburg, but Charlie Dent likely still wins.
PA-16: Safe GOP, Pitts wins easily.
PA-17: Condensed a bit more but loses the bit of Reading, Holden should win easily but not so safe if he leaves.
PA-18: Now finally has a sane shape. I don't know the exact partisan breakdown, but Murphy is much more likely to lose, as the current PA-12 was designed to take in all the Dem areas to keep him safe.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 11, 2010, 06:07:17 PM
Here's my new Pennsylvania:

()

PA-1: Basically the same, expands a bit into Delaware county. Currently has a slight black plurality, but that shouldn't be an issue until Brady retires. Come to think of it I probably should've traded some population with PA-7 to make the latter more black...
PA-2: Also basically the same. Majority black and safe D.
PA-3: Much better for Dahlkemper, as I've cleaned out the Butler county portion.
PA-4: Also most of Butler county is gone. Should be safe for Altmire, and strong for any white pro-life Democrat.
PA-5: Now has Butler county. Obviously safe Republican, Thompson would likely win though don't count out a Butler county Republican challenging him.
PA-6: District now has a sane shape. Gerlach would probably finally be toppled in this seat, as it contains all of Reading yet less of rural Berks, but contains a bit more of Chester, so not a sure thing.
PA-7: Largely the same, a bit outward expanded. Slightly more Republican but could still be won by a Democrat especially if there's an incumbent or Sestak opted to return. Could be made more Dem as noted by putting more blacks in, I should tweak that.
PA-8: Probably gets a bit more Republican, but Murphy should have no problem surviving.
PA-9: Population-wise is probably closer to the old PA-19 than the current PA-9. Shuster might be able to defeat Platts in the primary if he gets the teabaggers on his side through.
PA-10: Becomes slightly more Dem. If Carney survived so far, he'll win here.
PA-11: A bit more Republican, but if Kanjorski retires, should stay Dem.
PA-12: Shuster might have a better chance here than in PA-9 running against whoever takes Murtha's seat. Against a Dem he might be favored. Against a Republican in the primary it'd come down to areas' turnout.
PA-13: Ah, this old classic. Is now more Montco based, so Schwartz is fine.
PA-14: Little change, safe Dem.
PA-15: Now contains Stroudsburg, but Charlie Dent likely still wins.
PA-16: Safe GOP, Pitts wins easily.
PA-17: Condensed a bit more but loses the bit of Reading, Holden should win easily but not so safe if he leaves.
PA-18: Now finally has a sane shape. I don't know the exact partisan breakdown, but Murphy is much more likely to lose, as the current PA-12 was designed to take in all the Dem areas to keep him safe.

Maybe PA-03 and PA-04 can exchange terrotiroy with PA-18 to make PA-03 and PA-04 more Democratic while making PA-18 more Republican.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vepres on February 11, 2010, 09:26:03 PM
Here's my attempt to gerrymander Colorado for the GOP.

()

Ok, I now have time to explain this.



CO-4: Takes up the eastern part of the state. The conservative and relatively populous Mesa county balances out the ski counties. Lean GOP.



Looks like someone doesn't know east from west :)

Oops! LOL


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vepres on February 11, 2010, 09:27:45 PM
Here's my attempt to gerrymander Colorado for the GOP.

()

Ok, I now have time to explain this.

CO-1: Basically unchanged, except a small part of the northern suburbs are now in it instead of southern. Strong Democrat.

CO-2: Instead of taking the ski country, this eats up the more liberal parts of the Adams County. Strong Democrat.

CO-3: Takes up the Western part of the state. The conservative and relatively populous Mesa county balances out the ski counties. Lean GOP.

CO-4: Takes up the conservative Larimer and Weld counties, and the conservative eastern plains. It takes half of Pueblo. Lean GOP.

CO-5: Takes half of Pueblo and El Paso County. Strong GOP.

CO-6: Takes the very conservative suburbs in Jefferson County and the conservative Douglas county. Strong GOP.

CO-7: Most of the population is in the conservative southern Denver suburbs. Slight GOP lean.

Fixed :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on February 12, 2010, 03:10:53 PM
Due to current interpretation of the VRA, VA must have at least one majority-minority district. I wanted to see how many majority-minority districts I could create (using newest pop estimates)  without resorting to the level of atrocious gerrymandering of our current 3rd CD.
CD-3: currently black majority, becomes black plurality (46%).
CD-4: currently white majority, becomes black plurality (47%). moves from lean-R to D.
CD-11: currently white majority, becomes white plurality (49%). moves from lean-D to D.
 
()

(note: CD 9 is to the West)





Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on February 12, 2010, 03:49:12 PM
How many majority-minority district does NC have to have according to VRA Rules?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 12, 2010, 05:59:56 PM
How many majority-minority district does NC have to have according to VRA Rules?

2 I believe: Butterfield's and Watt's.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 12, 2010, 06:01:16 PM
Due to current interpretation of the VRA, VA must have at least one majority-minority district. I wanted to see how many majority-minority districts I could create (using newest pop estimates)  without resorting to the level of atrocious gerrymandering of our current 3rd CD.
CD-3: currently black majority, becomes black plurality (46%).
CD-4: currently white majority, becomes black plurality (47%). moves from lean-R to D.
CD-11: currently white majority, becomes white plurality (49%). moves from lean-D to D.
 
()

(note: CD 9 is to the West)





I can make two black majority districts in VA and one white-plurality one.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on February 13, 2010, 01:10:42 AM
Due to current interpretation of the VRA, VA must have at least one majority-minority district. I wanted to see how many majority-minority districts I could create (using newest pop estimates)  without resorting to the level of atrocious gerrymandering of our current 3rd CD.
CD-3: currently black majority, becomes black plurality (46%).
CD-4: currently white majority, becomes black plurality (47%). moves from lean-R to D.
CD-11: currently white majority, becomes white plurality (49%). moves from lean-D to D.

(note: CD 9 is to the West)

I can make two black majority districts in VA and one white-plurality one.

This was my 2 black-majority map from our discussion last month.

Can anyone create two black-majority districts in Virginia?

Definitely not possible. Creating one already requires severe gerrymandering.

Actually I tried it and was successful. Basically what you do is you take the black-majority precincts (and ones with a very large black minority) in Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake.  That gets you one black-majority district. Then you take the black majority precincts in Richmond and Henrico County, and precincts with a very large black minroity in Chesterfield, Nottoway, Dinwiddle, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Halifax, and Charlotte Countries and add the city of Danville. Also, you should stretch this district to Lynchburg or even Roanoke (even though just Lynchburg is fine) and you should get a second black-majority district.

Plurality, or majority? I have no doubt that you could get two 45% black districts that are 43% white. But 50% black seems highly unlikely.

I said majority, as in 50+% African American. I experimented with Dave's Redistricting App and managed to get 2 black majority districts. If you follow my directions you should get two as well.

I played around with it last night, and I also got two districts by separating Richmond from Norfolk/Newport News. CD3 (purple) is just over 50% and CD4 (red) is 53%. CD1 (blue) becomes a long snaky district from Prince William Co almost down to NC.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on February 13, 2010, 02:18:01 AM
I noted that there was some discussion of CO a few days ago. I wanted to see how a Hispanic-friendly map might look.

()

()

CD 1 was shifted to connect the west side of Denver to Hispanic areas in the primarily northern suburbs. It's just over 50% Hispanic.

CD 3 was shifted to link the counties west of the Divide with the Hispanic areas across the southern part of the state including the most Hispanic parts of Pueblo. It's at 23%, and could be higher if CD 4 bridged the Rockies in the north, allowing more of Pueblo into the district.

I'm sure others will opine as to the political leanings of the districts in the map. :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 13, 2010, 02:26:39 AM
I noted that there was some discussion of CO a few days ago. I wanted to see how a Hispanic-friendly map might look.

()

()

CD 1 was shifted to connect the west side of Denver to Hispanic areas in the primarily northern suburbs. It's just over 50% Hispanic.

CD 3 was shifted to link the counties west of the Divide with the Hispanic areas across the southern part of the state including the most Hispanic parts of Pueblo. It's at 23%, and could be higher if CD 4 bridged the Rockies in the north, allowing more of Pueblo into the district.

I'm sure others will opine as to the political leanings of the districts in the map. :)

I don't think that the political composition of any CD will change much. Your new CO-01 is probably overcrowded with Democrats, but so was the old CO-01, so there is no major difference there. Still, it's kinda cool to know you can make a Latino-majority district in Colorado. However, if I was in charge of redistricting, I would oppose making one unless the Justice Department required it because I would want the Democrats to be able to win more seats in Colorado.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vepres on February 13, 2010, 02:16:05 PM
I noted that there was some discussion of CO a few days ago. I wanted to see how a Hispanic-friendly map might look.

()

()

CD 1 was shifted to connect the west side of Denver to Hispanic areas in the primarily northern suburbs. It's just over 50% Hispanic.

CD 3 was shifted to link the counties west of the Divide with the Hispanic areas across the southern part of the state including the most Hispanic parts of Pueblo. It's at 23%, and could be higher if CD 4 bridged the Rockies in the north, allowing more of Pueblo into the district.

I'm sure others will opine as to the political leanings of the districts in the map. :)

1 and 2 would still be solidly Democratic. 3 would probably remain similar, maybe ever so slightly more GOP (though Salazar would have no trouble holding it). 4 would probably be about as it is now, maybe just slightly more Democratic. 5 and 6 are still strongly Republican. 7 is probably more of a toss-up, though it would probably be closer to lean-Dem.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 13, 2010, 02:25:05 PM
7 is definitely Safe D on that map. I'm not sure what you're thinking, Vepres. It contains about half of Denver, and its part of Arapahoe is marginally more Democratic than the whole county. White Denver is not much less Democratic than Hispanic Denver. It's at least 60% Obama.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vepres on February 13, 2010, 05:20:46 PM
7 is definitely Safe D on that map. I'm not sure what you're thinking, Vepres. It contains about half of Denver, and its part of Arapahoe is marginally more Democratic than the whole county. White Denver is not much less Democratic than Hispanic Denver. It's at least 60% Obama.

Oh, I didn't look at it as closely as I should have, I thought it was only southern Denver suburbs, my bad.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vepres on February 13, 2010, 05:23:26 PM
*Note to self: Don't post when very tired*


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 14, 2010, 11:30:47 PM
Here's my new Pennsylvania:

()

PA-1: Basically the same, expands a bit into Delaware county. Currently has a slight black plurality, but that shouldn't be an issue until Brady retires. Come to think of it I probably should've traded some population with PA-7 to make the latter more black...
PA-2: Also basically the same. Majority black and safe D.
PA-3: Much better for Dahlkemper, as I've cleaned out the Butler county portion.
PA-4: Also most of Butler county is gone. Should be safe for Altmire, and strong for any white pro-life Democrat.
PA-5: Now has Butler county. Obviously safe Republican, Thompson would likely win though don't count out a Butler county Republican challenging him.
PA-6: District now has a sane shape. Gerlach would probably finally be toppled in this seat, as it contains all of Reading yet less of rural Berks, but contains a bit more of Chester, so not a sure thing.
PA-7: Largely the same, a bit outward expanded. Slightly more Republican but could still be won by a Democrat especially if there's an incumbent or Sestak opted to return. Could be made more Dem as noted by putting more blacks in, I should tweak that.
PA-8: Probably gets a bit more Republican, but Murphy should have no problem surviving.
PA-9: Population-wise is probably closer to the old PA-19 than the current PA-9. Shuster might be able to defeat Platts in the primary if he gets the teabaggers on his side through.
PA-10: Becomes slightly more Dem. If Carney survived so far, he'll win here.
PA-11: A bit more Republican, but if Kanjorski retires, should stay Dem.
PA-12: Shuster might have a better chance here than in PA-9 running against whoever takes Murtha's seat. Against a Dem he might be favored. Against a Republican in the primary it'd come down to areas' turnout.
PA-13: Ah, this old classic. Is now more Montco based, so Schwartz is fine.
PA-14: Little change, safe Dem.
PA-15: Now contains Stroudsburg, but Charlie Dent likely still wins.
PA-16: Safe GOP, Pitts wins easily.
PA-17: Condensed a bit more but loses the bit of Reading, Holden should win easily but not so safe if he leaves.
PA-18: Now finally has a sane shape. I don't know the exact partisan breakdown, but Murphy is much more likely to lose, as the current PA-12 was designed to take in all the Dem areas to keep him safe.

First of all, that map is inane.  Secondly, if that is supposed to be a Democrat gerrymander, then epic fail.... shows that you know almost nothing about PA politics.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 14, 2010, 11:35:07 PM

Elaborate.

Secondly, if that is supposed to be a Democrat gerrymander, then epic fail.... shows that you know almost nothing about PA politics.

It's not supposed to be a Democratic gerrymander. More of a sane drawing of the districts. Any such doing so will benefit the Democrats by dissolving a horrendous Republican gerrymander. If it was supposed to be a gerrymander there are some rather obvious things passed up, such as adding more blacks to PA-7 or State College to a non-safe GOP seat.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 15, 2010, 01:21:16 AM

Elaborate.

Secondly, if that is supposed to be a Democrat gerrymander, then epic fail.... shows that you know almost nothing about PA politics.

It's not supposed to be a Democratic gerrymander. More of a sane drawing of the districts. Any such doing so will benefit the Democrats by dissolving a horrendous Republican gerrymander. If it was supposed to be a gerrymander there are some rather obvious things passed up, such as adding more blacks to PA-7 or State College to a non-safe GOP seat.

First off all, your claims about many of your redrawn districts are quite wrong.  "Removing the gerrymander" actually is not certain to help the Democrats.  The Democrats now hold a number of the districts designed to be safe for Republicans, and to complete the paradox Republicans in this state hold some of the districts that are marginally GOP at best.  The gerrymander that the Republicans put on after the 2000 census was based largely around personalities, not party registrations.  They built these districts to be tailor made to the strengths of the people they had, and to make it difficult for sitting Democrats to maintain their seats.  When the Republican reps holding those seats became weak, and the attitude became "anyone but" that elevated their Democrat challengers.  The Democrats holding those seats now were the first serious challengers most of those representatives had faced.  In PA 3,4 and 8 what you basically have are three white knight candidates who overcame incumbents who had become massively unpopular.  Once that wears off, what you have left are three districts that have a natural tendency to vote Republican.  By reshuffling the map, you only enhance that tendency.

In terms of Altmire, you didn't change his district alot, but that doesn't make him "safe".  You sure as Hell didn't help Dalhkemper out, and the reason you think you did only shows why you don't get the way this state works (in terms of Altmire, Dahlkemper, or Carney).  I assume you think you threw her a bone because you put Elk County in her district, and Elk voted against Santorum, and against McCain, and most of its voters are Democrats so... there you go.  Well, in the state assembly, Elk used to be represented by an anti-establishment Democrat.  But after several terms, he became one with the establishment, and they voted against him (in his home county) in favor of a young Republican challenger (who is from the small slice of Clearfield County that only make up 1/3 of the districts population); the same year Obama won the county with 51 percent of the vote.  Elk County is like alot of Western, PA in that it is heavily populated with registered Democrats who have not voted that way since the 1980's.  They have also been suffering under terrible unemployment, which is why they voted Democrat for national offices the last two times.  The problem has not resolved, which is why they won't be voting Democrat in the next two.  They don't like national Democrats in Elk County, they only vote for them when its to send a message to the Republicans.

The future is very, very murky for all three of those people.  The first decent challenge they face, or the first major national Republican wave (which could be next year) and all three of them could be knocked off... though in the alignment, Dahlkemper has the best chance of hanging on... at least until the next alignment.

Also, by sucking alot of Venango, Warren and McKean into Dahlkempers district, you basically gave her one of the biggest teabagger constituencies imaginable.  Those are the most conservative areas of that part of the state.  CD-3 was actually fashioned the way it was, not to make the district more conservative for English, but to make it more moderate for English.  He would have faced constant primary challenges from the right has they given him an east-west oriented district.  That's God's Country up there.

The next person to hold Murtha's seat will be a Republican, even though that seat was created to contain Democratic votes, and so, again, we see the opposite of the intent of the gerrymander occurring.

Okay, finally, on to the point of what is wrong with the map (as opposed to your analysis of what happens with this map), should I start with CD-5, or the fact that even without the zoomed in views I can tell that you cut a bunch of municipalities in half... and not just in the urban areas, you split the town of Indiana literally down the middle?  Your district encompassing Pittsburgh also makes very little socio-political sense, even though you probably think it doesn't look much different from the current model.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 15, 2010, 01:52:32 AM
A good example of what I was talking about above is PA-18, where Democrats have a 70,000 registered voter advantage on the Republicans, but the Cook PVI for the district is R+6, and the Murphy is not seriously under threat.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 15, 2010, 07:28:47 PM
In terms of Altmire, you didn't change his district alot, but that doesn't make him "safe".

Not a huge change, but I got rid of most of Butler county. Not safe, but better for him.  

You sure as Hell didn't help Dalhkemper out, and the reason you think you did only shows why you don't get the way this state works (in terms of Altmire, Dahlkemper, or Carney).  I assume you think you threw her a bone because you put Elk County in her district, and Elk voted against Santorum, and against McCain, and most of its voters are Democrats so... there you go.  Well, in the state assembly, Elk used to be represented by an anti-establishment Democrat.  But after several terms, he became one with the establishment, and they voted against him (in his home county) in favor of a young Republican challenger (who is from the small slice of Clearfield County that only make up 1/3 of the districts population); the same year Obama won the county with 51 percent of the vote.  Elk County is like alot of Western, PA in that it is heavily populated with registered Democrats who have not voted that way since the 1980's.  They have also been suffering under terrible unemployment, which is why they voted Democrat for national offices the last two times.  The problem has not resolved, which is why they won't be voting Democrat in the next two.  They don't like national Democrats in Elk County, they only vote for them when its to send a message to the Republicans.

The future is very, very murky for all three of those people.  The first decent challenge they face, or the first major national Republican wave (which could be next year) and all three of them could be knocked off... though in the alignment, Dahlkemper has the best chance of hanging on... at least until the next alignment.

Also, by sucking alot of Venango, Warren and McKean into Dahlkempers district, you basically gave her one of the biggest teabagger constituencies imaginable.  Those are the most conservative areas of that part of the state.  CD-3 was actually fashioned the way it was, not to make the district more conservative for English, but to make it more moderate for English.  He would have faced constant primary challenges from the right has they given him an east-west oriented district.  That's God's Country up there.

The goal was to remove Butler county. Those other counties are small, and Warren barely voted for McCain anyway. They are not as much of a problem as Butler is.

Okay, finally, on to the point of what is wrong with the map (as opposed to your analysis of what happens with this map), should I start with CD-5

A bit of a gerrymander perhaps, but note I didn't even try to remove State College. Really I just had to put Butler somewhere, and it doesn't fit anywhere in that area (the ideal place would be a seat running from south of Pittsburgh around the eastern edge)

or the fact that even without the zoomed in views I can tell that you cut a bunch of municipalities in half... and not just in the urban areas, you split the town of Indiana literally down the middle?

I made it kind of quickly. At least I united Reading*.

Your district encompassing Pittsburgh also makes very little socio-political sense, even though you probably think it doesn't look much different from the current model.

It's not much different from the current district, I just expanded it a bit. Any maps I've tried have shown that MN-05 will have to take in some areas after 2010 that don't have much socio-economic similarity and probably won't like being a part of it. Doesn't matter because they'll still be outvoted.

*Did I ever mention that I love Reading and consider it fucking AWESOME? It's fucking CHEAP as hell and is yet full of strip clubs and scene kids and venues. Plus also close to the venues in the Lehigh valley and Philadelphia. The place is perfect and if I was born in PA I'd move there in a heartbeat.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 16, 2010, 12:27:42 AM
In terms of Altmire, you didn't change his district alot, but that doesn't make him "safe".

Not a huge change, but I got rid of most of Butler county. Not safe, but better for him.  

You sure as Hell didn't help Dalhkemper out, and the reason you think you did only shows why you don't get the way this state works (in terms of Altmire, Dahlkemper, or Carney).  I assume you think you threw her a bone because you put Elk County in her district, and Elk voted against Santorum, and against McCain, and most of its voters are Democrats so... there you go.  Well, in the state assembly, Elk used to be represented by an anti-establishment Democrat.  But after several terms, he became one with the establishment, and they voted against him (in his home county) in favor of a young Republican challenger (who is from the small slice of Clearfield County that only make up 1/3 of the districts population); the same year Obama won the county with 51 percent of the vote.  Elk County is like alot of Western, PA in that it is heavily populated with registered Democrats who have not voted that way since the 1980's.  They have also been suffering under terrible unemployment, which is why they voted Democrat for national offices the last two times.  The problem has not resolved, which is why they won't be voting Democrat in the next two.  They don't like national Democrats in Elk County, they only vote for them when its to send a message to the Republicans.

The future is very, very murky for all three of those people.  The first decent challenge they face, or the first major national Republican wave (which could be next year) and all three of them could be knocked off... though in the alignment, Dahlkemper has the best chance of hanging on... at least until the next alignment.

Also, by sucking alot of Venango, Warren and McKean into Dahlkempers district, you basically gave her one of the biggest teabagger constituencies imaginable.  Those are the most conservative areas of that part of the state.  CD-3 was actually fashioned the way it was, not to make the district more conservative for English, but to make it more moderate for English.  He would have faced constant primary challenges from the right has they given him an east-west oriented district.  That's God's Country up there.

The goal was to remove Butler county. Those other counties are small, and Warren barely voted for McCain anyway. They are not as much of a problem as Butler is.

Okay, finally, on to the point of what is wrong with the map (as opposed to your analysis of what happens with this map), should I start with CD-5

A bit of a gerrymander perhaps, but note I didn't even try to remove State College. Really I just had to put Butler somewhere, and it doesn't fit anywhere in that area (the ideal place would be a seat running from south of Pittsburgh around the eastern edge)

or the fact that even without the zoomed in views I can tell that you cut a bunch of municipalities in half... and not just in the urban areas, you split the town of Indiana literally down the middle?

I made it kind of quickly. At least I united Reading*.

Your district encompassing Pittsburgh also makes very little socio-political sense, even though you probably think it doesn't look much different from the current model.

It's not much different from the current district, I just expanded it a bit. Any maps I've tried have shown that MN-05 will have to take in some areas after 2010 that don't have much socio-economic similarity and probably won't like being a part of it. Doesn't matter because they'll still be outvoted.

*Did I ever mention that I love Reading and consider it fucking AWESOME? It's fucking CHEAP as hell and is yet full of strip clubs and scene kids and venues. Plus also close to the venues in the Lehigh valley and Philadelphia. The place is perfect and if I was born in PA I'd move there in a heartbeat.

Okay... here is the problem.  The reason Butler County consistently goes over 60 percent Republican in national elections is not because of that Northern portion, that is in PA-3.  It's because of that Southern part that boarders Allegheny County.  The Northern and Southern suburbs of Pittsburgh (the areas known as the North Hills and the South Hills) are hugely Republican.  Tons of wealth, or at least, projected wealth in those areas.  The southern tier townships of Butler County are basically a spillover from the lawyers, doctors, and accountants residential areas of northern Allegheny County.  It's kinda like the Philly outer suburbs (not quite the exurbs), by way more socially conservative... Desperate Housewives territory... social Darwinism with a crucifix.  

The Northern part of Butler County is far less affluent, which is why that section was given to English in the first place; he used to have a good relationship with Labor, and was not a huge social issues politician.  Northern Butler County, including the City of Butler, is comprised of alot of declining coal, and small factory towns.  There is more populism up there, than genuine conservatism... and they are also pretty pissed off that the Democrats want to toll I-80.  Butler has no history of going Democrat, but its recent hyper-Republicanism comes from the expansion of the suburbs into the south, not from rural conservatism.  

Contrast that with Warren, McKean, Elk and Venango.  Of those, Elk is the only one that really has any history with the Democratic Party, and that's been very limited since 1980.  Warren has been more favorable to the Democrats in the last three national elections (04,06,08) than at any other time in the past.  However, in both cases, the reasons for this are clear... historically high unemployment rates in both.  Like I said, there is no affection for the national Democrats in either place, these four counties (and Forrest is a non-factor) comprise one of the most conservative areas of the country.  Bar none.  Populist leaning conservatism, yes, but they have no love for the National Democrats.  

The unemployment has little to do with the current economic downturn; that exacerbated the situation, but is not the root cause.  The root cause is the decline of the last of the "invulnerable industries" in those areas.  

In Elk County, it is the powdered metals industry, which people had said for years was too technical for "Chinks" and "Dot Heads" to do... well, guess what, they caught up pretty fast.  Many of these people think they are being hurt by free trade, and are voting against the Republicans to "make a point".  They aren't any happier with Obama.

In Warren, it was the shutting down of the mental hospital, which happened under a Democrat governor, with two Republican Senators, one gone, one now a Democrat, promising to keep it open.  Well, its still very much shut down, and there are no Republicans left to blame.

Of course, now that we are talking about it, no map we create now using those the current estimates is going to matter in 2010.  The depopulation problem in Northwestern, PA is going to be way worse than the estimates indicate.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 16, 2010, 01:23:12 AM
This is the best way to sum up voting patterns in South West Pennsylvania:

The closer you live to a river, whether you are white, black, or purple, the more likely you are to vote Democrat.  If you live on the high ground, then chances are you are a Republican, and the shift tends to be very abrupt, and there are but a few exceptions.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 16, 2010, 09:56:54 AM
If you want to make Altmire safe, get rid of as much of northern Allegheny county as you can.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 16, 2010, 02:54:33 PM
If you want to make Altmire safe, get rid of as much of northern Allegheny county as you can.

Problem with that... Altmire live there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 16, 2010, 03:05:31 PM
If you want to make Altmire safe, get rid of as much of northern Allegheny county as you can.

Problem with that... Altmire live there.

Yes, but part of the art of gerrymandering is finding ways round such vexing problems.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 16, 2010, 03:11:00 PM
If you want to make Altmire safe, get rid of as much of northern Allegheny county as you can.

Problem with that... Altmire live there.

Yes, but part of the art of gerrymandering is finding ways round such vexing problems.

Good luck finding the map that would pull that off.  It would have to look at least as bad as the existing one.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 16, 2010, 03:16:20 PM
And by that, I mean it would have to look like on of the VRA districts in the South.  If you go North you take him into Butler County.  If you go South or East, then you are endangering Doyle.  And you can't go West.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on February 16, 2010, 03:29:32 PM
And by that, I mean it would have to look like on of the VRA districts in the South.  If you go North you take him into Butler County.  If you go South or East, then you are endangering Doyle.  And you can't go West.

Can't you go south and take in parts of Mascara's old district? I drew a map that did that, linking a smaller part of north Allegheny and riverside towns to a district from Lawrence down to Greene, using only part of Washington County, while wrapping much of the rest of north Allegheny in the 18th. It didn't look pretty, but it didn't look awful. Admittedly I don't know the individual towns like a local would and probably made mistakes.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 16, 2010, 03:52:39 PM
It would have to look at least as bad as the existing one.

But of course. This is an exercise in mental gerrymandering, not sane electoral maps.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 16, 2010, 03:56:13 PM
Of course Altmire also could just as easily "move" to Beaver or Lawrence County anyway.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 16, 2010, 03:59:18 PM
And actually looking up 2006's results, Hart won the Allegheny part of the district, but barely, 51-49. Her strongholds were the portions of Butler and Westmoreland counties, where she got over 60%. Obviously she was clobbered in the remaining parts, in Mercer Altmire won 74-26 (very small portion of course.)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 16, 2010, 05:40:50 PM
And actually looking up 2006's results, Hart won the Allegheny part of the district, but barely, 51-49. Her strongholds were the portions of Butler and Westmoreland counties, where she got over 60%. Obviously she was clobbered in the remaining parts, in Mercer Altmire won 74-26 (very small portion of course.)

Like I said, that was all anti-Hart vote.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 16, 2010, 05:57:53 PM
And by that, I mean it would have to look like on of the VRA districts in the South.  If you go North you take him into Butler County.  If you go South or East, then you are endangering Doyle.  And you can't go West.

Can't you go south and take in parts of Mascara's old district? I drew a map that did that, linking a smaller part of north Allegheny and riverside towns to a district from Lawrence down to Greene, using only part of Washington County, while wrapping much of the rest of north Allegheny in the 18th. It didn't look pretty, but it didn't look awful. Admittedly I don't know the individual towns like a local would and probably made mistakes.

The South Hills are not much more friendly to the Democrats than the North Hills... less so, in fact.  Murphy is already there, and already has a presence on the ground and a relationship with the people.

In the meantime, if you do that, you open up either one or two more Republican friendly districts because doing that disallows you from creating a district that puts southern Allegheny County together with the far Southwest to isolate Republican votes.  It also means the inclusion of Northern Allegheny and Butler into whatever district you fashion out of the north and east of Pittsburgh, creating a huge gimme for a Republican candidate there.

I've drawn up quite a few maps, I'm increasingly convinced that Western, PA is going to become a no win situation for the Democrats regardless of who controls the gerrymander.  The best they could hope for would be to create two districts that split Pittsburgh at least 66-34, and I am not convinced the Republicans don't take one of those.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on February 16, 2010, 06:34:33 PM
The South Hills are not much more friendly to the Democrats than the North Hills... less so, in fact.  Murphy is already there, and already has a presence on the ground and a relationship with the people.

What exactly constitutes the South Hills that would be included in the district I described? Allegheny County only has 1.2 million people and is majority Democratic, I don't think if you wrap the North Hills together and South Hills together plus part of Westmoreland and Butler based on today's 18th, AND have a Democratic district in Pittsburgh, you're going to have more than 1.5 million people. I took more territory and people from Murtha's district than from the 18th.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 16, 2010, 07:26:38 PM
The South Hills are not much more friendly to the Democrats than the North Hills... less so, in fact.  Murphy is already there, and already has a presence on the ground and a relationship with the people.

What exactly constitutes the South Hills that would be included in the district I described? Allegheny County only has 1.2 million people and is majority Democratic, I don't think if you wrap the North Hills together and South Hills together plus part of Westmoreland and Butler based on today's 18th, AND have a Democratic district in Pittsburgh, you're going to have more than 1.5 million people. I took more territory and people from Murtha's district than from the 18th.

As I said earlier, one thing that you have to get about Allegheny County is that the overwhelming majority of Democrats are concentrated on the small strips of land between the rivers and the highlands.  Those areas are often 90 percent Democratic.  The areas away from the rivers, on the other hand, tend to greatly favor the Republicans, not by the same overawing majority, but with enough so as the Republicans control most of the action there.

As loosely defined, the "South Hills" includes basically all of southern Allegheny County, south of Pittsburgh proper, that is not a part of the Mon Valley.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 16, 2010, 07:30:03 PM
P.S.  did you post this map, Britt?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on February 16, 2010, 08:57:12 PM

I posted it here several months ago, I think. I have it on my computer... little of the South Hills is in the 4th district. I kept the existing 14th/4th border on the north side. The 4th then includes a strip of townships and communities one deep from Fox Chapel westward, connects with the river at Glenfield, and includes everything northwest between Ohio Twp. and Bell Acres Twp. and the river. On the south shore of the river, I took in most of Moon Twp. and Crescent Twp. only.

I extended the 14th east and south into the 18th for population equality in a way that would probably make you flinch for its indiscriminateness, but it's safe D and the 18th is safe R, so it doesn't matter.  

The rest of Allegheny County--the South Hills, the top two tiers of townships, the northeast--are in the 18th, along with a somewhat reduced chunk of Westmoreland. And all of Butler County. Although from what you said, I should move northern Butler into the 12th and give Murphy back some more of Westmoreland.

The rest of the 4th is all of Washington, Greene, Beaver, and Lawrence Counties, with a small piece of Mercer.

My rationale in redistricting was to eliminate the 5th and see what happens, which is an indefensible start for a Pennsylvania map. It pulls the 10th and the 3rd together in the middle of the state with the 9th rising to meet it, and you've pointed out the problems there for the 3rd.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 17, 2010, 01:47:47 AM
I dare everybody to post the most extreme gerrymander that they can make in any state. It has to extremely favor one of the two parties, though--not a really nasty incumbent protection-type gerrymander.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 17, 2010, 09:45:33 PM
Okay, here's my attempt at a 7-1 Republican map for Missouri (assuming they lose a district).

()

Cracks the Kansas City area by splitting it up among three districts (no VRA protection, MO-5 is majority-white) and dismantles Carnahan's district by giving the urban parts to Lacy Clay (his district is 49.7% black -- I doubt it can remain majority-black if the state loses a district) and the suburban parts to Jo Ann Emerson. Of course, Skelton could probably still hold his district, but either way he's the only Dem who could.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 17, 2010, 10:16:55 PM
Because Nixon will be Governor until 2013 at the earliest, Missouri will probably do an incumbent protection map. Skelton probably retires and his seat gets chopped, guy is so old I don't see the point in preserving him.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 17, 2010, 10:33:33 PM
Okay, here's my attempt at a 7-1 Republican map for Missouri (assuming they lose a district).

()

Cracks the Kansas City area by splitting it up among three districts (no VRA protection, MO-5 is majority-white) and dismantles Carnahan's district by giving the urban parts to Lacy Clay (his district is 49.7% black -- I doubt it can remain majority-black if the state loses a district) and the suburban parts to Jo Ann Emerson. Of course, Skelton could probably still hold his district, but either way he's the only Dem who could.

Good map. Anyone else dare rise to the challenge?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on February 18, 2010, 06:16:26 PM
I just drew a Michigan gerrymander that I think would go 13-1 Democratic right now, possibly 11-3 in a good year for Republicans but still intensely favoring the Democrats and mostly safe. Will post it later.

I'd still be interested in seeing this, if you have it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 19, 2010, 04:50:03 PM
I'll post the Michigan one in a bit. For now, here's a gerrymander of Arizona with ten districts. The goal was to make all Democratic incumbents safe while adding a new Hispanic-majority district (and a new solidly Republican district); I think I succeeded impressively.

AZ-01: This district loses the Mormon areas of Navajo County (Taylor/Snowflake) as well as various white rural areas. It becomes a coalition district at 49% white, 24% Native, 22% Hispanic, 3% black, 1% Asian, 1% Other. Should be safe for Ann Kirkpatrick provided she can keep the Natives and Hispanics voting (and the remaining white areas are the less conservative areas around Sedona and Flagstaff, where Kirkpatrick lives).

AZ-02: This district drops its extension to the Hopi reservation and with that contracts into Glendale and environs. Still safely Republican.

AZ-03: Mostly unchanged but contracts towards Phoenix. Still safely Republican.

AZ-04: Less Hispanic than previously to accomodate the new AZ-10, but still 56% Hispanic. Safely Democratic.

AZ-05: Loses the most heavily Republican areas on the fringes and takes in some Hispanic areas previously over the border in AZ-06. Still potentially competitive but increasingly less so, and definitely safer for Mitchell. 56% white, 31% Hispanic.

AZ-06: Contracts a bit and loses some Hispanic areas to AZ-05, becoming even more solidly Republican.

AZ-07: Because I am loathe to waste Democratic votes in a gerrymander, this district now takes in the Hopi reservation by snaking along the Colorado River. Now 51% Hispanic, 38% white, 6% Native, enough to easily pass muster. Safely Democratic.

AZ-08: Loses some Republican areas of Pima and Cochise Counties to the new AZ-09. Now just Tucson and the border. 63% white, 27% Hispanic, and the new district may have voted for Obama. Safe for Giffords although potentially competitive without her.

AZ-09: The glorious gerrymander. Outer exurban Phoenix and all sorts of assortments of white areas in the desert and in small towns. Safely Republican and the glue that makes the map work.

AZ-10: New Hispanic-majority district in SW/S Phoenix. 55% Hispanic, 31% white, 9% black.

()

()



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 19, 2010, 05:11:11 PM
Here's the Michigan Democratic gerrymander.

MI-01: The UP and extending south all the way to Bay City. Somewhat more Democratic than currently although still marginal. Certainly safe for Bart Stupak.

MI-02: Flint plus some Republican/moderate areas to the northeast. Safely Democratic.

MI-03: Eastern Oakland County, excluding the most Republican areas of the county in the southwest. Lean Democratic, should be pretty safe for an incumbent.

MI-04: The Grosse Pointes plus east Macomb County and coastal St Claire. Safely Democratic.

MI-05: East Detroit plus Republican areas of north Macomb County. LOL. 51% black, safely Democratic.

MI-06: West Detroit plus Republican areas of southwest Oakland County. LOL again. 63% black, safely Democratic. (In theory equalizing MI-05 and MI-06 in terms of percent black should be possible, but it would involve a much more intricate gerrymander because the Republican areas of each are not adjacent.)

MI-07: Centered on Dearborn, Wayne County suburbs. Safely Democratic. Would be interesting to see Arab/Middle Eastern percentage (not available).

MI-08: Saginaw and extending up to Grand Traverse. Fairly marginal, only lean Democratic at best.

MI-09: Grand Rapids proper plus Muskegon and the Democratic areas along Lake Michigan. Safely Democratic.

MI-10: Ottawa County, Grand Rapids suburbs and various rural Republican areas. Safely Republican.

MI-11: Lansing, Jackson and some Republican rural areas. Safely Democratic.

MI-12: Kalamazoo and the Democratic areas of southwest Michigan. More solidly Democratic than Presidential results suggest. Safely Democratic.

MI-13: Ann Arbor, Republican-leaning Livingston County and outer Oakland County and some rural areas. Safely Democratic.

MI-14: Hispanic south Detroit, Wayne County suburbs and some moderate areas along the border. Safely Democratic.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on February 19, 2010, 05:37:48 PM
Thanks! It's quite something that you can keep two black-majority districts while still giving Wayne the Chicago-style treatment.

But don't you think Upton could hold CD-12?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 19, 2010, 05:52:52 PM
I drew the map without considering current congressmen for the most part. Upton could definitely hold MI-12, but he'd lose in the first Democratic wave, and the seat wouldn't flip back.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on February 19, 2010, 08:56:37 PM
I'd love to see a closeup of Wayne County on that map.

Johnny, your map makes me thankful that Kenny Hulshof isn't the Governor of Missouri. And the CD6 portion of Jackson County would not be helpful to Graves. Because I live in the area that you put in Graves district and then i'd have to become a perennial candidate under that map.

You could probably put Boone in CD4 and not turn it too Dem, since you could swap that ugly northern CD6 tail to CD9 and give CD6 parts of CD4


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 19, 2010, 09:03:53 PM
I just drew a Michigan gerrymander that I think would go 13-1 Democratic right now, possibly 11-3 in a good year for Republicans but still intensely favoring the Democrats and mostly safe. Will post it later.

I'd still be interested in seeing this, if you have it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 19, 2010, 11:43:12 PM
Republican gerrymander of Ohio, assuming it loses two districts:

()

Essentially the only sure districts for the Dems are the two Cleveland districts, the spindly teal district, the three-pronged eastern district (in a coup, I managed to put Space, Ryan, *and* Wilson all in the same district) and the pink district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 20, 2010, 12:25:44 AM
I think the black % in MI-06 should be reduced to 51%. If you do not know where the close Republican areas are, just add some lesser white Democratic areas to the district (even white Democratic areas are somewhat more Republican than black Democratic areas). This would allow the Dems to make several of their seats even safer.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 20, 2010, 09:38:03 AM
Shut up, Rochambeau.

Here's a zoom-in of the Detroit metro. I made some changes along the edges of MI-06 when I realized how black Southfield was and put it into MI-03.

Without city labels, and then with:

()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 20, 2010, 11:43:09 AM
Republican gerrymander of Ohio, assuming it loses two districts:

()

Essentially the only sure districts for the Dems are the two Cleveland districts, the spindly teal district, the three-pronged eastern district (in a coup, I managed to put Space, Ryan, *and* Wilson all in the same district) and the pink district.

That green district in the middle, ugh.

I think Betty Sutton could survive fairly easily in that pink district though. Obama and even Kerry carried that district solidly.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 20, 2010, 12:01:55 PM

That was uncalled for.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: nhmagic on February 20, 2010, 01:20:25 PM
Can someone do a max republican Arizona gerrymander?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on February 20, 2010, 07:26:52 PM
this isn't a partisan gerrymander, it's a geographic gerrymander

()

AZ-01 (open)
total: 722321 people, 73% white, 19% Hispanic
Maricopa: 483348 people, 82% white, 11% Hispanic
Rest: 238973 people, 54% white, 34% Hispanic, 7% Native American

()

AZ-02 (Franks)
total: 722255 people, 74% white, 19% Hispanic
Maricopa: 431803 people, 70% white, 23% Hispanic
Rest: 290452 people, 80% white, 14% Hispanic

()

AZ-03 (Kirkpatrick)
total: 722183 people, 69% white, 19% Hispanic, 6% Native American
Maricopa: 433732 people, 68% white, 21% Hispanic
Rest: 288451 people, 69% white, 15% Hispanic, 12% Native American

AZ-04 (Pastor or Grivalva)
total: 722173 people, 64% Hispanic, 24% white, 7% African-American
Maricopa: 429102 people, 71% Hispanic, 15% white, 10% African-American
Rest: 293071 people, 54% Hispanic, 37% white

AZ-05 (open)
total: 722278 people, 56% white, 21% Hispanic, 17% Native American
Maricopa: 432406 people, 66% white, 24% Hispanic
Rest: 289872 people, 42% white, 39% Native American, 17% Hispanic

AZ-06 (Flake)
total: 722230 people, 71% white, 22% Hispanic
Maricopa: 437737 people, 68% white, 25% Hispanic
Rest: 284493 people, 74% white, 18% Hispanic

()

AZ-07 (Pastor or Grivalva)
total: 722225 people, 53% Hispanic, 36% white
Maricopa: 434442 people, 50% Hispanic, 39% white, 6% African-American
Rest: 287783 people, 59% Hispanic, 32% white

AZ-08 (Giffords?)
total: 722228 people, 66% white, 22% Hispanic
Maricopa: 437693 people, 66% white, 21% Hispanic
Rest: 284535 people, 65% white, 22% Hispanic

AZ-09 (Mitchell)
total: 722243 people, 57% white, 31% Hispanic
Maricopa: 434564 people, 52% white, 35% Hispanic
Rest: 287679 people, 65% white, 25% Hispanic

()
()

()

I didn't actually intend to almost split Tucson between 6 districts. It just happened.

In case you didn't notice, I intended to make every district have a majority of it's population reside in Maricopa County.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 20, 2010, 11:03:10 PM
Cool. Shows just how dominant Maricopa County is in Arizona politics.

Anyway, I tried to do a Republican gerrymander but got lost because I had no idea which white areas of the Phoenix metro were uber-Republican and which were moderate to Democratic (beyond some obvious things, like Mesa being a Republican stronghold). But I imagine a map with three Democrats and seven Republicans would be feasible, with all three Democratic seats being heavily Hispanic. It might not be possible to get rid of Giffords (because there isn't much you can do in Tucson, and any fiddling with the AZ-01 border makes either Giffords or Kirkpatrick safer), but you could make it impossible for the Democrats to hold her seat without her.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on February 20, 2010, 11:11:21 PM
I'm working on a Republican gerrymander of NY. So far I'm still working on New York City and Long Island. I have made NY-1 and NY-9 into two McCain districts. I hope to post maps soon.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: nhmagic on February 21, 2010, 12:34:26 AM
Cool. Shows just how dominant Maricopa County is in Arizona politics.

Anyway, I tried to do a Republican gerrymander but got lost because I had no idea which white areas of the Phoenix metro were uber-Republican and which were moderate to Democratic (beyond some obvious things, like Mesa being a Republican stronghold). But I imagine a map with three Democrats and seven Republicans would be feasible, with all three Democratic seats being heavily Hispanic. It might not be possible to get rid of Giffords (because there isn't much you can do in Tucson, and any fiddling with the AZ-01 border makes either Giffords or Kirkpatrick safer), but you could make it impossible for the Democrats to hold her seat without her.
Central Phoenix/West Phoenix/South Phoenix-democratic, hispanic majority
Central Phoenix North/Northwest Phoenix/Glendale & North Phoenix/Paradise Valley is republican and white
All east valley except for Tempe/Guadalupe is republican and Tempe is only lightly democratic due to ASU and hispanic influence on the east end (Chandler-lightly republican, Mesa-heavy R due to Mormons, Scottsdale-moderate to strong republican-old rich & children, middle class party goers, North Scottsdale-heavy R-old and new mega rich, Gilbert=heavy R due to evangelicals etc). 

Hope that helps!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on February 21, 2010, 12:38:45 AM
I'm working on a Republican gerrymander of NY. So far I'm still working on New York City and Long Island. I have made NY-1 and NY-9 into two McCain districts. I hope to post maps soon.

I think you can make a 64-35% McCain district in New York City if you find the right parts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Shilly on February 21, 2010, 03:17:11 AM
Cool. Shows just how dominant Maricopa County is in Arizona politics.

Anyway, I tried to do a Republican gerrymander but got lost because I had no idea which white areas of the Phoenix metro were uber-Republican and which were moderate to Democratic (beyond some obvious things, like Mesa being a Republican stronghold). But I imagine a map with three Democrats and seven Republicans would be feasible, with all three Democratic seats being heavily Hispanic. It might not be possible to get rid of Giffords (because there isn't much you can do in Tucson, and any fiddling with the AZ-01 border makes either Giffords or Kirkpatrick safer), but you could make it impossible for the Democrats to hold her seat without her.

If it's any help, this map of the 2008 Presidential election in Maricopa was posted in another thread. Have to give credit to realisticidealist for creating this, by the way. I'm sure it took a lot of work.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on February 22, 2010, 07:14:19 PM
OK, here is my 28 district New York. 19 districts voted for Obama, 9 voted for McCain (in bold). In real life, it was 25 for Obama and 4 for McCain (in italic).

()

Long Island districts (Suffolk and Nassau Counties):

()

NY-1: Obama 49%, McCain 51%
NY-2: Obama 60%, McCain 40%
NY-3: Obama 47%, McCain 52%
NY-4: Obama 53%, McCain 47%
NY-5: Obama 73%, McCain 27%

New York City districts (Queens, Kings, Richmond, New York and Bronx Counties):

()

NY-6: Obama 89%, McCain 11%
NY-7: Obama 79%, McCain 20%
NY-8: Obama 80%, McCain 20%
NY-9: Obama 46%, McCain 53%
NY-10: Obama 93%, McCain 7%
NY-11: Obama 93%, McCain 6%
NY-12: Obama 82%, McCain 17%
NY-13: Obama 48%, McCain 51%
NY-14: Obama 82%, McCain 17%
NY-15: Obama 91%, McCain 9%
NY-16: Obama 95%, McCain 5%
NY-17: Obama 69%, McCain 30%

For the remaining districts, see the main map.

NY-18: Obama 58%, McCain 41%
NY-19: Obama 53%, McCain 45%
NY-20: Obama 58%, McCain 41%
NY-21: Obama 48%, McCain 50%
NY-22: Obama 49%, McCain 49% (McCain wins by less than 1%)
NY-23: Obama 59%, McCain 39%
NY-24: Obama 60%, McCain 39%
NY-25: Obama 48%, McCain 50%
NY-26: Obama 69%, McCain 30%
NY-27: Obama 46%, McCain 52%
NY-28 (currently NY-29): Obama 49%, McCain 50%


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on March 01, 2010, 07:16:52 AM
New features on the app: partisan data for California and Texas. Also, options to shade districts by partisan or demographic data.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 01, 2010, 09:27:41 PM
New features on the app: partisan data for California and Texas. Also, options to shade districts by partisan or demographic data.

:D :D :D


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Free Palestine on March 02, 2010, 12:18:03 AM
New features on the app: partisan data for California and Texas. Also, options to shade districts by partisan or demographic data.

Yay!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smash255 on March 02, 2010, 03:50:24 AM
OK, here is my 28 district New York. 19 districts voted for Obama, 9 voted for McCain (in bold). In real life, it was 25 for Obama and 4 for McCain (in italic).

()

Long Island districts (Suffolk and Nassau Counties):

()

NY-1: Obama 49%, McCain 51%
NY-2: Obama 60%, McCain 40%
NY-3: Obama 47%, McCain 52%
NY-4: Obama 53%, McCain 47%
NY-5: Obama 73%, McCain 27%

New York City districts (Queens, Kings, Richmond, New York and Bronx Counties):

()

NY-6: Obama 89%, McCain 11%
NY-7: Obama 79%, McCain 20%
NY-8: Obama 80%, McCain 20%
NY-9: Obama 46%, McCain 53%
NY-10: Obama 93%, McCain 7%
NY-11: Obama 93%, McCain 6%
NY-12: Obama 82%, McCain 17%
NY-13: Obama 48%, McCain 51%
NY-14: Obama 82%, McCain 17%
NY-15: Obama 91%, McCain 9%
NY-16: Obama 95%, McCain 5%
NY-17: Obama 69%, McCain 30%

For the remaining districts, see the main map.

NY-18: Obama 58%, McCain 41%
NY-19: Obama 53%, McCain 45%
NY-20: Obama 58%, McCain 41%
NY-21: Obama 48%, McCain 50%
NY-22: Obama 49%, McCain 49% (McCain wins by less than 1%)
NY-23: Obama 59%, McCain 39%
NY-24: Obama 60%, McCain 39%
NY-25: Obama 48%, McCain 50%
NY-26: Obama 69%, McCain 30%
NY-27: Obama 46%, McCain 52%
NY-28 (currently NY-29): Obama 49%, McCain 50%

Well good thing the chance for a GOP gerrymander is basically zilch.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on March 02, 2010, 10:47:35 AM
New features on the app: partisan data for California and Texas. Also, options to shade districts by partisan or demographic data.

Oh, no. There goes my time.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: nclib on March 02, 2010, 11:11:08 AM
officepark, would you mind giving a color key for the New York map.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on March 02, 2010, 11:19:07 AM
officepark, would you mind giving a color key for the New York map.

That's pretty hard, because it's not like I can think of a name for each of the 28 colors. Alright, I'll try.... (by the way, I numbered the districts according to the color key that the program always uses, so for example district 1 is always blue, and the district 1 in the map is blue too).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 02, 2010, 06:55:30 PM
My precinct:

Total Population: 1,873
White: 907 (48%)
Asian: 883 (47%)
Hispanic: 36 (2%)
Black: 0 (0%)
Native: 0 (0%)
Other: 47 (3%)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on March 02, 2010, 10:17:00 PM
New features on the app: partisan data for California and Texas. Also, options to shade districts by partisan or demographic data.
I just pulled up a TX map, and loaded my old file, but I didn't see the partisan data. Is there something else that I need to do?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on March 02, 2010, 10:19:31 PM
New features on the app: partisan data for California and Texas. Also, options to shade districts by partisan or demographic data.
I just pulled up a TX map, and loaded my old file, but I didn't see the partisan data. Is there something else that I need to do?

I think you need to click Use Test Data.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on March 02, 2010, 11:22:57 PM
New features on the app: partisan data for California and Texas. Also, options to shade districts by partisan or demographic data.
I just pulled up a TX map, and loaded my old file, but I didn't see the partisan data. Is there something else that I need to do?

I think you need to click Use Test Data.

It looks like I can get the test data, or my already created districts, but not both. :(


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: nclib on March 02, 2010, 11:37:41 PM
officepark, would you mind giving a color key for the New York map.

That's pretty hard, because it's not like I can think of a name for each of the 28 colors. Alright, I'll try.... (by the way, I numbered the districts according to the color key that the program always uses, so for example district 1 is always blue, and the district 1 in the map is blue too).

I meant and/or geographic description. Outside of NYC, they should be identifiable by county.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on March 03, 2010, 02:42:05 PM
New features on the app: partisan data for California and Texas. Also, options to shade districts by partisan or demographic data.
I just pulled up a TX map, and loaded my old file, but I didn't see the partisan data. Is there something else that I need to do?

I think you need to click Use Test Data.

It looks like I can get the test data, or my already created districts, but not both. :(

I was frustrated by that, too.

Also, he rejigged the California voting districts in such a way that has created a ridiculous number of non-contiguous zones, making redistricting really tough. Annoying :(


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on March 06, 2010, 11:52:31 AM
New features on the app: partisan data for California and Texas. Also, options to shade districts by partisan or demographic data.
I just pulled up a TX map, and loaded my old file, but I didn't see the partisan data. Is there something else that I need to do?

I think you need to click Use Test Data.

It looks like I can get the test data, or my already created districts, but not both. :(

I was frustrated by that, too.

Also, he rejigged the California voting districts in such a way that has created a ridiculous number of non-contiguous zones, making redistricting really tough. Annoying :(

I noticed that "feature" in CA, too.

I've also had problems for the last month with the saved maps. When I run them with the converter, the image is criss-crossed with obscuring lines. I've tried on different machines with no difference, but if I use an old saved file things are still OK. Anyone else had this problem?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on March 06, 2010, 12:31:53 PM
Yes. There appear to be tiny gaps between all of the voting districts that are impossible to fill.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on March 07, 2010, 02:45:30 PM
I created a VRA-free Dem-friendly map for Texas, here are the numbers, but I need to assign all the random small precincts and this might force the alteration of some of the districts.

CD1 (Gohmert): 69/31 McCain
CD2 (Poe): 64/35 McCain
CD3 (Johnson): 60/39 McCain
CD4 (Hall): 70/29 McCain
CD5 (Hensarling): 55/44 Obama
CD6 (Barton): 65/34 McCain
CD7 (Culberson): 56/43 McCain
CD8 (Brady): 74/25 McCain
CD9 (Green): 55/44 Obama
CD10 (McCaul): 66/33 McCain
CD11 (Conaway and Neugebauer): 72/27 McCain
CD12 (Granger): 51/49 Obama
CD13 (Thornberry): 76/23 McCain
CD14 (Paul): 60/39 Obama
CD15 (Hinojosa): 62/37 Obama
CD16 (Reyes): 65/34 Obama
CD17 (Edwards): 54/45 McCain (still need to put 29K more in this district, The Chet Edwards Wilderness Preserve, 23% African-American)
CD18 (Jackson-Lee): 74/25 Obama (42% Hispanic, 32% Black)
CD19 (Marchant): 62/37 McCain
CD20 (Gonzalez): 57/42 Obama
CD21 (Smith): 65/34 McCain
CD22 (Olson): 60/39 McCain
CD23 (Rodriguez): 56/43 Obama
CD24 (open, same general location as current CD24): 51/48 Obama
CD25 (Doggett): 56/42 Obama
CD26 (open, random East Texas): 67/32 McCain
CD27 (Ortiz): 68/31 Obama
CD28 (Cuellar): 56/43 Obama
CD29 (Green): 71/28 Obama (58% Hispanic)
CD30 (Johnson): 67/32 McCain (36% African-American, 32% White, 28% Hispanic)
CD31 (Carter): 62/37 Obama (Eastern Travis and Williamson Counties for the win)
CD32 (Sessions and Burgess): 50/49 Obama
CD33 (open, San Angelo/Abilene): 69/30 McCain
CD34 (open, wrapping around Chet's district): 69/30 McCain
CD35 (open, lots of SE coastal Texas): 62/37 McCain
CD36 (open, Republican parts of Tarrant, assorted counties near DFW): 71/28 McCain

Still gotta hammer out some population problems.

Aside from getting sued, this map could always lead to Granger picking the 36th over the 12th.

But 16 Obama CDs out of 36 isn't all that bad


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on March 07, 2010, 03:12:43 PM
I drew a map with 15 Obama CDs out of 36, with none marginal like the version of Granger's district you have. It's also VRA-compliant. I haven't finished it yet because I need to work out how the area around Edwards's CD will be designed.

Basically, it consists of four Hispanic-majority CDs in South Texas, El Paso and stretching up the coast to parts of Corpus Christi; two Hispanic-majority CDs in metro San Antonio; two Democratic white-majority CDs in metro Austin (one Hays+SW Travis, the other NE Travis+SW Williamson); two black-plurality districts, a Hispanic-plurality district and a Hispanic-majority district in metro Houston; a black-plurality and a Hispanic-plurality district in metro Dallas; and a coalition district in metro Fort Worth. Plus Republican districts filling the surrounding space (including a district containing all of the San Antonio suburbs and completely enclosing the two San Antonio districts).

TX-01
Brownsville, Hispanic parts of Corpus Christi, coast in between
81% Hispanic, 62% Obama

TX-02
McAllen and environs
88% Hispanic, 68% Obama

TX-03
Laredo and the low-population areas of the Rio Grande Valley
86% Hispanic, 64% Obama

TX-04
El Paso and environs
76% Hispanic, 65% Obama

TX-05
SW Austin and Hays County
60% Obama

TX-06
NE Austin and SW Williamson County
61% Obama

TX-07
North San Antonio
61% Hispanic, 58% Obama

TX-08
South San Antonio
55% Hispanic, 58% Obama

TX-09
S/SW Houston and environs
38% black, 26% white, 25% Hispanic; 70% Obama

TX-10
Other black parts of Houston
43% black, 25% Hispanic, 17% white; 79% Obama

TX-11
Hispanic E Houston
60% Hispanic; 63% Obama

TX-12
Downtown Houston and environs
40% Hispanic, 38% white; 57% Obama

TX-13
SE Dallas and environs
44% black, 27% white, 27% Hispanic; 79% Obama

TX-14
W Dallas and Irving
47% Hispanic, 33% white, 14% black; 60% Obama

TX-15
SE Fort Worth, E Arlington and Grand Prairie
42% white, 26% Hispanic, 25% black; 63% Obama

The rest are McCain to various degrees, all strongly so.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on March 07, 2010, 04:39:27 PM
here's the current state of the Chet Edwards Wilderness Preserve (in dark blue):

()

TX22 (which is actually open) is in brown (Galveston, South Harris), CD25 and CD31 split Travis in a way that there are two Obama districts coming out of Travis County. CD7 and CD29 have similar colors.

Here's the DFW map

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on March 08, 2010, 03:14:06 AM
I've spent most of the day on a Texas map, with the mission to make as many Obama districts as possible. For some reason though I only used 34 districts instead of 36 so rather than fine-tune this map I'll remake one with a good number of districts.

Regardless, the map I have now has 11 districts that are Obama+5 or more, 12 districts that are Obama+4 to +1, and 11 districts that are McCain+15 or more. 23 out of 34 Obama districts is kind of crazy, even if most of them are marginal.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: enlightened despot on March 09, 2010, 12:14:35 PM
I wanted to make a map for Mississippi with two black-majority seats and ended up with this chaotic monster. The blue district is 53% black (to 43% white) and the green district is 54% black (to 43% white). Unknowingly it looks like I've moved every incumbent (other than Bennie Thompson) into a unwinnable spot, as Travis Childers is stuck in the purple district and Gene Taylor is mired in the red district. It's bad for Gregg Harper too, as he's in the blue district. Could any of those guys survive this map?

()

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on March 09, 2010, 07:36:48 PM
I've completed my 36 district democratic gerrymander of Texas. 23 districts are Obama+3 or better, 2 districts are tossups, and 11 are Republican.

I'll post pictures later.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smash255 on March 11, 2010, 02:24:35 AM
I wanted to make a map for Mississippi with two black-majority seats and ended up with this chaotic monster. The blue district is 53% black (to 43% white) and the green district is 54% black (to 43% white). Unknowingly it looks like I've moved every incumbent (other than Bennie Thompson) into a unwinnable spot, as Travis Childers is stuck in the purple district and Gene Taylor is mired in the red district. It's bad for Gregg Harper too, as he's in the blue district. Could any of those guys survive this map?

()

()




The designs in Panola, Tallahatchie and Winston are quite interesting, what you have going on in Walthill might take the cake though.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on March 11, 2010, 07:08:51 PM
I made a North Carolina Map.

()

(Starting from Left to Right)

CD-1(Blue): Was CD-11, Heath Shuler(D) is safe, unless it's a very bad year for Democrats.
CD-2(Green): Was CD-5, Virginia Foxx(R) is VERY safe with this new CD.
CD-3(Purple): Was CD-10, Patrick McHenry(R), I believe, is ok. He isn't in the most Conservative District anymore, a lot of Charlotte's outlining subrubs are in his District.
CD-4(Red): Was CD-9, Sue Myrick (R) is safe, Union County is a very republican area.
CD-5(Yellow): Was CD-12, Mel Watt (D), is safe, very safe.
CD-6(blue-green): Was CD-6, I moved this North to take the Conservative areas, Howard Coble (R) is safe.
CD-7(gray): Was CD-8, Larry Kissell (D), I believe is safe. The Southern Counties on the NC/SC board is very Democratic and it has almost all of Greensboro and all of Burlington in it.
CD-8(lilac):Was CD-4, David Price (D) is very safe.
CD-9(cyan): Was CD-7, Mike McIntyre (D), I think is safe, unless it is a very bad year for Democrats.
CD-10(pink):Was CD-2, Bob Etheridge (D), is safe. All of Fayetteville is in his district.
CD-11(lime green): Was CD-13, Brad Miller (D) is very safe. Made this an all Raleigh district.
CD-12(light blue): Was CD-1, G. K. Butterfield (D), is safe.
CD-13(peach): Was CD-3, Walter B. Jones (R), I think is safe.

~~~

So I think this map is good, it doesn't gain more seats for the Democrats or Republicans, but it makes each current seat holder safe, i believe. So what do you guys think?
 


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on March 11, 2010, 08:36:46 PM
I made a North Carolina Map.

()

(Starting from Left to Right)

CD-1(Blue): Was CD-11, Heath Shuler(D) is safe, unless it's a very bad year for Democrats.
CD-2(Green): Was CD-5, Virginia Foxx(R) is VERY safe with this new CD.
CD-3(Purple): Was CD-10, Patrick McHenry(R), I believe, is ok. He isn't in the most Conservative District anymore, a lot of Charlotte's outlining subrubs are in his District.
CD-4(Red): Was CD-9, Sue Myrick (R) is safe, Union County is a very republican area.
CD-5(Yellow): Was CD-12, Mel Watt (D), is safe, very safe.
CD-6(blue-green): Was CD-6, I moved this North to take the Conservative areas, Howard Coble (R) is safe.
CD-7(gray): Was CD-8, Larry Kissell (D), I believe is safe. The Southern Counties on the NC/SC board is very Democratic and it has almost all of Greensboro and all of Burlington in it.
CD-8(lilac):Was CD-4, David Price (D) is very safe.
CD-9(cyan): Was CD-7, Mike McIntyre (D), I think is safe, unless it is a very bad year for Democrats.
CD-10(pink):Was CD-2, Bob Etheridge (D), is safe. All of Fayetteville is in his district.
CD-11(lime green): Was CD-13, Brad Miller (D) is very safe. Made this an all Raleigh district.
CD-12(light blue): Was CD-1, G. K. Butterfield (D), is safe.
CD-13(peach): Was CD-3, Walter B. Jones (R), I think is safe.

~~~

So I think this map is good, it doesn't gain more seats for the Democrats or Republicans, but it makes each current seat holder safe, i believe. So what do you guys think?
 


You certainly haven't done Kissell any favors by putting Randolph County in his district. Randolph County voted over 70% for McCain, and had about 14,000 more total votes than Anson, Richmond, and Scotland Counties combined. Only Avery and Yadkin Counties voted for McCain by a wider percentage margin. Alamance (54% McCain) and Davidson (66% McCain) Counties are no help, either. These Republican areas are largely negated by Democrats in Greensboro, but it would be better if Randolph County could be packed into a Republican district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on March 11, 2010, 09:26:10 PM
I made a North Carolina Map.

()

(Starting from Left to Right)

CD-1(Blue): Was CD-11, Heath Shuler(D) is safe, unless it's a very bad year for Democrats.
CD-2(Green): Was CD-5, Virginia Foxx(R) is VERY safe with this new CD.
CD-3(Purple): Was CD-10, Patrick McHenry(R), I believe, is ok. He isn't in the most Conservative District anymore, a lot of Charlotte's outlining subrubs are in his District.
CD-4(Red): Was CD-9, Sue Myrick (R) is safe, Union County is a very republican area.
CD-5(Yellow): Was CD-12, Mel Watt (D), is safe, very safe.
CD-6(blue-green): Was CD-6, I moved this North to take the Conservative areas, Howard Coble (R) is safe.
CD-7(gray): Was CD-8, Larry Kissell (D), I believe is safe. The Southern Counties on the NC/SC board is very Democratic and it has almost all of Greensboro and all of Burlington in it.
CD-8(lilac):Was CD-4, David Price (D) is very safe.
CD-9(cyan): Was CD-7, Mike McIntyre (D), I think is safe, unless it is a very bad year for Democrats.
CD-10(pink):Was CD-2, Bob Etheridge (D), is safe. All of Fayetteville is in his district.
CD-11(lime green): Was CD-13, Brad Miller (D) is very safe. Made this an all Raleigh district.
CD-12(light blue): Was CD-1, G. K. Butterfield (D), is safe.
CD-13(peach): Was CD-3, Walter B. Jones (R), I think is safe.

~~~

So I think this map is good, it doesn't gain more seats for the Democrats or Republicans, but it makes each current seat holder safe, i believe. So what do you guys think?
 


You certainly haven't done Kissell any favors by putting Randolph County in his district. Randolph County voted over 70% for McCain, and had about 14,000 more total votes than Anson, Richmond, and Scotland Counties combined. Only Avery and Yadkin Counties voted for McCain by a wider percentage margin. Alamance (54% McCain) and Davidson (66% McCain) Counties are no help, either. These Republican areas are largely negated by Democrats in Greensboro, but it would be better if Randolph County could be packed into a Republican district.

Well, Anson, Richmond and Scotland counties are very Democratic at the state level, so is the Guilford County area I put in his district. He would be safe, IMO.

Anyways, You can't put Randolph in a Republican district without it looking very crazy.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RBH on March 14, 2010, 02:13:18 PM
Philadelphia if it had 17 council districts instead of 10 districts and 7 at-large

()

District 01 (blue): 83% Black, 12% White
District 02 (green): 77% Black, 12% White, 7% Asian
District 03 (purple): 59% Black, 32% White, 5% Asian
District 04 (red): 49% Black, 36% White, 11% Asian
District 05 (yellow): 64% White, 15% Asian, 13% Black
District 06 (teal): 53% Black, 33% White, 7% Asian, 6% Hispanic
District 07 (gray): 86% Black, 9% Hispanic
District 08 (lilac): 62% White, 31% Black
District 09 (cyan): 91% Black, 5% White
District 10 (pink): 88% Black, 5% White
District 11 (lime): 34% Black, 33% Hispanic, 17% White, 15% Asian
District 12 (skyblue): 72% Hispanic, 16% Black, 9% White
District 13 (peach): 66% White, 16% Hispanic, 13% Black
District 14 (gold): 76% White, 10% Black, 9% Hispanic
District 15 (orange): 72% White, 10% Hispanic, 8% Black
District 16 (greenish): 82% White, 7% Asian, 5% Black, 5% Hispanic
District 17 (darkblue): 78% White, 11% Black, 5% Hispanic

Here's the map by race
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 14, 2010, 02:20:39 PM
Too bad Phil's not around, I'd like his commentary on that.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on March 23, 2010, 07:34:54 AM
Here's a Republican gerrymander of Oregon (no, this will never happen):

()

The green and blue districts were won by McCain (around 6% and 10% margins, respectively). The purple district went 60+% for Obama, while the red one is about a 75% Obama district. Obama won the yellow district, but I would guess it'd be more of a swing district in a neutral year, as Bush won Clackamas County in 2004. Probably still went for Kerry, though.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on March 29, 2010, 08:42:59 PM
You should be able to draw a 3-2 Republican map in Oregon with not that many changes. Or a 3-3 map if it gains a seat.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on March 30, 2010, 01:47:51 PM
()

Here's a quickly done gerrymander of the Georgia State Senate. It turns the currently 34R-22D body into probably a 28-28, though it could be as good as 31D-25R after a good year. If I re-do this I'll tidy up the south a bit, though first I'd like to make a straight-up Republican gerrymander. What are the VRA requirements for state legislature seats?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on March 30, 2010, 08:40:02 PM

Here's a quickly done gerrymander of the Georgia State Senate. It turns the currently 34R-22D body into probably a 28-28, though it could be as good as 31D-25R after a good year. If I re-do this I'll tidy up the south a bit, though first I'd like to make a straight-up Republican gerrymander. What are the VRA requirements for state legislature seats?

GA is under section 5 of the VRA. That means the USDOJ has to approve their map. One important consideration is that they not retrogress the number of minority seats unless there is no way to make them without going under 50% of the minority in that district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: mozo on March 30, 2010, 09:01:43 PM
My first attempt .. I tried to make a "serious" map under the 2008 projections, with the assumption that NC will still have 13 Congressional districts. But make a map that is relatively safe for the incumbents, conforms to traditional expectations, and has two minority districts that are not grotesque looking.

I managed to get Mel Watt's 12th district to fit in 3 counties, and create a map with only 13 counties split (an average of 1 per district). My new 2nd district is the other minority district. The VRA districts have 54% nonwhite voters, and I was able to keep all the districts within 5000 votes of each other.

From left to right:

11th gets both Asheville and Boone, probably would remain Dem.
10th stays pretty much the same, with a few county line crosses. Put western Cornelius in it.
12th is almost reasonable now... just most of Charlotte, Kannapolis, and Salisbury. Still would pass VRA and keep Mel Watt (not that I want to!)
5th stays about the same, gave all of Iredell to Virginia Foxx
6th gets Davidson and Randoph, that’s probably fine with Howard Coble. He gets to keep southeast Guilford where he grew up and attends church.
9th includes GOP heavy south Charlotte plus Union county. It gets some of the more rural and minority counties to the east too but I think the suburban vote would predominate and Sue Myrick would stay.
8th becomes a bit more rural by moving it away from Mecklenburg. Remains a competitive swing district.
3rd moves east a bit but remains what it is, conservative farm country that Jones would win again.
7th does not change much.
4th would be impossible to pry from David price, including Durham and most of Chapel Hill.
13th would be a solid Dem district by including most of Greensboro.
2nd is a VRA district. It rambles a bit and splits some counties but it reasonably compact.
1st is a weird shape but it’s what was left over after complying with VRA. Mostly unpopulated land and coastline, with a base of voters in northern Wake.

()





Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on April 04, 2010, 10:52:59 AM
I have a wonderful Democratic gerrymander of Illinois, to be posted soon. 3 black-majority districts, 2 Hispanic-majority districts, and a 16-3 split in the congressional delegation (could go 14-5 in a very good year for the Republicans).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on April 04, 2010, 12:18:23 PM
I have a wonderful Democratic gerrymander of Illinois, to be posted soon. 3 black-majority districts, 2 Hispanic-majority districts, and a 16-3 split in the congressional delegation (could go 14-5 in a very good year for the Republicans).

I look forward to seeing it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on April 04, 2010, 12:47:53 PM
Chicagoland:

()

IL-1: 50% black, safe Democratic
IL-2: 64% Hispanic, safe Democratic
IL-3: 57% Hispanic, safe Democratic
IL-4: 60% black, safe Democratic
IL-5: 54% black, safe Democratic
IL-6: safe Democratic (D+15 or so)
IL-7: safe Democratic (D+8 or so)
IL-8: safe Democratic (D+12 or so)
IL-9: likely Democratic (D+6 or so)
IL-10: safe Democratic (D+10 or so)
IL-11: safe Democratic (D+8 or so)
IL-12: lean Democratic (D+2 or so)
IL-13: lean Democratic (D+2 or so)

The Democrats would probably want to make one of IL-12 and IL-13 a Republican-leaning marginal and the other one safe. However, I have no idea how to do that; DuPage County is very uniform, and I just worked off of the municipal data that Dave Leip has on his incomplete IL municipalities map.

Quad Cities/Peoria area:

()

IL-14: safe Republican (R+10 or so)
IL-15: safe Democratic (D+8 or so)


Central and Southern Illinois:

()

IL-16: safe Republican (R+12 or so)
IL-17: likely Democratic (D+5 or so)
IL-18: safe Republican (R+12 or so)
IL-19: safe Democratic (D+8 or so)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on April 04, 2010, 12:53:19 PM
Obviously, the map starts looking a little ridiculous in the central and southern areas, but it's really no worse than the current map, better in some areas. IL-17 is a wonderful masterpiece, combining East Peoria, Springfield, Decatur, Urbana-Champaign, Bloomington-Normal, Danville and Mattoon-Charleston in a single district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on April 04, 2010, 01:01:07 PM
Verily--good map, but I would suggest making each VRA district just 50-51% black/Latino in order to give more minorities to other districts and make them more Democratic.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on April 04, 2010, 01:07:04 PM
Verily--good map, but I would suggest making each VRA district just 50-51% black/Latino in order to give more minorities to other districts and make them more Democratic.

Can't do it without way more contortion than would ever hold up in courts. There's no room for the VRA districts to move around because they all border each other. The areas that they do have that border other districts are Republican-voting, That's why IL-05 and IL-01 extend so far out--they take in the white Republican suburbs at the edges of Cook County.* The only exception is in North Chicago, but IL-06, IL-07 and IL-08 are all Democratic enough without needing to dilute the VRA districts to be safe.

*The municipality that sticks out of Cook County between DuPage and Will Counties is around 90% white and voted for McCain. The same is true for the square-shaped appendage to IL-05 at its southwestern-most corner.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 04, 2010, 01:47:07 PM
Ilinois is not covered by the VRA.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on April 04, 2010, 01:51:25 PM

In theory; in practice, if you reduced the number of minority districts (and, in this case, failed to create a new Hispanic district long overdue), you'd be in trouble.

Plus, you'd prefer this anyway. It gets rid of Dan Lipinski by putting him in either a 64% Hispanic district or a 50% black district, neither of which would ever nominate him.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 04, 2010, 02:26:39 PM
I might prefer it. I haven't seen it due to the mobile site.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 04, 2010, 07:59:08 PM
Ah, that is nice. Wouldn't hold up in court though I bet.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 04, 2010, 08:24:40 PM
OK here's something I drew up for Ohio:

()
()
()
()

OH-01 (blue): Removed the Butler County portions which were put in for a gerrymander. Driehaus probably could beat Chabot here even if he loses this year.
OH-02 (dark green): No point in trying to remove Schmidt, so she ended up with an even safer district.
OH-03 (purple): Could be trouble for Turner, though he's far from guaranteed to lose. Austria now lives in this district, but he'd be better off moving.
OH-04 (red): Pretty safe GOP seat. However we likely see a primary battle between Jim Jordan and Pat Tiberi, Jordan probably wins.
OH-05 (yellow): Even stronger GOP, Latta is actually removed from the seat, but he could easily move and win it.
OH-06 (dark teal): Both Wilson and Space are in this seat now. One of them probably moves to the new OH-12 though. The new seat is safer Dem.
OH-07 (gray): Pretty strong GOP. Austria could move here and win easily. If Kilroy loses there's a good chance that who beats her has a better chance in this seat, so a potential primary battle.
OH-08 (tealish purple): Still safe for Boehner.
OH-09 (cyan): Safe for Kaptur. Latta now lives here, but he's probably moving.
OH-10 (hot pink): Safe Dem. Kucinich might be worried though with new Democratic primary voters who aren't used to him.
OH-11 (light green): "Only" 49% black now, but safe Dem.
OH-12 (dark cyan): Open seat, likely either Space or Wilson move here. Wilson probably has a better chance. Pretty Dem leaning seat for either.
OH-13 (light pink): Sutton shouldn't have much trouble here. Might face LaTourette but would win.
OH-14 (brown): Tim Ryan and LaTourette would both live here. Ryan easily wins, LaTourette would have a slightly better chance in OH-13, but he probably should just retire.
OH-15 (orange): Now an urban Columbus district. Kilroy wins.
OH-16 (olive green): Safer for Boccieri.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on April 04, 2010, 09:44:54 PM
I dare someone to do a very strong GOP gerrmander of Washington state.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on April 05, 2010, 09:38:35 AM

Why not? It's not any worse than the current map, better in the lack of earmuffs or the strip-districts cutting from Chicago to Iowa.

()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Conservative frontier on April 05, 2010, 01:26:21 PM
I just made the most racist gerrymander of Oklahoma ever. The least white district is 69%, with 20% Native American. Lol


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Conservative frontier on April 05, 2010, 01:36:53 PM
Uh....I just made a majority black district in Iowa.........51-43 Black


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on April 05, 2010, 01:53:39 PM
Uh....I just made a majority black district in Iowa.........51-43 Black

Not for Congress, you didn't.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Conservative frontier on April 05, 2010, 05:45:09 PM
Uh....I just made a majority black district in Iowa.........51-43 Black

Not for Congress, you didn't.

I know, I made 40 districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Conservative frontier on April 07, 2010, 11:11:57 AM
I have successfully re-districted Arizona and Maryland, will post when I get back to NC, due to techincal issues.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on April 08, 2010, 09:27:04 PM
Epic gerrymander of Arkansas to create a 49% black district (50% does not appear to be possible, sadly):

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Conservative frontier on April 08, 2010, 11:38:07 PM
How do I find out how my re-distrciuted district voted Obama or McCain?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 09, 2010, 12:56:04 AM
Here's an attempt at Iowa:

()

Not sure what algorithm they use exactly, but it's pretty nicely drawn I think and would fit the general criteria. Interestingly this map could easily elect an all Dem delegation.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Joe Cooper on April 09, 2010, 01:23:33 PM
Iowa: impressive.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on April 10, 2010, 10:37:41 AM
Here's an attempt at Iowa:

()

Not sure what algorithm they use exactly, but it's pretty nicely drawn I think and would fit the general criteria. Interestingly this map could easily elect an all Dem delegation.
It might not qualify.  Iowa actually demands an extreme level of population equality.  A lot more than you would intuitively expect to be possible with whole counties.  In the 2000 redistricting the legislature rejected the first plan saying it had too great population equality, and it was way below 1000 deviation.

Iowa also uses a somewhat odd definition of compactness, comparing the east-west extent of the district with its north-south extent.   You can see this in the western district.   Visually, it looks to be basically a parallelogram that is somewhat narrower east-west than north-south.  But the east-west extent is measured from the westmost point in the NW corner to the eastmost point in the SE corner.  The district get some bonus width simply due to the fact that Council Bluffs is east of Sioux City.

It also means that Iowa tends to get districts that are somewhat L-shaped and toothy.  Think of a 4 x 4 block of counties that is almost square, and place a 3x3 block inside one corner of the district, so that you now have an L-shaped district along two edges of the 4 x 4.  Iowa thinks that the L-shaped district is as compact as the original square.   You can also move counties back and forth along the interior boundary, without any effect on the compactness.

If you look at a current map, you can see this effect, especially with 1, 2, and 4.   For 4 to follow about 2/3 of the Iowa-Minnesota border also requires it to drop south of Des Moines.

I suspect that a compact 4-district map would maintain the western district and then have districts in NE and SE corners that have some additional north-south extent by overlapping.  The 4th district will include Polk and an almost arbitrary set of counties.  If you add a county to the east, you have to also add one to the north or south.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smash255 on April 11, 2010, 01:52:39 AM
How do I find out how my re-distrciuted district voted Obama or McCain?

Only NY and Maryland have that data.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on April 11, 2010, 08:54:23 AM
How do I find out how my re-distrciuted district voted Obama or McCain?

Only NY and Maryland have that data.

California and Texas do as well now.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 12, 2010, 03:44:15 AM
Playing around with Michigan, I don't see any way to preserve two black majority districts. We'll probably be saying goodbye to Carolyn Kilpatrick. No tears here, the party needs less people like her and her repulsive son.

This is not good news for Republicans though, as from what I've seen all districts have to expand inward into Metro Detroit. This means Peters will likely end up safe, the black population of his district could easily double in share of the population. Schauer might as well, his district might very well end up taking in Ann Arbor. McCotter will also be more vulnerable, and Rogers could be in big trouble considering he represents a Republican district in a part of the world where there shouldn't be one. There's no reason Lansing should be represented by a Republican, the GOP shored him last time by adding a sliver of exurban Oakland county. That might be hard to maintain. Both likely would go down in an Obama vs. Palin election.

One upside for the Republicans is there probably isn't anyway to have the current Stupak seat avoid becoming more Republican. But that probably won't be a big deal if the Democrats get a good candidate in there, especially if the GOP bench continues to consist of only the type of loonies they currently are running.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on April 12, 2010, 06:35:43 AM
You should be able to make two majority-black districts. I managed it when I did this map last year:

Dem gerrymander of Michigan:

()

MI-01 (dark blue, Bart Stupak - D) - I didn't change Stupak's district much. At best it's added a couple of Dem-leaning counties.
MI-02 (pink, Vern Ehlers - R) - Combination of Hoekstra's district and the Grand Rapids portion of Ehlers'. Should be a fairly Democratic district.
MI-03 (brown, open) - A safe Republican district encompassing the suburbs of Grand Rapids and the Republican counties north of there. Ehlers would probably move here.
MI-04 (red, Dave Camp - R) - Added Saginaw to Camp's district, making his re-election much harder.
MI-05 (dark green, Dale Kildee - D) - He lost Saginaw but retains heavily-Democratic Flint. Also picks up some Democratic portions of Candace Miller's district. Should still be safe.
MI-06 (light purple, Fred Upton - R) - Expands east to take in the Republican territory from Schauer's district. Safe Republican.
MI-07 (light green, Mark Schauer - D) - Basically a Battle Creek/Lansing district, so it'll be much safer for Schauer.
MI-08 (teal, Mike Rogers - R and Thad McCotter - R) - I put Rogers and McCotter in a new, Ann Arbor-based district. Either one would lose the general. Rogers might move and challenge Kildee in his district, but that would still be an uphill climb for him.
MI-09 (grey, Gary Peters - D) - Not much changed here, although he did lose a few Republican bits at the top of his district.
MI-10 (purple, Candace Miller - R) - Safe Republican district, didn't change much.
MI-11 (light blue, John Dingell - D) - Dingell's district expanded southwest to include the slightly-Republican county of Lenawee. It should still be balanced out by the Wayne portions of the district.
MI-12 (yellow, Sander Levin - D) - Not much changed here.
MI-13 (magenta, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick - D) - Expanded a bit, but still majority-black (51%).
MI-14 (light purple, John Conyers - D) - Same here, 53% black.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on April 12, 2010, 10:22:52 AM
Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about, BRTD. Two majority black districts is very easy. When I drew my gerrymander of Michigan (which was much more intricate than Johnny's and created only one district less Obama than the nation), I intentionally connected the black areas to exurban lily-white areas to outvote the Republicans, and I still had tons of excess black population (something 58% black in one district, 51% in the other).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 12, 2010, 12:03:15 PM
Well I wasn't trying for a gerrymander, just to undo the current gerrymander and draw a "fair" map. My map avoided thin coast-hugging districts like that pink one, so that's probably why. Michigan won't have a Dem gerrymander anyway and will probably go incumbent protection, but it'll be interesting to see who ends up lost.

BTW I understand things were much different in 2002, but I was able to easily draw a sane Maryland map with 6/8 Obama districts. Maryland might have a less ugly map. Then again maybe not in the need to preserve individual incumbents.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 12, 2010, 12:06:38 PM
()

2 majority black districts and 6 strong Obama ones.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Conservative frontier on April 12, 2010, 05:39:15 PM
I gerrymandered Maryland to a 5-4 GOP advantage, and a 6-3 GOP in a good year.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smid on April 12, 2010, 10:12:48 PM
I gerrymandered Maryland to a 5-4 GOP advantage, and a 6-3 GOP in a good year.

How many in a good year for the Dems? I figure that while a partisan gerrymander may give you a majority in a normal year and possibly even better results in a good year, it probably also increases your losses in a bad year which can make it harder to rebuild following an electoral defeat.

Oh, I really like your maps, BRTD - they don't look gerrymandered at all to me.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on April 13, 2010, 12:52:28 AM

What are the %s for each district?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on April 13, 2010, 09:16:06 AM

Good heavens. If one can divide the Baltimore area into three D districts like this, why does the current map have to look like it was designed by Benoit Mandelbrot on an acid trip?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 13, 2010, 10:47:36 AM

Good heavens. If one can divide the Baltimore area into three D districts like this, why does the current map have to look like it was designed by Benoit Mandelbrot on an acid trip?

Maryland had a 4-4 delegation before 2002. Bob Ehlrich represented a seat based around the Republican parts of Baltimore county, and liberal Republican Connie Morella represented a Montgomery-County based district. The Democrats decided to eliminate them both, so hence the current map in which Ehlrich's district was torn to shreds and Morella's was slightly altered to go into Prince George's county, and had the relatively Republican areas severed and attached to the 4th district.

Things are different today though, with Maryland's current population distribution it doesn't seem to be possible to draw a Republican seat similar to the one Ehlrich represented (I've tried with my GOP gerrymander experiment) because the 6th and 1st need to expand more into Baltimore County, while Chris Van Hollen is very safe in his new seat and doesn't need the crazy gerrymander (the old district was absolutely lost once Morella left anyway, it was 60% for Gore.) plus MontCo has moved left since then. One reason though why the map may not look this reasonable is the incumbents may end getting put together in such a map. You also have to wonder if they'll try to add more Democratic-leaning areas to the 1st to either shore up Kratovil or allow him to make a comeback in the most likely scenario that he loses.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 13, 2010, 11:03:56 AM
Yeah Ruppersberger and Sarbanes (who only live 5 miles apart) would both end up in the green district. Edwards would also end up in the light purple seat represented by Hoyer as she lives in southern Prince George's county. Edwards would have no trouble just moving further up north though. I guess Sarbanes would be most likely to move to Howard County, though he doesn't represent much of the district it is so Democratic it probably doesn't matter.


Blue: McCain 57% Obama 42%
Green: Obama 57% McCain 41%
Purple: Obama 84% McCain 15%
Red: Obama 62% McCain 36%
Yellow: Obama 72% McCain 27%
Dark Teal: McCain 58% Obama 40%
Gray: Obama 90% McCain 9%
Light Purple: Obama 57% McCain 42%


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kevinstat on April 17, 2010, 11:45:54 PM
I gerrymandered Maryland to a 5-4 GOP advantage, and a 6-3 GOP in a good year.

Maryland has only 8 U.S. House seats now, and I haven't heard that it might gain a seat.  Is it within the realm of the reasonably possible?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on April 18, 2010, 01:16:02 AM
I gerrymandered Maryland to a 5-4 GOP advantage, and a 6-3 GOP in a good year.

Maryland has only 8 U.S. House seats now, and I haven't heard that it might gain a seat.  Is it within the realm of the reasonably possible?

Only if DC is retroceded.   So reasonable yes.  Possible no.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Free Palestine on April 18, 2010, 02:26:22 AM
The 41 districts of New York City.  Now, the numbers may be different for actual congressional elections, but I'll be basing it off the presidential vote.  Not only do the Republicans have some districts (most notably NY-1, on Staten Island), but there is an awful lot more minority representation.  Minority-majority, as well as minority-plurality, districts.  I'll upload a picture later.

NY-1
Republican - 64%
Democratic - 35%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-2
Republican - 41%
Democratic - 59%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-3
Republican - 44%
Democratic - 55%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-4 !
Republican - 49%
Democratic - 50%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-5 !
Republican - 50%
Democratic - 49%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-6
Republican - 39%
Democratic - 61%
Other - 0%

Majority - White

NY-7
Republican - 52%
Democratic - 47%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-8
Republican - 20%
Democratic - 79%
Other - 1%

Plurality - Hispanic

NY-9
Republican - 6%
Democratic - 94%
Other - 1%

Plurality - White

NY-10
Republican - 5%
Democratic - 95%
Other - 0%

Majority - Black

NY-11
Republican - 2%
Democratic - 97%
Other - 0%

Majority - Black

NY-12
Republican - 16%
Democratic - 83%
Other - 1%

Plurality - White

NY-13
Republican - 2%
Democratic - 98%
Other - 0%

Majority - Black

NY-14
Republican - 4%
Democratic - 95%
Other - 0%

Majority - Black

NY-15
Republican - 14%
Democratic - 86%
Other - 0%

Majority - Hispanic

NY-16
Republican - 30%
Democratic - 70%
Other - 0%

Plurality - White

NY-17
Republican - 23%
Democratic - 76%
Other - 0%

Plurality - Hispanic

NY-18
Republican - 40%
Democratic - 59%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-19
Republican - 19%
Democratic - 80%
Other - 1%

Plurality - White

NY-20
Republican - 20%
Democratic - 79%
Other - 1%

Plurality - Hispanic

NY-21
Republican - 21%
Democratic - 79%
Other - 1%

Majority - Hispanic

NY-22
Republican - 31%
Democratic - 69%
Other - 1%

Plurality - Asian

NY-23
Republican - 41%
Democratic - 58%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-24
Republican - 13%
Democratic - 86%
Other - 0%

Plurality - Black

NY-25
Republican - 22%
Democratic - 78%
Other - 1%

Plurality - Black

NY-26
Republican - 6%
Democratic - 94%
Other - 0%

Majority - Black

NY-28
Republican - 16%
Democratic - 83%
Other - 1%

Plurality - White

NY-40
Republican - 13%
Democratic - 86%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-41
Republican - 17%
Democratic - 82%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-42
Republican - 24%
Democratic - 75%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-43
Republican - 10%
Democratic - 89%
Other - 1%

Majority - White

NY-44
Republican - 11
Democratic - 89
Other - 1

Plurality - Hispanic

NY-45
R - 3
D - 97
O - 0

Plurality - Black

NY-46
R - 8
D - 92
O - 0

Majority - Hispanic

NY-47
R - 5
D - 95
O - 0

Majority - Hispanic

NY-48
R - 9
D - 91
O - 0

Majority - Hispanic

NY-49
R - 22
D - 78
O - 0

Plurality - White

NY-50
R - 4
D - 95
O - 0

Majority - Hispanic

NY-51
R - 9
D - 91
O - 0

Plurality - Hispanic

NY-52
R - 7
D - 92
O - 1

Majority - Hispanic

NY-53
R - 23
D - 77
O - 1

Plurality - White


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Conservative frontier on April 18, 2010, 11:59:21 AM
I gerrymandered Maryland to a 5-4 GOP advantage, and a 6-3 GOP in a good year.

Maryland has only 8 U.S. House seats now, and I haven't heard that it might gain a seat.  Is it within the realm of the reasonably possible?

My bad, ok Fixed it, Now it's 5-3 Republican, I added in Annapolis with a southern district near prince george.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on April 20, 2010, 11:28:49 AM
Maryland is easy to gerrymander.

()

Blue: Obama+10
Green: Obama+10
Purple: Obama+48
Red: Obama+31
Yellow: Obama+9
Gray: Obama+81
Grayish Blue: Obama+12
Teal: Obama+12

Thinking about it, I could easily shore up the yellow district to O+20 by switching bits with gray, but I don't think that's not even needed. This map doesn't even look that bad, outside of the purple/blue boundary in the Baltimore area.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on April 20, 2010, 12:11:05 PM
And now here's a GOP gerrymander of Maryland! Under good conditions, anyway.

()

Blue: McCain+8
Green: McCain+11
Grayish Blue: McCain+7
Teal: McCain+8
Purple: Obama+79
Red: Obama+43
Yellow: Obama+48
Gray: Obama+79


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on April 20, 2010, 01:22:49 PM
And now here's a GOP gerrymander of Maryland! Under good conditions, anyway.

()

Blue: McCain+8
Green: McCain+11
Grayish Blue: McCain+7
Teal: McCain+8
Purple: Obama+79
Red: Obama+43
Yellow: Obama+48
Gray: Obama+79

Good job, you did it even better than I did.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Free Palestine on April 20, 2010, 01:42:37 PM
Here's the map.  Districts of New York.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RI on April 21, 2010, 01:17:15 PM
I've been trying to gerrymander Louisiana with three majority black districts, but I figured out that it isn't quite possible with six districts without making the map completely ridiculous. However, it can be done with the current seven districts.

() (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2947_21_04_10_1_10_47.png)

All less than 500 from ideal:

Blue: 85% White, 10% Black
Green: 54% Black, 43% White
Purple: 77% White, 13% Black, 5% Hispanic
Red: 74% White, 22% Black
Yellow: 50.3% Black, 46.5% White
Teal: 80% White, 15% Black
Gray: 61% Black, 31% White

Lousiana has actually had far more atrocious gerrymanders than this in the past.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on April 21, 2010, 05:55:06 PM
I've been trying to gerrymander Louisiana with three majority black districts, but I figured out that it isn't quite possible with six districts without making the map completely ridiculous. However, it can be done with the current seven districts.

() (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2947_21_04_10_1_10_47.png)

All less than 500 from ideal:

Blue: 85% White, 10% Black
Green: 54% Black, 43% White
Purple: 77% White, 13% Black, 5% Hispanic
Red: 74% White, 22% Black
Yellow: 50.3% Black, 46.5% White
Teal: 80% White, 15% Black
Gray: 61% Black, 31% White

Lousiana has actually had far more atrocious gerrymanders than this in the past.

That is actually a very neat map. The Justice Department should force LA to have 2 black majority seats even if LA has just 6 districts after the 2010 Census. African-Americans make up about 1/3 of Louisiana's population, so it's only fair for there to be 2 black majority seats.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on April 21, 2010, 06:13:47 PM
I just did a Louisiana map with six seats, two of which are black majority and one of which is 49% black, 47% white. It's a bit more intricate than Realisticidealist's, but not dramatically so. The districts are basically modeled off of his.

LA-01: 86% white, 7% black
LA-02: 52% black, 43% white
LA-03: 50.1% black, 39.7% white
LA-04: 77% white, 16% black
LA-05: 48.8% black, 46.8% white
LA-06: 79% white, 16% black

It would be possible to get LA-05 to 50% black, but only with very intricate gerrymandering.

()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on April 21, 2010, 06:17:43 PM
It should be noted that my map uses the new population estimates, which make it much, much more difficult to form a black-majority district in the New Orleans area than it used to be.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on April 23, 2010, 02:39:14 PM
Come on now, guys, if you're gonna gerrymander Louisiana, DO IT LIKE A MAN.

Behold! With 2000 census numbers, four black-majority districts:

()

(all districts +/- 750 from ideal)

green: 50% black, 47% white
yellow: 50% black, 47% white
teal: 50% black, 46% white
gray: 50% black, 41% white

blue: 86% white, 7% black
purple: 85% white, 12% black
red: 85% white, 9% black

It's such a horrible monstrosity of a map, I love it. I challenge anyone to beat this!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RI on April 23, 2010, 03:01:03 PM
Come on now, guys, if you're gonna gerrymander Louisiana, DO IT LIKE A MAN.

Behold! With 2000 census numbers, four black-majority districts:

()

(all districts +/- 750 from ideal)

green: 50% black, 47% white
yellow: 50% black, 47% white
teal: 50% black, 46% white
gray: 50% black, 41% white

blue: 86% white, 7% black
purple: 85% white, 12% black
red: 85% white, 9% black

It's such a horrible monstrosity of a map, I love it. I challenge anyone to beat this!

Is the red district even contiguous?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on April 23, 2010, 04:44:14 PM
I'm assuming it is, yes, across the bay there.

Still, even if it's not, this map is still up on the computer and have been fine-tuning it as much as possible; the red connects now over land.

I've shifted the red, yellow, purple and green districts around to make the green district 51% black instead of barely at the cusp of fifty (it was actually being rounded up from something like 49.7% or so). I've also increased population equality to within 400, and in the process gave the red district that one voting precinct there to make it look better.

I'll post the updated map if you're interested but the changes are basically the yellow district shoring up its black margins by giving away the white bits of Shrevport in exchange for grabbing racially mixed rural precincts across the north, yellow giving up part of its territory in Rapides to green (with purple snaking through with a single precinct space between), some minor swaps across the purple/green border, and red swallowing up the rest of Vernon and Allan from purple. Also the better-connected red in the south.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on April 23, 2010, 07:21:19 PM
I'm assuming it is, yes, across the bay there.

Still, even if it's not, this map is still up on the computer and have been fine-tuning it as much as possible; the red connects now over land.

I've shifted the red, yellow, purple and green districts around to make the green district 51% black instead of barely at the cusp of fifty (it was actually being rounded up from something like 49.7% or so). I've also increased population equality to within 400, and in the process gave the red district that one voting precinct there to make it look better.

I'll post the updated map if you're interested but the changes are basically the yellow district shoring up its black margins by giving away the white bits of Shrevport in exchange for grabbing racially mixed rural precincts across the north, yellow giving up part of its territory in Rapides to green (with purple snaking through with a single precinct space between), some minor swaps across the purple/green border, and red swallowing up the rest of Vernon and Allan from purple. Also the better-connected red in the south.

Post the map, please.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on April 25, 2010, 05:51:26 PM
Here's a four black majority district Louisiana, done much better I think.

()

Yellow, green, gray and red are all 50% black. Blue, purple, and teal are each 84-88% white.

This wouldn't even be a horrible looking map if gray and green weren't so stringy.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on April 25, 2010, 10:22:50 PM
Here's a four black majority district Louisiana, done much better I think.

()

Yellow, green, gray and red are all 50% black. Blue, purple, and teal are each 84-88% white.

This wouldn't even be a horrible looking map if gray and green weren't so stringy.

What are the demographics of the districts using 2008 numbers?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on April 25, 2010, 11:14:40 PM
This wouldn't even be a horrible looking map if gray and green weren't so stringy.

Use microthreads to connect areas.  They could be a millimeter wide and run along the edges of precincts.  You can define them as having no persons living in them.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on April 26, 2010, 12:42:58 AM
This wouldn't even be a horrible looking map if gray and green weren't so stringy.

Use microthreads to connect areas.  They could be a millimeter wide and run along the edges of precincts.  You can define them as having no persons living in them.

Now that would make it TOO easy :P

btw, 2008 data for these districts.

green: 50443 population deviation; 51% black
yellow: 5063 population deviation; 51% black
gray: 16214 population deviation; 52% black

red: -164256 population deviation; 47% white, 42% black, 7% hispanic

blue: 12600 population deviation; 84% white
purple: 24063 population deviation; 82% white
teal: 55871 populationd deviation; 85% white

Basically, the only district that at this point would have radically altered demographics is the New Orleans area one, so while it couldn't be anymore considered a max racial gerrymander you could still consider it a maxed partisan gerrymander, as most white voters in Orleans parish are fairly Democratic.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 09, 2010, 09:55:11 PM
I just realized West Virginia is going to be kind of tricky. WV-02 doesn't look that bad on a state map because of WV's odd shape, but it is really just a long string of counties. The other districts need to cut into it, and doing that without breaking the counties is more difficult than one'd think. It's not impossible but WV-02 will end up even more funky-looking.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Tuck! on May 15, 2010, 10:23:31 AM
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on May 15, 2010, 01:23:57 PM

That are the demographics and your guesstimates for the Obama-McCain %s in all those districts?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Tuck! on May 16, 2010, 11:06:51 PM

That are the demographics and your guesstimates for the Obama-McCain %s in all those districts?

This is a Democratic gerrymander.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on May 19, 2010, 04:51:21 PM
And to think I never noticed this toy before. Hmmm. :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on May 19, 2010, 10:21:53 PM
And to think I never noticed this toy before. Hmmm. :)

It's fun, but it does have limitations. For instance, it applies changes in population to all districts within a county equally. Also, for some states the voting districts are outdated.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on May 24, 2010, 08:09:56 AM
()

A ten-district Arizona, based on 2010 estimates, with three Hispanic-majority districts. Maximum population deviation in the map is 650 though with minimal border-tinkering I could probably get it down to about 200. My goals here were to create the third VRA district, preserve the Navajo County split while making it not look like a ridiculous gerrymander, keep district boundaries roughly similar to the pre-existing ones, and to in general make the districts look as smooth as possible.

Here's the Phoenix area in detail:

()

and here's the specifics of the racial breakdowns (any group >3% listed)

1st: 61% White, 19% Native, 17% Hispanic
2nd: 72% White, 17% Hispanic, 6% Native
3rd: 72% White, 19% Hispanic, 4% Native
4th: 53% Hispanic, 35% White, 6% Black
5th: 82% White, 11% Hispanic
6th: 71% White, 21% Hispanic
7th: 57% Hispanic, 34% White, 4% Native
8th: 70% White, 21% Hispanic
9th: 56% Hispanic, 30% White, 8% Black
10th: 58% White, 28% Hispanic, 5% Black, 4% Asian, 4% Native

All in all, not that bad of a map I think. I have no idea what the partisan breakdown would be though. Anybody know?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on May 24, 2010, 08:25:30 AM
4th, 7th, 9th: Democratic. Giffords would hold the 8th. Republicans would probably back the 7th without much difficulty though Mitchell could possibly hold it for a while (though he's from Tempe, so he might choose to stand in the 9th/10th instead?). 1st: Kilpatrick would hold it. 2nd, 3rd, 6th: Republican holds. 10th: My best guess would give it a slight Democratic lean but I'm not really sure.

So, 6D-4R?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on May 24, 2010, 08:40:44 AM
I would guess the 10th is Republican, although in great flux because it has so much bubble housing in it that is destined to become slum. Harry Mitchell is out of a job with this map unless he can win a primary in the 9th because his base in Tempe is split and the relocated 5th would be won by any electable Republican.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 24, 2010, 12:05:28 PM
It's not impossible that Mitchell could win the 10th district here.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on May 24, 2010, 09:03:39 PM
Republican gerrymander of Wisconsin:

()

WI-01 (blue, Paul Ryan - R) - Excised Racine and added some more heavily-Republican parts west of Milwaukee, so it should be a pretty Republican district now.
WI-02 (green, Tammy Baldwin - D) - Didn't change much.
WI-03 (purple, Ron Kind - D) - Removed a couple Republican counties and added Portage County, so it's more a Lean Dem district than a swing district with a Dem tilt. If that makes any sense.
WI-04 (red, Gwen Moore - D) - Barely changed, as it's already a heavily-Dem urban Milwaukee district.
WI-05 (yellow, Jim Sensenbrenner - R) - Took in Racine and some of the inner Mikwaukee suburbs from Ryan, but it shouldn't affect the solidly-Republican nature of this district.
WI-06 (teal, Tom Petri - R) - Expanded north to take in a large swath of Steve Kagen's district, but it shouldn't change the partisan lean much, if any.
WI-07 (grey, open - D) - Removing Portage and adding a few Republican-leaning counties (St. Croix and Clark) should tip the balance of this swing district in favor of the Republicans. Doesn't change the numbers much, but it does go from a Kerry district to a Bush district.
WI-08 (light purple, Steve Kagen - D) - Carved up Kagen's district somewhat; attached his hometown of Appleton to a Green Bay/outer Milwaukee suburban district. Doesn't change the presidential numbers any, but the large swath of unfamiliar territory could help Republicans knock him out.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 24, 2010, 10:11:57 PM
I decided to see what a GOP gerrymander of Minnesota would look like:

()
()
()

Districts:

MN-01 (blue): Doesn't change much, added a few more Republican counties. Walz could probably hang on but the GOP would have a far better chance if he left.
MN-02 (green): Had to take in northern Dakota county, so I tried to cancel it out with parts of Wright and outer Hennepin. Safe for Kline.
MN-03 (purple): Gains some DFL inner suburbs and a few exurbs though at the expense of other exurbs. Still likely safe for Paulsen.
MN-04 (red): St. Paul removed. Ramsey County is still DFL outside of it though, Washington is marginal, the north side is very Republican, probably a tossup.
MN-05 (yellow): Twin Cities combined, plus Richfield. Very very safe DFL, probably around D+22.
MN-06 (teal): Sort of combining some northern exurbs with northern Minnesota rural areas and Duluth. Much of northern St. Louis County removed, so the seat could go GOP, though not with Oberstar in it (though he'd live in Chisholm now.)
MN-07 (gray): Becomes more DFL. Collin Peterson is obviously safe and the GOP have much less of a chance of taking his seat once he retires, but they don't even bother to target him now and he votes with them most of the time anyway, so making him safer probably won't bother them.

BTW Bachmann is a major impediment in this scenario, she lives in the red district but couldn't win it. Unfortunately that likely means she wins the primary. In a rematch with Tinklenberg (who also lives there), Tinklenberg would win easily. The GOP would be best off just hoping for a wave year before 2020 to oust him.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on May 28, 2010, 07:00:06 PM
()

Here's a nine district Arizona. All districts accurate to within 200 of ideal; total deviation between the most and least populous districts is 348. I preserved the 1st-2nd district split as best I could in the north. I don't know the specific reasons for the design, but I kept all Native-majority precincts up there in the district they'd been in before (except the two needed to keep CD 2 contiguous).

()

Detail of the Phoenix area.

First District (Blue): 48% White, 26% Hispanic, 20% Native.
A "coalition" district like Verily was talking about earlier. I preserved the split between the first and second districts as best I could. In the south I added Cociche County and most of Tucson. Safe Dem.

Second District (Green): 78% White, 14% Hispanic.
The connection to the Navajo County reservation is now contiguous, but still allows the rest of the surrounding area to be in the same district. Some changes, but not too many. Safe GOP.

Third District (Purple): 82% White, 11% Hispanic.
This district got pushed up and over a bit to make room for the new district, and in the process became whiter and more suburban. Safe GOP.

Fourth District (Red): 51% Hispanic, 38% White, 6% Black.
The first Hispanic-majority VRA district. I had to push it somewhat into the western suburbs to make room for CD9, but this district should still be Safe Dem.

Fifth District (Yellow): 53% White, 35% Hispanic, 4% Black, 4% Asian.
Condensed and centered around Tempe. Made demographically much safer for the incumbent. Safe Dem.

Sixth District (Teal): 77% White, 15% Hispanic, 4% Asian
Switched some territory with the 5th CD so they'd both be better holds for their respective parties. Safe GOP.

Seventh District (Gray): 51% Hispanic, 38% White, 5% Native.
The second Hispanic-majority VRA district. Lost white parts of La Paz, gained Hispanic parts of Pinal as well as territory from the old 8th CD south of Tucson. Safe Dem.

Eigth District (Light Purple): 75% White, 17% Hispanic.
The most radically changed district; still holds most of the white areas of Tucson but lost everything south of that in order to expand north to fill the east Phoenix metro area. Safe GOP.

Ninth District (Cyan): 51% Hispanic, 36% White, 7% Black.
The third Hispanic-majority VRA district, consisting of most of the eastern part of the old CD 4. It also takes some Hispanic areas out of the old CD 3. Safe Dem.

Appearance-wise, I think this map is decent but could be a bit better. Coconino/Navajo counties are atrocious, of course, but I'm operating under the assumption that there's some specific need for that design. The split of La Paz County seems kind of funny. The 9th District looks a bit odd. The 4th District looks funny extending so far south. I don't like how the 6th District slinks around the 5th. The 1st District in Tucson looks funny but I couldn't make it look more natural due to population equality issues. Also, the 8th district as a whole looks too stretched out to me. But anyway.

Without really intending to, I made this district a pro-incumbent gerrymander (which basically becomes a Democratic gerrmander when you consider that the 1st and 5th are both marginal seats, and that the new district will definitely be Democratic as well). Also I don't know much about politics in the 8th district but the incumbent might have trouble with so much new terrain. So I suppose this design is more of a Democratic gerrymander than anything else.

Maybe I'm being a bit too critical of my own work but I think this design could be done a lot better, I just don't see how. Opinions?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 29, 2010, 09:59:55 AM
Not exactly a Dem gerrymander. Gabrielle Giffords won't be too happy.

()
()
()

New Hispanic seat and keeps all incumbents happy. Which is probably what Arizona's non-partisan redistricting commission will aim for.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on May 31, 2010, 08:19:21 PM
Florida is likely to gain one seat in the reapportionment, bring the total to 26. Based on that there should be at least 4 black and 5 Hispanic seats to maintain proportionality with the overall population. I've drawn a version to accomplish that with a maximum deviation of 52 persons using 2008 data.

()

The majority-minority districts are:

CD-3 (purple, Tallahassee to Jacksonville) 51.3% Black
CD-11 (pale green, Tampa/St Pete to Orlando and Sanford) 50.4% Black
CD-17 (purple-blue, Miami to Hollywood) 52.0% Black
CD-23 (sky blue, Palm Beach to Ft Lauderdale) 54.2% Black

CD-18 (yellow, Miami Beach to Key West) 58.9% Hispanic
CD-20 (pink, Davie to Hialeah) 57.9% Hispanic
CD-21 (brick red, Weston to Homestead) 60.2% Hispanic
CD-25 (dusty rose, Coral Springs to the Everglades) 60.1% Hispanic
CD-26 (gray, Orlando to Naples) 50.2% Hispanic


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 31, 2010, 08:35:03 PM
That district 11 is stretching the rules more than a little.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on May 31, 2010, 09:00:34 PM
Wow, that map would end the careers of Boyd, Castor, Grayson, Wasserman Schultz, and probably Klein in exchange for one new African-American district and preserving the two in South Florida against population decline. If there was an award named for Tom DeLay, this would be the first winner. :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on May 31, 2010, 09:29:16 PM
That district 11 is stretching the rules more than a little.

The only stretch is that the district is drawn solely due to racial considerations, which violates SCOTUS rulings. However, FL is a VRA section 5 state requiring DOJ preclearance, and can create a majority-minority district in central FL. I don't think anyone knows how Obama's DOJ will handle these section 5 cases.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on May 31, 2010, 09:40:19 PM
Wow, that map would end the careers of Boyd, Castor, Grayson, Wasserman Schultz, and probably Klein in exchange for one new African-American district and preserving the two in South Florida against population decline. If there was an award named for Tom DeLay, this would be the first winner. :)

Interestingly, I didn't look at any incumbent's residence before drawing the map. Just the census data. I suspect that DOJ will require preservation of the two So FL black districts to avoid retrogression.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on May 31, 2010, 09:45:28 PM
That district 11 is stretching the rules more than a little.

The only stretch is that the district is drawn solely due to racial considerations, which violates SCOTUS rulings. However, FL is a VRA section 5 state requiring DOJ preclearance, and can create a majority-minority district in central FL. I don't think anyone knows how Obama's DOJ will handle these section 5 cases.

By my count, Florida currently has 3 Hispanic majority districts, 2 Black majority districts, 1 black plurality district (FL-3 is 49.3% black), and one white plurality district (FL-11 is 48.3% White, 27.4% Black, 2.0% Asian, and 20.0% Hispanic).  If that map was acceptable in 2000 I can't see how 4 black districts will be needed in the 2010 redraw unless there has been an explosion in the black population of Florida.  5 Hispanic districts probably makes sense given that group's population growth.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on May 31, 2010, 10:21:48 PM
That district 11 is stretching the rules more than a little.

The only stretch is that the district is drawn solely due to racial considerations, which violates SCOTUS rulings. However, FL is a VRA section 5 state requiring DOJ preclearance, and can create a majority-minority district in central FL. I don't think anyone knows how Obama's DOJ will handle these section 5 cases.

By my count, Florida currently has 3 Hispanic majority districts, 2 Black majority districts, 1 black plurality district (FL-3 is 49.3% black), and one white plurality district (FL-11 is 48.3% White, 27.4% Black, 2.0% Asian, and 20.0% Hispanic).  If that map was acceptable in 2000 I can't see how 4 black districts will be needed in the 2010 redraw unless there has been an explosion in the black population of Florida.  5 Hispanic districts probably makes sense given that group's population growth.

I had noticed that FL-3 is currently from Jacksonville to Orlando, but was only a plurality. It does better across the northern border, and if the FL legislature draws it that way, I'm confident it would stand.

I'm surprised that there weren't 4 Hispanic districts in 2000. The only dicey Hispanic district this time is the new one I created as CD-26. It's not too out of line, and it may be in the legislature's interest to create it there to strengthen the GOP in the other Oralndo area districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on June 01, 2010, 01:58:04 AM

By my count, Florida currently has 3 Hispanic majority districts, 2 Black majority districts, 1 black plurality district (FL-3 is 49.3% black), and one white plurality district (FL-11 is 48.3% White, 27.4% Black, 2.0% Asian, and 20.0% Hispanic).  If that map was acceptable in 2000 I can't see how 4 black districts will be needed in the 2010 redraw unless there has been an explosion in the black population of Florida.  5 Hispanic districts probably makes sense given that group's population growth.

I had noticed that FL-3 is currently from Jacksonville to Orlando, but was only a plurality. It does better across the northern border, and if the FL legislature draws it that way, I'm confident it would stand.

I'm surprised that there weren't 4 Hispanic districts in 2000. The only dicey Hispanic district this time is the new one I created as CD-26. It's not too out of line, and it may be in the legislature's interest to create it there to strengthen the GOP in the other Oralndo area districts.

Unfortunately I'm not savvy enough to figure out how to post the map I just made (the map2jpeg program provided is distorting my maps beyond repair).  So I guess I'll just describe it as best I can.  Using 26 districts and the 2008 data I was able to create the following:

A fairly close copy of the current CD-3 with some parts of Orlando dropped and a new stretch over to the black parts of Daytona Beach to create a 49% black district.

CD-11 remains compact in the Tampa area with a plurality of whites at 43% and an additional 24% Hispanics, 28% blacks, and 3% Asians.

I formed a second plurality white district in the Orlando area and made it the new CD-15.  The stats are 46% white, 14% black, 5% Asian, and 33% Hispanic.  The district takes up the southwest corner of Orange Co and the city of Kissimmee and is mostly territory from the current CD-8.  I remade CD-8 to be nearly all of Seminole Co and parts of northern Orange Co.  CD-24 is now all of Brevard and Indian River Cos. with some small segments of Orange and Volusia.  CD-12 is now Osceola Co minus Kissimmee and nearly all of Polk Co.

CD-26, the new district, is essentially all non-Tampa parts of Hillborough Co, plus all of Hardee and Desoto Cos, and parts of Manatee Co north and west of Bradenton.

I was able to mostly preserve CD-17 and CD-23 and they came out as 53% and 52% black respectively.  I removed the finger of CD-23 reaching up to Fort Pearce though.

I did some rearranging around CD-17 to create 4 Hispanic districts.  I added the northwestern corner of the current CD-20 to CD-21.  I then took the remainder of Miami and added it to CD-20 making it 59% Hispanic.  CD-21 drops everything south of Hialeah and is 62% Hispanic.  CD-18 picks up a large chunk of CD-25 in and around Homestead as well as most of the old CD-21's southern tail.  CD-18 ends up being 54% Hispanic.  CD-25 picks up all of Henry Co and almost all of Collier Co and winds up being 60% Hispanic.

So in short I came up with 4 Hispanic districts, 2 black districts + 1 plurality black district, and 2 plurality white districts.  With the exception of CD-3 and the surrounding mess associated with creating CD-23, the map looks fairly compact.  

One thing to note is that Floridians will be voting on three amendments to their state constitution regarding redistricting this year.  Amendments 5 & 6 are backed by the typical alliances associated with redistricting reform while Amendment 7 was written and passed by Republicans in the Florida legislature and is viewed by the backers of the first two amendments as a way to circumvent and nullify their reforms.  I believe both sides have challenged the others' amendment(s) in court to prevent them from making it to the ballot.  If Amendment 7 fails but 5 & 6 are passed we could be in for some major shake-ups in Florida politics come 2012.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 01, 2010, 10:18:39 AM

Unfortunately I'm not savvy enough to figure out how to post the map I just made (the map2jpeg program provided is distorting my maps beyond repair).  So I guess I'll just describe it as best I can.  Using 26 districts and the 2008 data I was able to create the following:

A fairly close copy of the current CD-3 with some parts of Orlando dropped and a new stretch over to the black parts of Daytona Beach to create a 49% black district.

CD-11 remains compact in the Tampa area with a plurality of whites at 43% and an additional 24% Hispanics, 28% blacks, and 3% Asians.

I formed a second plurality white district in the Orlando area and made it the new CD-15.  The stats are 46% white, 14% black, 5% Asian, and 33% Hispanic.  The district takes up the southwest corner of Orange Co and the city of Kissimmee and is mostly territory from the current CD-8.  I remade CD-8 to be nearly all of Seminole Co and parts of northern Orange Co.  CD-24 is now all of Brevard and Indian River Cos. with some small segments of Orange and Volusia.  CD-12 is now Osceola Co minus Kissimmee and nearly all of Polk Co.

CD-26, the new district, is essentially all non-Tampa parts of Hillborough Co, plus all of Hardee and Desoto Cos, and parts of Manatee Co north and west of Bradenton.

I was able to mostly preserve CD-17 and CD-23 and they came out as 53% and 52% black respectively.  I removed the finger of CD-23 reaching up to Fort Pearce though.

I did some rearranging around CD-17 to create 4 Hispanic districts.  I added the northwestern corner of the current CD-20 to CD-21.  I then took the remainder of Miami and added it to CD-20 making it 59% Hispanic.  CD-21 drops everything south of Hialeah and is 62% Hispanic.  CD-18 picks up a large chunk of CD-25 in and around Homestead as well as most of the old CD-21's southern tail.  CD-18 ends up being 54% Hispanic.  CD-25 picks up all of Henry Co and almost all of Collier Co and winds up being 60% Hispanic.

So in short I came up with 4 Hispanic districts, 2 black districts + 1 plurality black district, and 2 plurality white districts.  With the exception of CD-3 and the surrounding mess associated with creating CD-23, the map looks fairly compact.  


The map generator in the app has been broken since the start of the year. A change in the district boundaries seems be be the cause. I made my map by taking two separate screen shots and putting them together in Paint.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 01, 2010, 10:28:22 PM
How many State House seats won by McCain can you squeeze out of Rhode Island? (They have 75 total). I haven't managed more than two. I'm not sure if more than two is possible.

A McCain State Senate seat seems impossible...


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on June 02, 2010, 11:03:50 AM
How many State House seats won by McCain can you squeeze out of Rhode Island? (They have 75 total). I haven't managed more than two. I'm not sure if more than two is possible.

A McCain State Senate seat seems impossible...

How do you get partisan data for RI?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 02, 2010, 11:06:46 AM
On the Atlas here. Town data and precincts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: enlightened despot on June 03, 2010, 02:35:03 PM
Florida is likely to gain one seat in the reapportionment, bring the total to 26. Based on that there should be at least 4 black and 5 Hispanic seats to maintain proportionality with the overall population. I've drawn a version to accomplish that with a maximum deviation of 52 persons using 2008 data.

()

The majority-minority districts are:

CD-3 (purple, Tallahassee to Jacksonville) 51.3% Black
CD-11 (pale green, Tampa/St Pete to Orlando and Sanford) 50.4% Black
CD-17 (purple-blue, Miami to Hollywood) 52.0% Black
CD-23 (sky blue, Palm Beach to Ft Lauderdale) 54.2% Black

CD-18 (yellow, Miami Beach to Key West) 58.9% Hispanic
CD-20 (pink, Davie to Hialeah) 57.9% Hispanic
CD-21 (brick red, Weston to Homestead) 60.2% Hispanic
CD-25 (dusty rose, Coral Springs to the Everglades) 60.1% Hispanic
CD-26 (gray, Orlando to Naples) 50.2% Hispanic

This (http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/redist/redsum/flsum.htm) site shows a redistricting case that crosses the bay, although it was a State Senate seat. I don't think your 11th district would survive, but it might be able to if it went along the southern edge of Hillsborough county. However, that would force the 9th, 10th and either the 8th or 12th to swap areas.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on June 03, 2010, 02:39:15 PM
I notice the list of supported states has not been updated in a long time.

1. What are the supported states?
2. What states have partisan data?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: enlightened despot on June 03, 2010, 02:51:18 PM
I notice the list of supported states has not been updated in a long time.

1. What are the supported states?
2. What states have partisan data?

1. All but the at-large states
2. New York, California, Texas (you have to click "use test data" first before choosing those states) and Maryland (don't click "use test data") are the ones I know of.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on June 03, 2010, 03:40:47 PM
I notice the list of supported states has not been updated in a long time.

1. What are the supported states?
2. What states have partisan data?

1. All but the at-large states
2. New York, California, Texas (you have to click "use test data" first before choosing those states) and Maryland (don't click "use test data") are the ones I know of.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 04, 2010, 01:38:09 PM
I've been trying to gerrymander Louisiana with three majority black districts, but I figured out that it isn't quite possible with six districts without making the map completely ridiculous. However, it can be done with the current seven districts.

() (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2947_21_04_10_1_10_47.png)

All less than 500 from ideal:

Blue: 85% White, 10% Black
Green: 54% Black, 43% White
Purple: 77% White, 13% Black, 5% Hispanic
Red: 74% White, 22% Black
Yellow: 50.3% Black, 46.5% White
Teal: 80% White, 15% Black
Gray: 61% Black, 31% White

Lousiana has actually had far more atrocious gerrymanders than this in the past.

I decided to see how ridiculous a 3 black of 6 CD gerrymander would be. The 2008 data was used and the maximum deviation is 7 persons from the ideal. CD's 2, 4, and 6 range from 52.0% to 53.1% black. The other three districts are all over 80% white. CD 3 connects across various bays, sounds, and lakes along the coast to remain contiguous.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 04, 2010, 08:57:19 PM
This app just made me realize that NC-06 and NC-13 rely on a rather "unique" definition of continguous.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 05, 2010, 01:22:55 AM
This app just made me realize that NC-06 and NC-13 rely on a rather "unique" definition of continguous.
If they would just adopt my idea of microthreads they would not need to resort to that sort of deception.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 05, 2010, 01:32:33 AM
Not really as even those would have to cross each other. The current setup is an obvious attempt to keep a chunk of Republican exurbia out of Brad Miller's district. And NC-12's long stringy shape makes things a bit more difficult. NC Democrats kind of drew themselves into a corner really though I'm sure they'll find a way to preserve all the Democratic-held seats when redistricting comes around. But it's kind of tricky.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 05, 2010, 12:50:06 PM
So here's NJ. I did it partisan-neutrally as that's how the redistricting is done:

()
()

NJ-01 (blue): I made this the Hispanic seat as NJ-13 is lost. Becomes a bit more Hispanic actually. Safe for Sires.
NJ-02 (green): Doesn't change much. Safe for LoBiondo, a tossup if he retires.
NJ-03 (purple): Basically the old NJ-01, not changed much. Safe for Andrews, I'd like him to be primaried but I know in NJ that sort of thing doesn't happen.
NJ-04 (red): Seems I took out some of the more Democratic areas, though unintentionally. Most likely safe for Smith, though I don't understand how he's elected. Even Ocean County doesn't seem like the type of place to elect a pro-life zealot, or anywhere in NJ for that matter.
NJ-05 (yellow): Garret is as bad as Smith, but geographically it's hard to remove him. Still safe for him.
NJ-06 (teal): This one changes greatly. Probably a Republican seat now. I don't know where Pallone lives but he'd be better off running in the new NJ-07. GOP pickup.
NJ-07 (gray): Also changes greatly, losing the tail on the western edge, which is what kept it a Republican seat. Based on what I see about the territory that remains, Lance would probably be unable to win here. Pallone should run here instead. Dem pickup.
NJ-08 (light purple): Mostly the same though it looks like it's only 53% white now. Safe Dem obviously.
NJ-09 (cyan): By gaining northern Bergen county the seat becomes more Republican, but note Republican enough to be lost.
NJ-10 (pink): Still majority black.
NJ-11 (olive): A bit less Republican as parts of more moderate Somerset county are added, but Frelinghuysen or any other Republican should have no problem being reelected.
NJ-12 (grayish blue): Demographically it looks slightly more Dem. Rush Holt should be fine.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 05, 2010, 01:42:15 PM
It's a geographically and politically coherent map. However, it does draw both Adler (Cherry Hill, now in with Andrews) and Lance (Hunterdon, in with Garrett) out of a job, and Pallone (home town: Long Branch) and Smith (Washington Twp.?) are far from their more party-friendly districts. Smith is deep in the 12th and Pallone is in the 6th. Pallone might still win the 6th, but not easily. One person is going to lose his job anyway with redistricting and the current 6th is indefensible.

Your map has me wondering what would happen if the 10th went north into Paterson instead of west into wealthy Essex County suburbs.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 05, 2010, 01:49:43 PM
Well we all know "moving" isn't that hard. Smith finds some place in Ocean County and Pallone does in Edison or somewhere. Adler probably has to try against Andrews in the primary (wow I'd actually support Andrews there) and Lance is basically toast unless he can primary Garrett. There's no real way to preserve the current 6th and 7th districts though. Pallone has the least to worry about once he gets some shack in Edison or somewhere since that's the current Democratic base of his district. Lance probably has no conceivable way to stay in Congress though. Maybe he'll "move" to Monmouth and hope he can win the primary against a real local Republican.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on June 05, 2010, 02:12:16 PM
I think for NJ, the most likely scenario will be either a Frelighuysen vs. Pascrell fight or a Holt vs. Lance fight. Since the NJ commisison is bipartisan, both parties will need to put one of their incumbents in a relatively neutral district and see them duke it out.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RI on June 07, 2010, 02:13:07 AM
I don't know if this has been done before or not...but here is Michigan with three black districts from 14.

() (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2947_07_06_10_2_09_37.png)

I lost the totals, but the dark green, yellow (inspired by NC-08), and gray districts are all just barely over 50% black.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on June 08, 2010, 12:18:43 PM
Not really as even those would have to cross each other. The current setup is an obvious attempt to keep a chunk of Republican exurbia out of Brad Miller's district. And NC-12's long stringy shape makes things a bit more difficult. NC Democrats kind of drew themselves into a corner really though I'm sure they'll find a way to preserve all the Democratic-held seats when redistricting comes around. But it's kind of tricky.
Not really.  The map on the upper left is equivalent to the case in North Carolina.  The map on the upper right is the same, but the two districts no longer have point contiguity.  The connecting sections can be made extremely narrow.

The bottom map is a bit more complex with 4 discontiguous sections in the green section.  But they can be connected.  The map in the lower right is topologically the same as the 3 concentric circles.  I think it is similar to making balloon animals.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on June 08, 2010, 12:34:40 PM
I don't know if this has been done before or not...but here is Michigan with three black districts from 14.

() (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2947_07_06_10_2_09_37.png)

I lost the totals, but the dark green, yellow (inspired by NC-08), and gray districts are all just barely over 50% black.

I don't think the DOJ will mandate 3 black majority districts though because MI is less than 20% black. Also, it would be harmful to the Democrats by cramming Democratic voters into a smaller number of districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on June 09, 2010, 11:39:52 AM
I just noticed they added Partisan data for NC!!!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: enlightened despot on June 09, 2010, 04:21:03 PM
I just noticed they added Partisan data for NC!!!
After hearing about the new changes to the app I decided to make a new map for North Carolina. My first goal was to increase the black-majorities in the two black-majority districts. I made additional changes to account for residences of current congress members, while switching a lot of ground in the middle of the state.

Not much changes west of Mel Watt's district, although both Patrick McHenry and Sue Myrick were drawn into a dem-leaning district that both would probably move out from.

Overall, Obama won seven districts, McCain won six and the congressional delegation could be anywhere from 8-5 for the Democrats to 9-4 for the Republicans.

() (http://img252.imageshack.us/i/picture1jp.png/)

() (http://img441.imageshack.us/i/picture2rw.png/)

First District (Blue)
Obama margin increases 10 points (62-37 to 67-32) from old first district. Congressman G.K. Butterfield (D) lives in Wilson. This district was 50% Black, 45% White, but changes create a new district that is 52% Black, 39% White and 7% Hispanic.

Second District (Green) (former third district)
McCain margin decreases six points (61-38 to 58-41) from old second district. Congressman Walter Jones (R) lives in Farmville. This district was 78% White and 17% Black, but changes create a new district that is 73% White, 19% Black and 5% Hispanic.

Third District
(Purple) (former seventh district)
McCain margin increases 13 points (52-47 to 59-41) from old seventh district. This district does not contain the residence of any current congressman. This district was 64% White, 23% Black, but changes create a new district that is 74% White, 18% Black and 6% Hispanic.

Forth District (Red)
Obama margin decreases 18 points (62-37 to 53-46) from old fourth district. Congressman Brad Miller (D) lives in Raleigh. This district was 71% White, 21% Black and 5% Hispanic, but changes create a new district 72% White, 13% Black, 8% Hispanic and 5% Asian.

Fifth District (Yellow) (former second district)
Obama margin increases three points (52-47 to 54-46) from old second district. Congressman Mike McIntyre (D) lives in Lumberton, and Congressman Bob Etheridge (D) lives in Lillington. This district was 62% White, 30% Black and 8% Hispanic, but changes create a new district that is 53% White, 30% Black, 9% Hispanic and 5% Native.

Sixth District (Teal)
McCain margin unchanged (63-36) from old sixth. This district does not contain the residence of any current congressman, although Sue Myrick (R) lives nearby in Charlotte. This district was 87% White, 9% Black, but changes create a new district that is 80% White, 10% Black and 7% Hispanic.

Seventh District (Grey) (former eighth district)
Obama margin increases eight points (52-47 to 56-43) from old eighth district. Congressman Larry Kissell (D) lives in Biscoe. This district was 65% White, 27% Black and 7% Hispanic, but changes create a new district that is 57% White, 25% Black and 11% Hispanic.

Eight District (Blue-Purple) (former thirteenth district)
Obama margin decreases eight points (59-40 to 55-44) from old thirteenth district. Congressman David Price (D) lives in Chapel Hill, and Congressman Howard Coble (R) lives in Greensboro.This district was 66% White, 27% Black and 6% Hispanic, but changes create a new district that is 70% White, 19% Black and 7% Hispanic.

Ninth District (Neon Blue)
McCain margin decreases 18 points (55-45 to 54-46 Obama) from old ninth district. Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R) lives in Charlotte, and Congressman Patrick McHenry (R) lives in Gastonia. Myrick (sixth) and McHenry (tenth) live just outside of safe republican districts and I would expect both to do so, making this an open seat.This district was 85% White, 11% Black, but changes create a new district that is 67% White, 19% Black and 9% Hispanic.

Tenth District (Pink)
McCain margin decreases 1 point (63-36 to 62-37) from old tenth district. This district does not contain the residence of any current congressman, although Patrick McHenry (R) lives nearby in Gastonia. This district was 87% White, 9% Black, but changes create a new district that is 81% White, 10% Black and 6% Hispanic.

Eleventh District (Light Green) (former fifth district)
McCain margin is unchanged (61-38) from old fifth district. Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R) lives in Banner Elk. This district was 90% White, 7% Black, but changes create a new district that is 86% White, 6% Black and 5% Hispanic.

Twelfth District (Sky Blue)
Obama margin increases eight points (71-29 to 75-25) from old twelfth district. Congressman Mel Watt (D) lives in Charlotte. This district was 47% White, 45% Black and 7% Hispanic, but changes create a new district that is 50% Black, 33% White and 12% Hispanic.

Thirteenth District (Peach) (former eleventh district)
McCain margin increases 1 point (52-47 to 52-46) from old eleventh district. Congressman Heath Schuler (D) lives in Bryson City. This district was 91% White, 5% Black, but changes create a new district that is 88% White, 8% Hispanic and 5% Black.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 09, 2010, 10:12:02 PM
Hooray. NC Republican gerrymander:

()

Click for big. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/ncgop.png)

NC-01 (blue, G.K. Butterfield - D) - The majority-black district. 52% black, snakes down into Raleigh. 66-34 Obama.
NC-02 (green, Bob Etheridge - D) - Totally screwed over Etheridge by putting the Dem parts of his district in NC-07. 61-39 McCain.
NC-03 (purple, Walter Jones - R) - Still sprawls the length of the Outer Banks. Takes in Wilmington now, but remains a solidly Republican district; 56-43 McCain. I suppose it could potentially be endangered, in an open seat situation and a good Dem year, but how likely is that to happen?
NC-04 (red, David Price - D) - The Durham/Chapel Hill district, no contest here. 65-34 Obama.
NC-05 (yellow, Virginia Foxx - R) - I don't think this changed too terribly much. Just a touch less Republican now, it's 60-39 McCain.
NC-06 (darker teal, Howard Coble - R) - Also mostly unchanged, this suburban Greensboro district remains solidly Republican at 59-40 McCain.
NC-07 (grey, Mike McIntyre - D) - The genius here is Etheridge is screwed out of his seat while one of the most dogged of Blue Dogs gets a safe Dem seat. Basically takes all the Dem territory in the south-central part of the state. 57-42 Obama.
NC-08 (lighter purple, Larry Kissell - D) - Reconfigured to be more favorable to the Republicans. This one flips from Obama to McCain, it's now 52-47 McCain.
NC-09 (light teal, Sue Myrick - R) - Still a suburban Charlotte district, still safe for the Republicans. Partisan balance pretty much unchanged, at 55-44 McCain.
NC-10 (magenta, Patrick McHenry - R) - Goes northeast instead of north/northwest now. 61-38 McCain, the most Republican district in the state.
NC-11 (light green, Heath Shuler - D) - What are you going to do with this thing? Not much. 52-46 McCain.
NC-12 (light purple Y-shape, Mel Watt - D) - What's good for Democrats is good for Republicans. Watt's district nets heavily-Democratic parts of Greensboro, Charlotte, and Winston-Salem. The most Dem district at 74-25 Obama.
NC-13 (pink, Brad Miller - D) - Reconfigured to be more of a swing district than a Dem-leaning one. Takes in suburban Wake County, parts of Raleigh, and some parts of the rural counties to the east. 53-46 Obama.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 09, 2010, 11:07:34 PM
Here's my try at NC:

Since NC will almost certainly be a Dem gerrymander I made all the marginal Dem seats stronger for Obama. I wasn't able to get NC-07 to be an Obama seat, very close now and I'm sure it can be done if I had more time, so that seat likely ends up an Obama one.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on June 10, 2010, 12:42:02 AM
Since Republican was already done (although I think it could be a lot harsher)...

An (even more) Dem NC gerrymander! (Added bonus: new coalition district)

()

NC-1: 63-37 Obama; 50% black
NC-2: 60-39 Obama
NC-3: 39-60 McCain
NC-4: 63-36 Obama
NC-5: 34-64 McCain
NC-6: 37-62 McCain
NC-7: 60-39 Obama; 48% white, 32% black, 9% Hispanic, 8% Native
NC-8: 54-45 Obama
NC-9: 33-66 McCain
NC-10: 35-64 McCain
NC-11: 47-51 McCain (meh)
NC-12: 68-31 Obama; 42% black, 42% white
NC-13: 59-40 Obama



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on June 10, 2010, 12:53:42 AM
The key, by the way, is unlocking the black voters in Shelby, Gastonia and Statesville to allow NC-12 to drop Greensboro and remain plurality black. From there, everything falls into place (splitting Myrick's district and unlocking the white and Hispanic Democratic vote around Charlotte, e.g.)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: enlightened despot on June 10, 2010, 12:38:30 PM
() (http://img823.imageshack.us/i/picture7r.png/)

Republican Gerrymander
I was inspired by Johnny Longtorso's map and suggestion that not much could be done about Heath Shuler. I put him into a strong McCain district, one of nine that the Arizonan would have taken in 2008 with this map.

() (http://img821.imageshack.us/i/picture2h.png/)

First District (McCain 57 - Obama 42)
Republican Patrick McHenry (Gaston County) and Democrat Shuler (Swain County) live on opposite ends of this heavily-Republican district.

Second District (McCain 53 - Obama 46)
Republican Virginia Foxx (Avery County) holds the closest of the McCain districts in this map.

() (http://img156.imageshack.us/i/picture3go.png/)

Third District (Obama 78 - McCain 22) (52% Black, 30% White, 13% Hispanic)
Democrat Mel Watt (Charlotte) now has a majority-black district (the old district was 47% White, 45% Black and 7% Hispanic).

Fourth District (McCain 60 - Obama 39)
No current incumbents live in this heavily-Republican district containing part of Winston-Salem.

Fifth District (McCain 56-43)
Republican Howard Coble (Greensboro) gains a lot of new territory, but it is just as Republican-friendly, aside from parts on the eastern edge (which allow the eighth to be more Republican)

Sixth District (McCain 55 - Obama 44)
Republican Sue Myrick (Charlotte) fills in four counties split by the third district.

() (http://img689.imageshack.us/i/picture8wd.png/)

Seventh District (McCain 54 - Obama 45)
Democrat Bob Etheridge (Montgomery County) loses the area around Raleigh as his district shifts more Republican.

Twelfth District (Obama 52 - McCain 47)
Democrat Mike McIntyre (Lumberton) gets the closest Obama district, with his residence barely connected to the rest of the district.

() (http://img248.imageshack.us/i/picture9me.png/)

Eighth District (McCain 54 - Obama 44)
Democrat Larry Kissell (Biscoe) lives in the southern edge of this district, where the only bright spot may be that former Republican Representative Robin Hayes doesn't live here.

Ninth District (Obama 64 - McCain 35)
Democrats David Price (Chapel Hill) and Brad Miller (Raleigh) share this district, and the winner of their primary would have a comfortably-Democratic seat.

() (http://img638.imageshack.us/i/picture6cm.png/)

Tenth District (Obama 66 - McCain 34) (52% Black, 40% White, 6% Hispanic)
Democrat G.K. Butterfield (Wilson) holds the last of the four Obama districts. Republican Walter Jones (Farmville) lives on the edge of this district, but would likely move into the thirteenth district.

Eleventh District (McCain 54 - Obama 45)
No incumbents live in this district (Miller is the closest) that would favor a Republican.

Thirteenth District (McCain 58 - Obama 41)
This district is similar to the current third district and current-representative Jones would be a good fit if he moved slightly toward the coast.

Edit: I went back and saw that a 10th McCain district was possible by trading land between the 12th (got the inland parts south of the 10th district) and 13th (got Wilmington).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on June 10, 2010, 02:46:37 PM
I too am working on North Carolina currently, now that they have the partisan data. While working on the 1st district I noted a majority-black precinct in eastern Greene county that actually voted for McCain.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smash255 on June 10, 2010, 03:31:53 PM
I too am working on North Carolina currently, now that they have the partisan data. While voting on the 1st district I noted a majority-black precinct in eastern Greene county that actually voted for McCain.

Maury precinct, 51% black, 42% white, 6% Hispanic, voted for McCain 51-49

Could have some Mississippi type white vote for Obama combined with lower black turnout in that precinct or blacks trending a bit younger.

You also have this

Quote
Greene Correctional Institution near Maury, is a minimum custody facility for adult males with an expanded operating capacity of 602 inmates plus a segregation unit housing 40 inmates

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/prisons/greene.htm


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on June 10, 2010, 08:31:19 PM
OK, here's my take on NC. 9 McCain districts, and only 4 Obama districts. Also district 12 becomes plurality black.

()

District 1: Obama 64, McCain 36. 50% black.
District 2: Obama 55, McCain 44
District 3: Obama 39, McCain 61
District 4: Obama 73, McCain 27
District 5: Obama 48, McCain 51
District 6: Obama 39, McCain 60
District 7: Obama 44, McCain 56
District 8: Obama 37, McCain 62
District 9: Obama 48, McCain 51
District 10: Obama 42, McCain 57
District 11: Obama 47, McCain 52
District 12: Obama 70, McCain 29. 46% black.
District 13: Obama 44, McCain 55


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 10, 2010, 10:22:56 PM
Why has no one tried splitting NC-11 into north and south? You could combine it with NC-10, split it halfways with Asheville split and end up with two Republican districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 11, 2010, 08:33:23 AM
Here's my try at NC:

Since NC will almost certainly be a Dem gerrymander I made all the marginal Dem seats stronger for Obama. I wasn't able to get NC-07 to be an Obama seat, very close now and I'm sure it can be done if I had more time, so that seat likely ends up an Obama one.


NC will be redrawn by the legislature, and that is looking up in the air at the moment. A new PPP poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_609.pdf) puts the two parties at a virtual tie in the Nov elections with D over R by 43 to 42%. Republican are more energized, but the moderates look less favorably on the state GOP.

The underlying difficulty for the Dems is that once CD 1 and 13 are drawn as majority (or near majority) black seats, the remaining map is tilted to the GOP about 53% to 47%. Creating a third coalition seat tilts the remaining map even more.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 11, 2010, 12:40:48 PM
Here's my try at NC:

Since NC will almost certainly be a Dem gerrymander I made all the marginal Dem seats stronger for Obama. I wasn't able to get NC-07 to be an Obama seat, very close now and I'm sure it can be done if I had more time, so that seat likely ends up an Obama one.


NC will be redrawn by the legislature, and that is looking up in the air at the moment. A new PPP poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_609.pdf) puts the two parties at a virtual tie in the Nov elections with D over R by 43 to 42%. Republican are more energized, but the moderates look less favorably on the state GOP.

The underlying difficulty for the Dems is that once CD 1 and 13 are drawn as majority (or near majority) black seats, the remaining map is tilted to the GOP about 53% to 47%. Creating a third coalition seat tilts the remaining map even more.

Following up on this comment, I've put together a GOP-oriented map. All districts are within 100 of the ideal. There are two majority and one plurality black districts.

()

CD 1: 52% Black, 67% Obama
CD 2: 60% McCain
CD 3: 59% McCain
CD 4: 63% Obama
CD 5: 59% McCain
CD 6: 56% McCain
CD 7: 40% Black, 65% Obama
CD 8: 57% McCain
CD 9: 56% McCain
CD 10: 59% McCain
CD 11: 55% McCain
CD 12: 52% Black, 67% Obama
CD 13: 49.8% Obama - 49.2% McCain (probably could be flipped if drawn at the block level)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on June 11, 2010, 08:23:40 PM
The erose lines of CD 3 look a bit embarrassing, Muon2. Are you embarrassed?  :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 11, 2010, 10:45:31 PM
The erose lines of CD 3 look a bit embarrassing, Muon2. Are you embarrassed?  :)

Not at all. :P Since NC has section 5 counties, I took the existing CD 1 as a way to meet DOJ review. All I did was extend the same pattern down the coast as I created a crossover/coalition district in CD 7. CD 3 is simply what is left from the created minority districts.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: nclib on June 12, 2010, 03:22:33 PM
I too am working on North Carolina currently, now that they have the partisan data. While voting on the 1st district I noted a majority-black precinct in eastern Greene county that actually voted for McCain.

Maury precinct, 51% black, 42% white, 6% Hispanic, voted for McCain 51-49

Could have some Mississippi type white vote for Obama combined with lower black turnout in that precinct or blacks trending a bit younger.

You also have this

Quote
Greene Correctional Institution near Maury, is a minimum custody facility for adult males with an expanded operating capacity of 602 inmates plus a segregation unit housing 40 inmates

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/prisons/greene.htm

Also, on a county level, Greene County was 41% black and 46% Obama, which was estimated to be the worst non-black Obama support in NC. Not sure why, aside from what you mentioned above. Eastern NC has a lot of places with sizeable black populations, and very conservative whites, but I wouldn't have expected to be Greene to be dead last.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on June 15, 2010, 01:21:12 AM
In response to the earlier attempts to make 3 majority black districts in Louisiana I've produced the following:

()

The yellow, teal, and green districts are all 51% black and I think this map looks somewhat cleaner than the earlier attempts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on June 16, 2010, 10:14:55 AM
So I know that way back when we decided not to post maps just because they showed up on Swing State Project, but I couldn't help but share a map of Alabama with 3 VRA districts out of 7 that someone posted there:

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/lsSl1VLVi-Q_ITJaERlZDJOTmtJtrZs_GxhPFHyfdaQ?feat=embedwebsite


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on June 16, 2010, 06:09:48 PM
I was bored. Hispanic-majority district in Colorado.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 17, 2010, 12:10:04 AM
I posted this one earlier this year with the 2008 data. It has a more compact Hispanic-majority district, CD 1, at 50.3%.

()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on June 17, 2010, 01:00:03 PM
Muon2, what are the pvi's of your Colorado CD 3 and CD 4?  The rest of the districts look pretty lopsided from a partisan standpoint. Well maybe CD 7 is close. What is the pvi of that one?  Thanks.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 17, 2010, 01:53:42 PM
7 is actually most likely a rather Democratic district. muon's map doesn't shift the PVIs around much because CO-01 is already 30% Hispanic, so you're just adding another 20% to the seat. The voters being "displaced" from it then are mostly liberal Denver whites, who are just as Democratic as Hispanics, so putting them into another district doesn't make it much less Democratic even if it is whiter.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 17, 2010, 11:55:08 PM
Muon2, what are the pvi's of your Colorado CD 3 and CD 4?  The rest of the districts look pretty lopsided from a partisan standpoint. Well maybe CD 7 is close. What is the pvi of that one?  Thanks.

Other than look at the Hispanic population I drew the map for compactness and county integrity, so I hadn't looked at the partisanship. I don't know the exact PVI's, but I can estimate the two party split using an average of '04 and '08 presidential vote. CD 3 is 23% Hispanic and would be about 53-47 in favor of R. CD 4 and 6 would be about 55-45 R. CD 7 is about 57-43 D. The other districts are all over 60% to one party. That makes a 4-3 split for the GOP the most likely result.



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 18, 2010, 12:27:38 AM
John Salazar could hold that third district though. And Markey might have an easier time in that fourth district than the current one.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kevinstat on June 19, 2010, 01:15:24 PM
Not really as even those would have to cross each other. The current setup is an obvious attempt to keep a chunk of Republican exurbia out of Brad Miller's district. And NC-12's long stringy shape makes things a bit more difficult. NC Democrats kind of drew themselves into a corner really though I'm sure they'll find a way to preserve all the Democratic-held seats when redistricting comes around. But it's kind of tricky.
Not really.  The map on the upper left is equivalent to the case in North Carolina.  The map on the upper right is the same, but the two districts no longer have point contiguity.  The connecting sections can be made extremely narrow.

The bottom map is a bit more complex with 4 discontiguous sections in the green section.  But they can be connected.  The map in the lower right is topologically the same as the 3 concentric circles.  I think it is similar to making balloon animals.

()

Does point contiguity count as contiguity for federal court standards (a) always (including if two or more districts "cross each other" at that point and rely on that point for contiguity) (b) only if no two districts both depend on that point for contiguity and "cross each other" at that point, or (c) never?  I remember reading somewhere that point contiguity didn't count, but I've also read people (perhaps on this forum) write that it does.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 19, 2010, 02:04:24 PM
Well it's used in the current NC map, so it clearly does count.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on June 19, 2010, 06:09:58 PM
I posted this one earlier this year with the 2008 data. It has a more compact Hispanic-majority district, CD 1, at 50.3%.

()
()

If they intend to keep CO-01 very heavily Democratic, they might as well make it Latino-majority. Colroado should have one already since its Latino population is near 20% (if I recall correctly). 1/7 is 14%.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on June 19, 2010, 09:15:16 PM
I posted this one earlier this year with the 2008 data. It has a more compact Hispanic-majority district, CD 1, at 50.3%.

()
()

If they intend to keep CO-01 very heavily Democratic, they might as well make it Latino-majority. Colroado should have one already since its Latino population is near 20% (if I recall correctly). 1/7 is 14%.

However, Colorado already has a Hispanic congressman, so any argument for a preserved Hispanic district falls down immediately.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 19, 2010, 09:38:02 PM
Colorado isn't a VRA state, so there is no requirement. And even if it was the VRA doesn't require that majority minority districts be specifically drawn, just that heavily minority areas can't be diluted preventing them and that existing ones can't be removed if the population can still support one.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on June 19, 2010, 09:46:01 PM
Colorado isn't a VRA state, so there is no requirement. And even if it was the VRA doesn't require that majority minority districts be specifically drawn, just that heavily minority areas can't be diluted preventing them and that existing ones can't be removed if the population can still support one.

The VRA officially doesn't affect areas outside the South and Arizona, but the Justice Department could make a strong case for a Latino majority district in Colorado since Latinos are 1/5 of their population and Colorado has 7 Congressional seats. And Salazar isn't going to stay in Congress forever, so creating a Latino-majoirty district would guarantee long-term Latino Representation from Colorado.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 19, 2010, 11:09:20 PM
Colorado isn't a VRA state, so there is no requirement. And even if it was the VRA doesn't require that majority minority districts be specifically drawn, just that heavily minority areas can't be diluted preventing them and that existing ones can't be removed if the population can still support one.

The VRA officially doesn't affect areas outside the South and Arizona, but the Justice Department could make a strong case for a Latino majority district in Colorado since Latinos are 1/5 of their population and Colorado has 7 Congressional seats. And Salazar isn't going to stay in Congress forever, so creating a Latino-majoirty district would guarantee long-term Latino Representation from Colorado.

The Justice Department though has no veto power over any Colorado map.

As it is though it woudln't affect much, DeGette would probably keep getting elected. Once she retired though it'd probably be favored to elect a Hispanic Democrat, though not guaranteed.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on June 19, 2010, 11:24:18 PM
Colorado isn't a VRA state, so there is no requirement. And even if it was the VRA doesn't require that majority minority districts be specifically drawn, just that heavily minority areas can't be diluted preventing them and that existing ones can't be removed if the population can still support one.

Section 2 of the VRA does apply to CO as it does to every state. The application is generally governed by the Gingles conditions: a minority group
1) is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district,
2) is politically cohesive, and
3) in the absence of special circumstances, bloc voting by the White majority usually defeats the minority’s preferred candidate.

It is likely that the existing Hispanic representative would be used to show the inapplicability of the 3rd condition. That would prevent CO from having to create a Hispanic-majority seat.  However, CO could still choose to create one, to reduce any potential challenge.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 20, 2010, 03:09:43 PM
I wouldn't consider section 1 to apply either. Anyway as I pointed out a Hispanic-majority district might actually benefit the Democrats and DeGette shouldn't have any real difficulty winning the primary in a Hispanic ~50% seat, so it is a possibility.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on July 09, 2010, 04:58:24 PM
Here's a fun challenge. The Mississippi State Senate has 52 districts. How many can you make black-majority? I just made 29 black-majority districts using 2000 numbers, but I think if I do it more efficiently I can get a 30th district in there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on July 09, 2010, 11:04:27 PM
Here's a fun challenge. The Mississippi State Senate has 52 districts. How many can you make black-majority? I just made 29 black-majority districts using 2000 numbers, but I think if I do it more efficiently I can get a 30th district in there.

My first attempt (also using 2000 numbers) I only managed 28. I think part of the problem was I did TOO good of a job cracking Rankin County (over half of its population live in black-majority districts). This resulted in a white majority district stretching from northern Rankin county across Madison and Yazoo counties. If I had packed white voters into a district based in Rankin County instead,  I could have used whites in Yazoo county to dilute my northern Vicksburg district. I also didn't stretch districts in Northwestern Mississippi far enough to the east.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on July 20, 2010, 03:55:47 PM
A Democratic gerrymander of Georgia! Partially inspired by the 2000-2004 map.

()

1st (deep blue): Safe GOP. [72% white, 21% black]
2nd (dark green): Safe DEM. [47% white, 46% black]
3rd (purple): Safe GOP. [79% white, 15% black]
4th (red): Safe/Strong lean DEM. [41% black, 41% white, 12% hispanic]
5th (yellow): Safe/strong lean DEM. [46% white, 40% black]
6th (teal): Safe GOP. [79% white]
7th (gray): lean DEM. [44% white, 24% hispanic, 21% black]
8th (bluish one in the middle): Strong lean DEM [55% white, 39% black]
9th (light blue in the north): Safe GOP [88% white]
10th (pink): Safe GOP [79% white, 12% black]
11th (light green): lean DEM. [48% white, 32% black, 16% hispanic]
12th (the eastern bluish one): Strong lean DEM [50% white, 42% black]
13th (peach/salmon): Safe DEM [51% black, 37% white]
14th (brown): Strong lean DEM [49% white, 43% black]

nine out of fourteen districts democratic!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on July 20, 2010, 06:40:46 PM
A Democratic gerrymander of Georgia! Partially inspired by the 2000-2004 map.

()

1st (deep blue): Safe GOP. [72% white, 21% black]
2nd (dark green): Safe DEM. [47% white, 46% black]
3rd (purple): Safe GOP. [79% white, 15% black]
4th (red): Safe/Strong lean DEM. [41% black, 41% white, 12% hispanic]
5th (yellow): Safe/strong lean DEM. [46% white, 40% black]
6th (teal): Safe GOP. [79% white]
7th (gray): lean DEM. [44% white, 24% hispanic, 21% black]
8th (bluish one in the middle): Strong lean DEM [55% white, 39% black]
9th (light blue in the north): Safe GOP [88% white]
10th (pink): Safe GOP [79% white, 12% black]
11th (light green): lean DEM. [48% white, 32% black, 16% hispanic]
12th (the eastern bluish one): Strong lean DEM [50% white, 42% black]
13th (peach/salmon): Safe DEM [51% black, 37% white]
14th (brown): Strong lean DEM [49% white, 43% black]

nine out of fourteen districts democratic!

Nice map, but it would probably fail the VRA.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on July 20, 2010, 09:27:07 PM
I wouldn't be so sure. A black majority district without an incumbent (the 13th), one black plurality district with an incumbent black representative (Johnson in the 4th), and three white plurality districts that would be assuredly represented by black politicians (Bishop in the 2nd, Lewis in the 5th, and Scott in the 14th).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JoeyJoeJoe on July 21, 2010, 08:35:50 PM
Good news everyone!  Dave Leip's atlas now has partisan data for North Carolina (sorry if somebody already posted this)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on July 22, 2010, 01:40:08 PM
Good news everyone!  Dave Leip's atlas now has partisan data for North Carolina (sorry if somebody already posted this)

I knew that for about a month or two now, but thanks for telling us just in case someone didn't know.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on July 23, 2010, 08:02:21 PM
Here's Maryland with 3 black-majority districts and 4 McCain districts.

()

CD-1 (Blue): 52-46 McCain
CD-2 (Green): 64% Black, 87% Obama
CD-3 (Purple): 57-41 McCain
CD-4 (Red): 54% White, 73% Obama
CD-5 (Yellow): 51-47 McCain
CD-6 (Teal): 55% Black, 80% Obama
CD-7 (Gray): 54-44 McCain
CD-8 (Light Purple): Just over 50% Black, 83% Obama

I should probably play around with the border between Districts 6 and 8 to increase District 8's black percentage.

Note: District numbers were selected for good color contrast with the partisan data layer enabled, and are not intended to reflect real life district numbers.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on July 23, 2010, 08:39:34 PM
Here's Maryland with 3 black-majority districts and 4 McCain districts.

()

CD-1 (Blue): 52-46 McCain
CD-2 (Green): 64% Black, 87% Obama
CD-3 (Purple): 57-41 McCain
CD-4 (Red): 54% White, 73% Obama
CD-5 (Yellow): 51-47 McCain
CD-6 (Teal): 55% Black, 80% Obama
CD-7 (Gray): 54-44 McCain
CD-8 (Light Purple): Just over 50% Black, 83% Obama

I should probably play around with the border between Districts 6 and 8 to increase District 8's black percentage.

Note: District numbers were selected for good color contrast with the partisan data layer enabled, and are not intended to reflect real life district numbers.

I think the Justice Department might block this map because CD-2 crams much more black voters than is necessary.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on July 23, 2010, 09:27:41 PM
Here's Maryland with 3 black-majority districts and 4 McCain districts.

()

CD-1 (Blue): 52-46 McCain
CD-2 (Green): 64% Black, 87% Obama
CD-3 (Purple): 57-41 McCain
CD-4 (Red): 54% White, 73% Obama
CD-5 (Yellow): 51-47 McCain
CD-6 (Teal): 55% Black, 80% Obama
CD-7 (Gray): 54-44 McCain
CD-8 (Light Purple): Just over 50% Black, 83% Obama

I should probably play around with the border between Districts 6 and 8 to increase District 8's black percentage.

Note: District numbers were selected for good color contrast with the partisan data layer enabled, and are not intended to reflect real life district numbers.

I think the Justice Department might block this map because CD-2 crams much more black voters than is necessary.

Yet the plan still manages one more black-majority district than the current map.

Still, I am aware that improvements can be made, and you've inspired me to add to CD-8's black population by taking black voters from CD-2 instead of CD-6. Here is the result:

()

CD-1 (Blue): Unchanged. See above.
CD-2 (Green): 57% Black, 83% Obama
CD-3 (Purple): 52-47 McCain
CD-4 (Red): Unchanged. See above.
CD-5 (Yellow): 54-44 McCain
CD-6 (Teal): Unchanged. See above.
CD-7 (Gray): Unchanged. See above.
CD-8 (Light Purple): 52% Black, 83% Obama

This plan manages to increase the black population in the least black black-majority district as well as widen McCain's margin in the district he performed worst in of the ones he carried. Overall, I consider this an improvement.

Here's a zoomed in view of the beltway.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on July 23, 2010, 09:31:38 PM
Here's Maryland with 3 black-majority districts and 4 McCain districts.

()

CD-1 (Blue): 52-46 McCain
CD-2 (Green): 64% Black, 87% Obama
CD-3 (Purple): 57-41 McCain
CD-4 (Red): 54% White, 73% Obama
CD-5 (Yellow): 51-47 McCain
CD-6 (Teal): 55% Black, 80% Obama
CD-7 (Gray): 54-44 McCain
CD-8 (Light Purple): Just over 50% Black, 83% Obama

I should probably play around with the border between Districts 6 and 8 to increase District 8's black percentage.

Note: District numbers were selected for good color contrast with the partisan data layer enabled, and are not intended to reflect real life district numbers.

I think the Justice Department might block this map because CD-2 crams much more black voters than is necessary.

Yet the plan still manages one more black-majority district than the current map.

Still, I am aware that improvements can be made, and you've inspired me to add to CD-8's black population by taking black voters from CD-2 instead of CD-6. Here is the result:

()

CD-1 (Blue): Unchanged. See above.
CD-2 (Green): 57% Black, 83% Obama
CD-3 (Purple): 52-47 McCain
CD-4 (Red): Unchanged. See above.
CD-5 (Yellow): 54-44 McCain
CD-6 (Teal): Unchanged. See above.
CD-7 (Gray): Unchanged. See above.
CD-8 (Light Purple): 52% Black, 83% Obama

This plan manages to increase the black population in the least black black-majority district as well as widen McCain's margin in the district he performed worst in of the ones he carried. Overall, I consider this an improvement.

Here's a zoomed in view of the beltway.

()

Your revised map seems pretty legit. That's probably what the GOP will do if they completely gain control of the state govt. before redistricting. Not that this is likely to happen anytime soon, though.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on July 24, 2010, 03:07:47 PM
Neat! Here's the four McCain district MD I did a while back :)
And now here's a GOP gerrymander of Maryland! Under good conditions, anyway.

()

Blue: McCain+8
Green: McCain+11
Grayish Blue: McCain+7
Teal: McCain+8
Purple: Obama+79
Red: Obama+43
Yellow: Obama+48
Gray: Obama+79


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on July 24, 2010, 03:46:28 PM
Neat! Here's the four McCain district MD I did a while back :)
And now here's a GOP gerrymander of Maryland! Under good conditions, anyway.

()

Blue: McCain+8
Green: McCain+11
Grayish Blue: McCain+7
Teal: McCain+8
Purple: Obama+79
Red: Obama+43
Yellow: Obama+48
Gray: Obama+79

What are the racial/ethnic demographics of each district?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on July 24, 2010, 05:33:27 PM
Lol, I don't know, but I'm assuming gray and purple are pretty strongly majority black.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on July 24, 2010, 05:47:19 PM
A Democratic gerrymander of Georgia! Partially inspired by the 2000-2004 map.

()

1st (deep blue): Safe GOP. [72% white, 21% black]
2nd (dark green): Safe DEM. [47% white, 46% black]
3rd (purple): Safe GOP. [79% white, 15% black]
4th (red): Safe/Strong lean DEM. [41% black, 41% white, 12% hispanic]
5th (yellow): Safe/strong lean DEM. [46% white, 40% black]
6th (teal): Safe GOP. [79% white]
7th (gray): lean DEM. [44% white, 24% hispanic, 21% black]
8th (bluish one in the middle): Strong lean DEM [55% white, 39% black]
9th (light blue in the north): Safe GOP [88% white]
10th (pink): Safe GOP [79% white, 12% black]
11th (light green): lean DEM. [48% white, 32% black, 16% hispanic]
12th (the eastern bluish one): Strong lean DEM [50% white, 42% black]
13th (peach/salmon): Safe DEM [51% black, 37% white]
14th (brown): Strong lean DEM [49% white, 43% black]

nine out of fourteen districts democratic!

Uh, the 11th, 7th, 8th, and 12th in that map would all Lean Republican.

7th:  Hall county Hispanics are either Strongly Republican or don't vote at all, given as that county voted 75% Republican, and Western Gwinnet county is swing territory at best for the Democrats.

8th:  The Southeastern portion of  this district is staunchly Republican, enough to more than offset any Democratic lean in the Macon part of the district.

11th: Any district based in Cobb county suburbs is going to be unwinnable for the Democrats, even more so with those tendres extending up into overwhelmingly Republican NW Georgia.

12th:  A Republican won a district with almost that exact shape a few years ago, so it's certainly not a safe district for the democrats by any stretch of the imagination.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on July 24, 2010, 10:09:23 PM
Since we are talking about MD, I thought I would add my version from last year.


I had put together a map of MD a couple of years ago based on 2010 projections. I adapted it to the 2008 data on the App to get the following map.

()

The districts are all within 100 persons of the ideal number, and were designed to minimize the number of split counties. There are Two majority Black districts. Using the voting data on the App, here's how they come out with the percentage of the two-party 2008 presidential vote:

CD-1 (blue) R+16
CD-2 (green) R+9
CD-3 (purple) R+3
CD-4 (red) D+41
CD-5 (yellow, 67% Black) D+73
CD-6 (teal) D+2
CD-7 (gray, 63% Black) D+76
CD-8 (lavender) D+48



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on July 25, 2010, 12:50:55 AM
Just so you know, the D+XX and R +XX numbers refer to how much above the national average Presidential candidates got in that district.  So in a district that went 63% for Obama, the rating would be D + 10.

a D + 76 District would mean Obama got roughly 129% there, which sounds about right for a North Korean election, but not an American one.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on July 25, 2010, 07:25:29 AM
Just so you know, the D+XX and R +XX numbers refer to how much above the national average Presidential candidates got in that district.  So in a district that went 63% for Obama, the rating would be D + 10.

a D + 76 District would mean Obama got roughly 129% there, which sounds about right for a North Korean election, but not an American one.

Your definition is specifically for the Cook PVI. That measure requires a comparison to the nation as a whole. Many districts do not swing as much, or swing more, than the nation as a whole. I like to see how a district would perform in the specific election (or composite of elections) independent of the national average.

The definition I've used is a straight competitiveness measure. My definition refers to the difference between the two party vote expressed as a percentage of the two party vote. This measure does show up in some application. For instance, last year's Ohio Redistricting Competition used the d-r% definition to measure the competitiveness of a district in their contest.

In any case one can convert between the two by shifting my numbers by the 2008 presidential winning margin of 7% then dividing by two.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on July 25, 2010, 07:59:05 PM
A Democratic gerrymander of Georgia! Partially inspired by the 2000-2004 map.

()

1st (deep blue): Safe GOP. [72% white, 21% black]
2nd (dark green): Safe DEM. [47% white, 46% black]
3rd (purple): Safe GOP. [79% white, 15% black]
4th (red): Safe/Strong lean DEM. [41% black, 41% white, 12% hispanic]
5th (yellow): Safe/strong lean DEM. [46% white, 40% black]
6th (teal): Safe GOP. [79% white]
7th (gray): lean DEM. [44% white, 24% hispanic, 21% black]
8th (bluish one in the middle): Strong lean DEM [55% white, 39% black]
9th (light blue in the north): Safe GOP [88% white]
10th (pink): Safe GOP [79% white, 12% black]
11th (light green): lean DEM. [48% white, 32% black, 16% hispanic]
12th (the eastern bluish one): Strong lean DEM [50% white, 42% black]
13th (peach/salmon): Safe DEM [51% black, 37% white]
14th (brown): Strong lean DEM [49% white, 43% black]

nine out of fourteen districts democratic!

Uh, the 11th, 7th, 8th, and 12th in that map would all Lean Republican.

7th:  Hall county Hispanics are either Strongly Republican or don't vote at all, given as that county voted 75% Republican, and Western Gwinnet county is swing territory at best for the Democrats.

8th:  The Southeastern portion of  this district is staunchly Republican, enough to more than offset any Democratic lean in the Macon part of the district.

11th: Any district based in Cobb county suburbs is going to be unwinnable for the Democrats, even more so with those tendres extending up into overwhelmingly Republican NW Georgia.

12th:  A Republican won a district with almost that exact shape a few years ago, so it's certainly not a safe district for the democrats by any stretch of the imagination.

7th: Hall County voted 75% for McCain, yes, but almost all of the remotely Democratic areas of the County are in this district- including parts of Gainesville that were >90% Obama. Four of Hall's five commissioners are elected from districts, and a Democrat holds the only district contained entirely within the 7th district on this map. A better gerrymander would have been "stringier", and cut more of the rural white southern portion of the county, but I don't think that's really necessary here. And regarding the Gwinnett, portion of the district, it's better territory for Democrats than you think. Gwinnett only voted 54.5% McCain, and the most Republican parts of the county are in the eastern half. Note that four of the eight Gwinnett State Representative districts in the 7th here are Democratic; there's only one other Democratic State Rep in the county. This isn't a district that a Democrat would have a guaranteed win in, no, but once won was elected the incumbency would be enough to keep him/her in.

8th: Marshall wouldn't have any problem holding this district. His pre-2006 district was more Republican than this, and he carried 63% of the vote in 2004.

11th: If you notice, the district is based in the inner Cobb suburbs which are pretty Democratic (Cobb only gave McCain 54% of the vote; and the most Republican parts of the county are in the 3rd, 6th, or diluted into the 5th). The tendrils go to Rome and Dalton to pick up minority populations there, to fill up the population requirements of the district without sticking to 95% white super-Republican precincts. Note that the Rome area of the district has a Democratic State Representative, even. Not quite overwhelmingly Republican. Also note that the district includes part of the extremely Democratic Atlanta city proper.

12th: Barrow wouldn't have any problem holding it. He holds his current district fine enough (66% in 2008), and the district in my map would be much safer for him. Also, the only reason Max Burns won this district in 2002 was because the Democratic candidate had huge ethical problems. Athens + Augusta + Savannah = a Democratic district, especially with the white portions of Savannah excised like they are in this map.

Still, you've got me intrigued about my 7th district here, if I have time later I'll add up precinct totals to see what the Obama/McCain vote would have been.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on July 25, 2010, 10:08:01 PM
A Democratic gerrymander of Georgia! Partially inspired by the 2000-2004 map.

()

1st (deep blue): Safe GOP. [72% white, 21% black]
2nd (dark green): Safe DEM. [47% white, 46% black]
3rd (purple): Safe GOP. [79% white, 15% black]
4th (red): Safe/Strong lean DEM. [41% black, 41% white, 12% hispanic]
5th (yellow): Safe/strong lean DEM. [46% white, 40% black]
6th (teal): Safe GOP. [79% white]
7th (gray): lean DEM. [44% white, 24% hispanic, 21% black]
8th (bluish one in the middle): Strong lean DEM [55% white, 39% black]
9th (light blue in the north): Safe GOP [88% white]
10th (pink): Safe GOP [79% white, 12% black]
11th (light green): lean DEM. [48% white, 32% black, 16% hispanic]
12th (the eastern bluish one): Strong lean DEM [50% white, 42% black]
13th (peach/salmon): Safe DEM [51% black, 37% white]
14th (brown): Strong lean DEM [49% white, 43% black]

nine out of fourteen districts democratic!

Uh, the 11th, 7th, 8th, and 12th in that map would all Lean Republican.

7th:  Hall county Hispanics are either Strongly Republican or don't vote at all, given as that county voted 75% Republican, and Western Gwinnet county is swing territory at best for the Democrats.

8th:  The Southeastern portion of  this district is staunchly Republican, enough to more than offset any Democratic lean in the Macon part of the district.

11th: Any district based in Cobb county suburbs is going to be unwinnable for the Democrats, even more so with those tendres extending up into overwhelmingly Republican NW Georgia.

12th:  A Republican won a district with almost that exact shape a few years ago, so it's certainly not a safe district for the democrats by any stretch of the imagination.

7th: Hall County voted 75% for McCain, yes, but almost all of the remotely Democratic areas of the County are in this district- including parts of Gainesville that were >90% Obama. Four of Hall's five commissioners are elected from districts, and a Democrat holds the only district contained entirely within the 7th district on this map. A better gerrymander would have been "stringier", and cut more of the rural white southern portion of the county, but I don't think that's really necessary here. And regarding the Gwinnett, portion of the district, it's better territory for Democrats than you think. Gwinnett only voted 54.5% McCain, and the most Republican parts of the county are in the eastern half. Note that four of the eight Gwinnett State Representative districts in the 7th here are Democratic; there's only one other Democratic State Rep in the county. This isn't a district that a Democrat would have a guaranteed win in, no, but once won was elected the incumbency would be enough to keep him/her in.

8th: Marshall wouldn't have any problem holding this district. His pre-2006 district was more Republican than this, and he carried 63% of the vote in 2004.

11th: If you notice, the district is based in the inner Cobb suburbs which are pretty Democratic (Cobb only gave McCain 54% of the vote; and the most Republican parts of the county are in the 3rd, 6th, or diluted into the 5th). The tendrils go to Rome and Dalton to pick up minority populations there, to fill up the population requirements of the district without sticking to 95% white super-Republican precincts. Note that the Rome area of the district has a Democratic State Representative, even. Not quite overwhelmingly Republican. Also note that the district includes part of the extremely Democratic Atlanta city proper.

12th: Barrow wouldn't have any problem holding it. He holds his current district fine enough (66% in 2008), and the district in my map would be much safer for him. Also, the only reason Max Burns won this district in 2002 was because the Democratic candidate had huge ethical problems. Athens + Augusta + Savannah = a Democratic district, especially with the white portions of Savannah excised like they are in this map.

Still, you've got me intrigued about my 7th district here, if I have time later I'll add up precinct totals to see what the Obama/McCain vote would have been.

Where do you find the precinct data?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on July 26, 2010, 12:21:14 AM
State SoS website.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on July 26, 2010, 03:44:36 PM

How do you add up the data so quickly? There are thousands of total precincts in Georgia.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on July 26, 2010, 06:45:53 PM

How do you add up the data so quickly? There are thousands of total precincts in Georgia.

lol, personally, I don't do it quickly. I added up the hundred or so Gwinnett precincts last night by hand, and it took me about an hour. I think there is a quick way using excel sheets and such but I don't know how to do that.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 26, 2010, 06:54:08 PM
=SUM(first cell:last cell)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 27, 2010, 12:01:27 AM
You know the sad thing about Georgia is it's quite easy to draw the new district as an R+25 and not affect the other districts much. That's probably what will happen too, I bet the new seat will run across Cherokee, Forsyth and Hall counties with also part of northern Fulton. One of the worst parts of the country, ugh.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on July 27, 2010, 08:37:24 AM
You know the sad thing about Georgia is it's quite easy to draw the new district as an R+25 and not affect the other districts much. That's probably what will happen too, I bet the new seat will run across Cherokee, Forsyth and Hall counties with also part of northern Fulton. One of the worst parts of the country, ugh.

Nah, it's possible with 14 districts to draw another black majority one in the Atlanta metro, and the federal government will make them do it. They might try harder to get rid of the central/south Georgia Dems, though.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on July 27, 2010, 09:26:13 AM
Nah, it's possible with 14 districts to draw another black majority one in the Atlanta metro, and the federal government will make them do it. They might try harder to get rid of the central/south Georgia Dems, though.

Not really.  I was having trouble drawing 3 Black-majority districts in the Atlanta Area, let alone another one (Atlanta has interestingly enough, been getting whiter over the last decade).  The new district will probably cover some portion of the Atlanta Suburbs or Exurbs.

As for the Central/Southern Dems, there are a couple of ways to get rid of them.  The GOP could go the simple route and just draw Republican-leaning districts in the area (taking off a little strength from the Exurbs, you can make all 4/5 Downstate districts at least Lean Republican), or they can go the complicated route and draw another majority-black district from all the major cities there.  It would be highly messy, but I've been able to get one about 60% Black before (though it cuts from Albany to Macon to Savannah, so it might get challenged in court) that draws Sanford Bishop into it, making the whole rest of the region Solidly Republican and securing a relatively Conservative vote in the safe Democratic district.  The demographics of Georgia would make an argument for this type of district at least reasonable given that Black comprise just under a third of Georgia's population, despite there only being 2 Black-Majority districts in the state.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on July 27, 2010, 02:26:45 PM
Here's my version of Georgia with 14 districts, of which 6 are black-majority. It should be noted that the black-majority districts are extremely marginal, and it would take very little difference between the estimates and reality for any of them not to be black-majority. I certainly don't submit this as a serious map, but it sure was fun to make!

()

CD-1 (Blue): 70% White, 22% Black, 5% Hispanic
CD-2 (Green): 50.07% Black, 34% White, 11% Hispanic
CD-3 (Purple): 71% White, 22% Black, 5% Hispanic
CD-4 (Red): 78% White, 14% Black, 5% Hispanic
CD-5 (Yellow): 51.15% Black, 34% White, 11% Hispanic
CD-6 (Teal): 75% White, 9% Black, 8% Hispanic, 7% Asian
CD-7 (Gray): 50.43% Black, 32% White, 11% Hispanic, 5% Asian
CD-8 (Light Purple): 77% White, 15% Black
CD-9 (Cyan): 50.91% Black, 34% White, 10% Hispanic
CD-10 (Magenta): 58% White, 16% Hispanic, 16% Black, 8% Asian
CD-11 (Light Green): 50.29% Black, 44% White
CD-12 (Indigo): 79% White, 11% Hispanic, 7% Black
CD-13 (Peach): 51.87% Black, 43% White
CD-14 (Bronze): 84% White, 9% Hispanic, 5% Black

NOTE: These district numbers were used because they correspond to colors that contrast well with the colors displayed when the racial demographics layer is enabled. They are not intended to correspond to the existing incumbents.

Here's a zoomed in view of the Atlanta metro area:

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on July 27, 2010, 03:16:48 PM
I know this isn't what you set out to do, but I would imagine you could give the green gerrymander district some precincts in Gwinnett County and make a more compact, viable coalition district that would elect the winner of the D primary.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on July 27, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Nah, it's possible with 14 districts to draw another black majority one in the Atlanta metro, and the federal government will make them do it. They might try harder to get rid of the central/south Georgia Dems, though.

Not really.  I was having trouble drawing 3 Black-majority districts in the Atlanta Area, let alone another one

Not true at all. It's really easy to make four; they don't even look extremely gerrymandered.

I suspect the actual Census data will make it even easier as (a) Dave's Redistricting uses 2008 estimates, and the growth of the black population in some suburban counties has been phenomenal and (b) Dave's Redistricting assumes uniform change in population across counties, when of course very few blacks are moving in to outer Cobb/Gwinett/Newton/Rockdale/Henry/Douglas counties. As a result the actual growth in the black population will be more concentrated in the areas in the districts I drew than in the areas in those counties outside of my districts.

One example, with some wiggle room at the edges.
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 27, 2010, 06:39:40 PM
Here's a Republican map of Pennsylvania, losing a district from the current map. Tried not to overreach too much; concentrated on protecting incumbents and watering down a couple of districts, rather than trying to maximize Republican seats.

()

Click for bigger. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/parep.png)

PA-01 (blue Philly district, Bob Brady - D) - Expands to take in more of Delaware County, uber-safe for the Dems.
PA-02 (green Philly district, Chaka Fattah - D) - Mostly unchanged; still majority-black. Obviously uber-safe.
PA-03 (purple NW corner district, Kathy Dahlkemper - D) - Pushes east instead of south, taking in some heavily-Republican counties. Should make the district more Republican.
PA-04 (red SW district, Jason Altmire - D) - Takes in all of the Dem-leaning areas outside of Pittsburgh. Should be safe for Altmire.
PA-05 (orange central district, Glenn Thompson - R) - Takes in a bunch of the Philly suburbs in Westmoreland County instead of the NW counties, which shouldn't change the partisan balance much.
PA-06 (teal SE PA district, Jim Gerlach - R) - Tried to make this district as safe as possible, so it takes in all the Republican parts of Montgomery and Bucks now. Should be a Republican-leaning district now.
PA-07 (grey SE PA district, open) - Pushed west in order to make it less Democratic. Still a swing district, but should be more favorable to the Republicans.
PA-08 (purple SE PA district, Patrick Murphy - D) - Takes in all the Dem parts of Bucks, and parts of Montgomery and Philadelphia. Safe Dem seat.
PA-09 (light blue SW PA district, Bud Shuster - R and Mark Critz - D) - Swallows parts of Critz's district, which tilts the district from "overwhelmingly Republican" to just "very Republican". Shuster would prevail in a matchup with Critz.
PA-10 (magenta NE PA district, Chris Carney - D) - Carney's district is completely reconfigured as a safe Dem district, taking in all of Lackawanna along with Bethlehem, Scranton, and part of Allentown.
PA-11 (green NE PA district, Paul Kanjorski - D) - Turns Kanjo's district (since he's probably going to lose to Barletta) into a pretty Republican one. Shouldn't be hard for Barletta to hold in 2012.
PA-12 (light purple SE PA district, Todd Platts - R) - Takes in Harrisburg, which makes the district a little less Republican, but it shouldn't be hard for Republicans to hold.
PA-13 (pink SE PA district, Alyson Schwartz - D) - Heavily-Democratic MontCo-based district.
PA-14 (brown SW PA district, Mike Doyle - D) - Heavily-Democratic Pittsburgh district.
PA-15 (orange NE PA district, Charlie Dent - R) - With Bethlehem and most of Allentown gone, the district picks up some Republican-leaning counties that should make it easier for Dent to hold.
PA-16 (green SE PA district, Joe Pitts - R) - Mostly Lancaster County, takes in some Dem parts of Berks and Chester, but should remain Republican-leaning.
PA-17 (dark purple SE PA district, Tim Holden - D) - Getting rid of Tim Holden requires chopping up Schuylkill County, and also removes Harrisburg. Should be even more Republican now.
PA-18 (yellow SW PA district, Tim Murphy - R) - Takes in a bunch of Republican-leaning parts of SW PA. Maybe a little less Republican, but still Republican. Republican!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 27, 2010, 10:52:16 PM
Something I just noticed, South Carolina is about 30% black, so with 7 districts proportionally that would require another majority black seat. Will the Justice Department force one?

Georgia is too easy for the Republicans, just draw a new Republican seat in metro Atlanta and a majority black seat downstate, thus removing Marshall and Barrow.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on July 27, 2010, 11:50:03 PM
Here's a Republican map of Pennsylvania, losing a district from the current map. Tried not to overreach too much; concentrated on protecting incumbents and watering down a couple of districts, rather than trying to maximize Republican seats.

()

Click for bigger. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/parep.png)

PA-01 (blue Philly district, Bob Brady - D) - Expands to take in more of Delaware County, uber-safe for the Dems.
PA-02 (green Philly district, Chaka Fattah - D) - Mostly unchanged; still majority-black. Obviously uber-safe.
PA-03 (purple NW corner district, Kathy Dahlkemper - D) - Pushes east instead of south, taking in some heavily-Republican counties. Should make the district more Republican.
PA-04 (red SW district, Jason Altmire - D) - Takes in all of the Dem-leaning areas outside of Pittsburgh. Should be safe for Altmire.
PA-05 (orange central district, Glenn Thompson - R) - Takes in a bunch of the Philly suburbs in Westmoreland County instead of the NW counties, which shouldn't change the partisan balance much.
PA-06 (teal SE PA district, Jim Gerlach - R) - Tried to make this district as safe as possible, so it takes in all the Republican parts of Montgomery and Bucks now. Should be a Republican-leaning district now.
PA-07 (grey SE PA district, open) - Pushed west in order to make it less Democratic. Still a swing district, but should be more favorable to the Republicans.
PA-08 (purple SE PA district, Patrick Murphy - D) - Takes in all the Dem parts of Bucks, and parts of Montgomery and Philadelphia. Safe Dem seat.
PA-09 (light blue SW PA district, Bud Shuster - R and Mark Critz - D) - Swallows parts of Critz's district, which tilts the district from "overwhelmingly Republican" to just "very Republican". Shuster would prevail in a matchup with Critz.
PA-10 (magenta NE PA district, Chris Carney - D) - Carney's district is completely reconfigured as a safe Dem district, taking in all of Lackawanna along with Bethlehem, Scranton, and part of Allentown.
PA-11 (green NE PA district, Paul Kanjorski - D) - Turns Kanjo's district (since he's probably going to lose to Barletta) into a pretty Republican one. Shouldn't be hard for Barletta to hold in 2012.
PA-12 (light purple SE PA district, Todd Platts - R) - Takes in Harrisburg, which makes the district a little less Republican, but it shouldn't be hard for Republicans to hold.
PA-13 (pink SE PA district, Alyson Schwartz - D) - Heavily-Democratic MontCo-based district.
PA-14 (brown SW PA district, Mike Doyle - D) - Heavily-Democratic Pittsburgh district.
PA-15 (orange NE PA district, Charlie Dent - R) - With Bethlehem and most of Allentown gone, the district picks up some Republican-leaning counties that should make it easier for Dent to hold.
PA-16 (green SE PA district, Joe Pitts - R) - Mostly Lancaster County, takes in some Dem parts of Berks and Chester, but should remain Republican-leaning.
PA-17 (dark purple SE PA district, Tim Holden - D) - Getting rid of Tim Holden requires chopping up Schuylkill County, and also removes Harrisburg. Should be even more Republican now.
PA-18 (yellow SW PA district, Tim Murphy - R) - Takes in a bunch of Republican-leaning parts of SW PA. Maybe a little less Republican, but still Republican. Republican!

This reminds me a lot of what IL did in 2001 when the districts were designed for incumbent protection with one seat lost. If that's the case, I would expect that the loser is the one who lacks political support, happened to Phelps in IL. Is Critz the most likely loser? How much will it depend on the Gov next year?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 28, 2010, 12:36:30 AM
I've also played around with Illinois to see who the loser will be. I think Schock and Shimkus end up in the same seat. Also shoring up Halvorson and Foster isn't too hard (especially Foster, just swap that swath of rural counties on the western tail of his district for Rockford.)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smash255 on July 28, 2010, 01:51:56 AM
Here's a Republican map of Pennsylvania, losing a district from the current map. Tried not to overreach too much; concentrated on protecting incumbents and watering down a couple of districts, rather than trying to maximize Republican seats.

()

Click for bigger. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/parep.png)

PA-01 (blue Philly district, Bob Brady - D) - Expands to take in more of Delaware County, uber-safe for the Dems.
PA-02 (green Philly district, Chaka Fattah - D) - Mostly unchanged; still majority-black. Obviously uber-safe.
PA-03 (purple NW corner district, Kathy Dahlkemper - D) - Pushes east instead of south, taking in some heavily-Republican counties. Should make the district more Republican.
PA-04 (red SW district, Jason Altmire - D) - Takes in all of the Dem-leaning areas outside of Pittsburgh. Should be safe for Altmire.
PA-05 (orange central district, Glenn Thompson - R) - Takes in a bunch of the Philly suburbs in Westmoreland County instead of the NW counties, which shouldn't change the partisan balance much.
PA-06 (teal SE PA district, Jim Gerlach - R) - Tried to make this district as safe as possible, so it takes in all the Republican parts of Montgomery and Bucks now. Should be a Republican-leaning district now.
PA-07 (grey SE PA district, open) - Pushed west in order to make it less Democratic. Still a swing district, but should be more favorable to the Republicans.
PA-08 (purple SE PA district, Patrick Murphy - D) - Takes in all the Dem parts of Bucks, and parts of Montgomery and Philadelphia. Safe Dem seat.
PA-09 (light blue SW PA district, Bud Shuster - R and Mark Critz - D) - Swallows parts of Critz's district, which tilts the district from "overwhelmingly Republican" to just "very Republican". Shuster would prevail in a matchup with Critz.
PA-10 (magenta NE PA district, Chris Carney - D) - Carney's district is completely reconfigured as a safe Dem district, taking in all of Lackawanna along with Bethlehem, Scranton, and part of Allentown.
PA-11 (green NE PA district, Paul Kanjorski - D) - Turns Kanjo's district (since he's probably going to lose to Barletta) into a pretty Republican one. Shouldn't be hard for Barletta to hold in 2012.
PA-12 (light purple SE PA district, Todd Platts - R) - Takes in Harrisburg, which makes the district a little less Republican, but it shouldn't be hard for Republicans to hold.
PA-13 (pink SE PA district, Alyson Schwartz - D) - Heavily-Democratic MontCo-based district.
PA-14 (brown SW PA district, Mike Doyle - D) - Heavily-Democratic Pittsburgh district.
PA-15 (orange NE PA district, Charlie Dent - R) - With Bethlehem and most of Allentown gone, the district picks up some Republican-leaning counties that should make it easier for Dent to hold.
PA-16 (green SE PA district, Joe Pitts - R) - Mostly Lancaster County, takes in some Dem parts of Berks and Chester, but should remain Republican-leaning.
PA-17 (dark purple SE PA district, Tim Holden - D) - Getting rid of Tim Holden requires chopping up Schuylkill County, and also removes Harrisburg. Should be even more Republican now.
PA-18 (yellow SW PA district, Tim Murphy - R) - Takes in a bunch of Republican-leaning parts of SW PA. Maybe a little less Republican, but still Republican. Republican!

This reminds me a lot of what IL did in 2001 when the districts were designed for incumbent protection with one seat lost. If that's the case, I would expect that the loser is the one who lacks political support, happened to Phelps in IL. Is Critz the most likely loser? How much will it depend on the Gov next year?

Thats part of it, but it also depends on population factors.  Its very hard for the lost seat to come from anywhere other than western PA.  The Philly proper districts have lost the most population, but the surrounding areas have generally gained the most, so that basically cancels each other out and makes it difficult to cut a district there.  The Appalachia areas in western PA have been bleeding population.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 28, 2010, 06:54:39 AM
It seemed to be the common assumption that whoever won the special election for PA-12 would only be serving until 2012, when the district would be cut up.

For IL, unless Quinn somehow manages to win the governorship, I would imagine a Dem and a Rep would get put in together in a "fair fight" situation. I did a map a while back that put Judy Biggert and Dan Lipinski together pretty easily.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on July 28, 2010, 07:27:20 AM
I've also played around with Illinois to see who the loser will be. I think Schock and Shimkus end up in the same seat. Also shoring up Halvorson and Foster isn't too hard (especially Foster, just swap that swath of rural counties on the western tail of his district for Rockford.)

CD's 11 and 14 have excess population and will have to shed counties. CD 11 also gets pressed by the need for both Black CDs 1 and 2 to expand south to add the needed population and remain majority Black. CD 14 would be quite strange to link Kane and Winnebago counties, so I'm curious to see how you do it.

Don't forget to consider a second Hispanic seat for IL. Most projections show that it will be required to satisfy the VRA. If so, that splits the current CD 4 into natural north and south parts, and cuts big pieces out of CDs 3 and 5 to complete those Hispanic districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on July 28, 2010, 09:26:46 AM
Here's a zoom-in of Chicago on the Illinois gerrymander I did a while ago. 1, 4, and 5 are majority black (with plenty to spare; 1 is only 50% black, but 4 is 60% and 5 is 54%), and 2 and 3 are majority Hispanic (heavily so, 64% and 57%). Lipinski is the one who gets screwed, and surely the Illinois Democrats would rather he be screwed than any other Democrat in the delegation.

(Overall, this is huge Democratic gerrymander likely to have 14-16 Democrats and 3-5 Republicans, which is something along the lines of what I would expect the IL Democrats to draw.)

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on July 28, 2010, 09:40:29 AM
For completeness on the above, northern and southern Illinois.


()


()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on July 28, 2010, 04:38:10 PM
Here's a zoom-in of Chicago on the Illinois gerrymander I did a while ago. 1, 4, and 5 are majority black (with plenty to spare; 1 is only 50% black, but 4 is 60% and 5 is 54%), and 2 and 3 are majority Hispanic (heavily so, 64% and 57%). Lipinski is the one who gets screwed, and surely the Illinois Democrats would rather he be screwed than any other Democrat in the delegation.

(Overall, this is huge Democratic gerrymander likely to have 14-16 Democrats and 3-5 Republicans, which is something along the lines of what I would expect the IL Democrats to draw.)

()

The minority districts may not be as strong as you think. The courts will use voting age population instead of total population to determine the 50% threshold. To get to 50% VAP for a Hispanic population may require a total population of at least 58 tom 60%. Black districts also need a couple of percent margin in the total population to clear 50% VAP.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 29, 2010, 12:10:01 AM
Here's my Illinois map then:

()
()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on July 29, 2010, 11:34:22 AM
Here is a Republican Map of NC with 13 CDs:

()

NC-1: G.K. Butterfield(D): Bl: 50% Wh: 40% Hisp: 7%/ Obama: 68% McCain: 31% ( Dem)

NC-2: Bob Etheridge(D): Wh: 67% Bl: 20% Hisp: 10%/ McCain: 54% Obama: 45% (Lean Rep)

NC-3: Walter B Jones, Jr(R): Wh: 72% Bl: 20%/ McCain: 57% Obama: 33% ( Rep)

NC-4: David Price(D): Wh: 61% Bl: 23% Hisp: 9%/ Obama: 66% McCain: 33% (Dem)

NC-5: Virginia Foxx(R): Wh: 86% Bl: 6% Hisp: 6%/ McCain: 56% Obama: 42% (Rep)

NC-6: Howard Coble(R): Wh: 75% Bl: 17% Hisp: 5%/ McCain: 53% Obama: 46% (Lean Rep)

NC-7: Mike McIntyre(D): Wh: 61% Bl: 24% Nat: 8% Hisp: 6%/ McCain: 50% Obama: 40% (Toss-up)

NC-8: Larry Kissell(D): Wh: 68% Bl: 20% Hisp: 7%/ McCain: 56% Obama: 43% (Rep)

NC-9: Sue Myrick(R): Wh: 75% Bl: 13% Hisp: 8%/ McCain: 57% Obama: 42% (Rep)

NC-10: Patrick McHenry(R): Wh: 78% Bl: 12% Hisp: 7%/ McCain: 58% Obama: 41% (Rep)

NC-11: Heath Shuler(D): Wh: 86% Bl: 7% Hisp: 4%/ McCain 58% Obama: 41% (Rep)

NC-12: Mel Watt(D): Bl: 41% Wh: 40% Hisp: 14%/ Obama: 71% MCCain: 29% (Dem)

NC-13: Brad Miller(D): Wh: 65% Bl: 22% Hisp: 9%/ Obama: 52% McCain: 47% (Toss-up)



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on July 29, 2010, 03:52:04 PM
Here is a Republican Map of NC with 13 CDs:

()

NC-1: G.K. Butterfield(D): Bl: 50% Wh: 40% Hisp: 7%/ Obama: 68% McCain: 31% ( Dem)

NC-2: Bob Etheridge(D): Wh: 67% Bl: 20% Hisp: 10%/ McCain: 54% Obama: 45% (Lean Rep)

NC-3: Walter B Jones, Jr(R): Wh: 72% Bl: 20%/ McCain: 57% Obama: 33% ( Rep)

NC-4: David Price(D): Wh: 61% Bl: 23% Hisp: 9%/ Obama: 66% McCain: 33% (Dem)

NC-5: Virginia Foxx(R): Wh: 86% Bl: 6% Hisp: 6%/ McCain: 56% Obama: 42% (Rep)

NC-6: Howard Coble(R): Wh: 75% Bl: 17% Hisp: 5%/ McCain: 53% Obama: 46% (Lean Rep)

NC-7: Mike McIntyre(D): Wh: 61% Bl: 24% Nat: 8% Hisp: 6%/ McCain: 50% Obama: 40% (Toss-up)

NC-8: Larry Kissell(D): Wh: 68% Bl: 20% Hisp: 7%/ McCain: 56% Obama: 43% (Rep)

NC-9: Sue Myrick(R): Wh: 75% Bl: 13% Hisp: 8%/ McCain: 57% Obama: 42% (Rep)

NC-10: Patrick McHenry(R): Wh: 78% Bl: 12% Hisp: 7%/ McCain: 58% Obama: 41% (Rep)

NC-11: Heath Shuler(D): Wh: 86% Bl: 7% Hisp: 4%/ McCain 58% Obama: 41% (Rep)

NC-12: Mel Watt(D): Bl: 41% Wh: 40% Hisp: 14%/ Obama: 71% MCCain: 29% (Dem)

NC-13: Brad Miller(D): Wh: 65% Bl: 22% Hisp: 9%/ Obama: 52% McCain: 47% (Toss-up)



If you really wanted to, you could probably make Watt's district majority black and then cram even more Democrats in there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on July 29, 2010, 04:02:30 PM
For a rep NC, try swinging the 4th all the way West to Forysth County and Winston-Salem, giving the Black part of Raleigh to the 1st, Drawing the rest of the Democratic part of Raliegh into the 2nd, and swinging that one down to take the Democratic parts of the 7th and 8th.  Then swing the 12th west to take the Democratic parts of Asheboro.  I think you can get a pretty solid 9-4 Gerrymander that way


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on July 30, 2010, 08:54:19 PM
Here's a zoom-in of Chicago on the Illinois gerrymander I did a while ago. 1, 4, and 5 are majority black (with plenty to spare; 1 is only 50% black, but 4 is 60% and 5 is 54%), and 2 and 3 are majority Hispanic (heavily so, 64% and 57%). Lipinski is the one who gets screwed, and surely the Illinois Democrats would rather he be screwed than any other Democrat in the delegation.

(Overall, this is huge Democratic gerrymander likely to have 14-16 Democrats and 3-5 Republicans, which is something along the lines of what I would expect the IL Democrats to draw.)

()

The minority districts may not be as strong as you think. The courts will use voting age population instead of total population to determine the 50% threshold. To get to 50% VAP for a Hispanic population may require a total population of at least 58 tom 60%. Black districts also need a couple of percent margin in the total population to clear 50% VAP.

I redid the map to make all three black districts 53-54% black; none of the other districts were changed at all. IL-03 maybe could become more Hispanic by trading areas with districts 6 and 7; I did not check. Either way, the partisan balance should be unaffected by the necessary adjustments.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on July 30, 2010, 10:13:25 PM
For a rep NC, try swinging the 4th all the way West to Forysth County and Winston-Salem, giving the Black part of Raleigh to the 1st, Drawing the rest of the Democratic part of Raliegh into the 2nd, and swinging that one down to take the Democratic parts of the 7th and 8th.  Then swing the 12th west to take the Democratic parts of Asheboro.  I think you can get a pretty solid 9-4 Gerrymander that way

Here's my 9-4 GOP version. CDs 1 and 12 are majority Black with 54% and 52%. CD 7 is plurality (41%) Black and CD 4 is the other D district. All other districts would have voted at least 56% for McCain.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on July 30, 2010, 10:24:43 PM
For a rep NC, try swinging the 4th all the way West to Forysth County and Winston-Salem, giving the Black part of Raleigh to the 1st, Drawing the rest of the Democratic part of Raliegh into the 2nd, and swinging that one down to take the Democratic parts of the 7th and 8th.  Then swing the 12th west to take the Democratic parts of Asheboro.  I think you can get a pretty solid 9-4 Gerrymander that way

Here's my 9-4 GOP version. CDs 1 and 12 are majority Black with 54% and 52%. CD 7 is plurality (41%) Black and CD 4 is the other D district. All other districts would have voted at least 56% for McCain.

()

You put Coble in NC-5 with Foxx, I believe.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on July 30, 2010, 10:28:53 PM
For a rep NC, try swinging the 4th all the way West to Forysth County and Winston-Salem, giving the Black part of Raleigh to the 1st, Drawing the rest of the Democratic part of Raliegh into the 2nd, and swinging that one down to take the Democratic parts of the 7th and 8th.  Then swing the 12th west to take the Democratic parts of Asheboro.  I think you can get a pretty solid 9-4 Gerrymander that way

Here's my 9-4 GOP version. CDs 1 and 12 are majority Black with 54% and 52%. CD 7 is plurality (41%) Black and CD 4 is the other D district. All other districts would have voted at least 56% for McCain.

()

You put Coble in NC-5 with Foxx, I believe.

I didn't consider the residences of the incumbents, only the partisan leaning of the districts. It wouldn't be hard to move, and technically most experts don't think district residency can be used as a requirement anyway.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Devilman88 on July 31, 2010, 12:06:27 PM
For a rep NC, try swinging the 4th all the way West to Forysth County and Winston-Salem, giving the Black part of Raleigh to the 1st, Drawing the rest of the Democratic part of Raliegh into the 2nd, and swinging that one down to take the Democratic parts of the 7th and 8th.  Then swing the 12th west to take the Democratic parts of Asheboro.  I think you can get a pretty solid 9-4 Gerrymander that way

Here's my 9-4 GOP version. CDs 1 and 12 are majority Black with 54% and 52%. CD 7 is plurality (41%) Black and CD 4 is the other D district. All other districts would have voted at least 56% for McCain.

()

You put Coble in NC-5 with Foxx, I believe.

I didn't consider the residences of the incumbents, only the partisan leaning of the districts. It wouldn't be hard to move, and technically most experts don't think district residency can be used as a requirement anyway.

Ah i see, I keep them in their own districts, but I guess I'm doing it wrong.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on July 31, 2010, 05:17:34 PM
Just to be even-handed, here's my version of NC for the Dems. All districts are within 100 of the ideal population and CDs 1 and 12 are just over 50% Black. Only CDs 3, 5, 8 and 10 voted for McCain, so based on the 2008 vote it's a 9-4 Dem map. I would note that CD 11 is only a 49% plurality for Obama, and CD's 7 and 9 are a competitive 51% for Obama. The concentration in the VRA districts makes larger D percentages difficult - especially at the coarse precinct level.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on August 01, 2010, 11:21:41 PM
For a rep NC, try swinging the 4th all the way West to Forysth County and Winston-Salem, giving the Black part of Raleigh to the 1st, Drawing the rest of the Democratic part of Raliegh into the 2nd, and swinging that one down to take the Democratic parts of the 7th and 8th.  Then swing the 12th west to take the Democratic parts of Asheboro.  I think you can get a pretty solid 9-4 Gerrymander that way

Here's my 9-4 GOP version. CDs 1 and 12 are majority Black with 54% and 52%. CD 7 is plurality (41%) Black and CD 4 is the other D district. All other districts would have voted at least 56% for McCain.

()

You put Coble in NC-5 with Foxx, I believe.

Foxx is actually in the NC-10 part of Avery County on his map, I think.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on August 02, 2010, 05:40:06 AM
Some of these maps are awful! (gerrymandered)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 02, 2010, 07:31:47 AM
Some of these maps are awful! (gerrymandered)


I think that's the point. In most states, gerrymandering is legal to achieve political ends. Many of the maps posted explore the extremes that might be taken within some constraints. My two NC maps above are examples of the extremes each party could take the process to maximize their seats.

If it makes you feel better, here's a version of NC I did last year that used redistricting principles of compactness and county integrity with the constraint of two black-majority districts. It's much prettier, but it's unlikely given the political process for drawing districts in NC.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on August 04, 2010, 04:55:52 PM
Here's an Interesting Challenge for some people on this site.  See how Many Hispanic-Majority, Republican-leaning Districts you can draw in Texas.  Districts have to be at least 55% Hispanic and 55% McCain 2008.

So far I've been able to get 3 relatively decent (i.e. no ugly Gerrymandering) ones, in West Texas (Laredo/Odessa), Corpus Christi/South Texas, and Houston Areas.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2010, 04:29:53 PM
So, since I uploaded those few maps I'm gonna post them there :

Maine - 3 CDs
()

Massachusetts - 15 CDs (click for higher resolution) (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=3067)
()

Rhode Island - 3 CDs
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on August 09, 2010, 03:56:12 PM
Just out of curiosity, what states do we have partisan data for now?  I know we have New York and Texas if you use the "test data" option and we also have Maryland and North Carolina.  Are there any others?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on August 09, 2010, 04:00:44 PM
Just out of curiosity, what states do we have partisan data for now?  I know we have New York and Texas if you use the "test data" option and we also have Maryland and North Carolina.  Are there any others?

California got partisan data at the same time as Texas. It also needs "test data" selected.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 10, 2010, 07:18:30 AM
From what I've heard on SSP, they're waiting for the release of official 2010 census figures to start rolling out more states with partisan data.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 10, 2010, 07:29:47 AM
From what I've heard on SSP, they're waiting for the release of official 2010 census figures to start rolling out more states with partisan data.

I assume they will replace the shapefiles with 2010 boundaries and precincts. In IL it's hard to match political data with precincts that were changed after 2000. The demographic data will have to be resummed for the precincts, instead of using the official block group data.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 12, 2010, 01:03:24 AM

I know you made some changes to the Socal map, but did you make any changes to the Norcal map? My biggest concern here is that both Mcnerney and his challenger David Harmer don't live in CD-11 as drawn above. Any CD-11 that is drawn will have to include east bay suburbs. Either it's going to be Pleasanton (Mcnerney) or San Ramon (Harmer) depending on who wins in the fall.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 12, 2010, 07:20:32 AM

I know you made some changes to the Socal map, but did you make any changes to the Norcal map? My biggest concern here is that both Mcnerney and his challenger David Harmer don't live in CD-11 as drawn above. Any CD-11 that is drawn will have to include east bay suburbs. Either it's going to be Pleasanton (Mcnerney) or San Ramon (Harmer) depending on who wins in the fall.

This version of CA was designed first to create appropriate minority districts then to minimize county fragments with equal population (within 100), then follow with compactness. No Cal doesn't have much in the way of required minority districts, so county integrity was the primary consideration there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on August 12, 2010, 10:51:05 AM
That map would make things much nicer for McNerney, right?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on August 12, 2010, 10:53:52 AM
That map would make things much nicer for McNerney, right?

Not really. He would have to choose between a primary battle with Pete Stark or moving to Stockton (already a bad idea) to run in a seat that is only marginally more Democratic than his current one.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 12, 2010, 09:17:36 PM
That map would make things much nicer for McNerney, right?

If the rural areas and small towns are taken out from the district and in it's place Dublin and Pleasanton are added, I think it would be a pretty good district for Mcnerney. Probably D+3 or 4. I would add the rural areas either into Stark's district, in place of the two cities I mentioned, or add them to CD-3 while adding more democratic parts of CD-3 into one of the outer east bay districts (probably CD-10 since Garamendi is from Sacramento County).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 15, 2010, 07:02:14 AM
This is a democratic gerrymander of what could happen if California loses a seat (I know it's unlikely this time around). I was afraid I wouldn't be able to get rid of a Republican seat without endangering a few Democrats. To my surprise not only did I get rid of a Republican district (Buck Mckeon's), I also put a few other pubbie incumbents in tough seats. I also put Jane Harman in a tougher district, but any uncorrupt Democrat should be able to carry it.

()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 15, 2010, 07:09:27 AM
()
()
()
()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 15, 2010, 07:18:32 AM
()
()
()
()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 15, 2010, 07:27:37 AM
()
()
()
()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 15, 2010, 12:02:37 PM
This is a democratic gerrymander of what could happen if California loses a seat (I know it's unlikely this time around). I was afraid I wouldn't be able to get rid of a Republican seat without endangering a few Democrats. To my surprise not only did I get rid of a Republican district (Buck Mckeon's), I also put a few other pubbie incumbents in tough seats. I also put Jane Harman in a tougher district, but any uncorrupt Democrat should be able to carry it.

()
()

How many Hispanic-majority districts does this create?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on August 15, 2010, 01:55:11 PM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 15, 2010, 02:12:29 PM
Those are some ugly seats!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 16, 2010, 05:38:04 AM
How many Hispanic-majority districts does this create?

15 Hispanic majority districts and 6 districts where they are greater than 40% of the population.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 16, 2010, 05:48:21 AM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. :P Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 16, 2010, 05:56:10 AM
A few thoughts on how I think the districts will vote:

CD 1- Wh: 68%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 2%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 21%, Other: 3%
This district takes in Napa and parts of Sonoma county and then goes north through rural areas whilst picking up Willits, Ukiah, Eureka as well as Arcata. It then takes in democratic parts of Siskiyou county and then goes south picking up the college and downtown area of Chico whilst going to it’s end in Yolo county, including the hyper democratic city of Davis. It might be slightly more Republican than the current 1st district, but it can be easily held by a Democrat.
CD 2- Wh: 70%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 7%, Hisp: 17%, Other: 3%
I ended up switching CD2 and 4 so Mclintock would probably run from this district. At first I wanted to eliminate this district, but I was unable to. It ended up being much easier to draw Democratic districts in Socal. This district takes in the more conservative parts of San Joaquin County and the Sacramento suburbs. Safe R.
CD 3- Wh: 66%, Bl: 4%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 7%, Hisp: 19%, Other: 3%
Mostly conservative Sacramento county suburbs. I got rid of more minority parts of south Sacramento from the district, thus making it safer for Lungren.
CD 4: Wh: 75%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 2%, Asn: 4%, Hisp: 14%, Other: 3%
Conservative rural areas of northern California. It’s more or less the same district as before, but without the Sacramento suburbs. Safe R.
CD 5: Wh: 42%, Bl: 12%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 18%, Hisp: 24%, Other: 4%
Inner Sacramento district. Mostly the same as before and safe D.
CD 6: Wh: 68%, Bl: 4%, Nat: 2%, Asn: 6%, Hisp: 18%, Other: 3%
This district takes in more of rural California than the previous district which makes it less safe. Yet it’s still a safe D district.
CD 7: Wh: 37%, Bl: 16%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 15%, Hisp: 28%, Other: 4%
Similar to the current district, but it takes in some rural areas in northern California. Still a safe D district.
CD 8: Wh: 48%, Bl: 6%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 29%, Hisp: 14%, Other: 2%
Same district as before. Very safe D.
CD 9: Wh: 38%, Bl: 18%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 27%, Hisp: 13%, Other: 3%
For the inner east bay I tried to create as Hispanic a district as possible. This means that CA-9 is basically everybody except for the more heavily Hispanic areas. Safe D obviously.
CD 10: Wh: 59%, Bl: 5%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 12%, Hisp: 20%, Other: 3%
This district is more or less the same in Contra Costa county but it does not go into Alameda to take in Livermore. Instead I took the district into Sacramento county to take in some democratic areas there and Garamendi is from the area anyways. It also contains Vacaville and West Sacramento. It might be slightly less Democratic than the current district but can be easily held by a Democrat. Lean D.
CD 11: Wh: 47%, Bl: 6%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 30%, Other: 3%
This has been made much safer for Mcnerney. In San Joaquin county it excises the conservative rural areas as well as the non Hispanic areas of Stockton and Manteca. It becomes a lean D district as opposed to the true swing district that it is currently.
CD 12: Wh: 42%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 32%, Hisp: 20%, Other: 3%
My goal in San Mateo and Santa Clara county was to create as white a district as possible. This district got the rest of the precincts. Safe D.
CD 13: Wh: 24%, Bl: 10%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 23%, Hisp:40%, Other: 3%
So this was my attempt at creating a Hispanic majority district in Alameda county. I failed miserably. I even had to go into San Mateo county to pick up East Palo Alto and Redwood city to make it at least 40% Hispanic.  Safe D.
CD 14: Wh: 38%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 36%, Hisp: 21%, Other: 2%
I tried to make a white and Hispanic district in Santa Clara county. This is the rest of the county. Safe D .
CD 15: Wh: 23%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 17%, Hisp: 55%, Other: 2%
I suppose I could have made a Hispanic district totally within Santa Clara county, but I instead chose to go south and take in Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Salinas and small hyper Hispanic farm towns south of Monterey. Safe D.
CD 16: Wh: 70%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 11%, Other: 3%
This is my white district of the south bay. I had to go down south to take in Monterey and the Carmel valley to make it so. It’s a lean to safe D district, but if Republicans start doing better with culturally liberal whites, this district could be in play. Very unlikely though.
CD 17: Wh: 45%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 16%, Hisp: 34%, Other: 2%
Pretty crazy district stretching all the way from Fremont in the bay area to Oxnard in Ventura county. It’s major population areas are parts of the east bay and south bay, conservative parts of SLO and SB counties and democratic parts of Ventura county. It’s less safe than the current district but it should be held by a Democrat. Lean D.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 16, 2010, 05:59:23 AM
CD 18: Wh: 33%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 56%, Other: 2%
Hispanic district in the northern San Joaquin valley. This is probably a swing district with a Democratic lean. Quite similar in partisanship to the current district, I think.
CD  19: Wh: 65%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 23%, Other: 2%
White areas of the northern San Joaquin valley and also takes in the conservative suburbs of Fresno.
CD 20: Wh: 22%, Bl: 5%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 8%, Hisp: 63%, Other: 1%
A huge chunk of Fresno is in this district. It also takes in parts of Kings and Tulare counties. This is a safer Democratic district than either the current 18th or 20th CD’s.
CD 21: Wh: 29%, Bl: 5%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 3%, Hisp: 61%, Other: 1%
This is one of those safe R districts that I put into contention. It’s mostly the Hispanic areas of Kern, Kings and Tulare counties.  Although I made this into a very Hispanic district, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush carried this district twice (narrowly). Nunes should be able to hold onto it, but a good challenger could beat him.
CD 22: Wh: 62%, Bl: 4%, Nat: 2%, Asn: 3%, Hisp: 27%, Other: 2%
Very Republican district consisting of Bakersfield, Lancaster and eastern California up to South Lake Tahoe.
CD 23: Wh: 48%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 43%, Other: 2%
Similar district to the current one. Safe D.
CD 24: Wh: 64%, Bl: 4%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 7%, Hisp: 23%, Other: 2%
Conservative parts of Ventura County + Santa Clarita + Palmdale = Safe R.
CD 25: Wh: 23%, Bl: 7%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 10%, Hisp: 58%, Other: 2%
This is the district I eliminated. I actually used this color for what is the current 51st CD. This majority Hispanic south SD district should be safely held by a Democrat.
CD 26: Wh: 35%, Bl: 7%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 8%, Hisp: 47%, Other: 2%
Another Republican district that has been put into contention. It takes in marginally Republican areas like Chino, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland and joins them with Democratic areas like parts of Pomona and Montclair. It also takes in a chunk of unincorporated Riverside county. Can’t say how this area votes but it may determine how the district votes overall. Bush probably won this district in 2004, but overall it has a slight lean towards Democrats. Drier should be able to hold onto this seat unless he gets a really good challenger. An open seat election would be won by a Democrat though.
CD 27: Wh: 44%, Bl: 4%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 11%, Hisp: 39%, Other: 2%
Central San Fernando valley district. Safe D.
CD 28: Wh: 34%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 8%, Hisp: 52%, Other: 2%
Eastern parts of the San Fernando valley as well as the city of San Fernando, Burbank and La Canada Flintridge. Safe D.
CD 29: Wh: 35%, Bl: 6%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 42%, Other: 3%
Glendale, Pasadena and out to Azusa. Safe D.
CA 30: Wh: 63%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 12%, Hisp: 20%, Other: 2%
Similar to the current district. Safe D.
CA 31: Wh: 9%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 8%, Hisp: 78%, Other: 1%
Very Hispanic  downtown/east LA district. Safe D.
CA 32: Wh: 18%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 47%, Hisp: 31%, Other: 1%
This was my attempt at a majority Asian district in the San Gabriel valley. If I tried harder I could have probably made it majority Asian. Oh well. Trying to make it more Asian also led it to become a less safe district for Democrats. It’s still a strong Democratic district though.
CA 33: Wh: 24%, Bl: 20%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 21%, Other: 2%
West LA district. Safe D.
CA 34: Wh: 3%, Bl: 32%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 59%, Other: 1%
This district has the greatest black population of the LA districts. It used to be a Hispanic heavy district in east LA. Now it’s primarily a south LA district. I put a lot of Blacks into this district so I could put Waters into a less primary friendly district. This is quite a safe D district.
CA 35: Wh: 25%, Bl: 15%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 15%, Hisp: 43%, Other: 2%
A radically different district from the old one. I created it so that Waters could be primaried. This district takes in most of the northern parts of Long Beach, Lakewood, Los Alamitos and stretches north to Paramount. It’s still a pretty safe D district but nothing close to the D+31 district that it is currently.
CA 36: Wh: 49%, Bl: 6%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 17%, Hisp: 26%, Other: 2%
A very similar district to the current one except the Republican parts of the Palos Verdes peninsula has been added into the district and parts of Culver City taken out. This makes it a more Republican district but it’s still a lean D district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 16, 2010, 06:01:50 AM
CA 37: Wh: 29%, Bl: 10%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 45%, Other: 2%
U shaped district that starts from the harbor and goes through the heart of Long Beach and into Seal Beach and then Cypress in Orange county. It then turns back into LA county taking in Artesia, Bellflower, Lynwood and east Compton. It’s a safe D district.
CA 38: Wh: 24%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 11%, Hisp: 61%, Other: 1%
Hispanic district in the San Gabriel valley and eastern LA county. Safe to lean D.
CA 39: Wh: 11%, Bl: 7%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 76%, Other: 1%
Very Hispanic district stretching from Huntington park, going through Southgate, Downey and La Mirada on the way to pick up the wealthier areas of Fullerton. Safe D.
CA 40: Wh: 55%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 9%, Hisp: 29%, Other: 2%
Safe Republican district stretching from Tustin and going through Orange, Yorba Linda, Brea, Norco, wealthier parts of Corona and down to the Temecula and Murrieta area.
CA 41: Wh: 55%, Bl: 7%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 4%, Hisp: 31%, Other: 2%
Pretty similar to the current district. It consists mostly of San Bernardino county exurbs. Safe R.
CA 42: Wh: 30%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 12%, Hisp: 54%, Other: 1%
This is a former Republican district that I have taken apart. This is a district I am definitely sure will not reelect the incumbent Republican. This is another U shaped district that takes in heavily Hispanic areas like Pico Rivera, Downey and Norwalk as well as more moderate areas like Whittier and Buena Park. It also takes in the more Hispanic parts of Fullerton and also the Republican city of Placentia. A good Republican incumbent would be able to hold this district, but not Gary Miller. Lean D.
CA 43: Wh: 21%, Bl: 10%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 4%, Hisp: 62%, Other: 2%
Very similar to the current district except it doesn’t contain a portion of San Bernardino and picks up some wealthier areas of Riverside. Safe D.
CA 44: Wh: 29%, Bl: 10%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 7%, Hisp: 51%, Other: 2%
This is a Republican district I didn’t have to tinker with too much to make majority Hispanic. I did take in Hispanic parts of Corona and all of Moreno Valley, Perris as well as most of Riverside. This is a lean Democratic district where a good Republican incumbent could easily hold on. But considering Calvert almost lost in 2008 in a much more Republican district, in this district he is toast. And considering he actually lost in the Riverside county portion of his district, which is also growing very fast, Calvert is going to be in big trouble come 2012.
CA 45: Wh: 27%, Bl: 5%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 4%, Hisp: 62%, Other: 1%
I put Bono Mack into a much tougher district. It first of all takes in a part of inner city San Bernardino, and then takes in Democratic parts of the Coachella valley including Palm Springs, Indio and Coachella. It also goes down to Imperial county and it contains a Hispanic part of Escondido. I think she could hold on, since she is a good incumbent, but against a good candidate she could lose. The mayor of Palm Springs is running against her this year and he will probably lose. But in this district he would have won.
CA 46: Wh: 50%, Bl: 1%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 25%, Hisp: 22%, Other: 2%
Coastal OC district as well as the Vietnamese parts. Safe R.
CA 47: Wh: 19%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 12%, Hisp: 67%, Other: 1%
Republicans always dream of taking back this district. Not going to happen in the district I have drawn. I took out the Vietnamese heavy parts of the district and added in some Hispanic areas of Costa Mesa as well as the UC Irvine area. Safe D.
CA 48: Wh: 68%, Bl: 1%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 13%, Hisp: 15%, Other: 2%
Safe Republican south OC district.
CA 49: Wh: 63%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 3%, Hisp: 29%, Other: 2%
This district includes exurban Riverside county, wealthy Coachella valley areas, Fallbrook, Escondido and rural parts of SD county. Safe R.
CA 50: Wh: 56%, Bl: 6%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 13%, Hisp: 25%, Other: 3%
I tried to create a third Democratic district in SD but it’s just not possible. I added in Hispanic areas in Oceanside and Vista and then stayed by the coast where more liberal whites live. This is definitely more Democratic than the current district and might be just slightly lean Democrat. But as an incumbent, Bilbray should be favored in this district.
CA 51: Wh: 41%, Bl: 9%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 12%, Hisp: 34%, Other: 3%
This is the old CD 53. It’s pretty similar to the original district, maybe just a tad more Democratic. Safe D.
CA 52: Wh: 72%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 9%, Hisp: 14%, Other: 3%
Basically the whiter and more conservative inland areas of SD are in this district. Safe R.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 16, 2010, 07:57:25 AM

CA 33: Wh: 24%, Bl: 20%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 21%, Other: 2%
West LA district. Safe D.
CA 34: Wh: 3%, Bl: 32%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 59%, Other: 1%
This district has the greatest black population of the LA districts. It used to be a Hispanic heavy district in east LA. Now it’s primarily a south LA district. I put a lot of Blacks into this district so I could put Waters into a less primary friendly district. This is quite a safe D district.
CA 35: Wh: 25%, Bl: 15%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 15%, Hisp: 43%, Other: 2%
A radically different district from the old one. I created it so that Waters could be primaried. This district takes in most of the northern parts of Long Beach, Lakewood, Los Alamitos and stretches north to Paramount. It’s still a pretty safe D district but nothing close to the D+31 district that it is currently.

Even if the Dems could draw the map to suit themselves, I don't think that they would want to invite a suit from the NAACP with this map. It dilutes Black votes too much, and since a majority-Black district is possible, the only way I would expect concurrence would be if there were two districts with strong enough Black populations to lock up up primary wins. Even then there could be VRA concerns.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on August 16, 2010, 09:20:28 AM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. :P Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on August 16, 2010, 10:24:05 AM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. :P Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

Not true. You just have to be rigorous with your excision of the whites from such districts. I recently drew a map with three Hispanic districts in the Central Valley, two of which were more than 70% Hispanic! (This involved stretching a district to include San Benito County.)

CA-20 is 72% Hispanic, CA-17 is 71% Hispanic, CA-18 (northernmost) is 55% Hispanic and solidly Dem.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 16, 2010, 01:30:31 PM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. :P Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

3 Hispanics will be elected from the central valley, since Nunes is a Hispanic, no? I agree the 21st CD I drew would be quite hard for a Democrat to take, especially against a good candidate like Nunes. But remember that this district is probably very poor and more likely to vote Democrat for congress as opposed to the presidency. And I am sure Obama carried the district comfortably.

On the other hand I made CA-20 safe, as opposed to the slightly Democratic leaning district it is today.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 16, 2010, 01:50:22 PM

CA 33: Wh: 24%, Bl: 20%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 21%, Other: 2%
West LA district. Safe D.
CA 34: Wh: 3%, Bl: 32%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 59%, Other: 1%
This district has the greatest black population of the LA districts. It used to be a Hispanic heavy district in east LA. Now it’s primarily a south LA district. I put a lot of Blacks into this district so I could put Waters into a less primary friendly district. This is quite a safe D district.
CA 35: Wh: 25%, Bl: 15%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 15%, Hisp: 43%, Other: 2%
A radically different district from the old one. I created it so that Waters could be primaried. This district takes in most of the northern parts of Long Beach, Lakewood, Los Alamitos and stretches north to Paramount. It’s still a pretty safe D district but nothing close to the D+31 district that it is currently.

Even if the Dems could draw the map to suit themselves, I don't think that they would want to invite a suit from the NAACP with this map. It dilutes Black votes too much, and since a majority-Black district is possible, the only way I would expect concurrence would be if there were two districts with strong enough Black populations to lock up up primary wins. Even then there could be VRA concerns.

My goal here was to specifically put Waters is a district she would lose her primary in. I don't think diluting the black vote helped the Democrats. I could easily move people around in West LA to make two 30% black districts and still keep every Democrat safe and keep all the Republicans I put in tough districts in such districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 16, 2010, 10:58:17 PM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. :P Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

I find it interesting that the three most Hispanic districts in the Central Valley are represented by members of Portuguese descent - Cardoza, Costa, and Nunes. Do their names help them? What percentage would it take to elect an Hispanic in that region?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 17, 2010, 12:29:15 AM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. :P Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

I find it interesting that the three most Hispanic districts in the Central Valley are represented by members of Portuguese descent - Cardoza, Costa, and Nunes. Do their names help them? What percentage would it take to elect an Hispanic in that region?

Hmm, should have done a little research before I assumed they were hispanic. I am fairly sure their names help them rather than hurt them. I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of the electorate think they are hispanic.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: phk on August 17, 2010, 03:13:02 AM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. :P Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

I find it interesting that the three most Hispanic districts in the Central Valley are represented by members of Portuguese descent - Cardoza, Costa, and Nunes. Do their names help them? What percentage would it take to elect an Hispanic in that region?

Hmm, should have done a little research before I assumed they were hispanic. I am fairly sure their names help them rather than hurt them. I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of the electorate think they are hispanic.

They look like Whites.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 17, 2010, 04:02:05 AM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. :P Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

I find it interesting that the three most Hispanic districts in the Central Valley are represented by members of Portuguese descent - Cardoza, Costa, and Nunes. Do their names help them? What percentage would it take to elect an Hispanic in that region?

Hmm, should have done a little research before I assumed they were hispanic. I am fairly sure their names help them rather than hurt them. I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of the electorate think they are hispanic.

They look like Whites.

They look Hispanic to me...Nunes especially.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: phk on August 17, 2010, 11:43:29 AM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. :P Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

I find it interesting that the three most Hispanic districts in the Central Valley are represented by members of Portuguese descent - Cardoza, Costa, and Nunes. Do their names help them? What percentage would it take to elect an Hispanic in that region?

Hmm, should have done a little research before I assumed they were hispanic. I am fairly sure their names help them rather than hurt them. I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of the electorate think they are hispanic.

They look like Whites.

They look Hispanic to me...Nunes especially.

By the Hispanic standards of the Central Valley, most of whom have significant Native American ancestry, all 3 of them would be perceived as White.

Than again they would perceive the Cubans and Puerto Ricans of Miami to be White as well.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on August 17, 2010, 11:55:38 AM
Generally, people of European descent who did not make a detour through Latin America on their way to the U.S. are not considered Hispanic or Latino.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: phk on August 17, 2010, 11:58:45 AM
Generally, people of European descent who did not make a detour through Latin America on their way to the U.S. are not considered Hispanic or Latino.

True.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 17, 2010, 03:27:43 PM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. :P Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

Here's my version to maximize the Hispanic population for the three Central Valley districts. CDs 18 and 20 are 62% Hispanic and CD 21 is 64% Hispanic (as is CD 17 from Salinas to San Jose). I've tried to preserve county lines and keep municipalities intact where possible, but the minority districts were given priority. This would be consistent with the proposed Prop 20 for CA redistricting.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 17, 2010, 04:11:24 PM
Generally, people of European descent who did not make a detour through Latin America on their way to the U.S. are not considered Hispanic or Latino.

Oh of course. But someone who just looks at their name and their pictures (especially Nunes) might assume they are Hispanic.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 17, 2010, 10:47:47 PM
To follow up and extend from my LA and Central Valley maps, here's my redo of CA. I used the proposed Prop 20 as a guideline, though it's incomplete since I don't have community of interest data. If it passes here is the list of priorities for a map: 1) population equality; 2) VRA; 3) contiguous districts; 4) respect county and municipal boundaries (and communities of interest); 5) compact districts. Numbering generally reflects the core of the old district without regard to incumbent residence.

()

Here's the demographic details, with populations over 20% noted. There are 24 with a white majority, 8 with white plurality, 18 hispanic majority, 2 asian majority, and 1 black majority.

CD01 (royal blue, Redding): 76% white
CD02 (forest green, Chico): 62% white, 23% hispanic
CD03 (purple, Citrus Heights): 65% white
CD04 (red, Roseville) : 80% white
CD05 (yellow, Sacramento) : 39% white, 25% hispanic
CD06 (teal, Santa Rosa) : 71% white
CD07 (grey, Vallejo) : 38% white, 27% hispanic
CD08 (lavender, San Francisco) : 46% white, 29% asian
CD09 (baby blue, Oakland) : 34% white, 21% black, 21% asian, 20% hispanic
CD10 (magenta, Concord) : 58% white, 21% hispanic
CD11 (lime, Stockton) : 51% white, 29% hispanic
CD12 (periwinkle, San Mateo) : 45% white, 32% asian
CD13 (flesh, Hayward) : 43% white, 25% asian, 23% hispanic
CD14 (olive, Santa Cruz) : 57% white, 23% hispanic
CD15 (orange, Milpitas) : 52% asian, 26% white
CD16 (kelly green, San Jose) : 55% white, 20% hispanic
CD17 (midnight blue, Salinas) : 64% hispanic, 22% white
CD18 (lemon, Merced) : 62% hispanic, 25% white
CD19 (moss green, Modesto-Fresno) : 60% white, 25% hispanic
CD20 (pink, Fresno) : 62% hispanic, 23% white
CD21 (brick red, Visalia-Bakersfield) : 64% hispanic, 27% white
CD22 (brown, Lancaster-Victorville) : 59% white, 27% hispanic
CD23 (pale blue, Oxnard) : 53% hispanic, 37% white
CD24 (deep purple, Bakersfield) : 67% white, 23% hispanic
CD25 (mauve, Santa Clarita) : 57% white, 25% hispanic
CD26 (charcoal, Hesperia) : 58% white, 26% hispanic
CD27 (sea green, LA Northridge) : 53% white, 29% hispanic
CD28 (lilac, LA Van Nuys) : 65% hispanic, 22% white
CD29 (pale olive, LA Hollywood) 60% white
CD30 (peach, Thousand Oaks) : 70% white
CD31 (pale yellow, LA El Sereno) : 64% hispanic
CD32 (tangerine, El Monte) 66% hispanic
CD33 (blue, LA Central) 72% hispanic
CD34 (green, Downey) 71% hispanic
CD35 (violet, LA South LA) 52% black, 41% hispanic
CD36 (orange, Torrance) 42% white, 31% hispanic
CD37 (cornflower, Long Beach) 65% hispanic
CD38 (slate green, Alhambra) : 50% Asian, 28% hispanic
CD39 (beige, Norwalk) 72% hispanic, 20% white
CD40 (rust, Fullerton) 48% white, 21% asian, 27% hispanic
CD41 (light grey, Escondido) 59% white, 30% hispanic
CD42 (bright green, Ontario) 61% hispanic, 23% white
CD43 (hot pink, San Berardino) 60% hispanic, 21% white
CD44 (maroon, Riverside) 56% hispanic, 29% white
CD45 (cyan, Indio) 60% hispanic, 32% white
CD46 (orange, Huntington Beach) 55% white, 21% asian
CD47 (pale lilac, Santa Ana) 71% hispanic
CD48 (light orange, Irvine) 58% white, 22% hispanic
CD49 (dusty rose, San Clemente) 63% white, 23% hispanic
CD50 (sky blue, Oceanside) 57% white, 26% hispanic
CD51 (brown, Chula Vista) 58% hispanic
CD52 (army green, El Cajon) 66% white
CD53 (pale grey, San Diego) 63% white


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 18, 2010, 01:15:04 AM
How many hispanic districts does the VRA require in California?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on August 18, 2010, 01:28:49 AM
How many hispanic districts does the VRA require in California?

We only have about 10 I think.  Though from pure percentages we should have around 15-18, mostly because they're either highly concentrated in Los Angeles County (were we have a couple that are over 70% Hispanic), or scattered across the rest of the state in too small of a concentration to actually form a Hispanic-majority district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on August 18, 2010, 01:29:51 AM
Generally, people of European descent who did not make a detour through Latin America on their way to the U.S. are not considered Hispanic or Latino.

Well Ken Salazar was often spoken of as one of only two Hispanic Senators. I agree it is silly to consider him one though. Back when Patricia Madrid was running in New Mexico I also frequently heard her referred to as Hispanic though she is one of those too (true to her last name.)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: phk on August 18, 2010, 02:42:06 AM
Generally, people of European descent who did not make a detour through Latin America on their way to the U.S. are not considered Hispanic or Latino.

Oh of course. But someone who just looks at their name and their pictures (especially Nunes) might assume they are Hispanic.

Spanish-Americans are actually considered Hispanic.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 18, 2010, 05:58:46 AM
How many hispanic districts does the VRA require in California?

We only have about 10 I think.  Though from pure percentages we should have around 15-18, mostly because they're either highly concentrated in Los Angeles County (were we have a couple that are over 70% Hispanic), or scattered across the rest of the state in too small of a concentration to actually form a Hispanic-majority district.

The answer is based in a number of SCOTUS cases. In Gingles a three part test was established: 1) it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, 2) it is politically cohesive, and 3) in the absence of special circumstances, bloc voting usually defeats the minority’s preferred candidate. In Johnson v. DeGrandy the Court rejected a bright line standard of proportionality for majority-minority districts compared to the population, but instead sought to look at the totality of circumstances, specifically whether individual minority groups could elect candidates of their choice. In Bartlett last year a bright line of 50% of the voting age population was set to meet standard 1) of the Gingles test, but states are not barred from creating influence districts if they so choose.

Applying this to CA, I suspect that the Gingles test can be shown for the Hispanic population, and at least 17 districts can be drawn with sufficient VAP (My CD 23 at 53% might be too low for VAP). A lower number of districts might be permitted, but might be successfully challenged given the relatively few Hispanics in the CA delegation compared to the overall population. The Asian districts would not be required, since there are sufficient members in the delegation to show that they can elect candidates of choice, but creating them meets a community of interest standard, and protects the group from dispersal into other districts. No more than one Black district would be required under Bartlett, and I chose not to reduce the number of Hispanic districts to create more influence districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on August 18, 2010, 07:43:24 AM
Generally, people of European descent who did not make a detour through Latin America on their way to the U.S. are not considered Hispanic or Latino.

Oh of course. But someone who just looks at their name and their pictures (especially Nunes) might assume they are Hispanic.

Spanish-Americans are actually considered Hispanic.

Both my post and your post are missing a "by whom." :) I think this is a gray area, like whether a white South African can check "African-American". There's also the mess of Latino vs. Hispanic which are preferred in different parts of the country.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 19, 2010, 09:13:02 PM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)
The initiative that created the redistricting commission for legislative districts, also established the same parameters for congressional districts (respecting political boundaries, not bypassing communities, etc.), while leaving the legislature as the body to perform the redistricting.   The only difference is that the legislature is permitted to make political considerations and take into account the residence of incumbents and potential candidates in drawing congressional districts.

The Legislature is also obligated to "provide access to redistricting data and software, and otherwise ensure full public participation in the redistricting process."  Failure to provide internet access to the data and software precludes full public participation.

So even if the initiative to entrust congressional redistricting to the redistricting commission fails; and Governor Brown Jr. signs the Sbane plan, the California Supreme Court will overturn it on grounds that it violates the California Constitution.  The special master that draws a legal plan for the court will use the members of the redistricting commission to draw the congressional district plan and direct that they not take into account the residence of incumbents and potential candidates, or make other political considerations.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 19, 2010, 09:29:32 PM
Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal. :P  Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it. :)

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. :P Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

California Constitution requires that congressional districts comply with the following requirements:

(b) The population of all congressional districts shall be reasonably equal.
(2) Districts shall comply with the federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1971 and following).
(3) Districts shall be geographically contiguous.
(4) The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, neighborhood, or community of interest shall be respected to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding subdivisions. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.
(5) To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with the criteria above, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant population.

I doubt that your plan complies with (4) and (5).  I doubt that you can show that your plan was necessary in order to ensure contiguity.  So you are stuck with showing that your intent was to comply with the VRA, and it was not practicable to do so without violating (4) and (5).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on August 19, 2010, 09:50:39 PM
Here's the best case Maryland Senate gerrymanders for both parties:

Democrats:
()

Republicans:
()

McCain won 11 seats in the first map, 20 in the second (out of 47.) A Republican majority Maryland Senate might be impossible. I'm quite impressed I was able to draw a McCain district out of Montgomery and Howard counties too.

Currently Republicans hold 14 seats of which probably all except possibly one voted for McCain. Oddly there are two likely McCain-won seats held by the Democrats.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 20, 2010, 06:37:25 AM
Yet another map of Ohio, Republican gerrymander again:

()

OH-01 (dark blue SW) - Assuming Chabot wins (which seems pretty likely), this district cuts out a bit more of Cincinnati and adds a little more of Butler County to nudge the numbers towards the Republicans.
OH-02 (dark green S) - Little is changed here, except it takes in a little more of Cincinnati. Jean Schmidt's gotten a lot less vocal lately, so she should have little problem holding it.
OH-03 (dark purple W) - Dayton + Republican areas. R-leaning. Mike Turner lives here.
OH-04 (red central) - Jim Jordan's district, completely redesigned to take in a bit of Columbus, Jordan's home in Champaign County, and some Republican-leaning counties in the north central part of the state. Should be another R-leaning district.
OH-05 (yellow NW) - Bob Latta's district; some of the counties changed, but this should remain a solidly R district.
OH-06 (light green E) - Combined parts of Charlie Wilson and Zack Space's districts to make another R-leaning district. Space doesn't live here, though. Wilson might have a chance at holding it in a good year, but a Republican should be able to win it otherwise.
OH-07 (grey S) - Steve Austria lives in the western edge of the district. It's been pushed to the SE corner of the map, and remains solidly R.
OH-08 (light purple SW) - Differently-configured (suburban Cincinnati/Dayton district now) but should remain solidly R for John Boehner.
OH-09 (teal N) - Mary Jo Kilroy gets a safe Dem district that stretches from Toledo to the Dem portions of Lorain County.
OH-10 (magenta N) - Combined parts of Cleveland with Akron. Safe Dem district. Kucinich lives here; Sutton lives outside the district, but could always primary him.
OH-11 (light green N) - Fudge's district; plurality-black. Safe Dem.
OH-12 (light purple central) - Columbus-area district for Pat Tiberi; mostly unchanged.
OH-13 (pink NE) - Sutton lives here, but all the heavily-Dem parts have been removed. It should be a Republican-leaning district now.
OH-14 (brown NE) - LaTourette's district, pretty much the same.
OH-15 (orange central) - Kilroy's, or soon to be Stivers', district. A little less of Columbus, a little more of the Republican counties to the west.
OH-16 (dark teal E) - Ryan's district, includes the Youngstown area, Canton, and a bit of Space's district. Ryan, Space, and Boccieri all actually live in this district. Safe Dem.

So this one should, at best, go 12-4 R.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 20, 2010, 08:16:50 AM
Yet another map of Ohio, Republican gerrymander again:

()

OH-01 (dark blue SW) - Assuming Chabot wins (which seems pretty likely), this district cuts out a bit more of Cincinnati and adds a little more of Butler County to nudge the numbers towards the Republicans.
OH-02 (dark green S) - Little is changed here, except it takes in a little more of Cincinnati. Jean Schmidt's gotten a lot less vocal lately, so she should have little problem holding it.
OH-03 (dark purple W) - Dayton + Republican areas. R-leaning. Mike Turner lives here.
OH-04 (red central) - Jim Jordan's district, completely redesigned to take in a bit of Columbus, Jordan's home in Champaign County, and some Republican-leaning counties in the north central part of the state. Should be another R-leaning district.
OH-05 (yellow NW) - Bob Latta's district; some of the counties changed, but this should remain a solidly R district.
OH-06 (light green E) - Combined parts of Charlie Wilson and Zack Space's districts to make another R-leaning district. Space doesn't live here, though. Wilson might have a chance at holding it in a good year, but a Republican should be able to win it otherwise.
OH-07 (grey S) - Steve Austria lives in the western edge of the district. It's been pushed to the SE corner of the map, and remains solidly R.
OH-08 (light purple SW) - Differently-configured (suburban Cincinnati/Dayton district now) but should remain solidly R for John Boehner.
OH-09 (teal N) - Mary Jo Kilroy gets a safe Dem district that stretches from Toledo to the Dem portions of Lorain County.
OH-10 (magenta N) - Combined parts of Cleveland with Akron. Safe Dem district. Kucinich lives here; Sutton lives outside the district, but could always primary him.
OH-11 (light green N) - Fudge's district; plurality-black. Safe Dem.
OH-12 (light purple central) - Columbus-area district for Pat Tiberi; mostly unchanged.
OH-13 (pink NE) - Sutton lives here, but all the heavily-Dem parts have been removed. It should be a Republican-leaning district now.
OH-14 (brown NE) - LaTourette's district, pretty much the same.
OH-15 (orange central) - Kilroy's, or soon to be Stivers', district. A little less of Columbus, a little more of the Republican counties to the west.
OH-16 (dark teal E) - Ryan's district, includes the Youngstown area, Canton, and a bit of Space's district. Ryan, Space, and Boccieri all actually live in this district. Safe Dem.

So this one should, at best, go 12-4 R.

I think that a GOP gerrymander would play it safe and keep OH-11 majority Black. The best way to do that is to run it down to Akron. However, that would keep OH-10 on the west side of Cleveland.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 20, 2010, 12:11:28 PM
I think that a GOP gerrymander would play it safe and keep OH-11 majority Black. The best way to do that is to run it down to Akron. However, that would keep OH-10 on the west side of Cleveland.
In 2000, it was possible to include all of Cleveland in a majority-black district, though the included suburbs had to be very selective.  In 2010, more of the eastern and southeastern suburbs will be majority black, and presumably the black share of Cleveland itself will be greater (based on the 2006-2008 ACS) the district is now 59% black vs. 56% at the time of the 2000 census, this is because whites have been leaving at a greater rate than blacks (the district has lost 80,000 since the census and the loss of 2 seats is going to require a huge pick up of population.

The black population in Akron is concentrated in the SW part of the city, and Akron itself is only 30% black, so you would need a long isthmus running through the northern part of Summit County and into Akron, which also results in eastern and western Summit County being split, or having to wrap around CD-11.

I don't think you need to string cities together to pick up enough black residents if you can create a compact district in Cuyahoga county that is very high plurality black.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on August 20, 2010, 12:43:00 PM
If the GOP is going to draw the lines in Ohio, they would be well advised to throw in the towel on Columbus, and give the Dems a district there. Otherwise, they risk having two Dem Columbus based seats at some point. Pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered. Did you consider that Muon2?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 20, 2010, 01:40:04 PM
If the GOP is going to draw the lines in Ohio, they would be well advised to throw in the towel on Columbus, and give the Dems a district there. Otherwise, they risk having two Dem Columbus based seats at some point. Pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered. Did you consider that Muon2?

It's not my map, and I would have to look at precinct-level data to see if the new Columbus-area seats were strong enough to hold GOP incumbents during 2008. I do think that JL is on the right track in that a GOP map may want to split Columbus four ways rather than the current three-way split if they don't concede a seat.

I think that a GOP gerrymander would play it safe and keep OH-11 majority Black. The best way to do that is to run it down to Akron. However, that would keep OH-10 on the west side of Cleveland.
In 2000, it was possible to include all of Cleveland in a majority-black district, though the included suburbs had to be very selective.  In 2010, more of the eastern and southeastern suburbs will be majority black, and presumably the black share of Cleveland itself will be greater (based on the 2006-2008 ACS) the district is now 59% black vs. 56% at the time of the 2000 census, this is because whites have been leaving at a greater rate than blacks (the district has lost 80,000 since the census and the loss of 2 seats is going to require a huge pick up of population.

The black population in Akron is concentrated in the SW part of the city, and Akron itself is only 30% black, so you would need a long isthmus running through the northern part of Summit County and into Akron, which also results in eastern and western Summit County being split, or having to wrap around CD-11.

I don't think you need to string cities together to pick up enough black residents if you can create a compact district in Cuyahoga county that is very high plurality black.

The Bartlett decision might imply otherwise. If there has been a pattern of racial bloc voting in NE OH, and there is a potential election district with 50% plus black voting age population, then there could be a valid section 2 claim against a map that did not create a majority-black district. The decision rejected plurality districts that relied on crossover white votes or on a multiple-minority coalition.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on August 20, 2010, 02:37:44 PM
It seems to me, without knowing for sure, because I have not crunched the numbers, that it is better and safer for the GOP to pack as many Dems as possible into one Franklin County district, and then they will have a much easier time making everything else around reasonably safe for them (as opposed to some pathetic PVI +2 kind of junk - we want PVI +4 at least, with +6 being even better). If it done right, the Dems get two Cleveland area seats (it may have to be three to keep the risk down of having to worry about a couple of marginal seats), one Youngstown seat, and the Toledo seat, the Columbus seat, and that is it. 10 or 11 pretty safe seats out of 16, is not a bad day's work.

Does that make sense?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on August 20, 2010, 06:33:03 PM
If the GOP is going to draw the lines in Ohio, they would be well advised to throw in the towel on Columbus, and give the Dems a district there. Otherwise, they risk having two Dem Columbus based seats at some point. Pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered. Did you consider that Muon2?

Well, if they're going to do that, they might as well draw a 2nd Black-Majority district stretching from Cincinnati to Dayton to Columbus.  You can draw a decent finger District that's about 55% black that way, and it will guarantee Republicans safe Districts in all of Central and Southern Ohio.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 20, 2010, 07:02:24 PM
For what it's worth, the district I made is about 48% black.

Dave's posted on SSP about how to help get more partisan data on the app:

http://swingstateproject.com/diary/7420/redistricting-app-how-you-can-help-get-partisan-data

Edit: for those that don't care to read the article, he also mentions New Mexico has partisan data now.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 20, 2010, 07:46:35 PM
So which states have partisan data for now?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 20, 2010, 08:12:35 PM
California, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Texas. You have to push the "test data" button first for New York.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on August 20, 2010, 08:20:10 PM
California? It didn't work for me and I tried it with the test data selected and without it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on August 20, 2010, 08:24:06 PM
California? It didn't work for me and I tried it with the test data selected and without it.

You have to have test data selected before you load it. Load Idaho first (it's the fastest-loading state), select new estimates and test data, then change to California.

When did New Mexico get partisan data?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 20, 2010, 08:45:10 PM
When did New Mexico get partisan data?

Today.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on August 20, 2010, 09:50:54 PM
If the GOP is going to draw the lines in Ohio, they would be well advised to throw in the towel on Columbus, and give the Dems a district there. Otherwise, they risk having two Dem Columbus based seats at some point. Pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered. Did you consider that Muon2?

Well, if they're going to do that, they might as well draw a 2nd Black-Majority district stretching from Cincinnati to Dayton to Columbus.  You can draw a decent finger District that's about 55% black that way, and it will guarantee Republicans safe Districts in all of Central and Southern Ohio.

That kind of district would be illegal under the SCOTUS "Goldilocks" rule. It is too cold to not create a minority majority district in the face of hostile block voting where one can create a nice district that reflects a community of interest, but it is too hot to create some erose monster that appends a bunch of black neighborhoods in several distant metro areas, connected by a snake a mile wide. SCOTUS tossed out just such a district for Mr. Watt in NC, that picked up the black neighborhoods of Charlotte, than snaked over to Raleigh/Durham to do the same, then moved on to Goldsboro (or whatever that town is), and then on to Winston Salem, or some such thing. Getting too hot is a bridge too far, and getting too cold is a missed bridge within convenient commuting distance that must be crossed. Tepidity is the loadstar.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on August 20, 2010, 11:37:50 PM
Uh, this is Mel Watt's current district:

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on August 20, 2010, 11:50:15 PM
The one I was speaking of, before SCOTUS tossed it out I think in 2001, makes what you put up a perfect circle.

But I take your point. Was this district challenged in court? I ask, because if you had put that puppy up, and asked if it were legal (saying disingenuously that this is a district I made up and used Dave's software to do it, with a screen face that would not tip me off instantly where you got it, so it would be tough for me to know it was a setup), and I said clearly illegal, and then you put up what you just put it, not only would I be "owned," but it would be Comedy Goldmine material.

May you cry over your missed opportunity, to cut a major Torie artery (jk dude, I cannot recall any post where either of us ever tried to put the other down, except maybe gently in jest, something for the forum to think about). :P

Maybe the "Goldilocks rule" has a codicil that says snakes are OK, as long as they are reasonably fat. So now if only we knew the formula, which has something to do with length, county lines, maybe topography (I won't get into that now), and some mean regression of square miles with distance, with square mialage towards the "center" given exponential weight. Do you want to take on the project of constructing this formula BRTD?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on August 21, 2010, 12:13:21 AM
The one I was speaking of, before SCOTUS tossed it out I think in 2001, makes what you put up a perfect circle.

But I take your point. Was this district challenged in court? I ask, because if you had put that puppy up, and asked if it were legal (saying disingenuously that this is a district I made up and used Dave's software to do it, with a screen face that would not tip me off instantly where you got it, so it would be tough for me to know it was a setup), and I said clearly illegal, and then you put up what you just put it, not only would I be "owned," but it would be Comedy Goldmine material.

May you cry over your missed opportunity, to cut a major Torie artery. :P

Maybe the "Goldilocks rule" has a codicil that says snakes are OK, as long as they are reasonably fat. So now if only we knew the formula, which has something to do with length, county lines, maybe topography (I won't get into that now), and some mean regression of square miles with distance, with square mialage towards the "center" given exponential weight. Do you want to take on the project of constructing this formula BRTD?

Well, to do what you're suggesting, you'd have to take the 2nd Moment of Inertia of the 2-D Topographical region along a moving center line (Think REALLY HARD CALCULUS).  Or, you could create a defined ratio of area to perimeter, and say that no district can drop below this value.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 21, 2010, 05:47:45 AM
I think that a GOP gerrymander would play it safe and keep OH-11 majority Black. The best way to do that is to run it down to Akron. However, that would keep OH-10 on the west side of Cleveland.
In 2000, it was possible to include all of Cleveland in a majority-black district, though the included suburbs had to be very selective.  In 2010, more of the eastern and southeastern suburbs will be majority black, and presumably the black share of Cleveland itself will be greater (based on the 2006-2008 ACS) the district is now 59% black vs. 56% at the time of the 2000 census, this is because whites have been leaving at a greater rate than blacks (the district has lost 80,000 since the census and the loss of 2 seats is going to require a huge pick up of population.

The black population in Akron is concentrated in the SW part of the city, and Akron itself is only 30% black, so you would need a long isthmus running through the northern part of Summit County and into Akron, which also results in eastern and western Summit County being split, or having to wrap around CD-11.

I don't think you need to string cities together to pick up enough black residents if you can create a compact district in Cuyahoga county that is very high plurality black.

The Bartlett decision might imply otherwise. If there has been a pattern of racial bloc voting in NE OH, and there is a potential election district with 50% plus black voting age population, then there could be a valid section 2 claim against a map that did not create a majority-black district. The decision rejected plurality districts that relied on crossover white votes or on a multiple-minority coalition.
According to the ACS 2006-8 CD-11 is now about 59% black, because whites are leaving faster than blacks (its population is now 550,000, down from 630,000)

The majority-black census tracts in Akron have 35,000 blacks in a total population of 50,000 (about 70%),.  Add in enough census tracts to make the area contiguous (most of the black population is in SW Akron, but there are also areas in the SE and near north side), plus provide a connection to Cuyahoga County, and you might be able to get 45,000 black out of 75,000 from Summit County.

Assume 720,000 for a CD.  So a majority black district would need 360,000.  If a Summit portion were 45/75 black, the Cuyahoga portion would be 315/645 black (48.8%).

Let's assume that we instead added in areas in Cuyahoga county that were only 30% black.  That would end up being 46.9% overall.  So your choice is between a totally ungainly district that runs 20 miles along the Cuyahoga River for strictly race reasons to get up to 50%, vs. a compact district in Cuyahoga County that might be 47% black.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 21, 2010, 06:43:56 AM
The one I was speaking of, before SCOTUS tossed it out I think in 2001, makes what you put up a perfect circle.
North Carolina 1990s redistricting plans. (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/GIS/Archives/Defunct_Plans/1990/1990_Plans.html)

Maps of CD 6 and CD 12 from the 1992 redistricting are particularly interesting.

Also note that the 1998 plan was used in 1998, and the 1997 plan in 2000.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 21, 2010, 09:52:48 AM
It seems to me, without knowing for sure, because I have not crunched the numbers, that it is better and safer for the GOP to pack as many Dems as possible into one Franklin County district, and then they will have a much easier time making everything else around reasonably safe for them (as opposed to some pathetic PVI +2 kind of junk - we want PVI +4 at least, with +6 being even better). If it done right, the Dems get two Cleveland area seats (it may have to be three to keep the risk down of having to worry about a couple of marginal seats), one Youngstown seat, and the Toledo seat, the Columbus seat, and that is it. 10 or 11 pretty safe seats out of 16, is not a bad day's work.

Does that make sense?

It does make sense, but I first want to see what the gamble would look like.  I'll assume that a district that would have voted for McCain in 08 is GOP enough to hold an incumbent in a bad year. With that in mind, I took a look at how I might split up Columbus to preserve 12 out of 16 seats for the GOP while keeping the incumbents and takeovers in CD 1 and 15 in separate districts. Stivers lives in the redrawn CD 6.

Neither Dave's App nor the Atlas have sub-county-level election data for 2008, so I could at best make estimates. To my eye, all 12 of the GOP districts may be for McCain. CD-14 is the weakest, but I took Kent out, so it is about as strong as one can get in the NE corner. CD-12 could be strengthened by swapping parts of Perry and Washington with CD-16, and I'll look at that when data becomes available. CD-6 was difficult, since Stivers lives in central Columbus, but it could be made better for the GOP by bringing CD-8 into Columbus as well and moving Ross and Pike to CD-6.

The Bartlett decision might imply otherwise. If there has been a pattern of racial bloc voting in NE OH, and there is a potential election district with 50% plus black voting age population, then there could be a valid section 2 claim against a map that did not create a majority-black district. The decision rejected plurality districts that relied on crossover white votes or on a multiple-minority coalition.
According to the ACS 2006-8 CD-11 is now about 59% black, because whites are leaving faster than blacks (its population is now 550,000, down from 630,000)

The majority-black census tracts in Akron have 35,000 blacks in a total population of 50,000 (about 70%),.  Add in enough census tracts to make the area contiguous (most of the black population is in SW Akron, but there are also areas in the SE and near north side), plus provide a connection to Cuyahoga County, and you might be able to get 45,000 black out of 75,000 from Summit County.

Assume 720,000 for a CD.  So a majority black district would need 360,000.  If a Summit portion were 45/75 black, the Cuyahoga portion would be 315/645 black (48.8%).

Let's assume that we instead added in areas in Cuyahoga county that were only 30% black.  That would end up being 46.9% overall.  So your choice is between a totally ungainly district that runs 20 miles along the Cuyahoga River for strictly race reasons to get up to 50%, vs. a compact district in Cuyahoga County that might be 47% black.

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on August 21, 2010, 12:05:00 PM
The one I was speaking of, before SCOTUS tossed it out I think in 2001, makes what you put up a perfect circle.
North Carolina 1990s redistricting plans. (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/GIS/Archives/Defunct_Plans/1990/1990_Plans.html)

Maps of CD 6 and CD 12 from the 1992 redistricting are particularly interesting.

Also note that the 1998 plan was used in 1998, and the 1997 plan in 2000.

Yes, most interesting, and I think it would be hard to argue that SCOTUS law on all of this is anything other than a total mess (http://www.adversity.net/special/gerrymander_1.htm).  To predict what they will do next would be rather foolish. It may depend on what planet in the universe Kennedy is exploring at the moment in his never ending journey of self exploration.

However Kennedy voted to strike down the 1997 plan; it was Justice O'Connor who flipped her vote from striking down the 1992 plan, to upholding the 1997 plan.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 21, 2010, 05:12:10 PM
The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

()

How is the population projected?

Haven't you split Akron among 4 districts?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 21, 2010, 07:14:41 PM
The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

()

How is the population projected?

Haven't you split Akron among 4 districts?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.

I find that it provides a only rough estimate of location in populous counties, but at least enough to sense where trends may take redistricting efforts. If I am trying to strictly follow municipal lines, I would use my own projection data from the Census at the level of minor civil divisions. That wasn't my goal here, since I was looking at the questions raised by JLT's suggested GOP plan. For this exercise I forced each district to be within 100 of the ideal based on the App's population assignment.

As for Akron, the city is only divided between three districts, since my CD-14 only goes into the Akron suburbs much as the current CD-14 does today. I didn't mind the division, since Akron is heavily gerrymandered in the current map which was drawn by the GOP. I saw no reason to assume that they wouldn't want to consider a split to concentrate heavily Dem areas in one district and divide the remainder in a 2010 map.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on August 21, 2010, 07:35:30 PM
What are the PVI's of CD 13 and 15, Muon2, do you think?  I am particularly interested in the Bush 2004 percentages. In this part of the country, I am not sure Obama reflects a normalized political balance. They look a bit tepid to me, and more like marginal seats. We don't like marginal seats for this little partisan endeavor. (This is not meant to be some kind of good government exercise; it is meant to be a contact sport with the Dems the losers, and the only rule is that it needs to pass SCOTUS muster. Other than that, we cheat like hell.)

In short, we need more of a firewall.  I suspect both may need some selected Columbus burb stuff (sub and ex) put into them so the Dems are not tempted to seriously contest them, even if they have something of a tailwind going for them. Do you see where I am going here?

Yes, I understand we just have to live with the NE corner thing. Pity there are not more Chagrin Fallses to put in there (nice and rich and WASP and reliably Republican).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 21, 2010, 09:13:27 PM
The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

()

How is the population projected?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.
I think that is where it is going to be tough.  Places like Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, and East Cleveland are losing population even faster than the county as a whole.

The areas of greatest growth, or at least slowest decline, are the outer tier of townships on the south, west, and east.  North Royallton and Olmsted Falls are the big winners with about 2.5% growth each.  While you might find blacks moving into areas like Solon, you might be picking up cities that are 20% black.

In Summit County, you actually have growth areas like Richland, but Akron is declining.  And I'm sure you are going to find the black population more dispersed.



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 21, 2010, 11:17:15 PM
What are the PVI's of CD 13 and 15, Muon2, do you think?  I am particularly interested in the Bush 2004 percentages. In this part of the country, I am not sure Obama reflects a normalized political balance. They look a bit tepid to me, and more like marginal seats. We don't like marginal seats for this little partisan endeavor. (This is not meant to be some kind of good government exercise; it is meant to be a contact sport with the Dems the losers, and the only rule is that it needs to pass SCOTUS muster. Other than that, we cheat like hell.)

In short, we need more of a firewall.  I suspect both may need some selected Columbus burb stuff (sub and ex) put into them so the Dems are not tempted to seriously contest them, even if they have something of a tailwind going for them. Do you see where I am going here?

Yes, I understand we just have to live with the NE corner thing. Pity there are not more Chagrin Fallses to put in there (nice and rich and WASP and reliably Republican).

I took a look at 2004 at the town level. As drawn CD-13 is something like R+3 or 4, but CD-15 is a more marginal seat at R+1 or 2. I would need precinct level votes and block controls to move it up. Given the starting point, that should be very reasonable to achieve.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 21, 2010, 11:19:02 PM
The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

()

How is the population projected?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.
I think that is where it is going to be tough.  Places like Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, and East Cleveland are losing population even faster than the county as a whole.

The areas of greatest growth, or at least slowest decline, are the outer tier of townships on the south, west, and east.  North Royallton and Olmsted Falls are the big winners with about 2.5% growth each.  While you might find blacks moving into areas like Solon, you might be picking up cities that are 20% black.

In Summit County, you actually have growth areas like Richland, but Akron is declining.  And I'm sure you are going to find the black population more dispersed.



At 56% I think the district I drew will hold up even with accurate numbers. I'm anticipating better tools soon. That should give us all a better look at the possibilities.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 22, 2010, 01:00:04 PM
The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

()

How is the population projected?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.
I think that is where it is going to be tough.  Places like Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, and East Cleveland are losing population even faster than the county as a whole.

The areas of greatest growth, or at least slowest decline, are the outer tier of townships on the south, west, and east.  North Royallton and Olmsted Falls are the big winners with about 2.5% growth each.  While you might find blacks moving into areas like Solon, you might be picking up cities that are 20% black.

In Summit County, you actually have growth areas like Richland, but Akron is declining.  And I'm sure you are going to find the black population more dispersed.



At 56% I think the district I drew will hold up even with accurate numbers. I'm anticipating better tools soon. That should give us all a better look at the possibilities.
If you can get 56% you are capturing 90% of blacks in the two-county area, and your proposed district will be short of 720,000 because it is based on countywide estimates.  To get it back up, you are going to have to include adjacent areas that have a substantial black population, but nowhere near a majority.

In Summit County, the countywide estimate is for no-change, but Akron is declining.  In Cuyahoga County, the 2008 estimate is for an 8.7% decline, but there are heavier declines in Cleveland, East Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, etc.

So you are going to end up closer to 50% than 60% and you are connecting two cities 20 miles apart with a national park and splitting both cities.

In 2000, a district with 720.000 persons and a bare majority black population could be drawn in Cuyahoga County using whole cities, including Cleveland.  It will have lost 10% of its population, but will be a bit blacker.  Adding in 70,000 in the eastern part of the county may drop the percentage just below 50%.

So can you rationalize a non-compact district that may end up just a couple of percentage points blacker, than a single-county district made up of whole towns?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 22, 2010, 01:37:24 PM
The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

()

How is the population projected?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.
I think that is where it is going to be tough.  Places like Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, and East Cleveland are losing population even faster than the county as a whole.

The areas of greatest growth, or at least slowest decline, are the outer tier of townships on the south, west, and east.  North Royallton and Olmsted Falls are the big winners with about 2.5% growth each.  While you might find blacks moving into areas like Solon, you might be picking up cities that are 20% black.

In Summit County, you actually have growth areas like Richland, but Akron is declining.  And I'm sure you are going to find the black population more dispersed.



At 56% I think the district I drew will hold up even with accurate numbers. I'm anticipating better tools soon. That should give us all a better look at the possibilities.
If you can get 56% you are capturing 90% of blacks in the two-county area, and your proposed district will be short of 720,000 because it is based on countywide estimates.  To get it back up, you are going to have to include adjacent areas that have a substantial black population, but nowhere near a majority.

In Summit County, the countywide estimate is for no-change, but Akron is declining.  In Cuyahoga County, the 2008 estimate is for an 8.7% decline, but there are heavier declines in Cleveland, East Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, etc.

So you are going to end up closer to 50% than 60% and you are connecting two cities 20 miles apart with a national park and splitting both cities.

In 2000, a district with 720.000 persons and a bare majority black population could be drawn in Cuyahoga County using whole cities, including Cleveland.  It will have lost 10% of its population, but will be a bit blacker.  Adding in 70,000 in the eastern part of the county may drop the percentage just below 50%.

So can you rationalize a non-compact district that may end up just a couple of percentage points blacker, than a single-county district made up of whole towns?


The rationalization would be based on avoiding a potential VRA challenge. The premise of the map is that the GOP is in charge of the pen and wants to maximize seats. Presumably the Dems would want to challenge the map, and a successful VRA challenge could throw their entire map away. Based on the Bartlett decision, I think that this map survives, but a GOP map that has only a plurality black district when a majority is possible would lose.

I agree that the population is probably less than indicated, but the map only needs 50% VAP to meet the goal I set for the map. I think that with 56% in this estimate, it is likely that 50% will be achievable. Actually, being able to expand into additional D areas of Akron to add population to CD-11 would help the GOP improve the PVIs of neighboring districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 23, 2010, 06:40:02 AM
The rationalization would be based on avoiding a potential VRA challenge. The premise of the map is that the GOP is in charge of the pen and wants to maximize seats. Presumably the Dems would want to challenge the map, and a successful VRA challenge could throw their entire map away. Based on the Bartlett decision, I think that this map survives, but a GOP map that has only a plurality black district when a majority is possible would lose.

I agree that the population is probably less than indicated, but the map only needs 50% VAP to meet the goal I set for the map. I think that with 56% in this estimate, it is likely that 50% will be achievable. Actually, being able to expand into additional D areas of Akron to add population to CD-11 would help the GOP improve the PVIs of neighboring districts.
If the GOP is in charge of the pen, they will want to get rid of Kucinich.  They can put all of Cleveland in the black district, and put the western suburbs in a district extending into Lorain county, and the southern suburbs in a district extending into Medina, and the far eastern suburbs into a district extending into Geuga.

They argue that the Cleveland-Akron connection traverses a near wilderness, and effectively creates a Shaw I district solely in the pursuit of isolating blacks in a racially gerrymandered district, as traditional redistricting criteria such as counties and towns are ignored.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: enlightened despot on August 27, 2010, 07:44:58 PM
I can't get the app to load any states and may have lost the states directories. Does anyone know how to recreate those? I'm using a mac running osx.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 30, 2010, 07:24:29 PM
Hey guys, Dave's added partisan data for Pennsylvania.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 30, 2010, 07:44:26 PM
And now to check and see how I did here...

Here's a Republican map of Pennsylvania, losing a district from the current map. Tried not to overreach too much; concentrated on protecting incumbents and watering down a couple of districts, rather than trying to maximize Republican seats.

()

Click for bigger. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/parep.png)

PA-01 (blue Philly district, Bob Brady - D) - Expands to take in more of Delaware County, uber-safe for the Dems.
PA-02 (green Philly district, Chaka Fattah - D) - Mostly unchanged; still majority-black. Obviously uber-safe.
PA-03 (purple NW corner district, Kathy Dahlkemper - D) - Pushes east instead of south, taking in some heavily-Republican counties. Should make the district more Republican.
PA-04 (red SW district, Jason Altmire - D) - Takes in all of the Dem-leaning areas outside of Pittsburgh. Should be safe for Altmire.
PA-05 (orange central district, Glenn Thompson - R) - Takes in a bunch of the Philly suburbs in Westmoreland County instead of the NW counties, which shouldn't change the partisan balance much.
PA-06 (teal SE PA district, Jim Gerlach - R) - Tried to make this district as safe as possible, so it takes in all the Republican parts of Montgomery and Bucks now. Should be a Republican-leaning district now.
PA-07 (grey SE PA district, open) - Pushed west in order to make it less Democratic. Still a swing district, but should be more favorable to the Republicans.
PA-08 (purple SE PA district, Patrick Murphy - D) - Takes in all the Dem parts of Bucks, and parts of Montgomery and Philadelphia. Safe Dem seat.
PA-09 (light blue SW PA district, Bud Shuster - R and Mark Critz - D) - Swallows parts of Critz's district, which tilts the district from "overwhelmingly Republican" to just "very Republican". Shuster would prevail in a matchup with Critz.
PA-10 (magenta NE PA district, Chris Carney - D) - Carney's district is completely reconfigured as a safe Dem district, taking in all of Lackawanna along with Bethlehem, Scranton, and part of Allentown.
PA-11 (green NE PA district, Paul Kanjorski - D) - Turns Kanjo's district (since he's probably going to lose to Barletta) into a pretty Republican one. Shouldn't be hard for Barletta to hold in 2012.
PA-12 (light purple SE PA district, Todd Platts - R) - Takes in Harrisburg, which makes the district a little less Republican, but it shouldn't be hard for Republicans to hold.
PA-13 (pink SE PA district, Alyson Schwartz - D) - Heavily-Democratic MontCo-based district.
PA-14 (brown SW PA district, Mike Doyle - D) - Heavily-Democratic Pittsburgh district.
PA-15 (orange NE PA district, Charlie Dent - R) - With Bethlehem and most of Allentown gone, the district picks up some Republican-leaning counties that should make it easier for Dent to hold.
PA-16 (green SE PA district, Joe Pitts - R) - Mostly Lancaster County, takes in some Dem parts of Berks and Chester, but should remain Republican-leaning.
PA-17 (dark purple SE PA district, Tim Holden - D) - Getting rid of Tim Holden requires chopping up Schuylkill County, and also removes Harrisburg. Should be even more Republican now.
PA-18 (yellow SW PA district, Tim Murphy - R) - Takes in a bunch of Republican-leaning parts of SW PA. Maybe a little less Republican, but still Republican. Republican!

PA-01 - 85-14 Obama (from 88-12 Obama)
PA-02 - 87-13 Obama (from 90-10 Obama)
PA-03 - 50-49 Obama (from 49-49 McCain)
PA-04 - 51-48 Obama (from 55-45 McCain)
PA-05 - 54-45 McCain (from 55-44 McCain)
PA-06 - 49-49 Obama (from 58-41 Obama) - Obama won this district by 343 votes.
PA-07 - 52-47 Obama (from 56-43 Obama)
PA-08 - 57-42 Obama (from 54-45 Obama)
PA-09 - 60-38 McCain (from 63-35 McCain)
PA-10 - 63-36 Obama (from 54-45 McCain)
PA-11 - 55-43 McCain (from 57-42 Obama)
PA-12 - 53-46 McCain (from PA-19's 56-43 McCain)
PA-13 - 63-36 Obama (from 59-41 Obama)
PA-14 - 66-33 Obama (from 70-29 Obama)
PA-15 - 50-48 Obama (from 56-43 Obama)
PA-16 - 50-49 McCain (from 51-48 McCain)
PA-17 - 58-41 McCain (from 51-48 McCain)
PA-18 - 58-41 McCain (from 55-44 McCain)

Overall, not bad, although I didn't help Republicans enough in PA-03.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: homelycooking on August 30, 2010, 07:53:48 PM
Is it possible to draw an Asian-majority CD in the lower 48?
How small would that CD have to be to have and Asian majority?

It is possible, btw, to draw a majority-minority CD in Wisconsin. It looks hideous, though, because the Milwaukee ghettos have to be connected via very thin strips with high-minority areas of Racine and Kenosha.



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 30, 2010, 09:06:04 PM
Is it possible to draw an Asian-majority CD in the lower 48?
How small would that CD have to be to have and Asian majority?

It is possible, btw, to draw a majority-minority CD in Wisconsin. It looks hideous, though, because the Milwaukee ghettos have to be connected via very thin strips with high-minority areas of Racine and Kenosha.

There are several examples of Asian-majority districts in Northern and Southern California on previous pages. They're not pretty, but they're not that terrible.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on August 30, 2010, 10:31:13 PM
Is it possible to draw an Asian-majority CD in the lower 48?
How small would that CD have to be to have and Asian majority?

It is possible, btw, to draw a majority-minority CD in Wisconsin. It looks hideous, though, because the Milwaukee ghettos have to be connected via very thin strips with high-minority areas of Racine and Kenosha.

There are several examples of Asian-majority districts in Northern and Southern California on previous pages. They're not pretty, but they're not that terrible.

It is also possible to create an Asian-majority seat in NYC. Muon did one of those, too.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on August 30, 2010, 11:01:52 PM
Is it possible to draw an Asian-majority CD in the lower 48?
How small would that CD have to be to have and Asian majority?

It is possible, btw, to draw a majority-minority CD in Wisconsin. It looks hideous, though, because the Milwaukee ghettos have to be connected via very thin strips with high-minority areas of Racine and Kenosha.



I've identified three so far from the data in Dave's App. The two in CA were part of the discussion on this thread early this month. CD15 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97085.msg2617394#msg2617394) in the San Jose area (orange below) is 52% Asian. CD 38 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=121954.msg2610152#msg2610152) in the San Gabriel area of LA (slate green below) is just over 50% Asian.

()

()

There is also one possible in NYC (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97085.msg2308177#msg2308177) as I posted in Jan.  The yellow CD that stretches across Queens and through Chinatown into Brooklyn is 51% Asian.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on August 30, 2010, 11:10:08 PM
Here's a more zoomed in version of the NYC Asian district. It's 51% Asian; the Brooklyn and Queens portions are 48% Asian each while the Manhattan part is 71% Asian. The bulk of the population is in Queens, though. This district would have really interesting (read: wild) primaries as the different neighborhoods coalesced around their own candidates. And the Chinese v. Korean v. South Asian dynamic would be interesting (although that's somewhat neighborhood-based as well, and Chinese are clearly the largest Asian group in the district).

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RI on August 30, 2010, 11:14:59 PM
Could I get a zoomed in version of the one in San Jose, too? I tried recreating it, but I wound up a ways short on population with no large asian enclaves remaining and I was just hovering over 50% at that point.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on August 31, 2010, 02:02:55 PM
Hey guys, Dave's added partisan data for Pennsylvania.

Yay! I'll get to work on producing a map at once.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on August 31, 2010, 06:59:44 PM
Looks like it's not possible draw a McCain State House seat in Philly after all.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 31, 2010, 07:17:03 PM
Looks like it's not possible draw a McCain State House seat in Philly after all.

You give up too easily. This district is 52% McCain.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on August 31, 2010, 11:04:02 PM
Looks like it's not possible draw a McCain State House seat in Philly after all.

You give up too easily. This district is 52% McCain.

()

You have 3 enclaves, two along the western border, and one in the northeast that are cutoff, and the area that you wrap around might not have enough population for a district of its own.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 31, 2010, 11:40:10 PM
You have 3 enclaves, two along the western border, and one in the northeast that are cutoff, and the area that you wrap around might not have enough population for a district of its own.

Always a complainer. Perhaps this is more to your liking then? Only 51% McCain, but no enclaves.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on September 01, 2010, 12:37:26 AM
You have 3 enclaves, two along the western border, and one in the northeast that are cutoff, and the area that you wrap around might not have enough population for a district of its own.

Always a complainer. Perhaps this is more to your liking then? Only 51% McCain, but no enclaves.

()
What is the population of the center area?  Maybe you can create a donut?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 01, 2010, 12:49:52 AM
I don't see the enclaves as a problem, since there is no rule the neighboring seats have to be entirely within Philly.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on September 01, 2010, 01:29:52 AM
What is the population of the center area?  Maybe you can create a donut?

I was curious about that as well, so I tested it. The center area would form most of a district, but there would have to be a little bit on the outside. Some of the precincts are rather inconveniently shaped; I can't get population equality for the center district without splitting a precinct or forcing a neighboring district to go outside of Philly. Even if the outer district remains entirely within Philly, it would have to be extended along the northern and western edges of the McCain district and include a small area to the south as well.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Smash255 on September 01, 2010, 02:07:27 AM
What is the population of the center area?  Maybe you can create a donut?

I was curious about that as well, so I tested it. The center area would form most of a district, but there would have to be a little bit on the outside. Some of the precincts are rather inconveniently shaped; I can't get population equality for the center district without splitting a precinct or forcing a neighboring district to go outside of Philly. Even if the outer district remains entirely within Philly, it would have to be extended along the northern and western edges of the McCain district and include a small area to the south as well.

I just did it quickly, so could have missed one of them, but the population seemed short by about 6,000.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on September 01, 2010, 07:51:34 AM
Looks like it's not possible draw a McCain State House seat in Philly after all.

You give up too easily. This district is 52% McCain.

()

Anyone else not seeing an image here? I tried loading the URL and I couldn't access it... but it could be my work firewall getting stronger.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on September 01, 2010, 02:21:47 PM
What is the population of the center area?  Maybe you can create a donut?

I was curious about that as well, so I tested it. The center area would form most of a district, but there would have to be a little bit on the outside. Some of the precincts are rather inconveniently shaped; I can't get population equality for the center district without splitting a precinct or forcing a neighboring district to go outside of Philly. Even if the outer district remains entirely within Philly, it would have to be extended along the northern and western edges of the McCain district and include a small area to the south as well.

I just did it quickly, so could have missed one of them, but the population seemed short by about 6,000.

Using estimates, a 203-seat plan, and keeping districts entirely in Philadelphia, this is what Northeast Philly would probably look like with the McCain district. The largest deviation from the ideal population is -68, in the green district.

()

I'm not sure that the green district is really contiguous, but if you zoom in close enough, it looks like it is. If it isn't, the district will have to go into Montgomery County, but existing districts in the area also go into MontCo, including a district that is somewhat similar to the green district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on September 01, 2010, 07:25:52 PM
What is the population of the center area?  Maybe you can create a donut?

I was curious about that as well, so I tested it. The center area would form most of a district, but there would have to be a little bit on the outside. Some of the precincts are rather inconveniently shaped; I can't get population equality for the center district without splitting a precinct or forcing a neighboring district to go outside of Philly. Even if the outer district remains entirely within Philly, it would have to be extended along the northern and western edges of the McCain district and include a small area to the south as well.

I just did it quickly, so could have missed one of them, but the population seemed short by about 6,000.

Using estimates, a 203-seat plan, and keeping districts entirely in Philadelphia, this is what Northeast Philly would probably look like with the McCain district. The largest deviation from the ideal population is -68, in the green district.

()

I'm not sure that the green district is really contiguous, but if you zoom in close enough, it looks like it is. If it isn't, the district will have to go into Montgomery County, but existing districts in the area also go into MontCo, including a district that is somewhat similar to the green district.

It is contiguous.  The beak of the green VTD actually extends about a block south of the southern border of the blue VTD.  So while the southern tip of the green VTD is on city limits, there is an east-west connection of about a block between the two green VTDs.

Tomlinson Road is the southern boundary of the blue VTD and takes a jog before entering Montgomery County.  It is the jog that forms the border between the green VTDs.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 03, 2010, 08:02:13 PM
Democratic gerrymander of PA. Guarantees the defeat of Jim Gerlach and makes Charlie Dent likely to lose while also preserving all incumbents except Critz, who is doomed.

()


()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bo on September 03, 2010, 08:41:41 PM
Democratic gerrymander of PA. Guarantees the defeat of Jim Gerlach and makes Charlie Dent likely to lose while also preserving all incumbents except Critz, who is doomed.

()


()


What are the percentages for each CD?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 03, 2010, 09:00:55 PM
Democratic gerrymander of PA. Guarantees the defeat of Jim Gerlach and makes Charlie Dent likely to lose while also preserving all incumbents except Critz, who is doomed.

()


Is there a VRA district left in Philly?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 03, 2010, 11:35:40 PM
Yes; PA-2 is 55% black (could be more easily).

PA-1: 62-37 Obama
PA-2: 81-19 Obama
PA-3: 56-43 Obama
PA-4: 59-40 Obama
PA-5: 36-63 McCain
PA-6: 63-36 Obama
PA-7: 65-34 Obama
PA-8: 60-39 Obama
PA-9: 37-62 McCain
PA-10: 49-50 McCain (the best one can do for Carney, but he should be reasonably safe)
PA-11: 56-43 Obama
PA-12: 41-58 McCain
PA-13: 62-37 Obama
PA-14: 63-37 Obama
PA-15: 58-41 Obama
PA-16: 36-63 McCain
PA-17: 55-44 Obama
PA-18: 38-61 McCain


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 04, 2010, 12:27:43 AM
Critz probably could win that PA-12 seat, it's hardly a Republican seat so much as an anti-Obama one. Kerry probably got at least around 45% there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on September 04, 2010, 09:05:07 PM
I wonder how some of these areas in "Pennsyltucky" kept their ultra-partisanship intact in presidential elections like that electoral district in Fayette County that voted 96% for Obama. Most of the communities around the Monongahela River still voted for Obama with decent margins, especially considering that they are uniformly white.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 05, 2010, 11:18:02 AM
Critz probably could win that PA-12 seat, it's hardly a Republican seat so much as an anti-Obama one. Kerry probably got at least around 45% there.

Unfortunately for Critz, he lives in Johnstown, which is split between PA-3 and PA-9. And there's no way he could win PA-12 anyway.


I'm working on a Republican map but have run into difficulty creating only 3 Obama seats in SE PA. It may be impossible.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 05, 2010, 12:50:23 PM
You also put Holden in PA-10, and he'd probably knock off Carney in a primary. Dent might very well run there too.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 05, 2010, 05:20:14 PM
You also put Holden in PA-10, and he'd probably knock off Carney in a primary. Dent might very well run there too.

Interesting. I assumed Holden lived around Harrisburg. But Carney would surely win a Carney-Holden primary in PA-10; Carney represents a lot more of the district than Holden does.

Dent couldn't beat either Holden or Carney in that PA-10. The district doesn't fit his style, and he barely represents any of it right now.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on September 05, 2010, 06:51:31 PM
You also put Holden in PA-10, and he'd probably knock off Carney in a primary. Dent might very well run there too.

Interesting. I assumed Holden lived around Harrisburg. But Carney would surely win a Carney-Holden primary in PA-10; Carney represents a lot more of the district than Holden does.

Dent couldn't beat either Holden or Carney in that PA-10. The district doesn't fit his style, and he barely represents any of it right now.

He's a lifelong resident of Schuylkill County, and was the sheriff there before he was elected to Congress. It remains a ridiculously loyal base of support for him.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 06, 2010, 02:03:45 AM
Yep, Holden's old seat didn't even include Harrisburg (It was the old 6th district, he moved to the 17th after redistricting.)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on September 06, 2010, 09:48:51 AM
Critz probably could win that PA-12 seat, it's hardly a Republican seat so much as an anti-Obama one. Kerry probably got at least around 45% there.

Unfortunately for Critz, he lives in Johnstown, which is split between PA-3 and PA-9. And there's no way he could win PA-12 anyway.


I'm working on a Republican map but have run into difficulty creating only 3 Obama seats in SE PA. It may be impossible.

It is. Don't bother trying. If you have just 3 Dem seats in the Philly area, you will have two more marginal seats, unless this year's snap back to the GOP of middle to upper middle class suburban and exurban voters in big metro areas north of the Mason Dixon line, holds for the future.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 06, 2010, 01:42:28 PM
Actually, I have now managed to create just three Obama seats in SE PA, plus another Obama seat containing Democratic parts of Bucks County, the most Democratic parts of the Lehigh Valley, and the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area. This allows for PA-6, PA-7, PA-8 and PA-15 to all become McCain seats, albeit not particularly strongly (still much better than the current arrangement for Republicans). PA-17 is more Democratic, but it loses Schuylkill County and should be unwinnable for Democrats not named Tim Holden.

The map's not quite finished, though.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 06, 2010, 02:54:45 PM
That equals five Obama seats total I assume since there will be one more in Pittsburgh?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 06, 2010, 03:33:09 PM
That equals five Obama seats total I assume since there will be one more in Pittsburgh?

There are six total. Four in eastern PA and two in western PA.

Eastern PA:
PA-1 (plurality black Philly and SE Delaware County)
PA-2 (majority black Philly and a bit of Delaware County)
PA-11 (Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, central Lehigh Valley, E Bucks County)
PA-13 (snaking through Delaware, Chester and Montgomery Counties as well as parts of Philly)

Western PA:
PA-4 (Erie, Ohio River Valley, N Pittsburgh)
PA-14 (Pittsburgh and Alleghany Valley)

I chose to create two solidly Democratic seats in Western PA to guarantee the defeat of two of Critz, Altmire and Dahlkemper; getting rid of all three risked letting all three hang on.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 07, 2010, 12:59:45 AM
So where does everyone see the four new seats in Texas? I ended up with one Hispanic majority one in South Texas, one in suburban Houston, and two in the metroplex, one around Ft. Worth and one in suburban Dallas. Republicans btw might have a bit of dilemma in Houston and the metroplex where drawing the new seat safe GOP might force minorities into another one and endanger it. Actually the seat I drew in suburban Dallas was still only 48% white though with Hispanic turnout so low it probably would elect a Republican.

Also Chet Edwards might be able to breathe a sigh of relief, the new district should push the Dallas suburbs out of his.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on September 07, 2010, 04:50:17 AM
So where does everyone see the four new seats in Texas? I ended up with one Hispanic majority one in South Texas, one in suburban Houston, and two in the metroplex, one around Ft. Worth and one in suburban Dallas. Republicans btw might have a bit of dilemma in Houston and the metroplex where drawing the new seat safe GOP might force minorities into another one and endanger it. Actually the seat I drew in suburban Dallas was still only 48% white though with Hispanic turnout so low it probably would elect a Republican.

Also Chet Edwards might be able to breathe a sigh of relief, the new district should push the Dallas suburbs out of his.

Well, When I do a Republican gerrymander of Texas, I usually create one in between Austin and San Antonio, a minority-majority one in Dallas, one in Suburban Houston, and one in the rural areas between Houston and San Antonio.  It gives me about a 27-9 spread, and is fully VRA complaint.

The trick is you have to draw Hispanic-majority but Republican-leaning districts, which is much easier than it sounds if you know where to try.  If you take the current 29th, draw a line between the two "Claws" (you'll see what I mean) and extend it sweeping outwards through Pasadena and Baytown, you can get a district that's 60% Hispanic and 55% McCain with some fine tuning.  The trick is just to draw a Black-majority district that looks like a reverse question mark around it, which winds up like 60% Black and 91% Obama.

You can get another through gerrymandering South Texas and Corpus Christi, but it's usually only like 52% McCain, but probably still winnable for Republicans.

And Finally you can draw one from Odessa/Midland to Laredo and wind up with a district that's 60% McCain and 60% Hispanic.

I'd give you maps, but I'm currently trying to upload my 10-3 Republican gerrymander of North Carolina.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on September 07, 2010, 05:25:35 AM
Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.
()
()
()
()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on September 07, 2010, 05:26:20 AM
CD-1: Obama 65%, Mccain 33%
CD-2: Obama 42%, Mccain 56%
CD-3: Obama 51%, Mccain 48%
CD-4: Obama 44%, Mccain 54%
CD-5: Obama 69%, Mccain 29%
CD-6: Obama 75%, Mccain 23%
CD-7: Obama 72%, Mccain 27%
CD-8: Obama 85%, Mccain 13%
CD-9: Obama 87%, Mccain 11%
CD-10: Obama 64%, Mccain 34%
CD-11: Obama 57%, Mccain 41%
CD-12: Obama 74%, Mccain 24%
CD-13- Obama 72%, Mccain 26%
CD-14: Obama 71%, Mccain 27%
CD-15: Obama 68%, Mccain 30%
CD-16: Obama 70%, Mccain 28%
CD-17: Obama 64%, Mccain 34%
CD-18: Obama 58%, Mccain 42%
CD-19: Obama 45%, Mccain 53%
CD-20: Obama 56%, Mccain 43%
CD-21: Obama 44%, Mccain 55%
CD-22: Obama 38%, Mccain 60%
CD-23: Obama 62%, Mccain 36%
CD-24: Obama 49%, Mccain 50%
CD-25: Obama 49%, Mccain 49%
CD-26: Obama 53%, Mccain 45%
CD-27: Obama 66%, Mccain 32%
CD-28: Obama 72%, Mccain 26%
CD-29: Obama 66%, Mccain 32%
CD-30: Obama 73%, Mccain 25%
CD-31: Obama 80%, Mccain 17%
CD-32: Obama 72%, Mccain 26%
CD-33: Obama 88%, Mccain 10%
CD-34: Obama 86%, Mccain 12%
CD-35: Obama 85%, Mccain 14%
CD-36: Obama 61%, Mccain 37%
CD-37: Obama 62%, Mccain 36%
CD-38: Obama 65%, Mccain 33%
CD-39: Obama 62%, Mccain 36%
CD-40: Obama 51%, Mccain 47%
CD-41: Obama 43%, Mccain 55%
CD-42: Obama 46%, Mccain 52%
CD-43: Obama 67%, Mccain 31%
CD-44: Obama 58%, Mccain 40%
CD-45: Obama 54, Mccain 44%
CD-46: Obama 46%, Mccain 52%
CD-47: Obama 60%, Mccain 38%
CD-48: Obama 46%, Mccain 53%
CD-49: Obama 43%, Mccain 55%
CD-50: Obama 53%, Mccain 46%
CD-51: Obama 63%, Mccain 35%
CD-52: Obama 43%, Mccain 55%
CD-53: Obama 65%, Mccain 33%


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on September 07, 2010, 08:16:25 AM
Also Chet Edwards might be able to breathe a sigh of relief, the new district should push the Dallas suburbs out of his.

I think this election is going to claim the ninth of his lives.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on September 07, 2010, 08:18:12 AM
The trick is you have to draw Hispanic-majority but Republican-leaning districts, which is much easier than it sounds if you know where to try.

I'm curious how you define that as "fully VRA compliant." A district where there is a Hispanic majority, but your intent is for them to be outvoted by the Anglo minority in a polarized election with low Hispanic turnout, is not VRA compliant because the community does not get to elect "the candidate of their choice."


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 07, 2010, 08:24:04 AM
Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.
()
()
()
()
()


It looks nice. How many minority majority districts did you get? In particular how many Hispanic seats are there? Since CA will be over 1/3 Hispanic I would think that the VRA will require a number of seats roughly proportional to that as long as contiguous areas that are somewhat compact can be identified. Based on age profiles, I estimate that a district would have to be 55-60% Hispanic in total population to break 50% in voting age population.

I assume you know that you have a number of discontinuous pieces in your map. For instance there appears to be a piece of purple float in the brown area in Kern, and a number of fragments in the Bay area. I'm guessing that they wouldn't change the makeup of the districts much.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on September 07, 2010, 11:30:48 AM
Yes, the discontinous parts were weird. Sometimes when I clicked on a certain block group, other ones away (not next to each other) from it also got highlighted and I couldn't always work around it. I didn't have this problem when I was working with the non-partisan data. But yes, they didn't make too much of a difference and usually didn't even contain a 1,000 people.

CD 15, 20, 28, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47 and 51 are all Hispanic majority. With the exception of CD-39, they all have at least a 55% Hispanic population.

CD 18, 33, 35 and 44 have more than a 40% Hispanic population. I also have two black districts, both in LA, that have a 35% black population. There are also a bunch of other districts with more than a 30% Hispanic population, so Hispanic interest groups could complain that their votes are being "wasted". I made this map pretty quickly so I didn't try too hard to draw Hispanic districts. I certainly should have been able to make another one in the central valley. It was easier to draw Hispanic majorities around LA since the population is more compact and I have a better understanding of where the Hispanic population lives, thus I could quickly make the Hispanic districts. So do you think this map would be acceptable or do I need more Hispanic districts?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on September 07, 2010, 01:01:50 PM
My perception Sbane is that it is VAP driven, not who votes driven. I think the SCOTUS decision written by Kennedy, bouncing the Bonilla district in and around San Antonio (because the district was only over 50% Hispanic based on total population, not VAP population), is the germaine one here. So if the Hispanic VAP percentage is over 50%, you should be OK from a federal voting rights law standpoint.

However, from a political standpoint, etc., the commission drawing the lines will be aware of what it takes to elect Hispanics, and will draw districts that way, at least to the extent it is reasonable to do so, does not step on the toes of others too much, and they comport with the compactness, community of interest, municipal and county lines, etc., aspects of the law.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 07, 2010, 04:43:41 PM
Yes, the discontinous parts were weird. Sometimes when I clicked on a certain block group, other ones away (not next to each other) from it also got highlighted and I couldn't always work around it. I didn't have this problem when I was working with the non-partisan data. But yes, they didn't make too much of a difference and usually didn't even contain a 1,000 people.

CD 15, 20, 28, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47 and 51 are all Hispanic majority. With the exception of CD-39, they all have at least a 55% Hispanic population.

CD 18, 33, 35 and 44 have more than a 40% Hispanic population. I also have two black districts, both in LA, that have a 35% black population. There are also a bunch of other districts with more than a 30% Hispanic population, so Hispanic interest groups could complain that their votes are being "wasted". I made this map pretty quickly so I didn't try too hard to draw Hispanic districts. I certainly should have been able to make another one in the central valley. It was easier to draw Hispanic majorities around LA since the population is more compact and I have a better understanding of where the Hispanic population lives, thus I could quickly make the Hispanic districts. So do you think this map would be acceptable or do I need more Hispanic districts?

There's no exact number that would guide how many majority VAP districts need to be made when there is a large fraction of the population such as in CA. The best direction comes from Johnson v. DeGrandy (1994) in ruling on FL legislative redistricting.

Quote
There is no violation of §2 in SJR 2-G's House districts, where in spite of continuing discrimination and racial bloc voting, minority voters form effective voting majorities in a number of House districts roughly proportional to their respective shares in the voting age population. While such proportionality is not dispositive, it is a relevant fact in the totality of circumstances to be analyzed when determining whether minority voters have "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice,"

In that case the court determined that FL did not have to maximize the districts in the Miami area, but only provide a number of districts that were roughly proportional to the VAP. Flipping this around would indicate that if the number of districts with a majority VAP is substantially less than the overall number then a section 2 VRA violation would be present. However, the court went to point out that merely meeting proportionality would not guarantee a valid map if other factors were used to deny minority voting strength.

DeGrandy was cited in LULAC v. Perry (2006) and used to give the following specific example.

Quote
The State’s contention that proportionality should be decided on a regional basis is rejected in favor of appellants’ assertion that their claim requires a statewide analysis because they have alleged statewide vote dilution based on a statewide plan. Looking statewide, there are 32 congressional districts. The five reasonably compact Latino opportunity districts amount to roughly 16% of the total, while Latinos make up 22% of Texas’ citizen voting-age population. Latinos are, therefore, two districts shy of proportional representation.

From this I would conclude that a statewide analysis of CA Hispanic voting age population would be required to determine an appropriate number of Hispanic districts. Estimates from 2008 (http://www.wcvi.org/latino_voter_research/latino_voter_statistics/ca_lv.html) put the Hispanic VAP at 32.8% of the population which would suggest that 17 districts would avoid a section 2 challenge on those grounds. Since the population fraction of 36.1% is 10% higher than the 32.8% of the VAP, I conclude that in general a district would need to be over 55% Hispanic to meet a 50% VAP threshold.

My earlier effort (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97085.msg2617936#msg2617936) had 18 seats, with 17 in excess of 56% Hispanic. The intent was to meet the tests I would expect under the VRA.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on September 07, 2010, 05:17:56 PM
The trick is you have to draw Hispanic-majority but Republican-leaning districts, which is much easier than it sounds if you know where to try.

I'm curious how you define that as "fully VRA compliant." A district where there is a Hispanic majority, but your intent is for them to be outvoted by the Anglo minority in a polarized election with low Hispanic turnout, is not VRA compliant because the community does not get to elect "the candidate of their choice."

Well then, if The Democrats lose TX-23 to a candidate that won more of the white vote than the Hispanic vote, does that mean it no longer counts as a VRA district because a majority of Hispanics didn't vote for their current representative even if he himself is Hispanic?  What about my TX-29, where a White Democrat representing a Hispanic-majority district would be replaced (presumably) by a Hispanic Republican?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 07, 2010, 05:55:54 PM
The trick is you have to draw Hispanic-majority but Republican-leaning districts, which is much easier than it sounds if you know where to try.

I'm curious how you define that as "fully VRA compliant." A district where there is a Hispanic majority, but your intent is for them to be outvoted by the Anglo minority in a polarized election with low Hispanic turnout, is not VRA compliant because the community does not get to elect "the candidate of their choice."

Well then, if The Democrats lose TX-23 to a candidate that won more of the white vote than the Hispanic vote, does that mean it no longer counts as a VRA district because a majority of Hispanics didn't vote for their current representative even if he himself is Hispanic?  What about my TX-29, where a White Democrat representing a Hispanic-majority district would be replaced (presumably) by a Hispanic Republican?

The LULAC opinion cited De Grandy on this issue.

Quote
The fact that a group does not win elections does not resolve the vote dilution issue. De Grandy, 512 U. S., at 1014, n. 11.

I think that brittain33's statements reflect the courts opinions on this. One reason that the SCOTUS has refused to define a safe harbor for redistricting is that they believe that states are clever and will find ways to work around hard rules to dilute minority voting strength. The "totality of the circumstances" phrase is critical to their analyses of the last two cycles.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on September 07, 2010, 07:21:32 PM
Well then, if The Democrats lose TX-23 to a candidate that won more of the white vote than the Hispanic vote, does that mean it no longer counts as a VRA district because a majority of Hispanics didn't vote for their current representative even if he himself is Hispanic?

It would depend on how polarized the vote is. In TX-23, it's pretty polarized, 1992 notwithstanding. One specific outcome doesn't matter as much as the potential for the minority community not to be consistently outvoted by the Anglo community. This is determined by numbers.

Quote
  What about my TX-29, where a White Democrat representing a Hispanic-majority district would be replaced (presumably) by a Hispanic Republican?

It is too unlikely a Hispanic would win the Republican primary--but if he wins the election almost entirely on white votes, with Gene Green taking the lion's share of the Hispanic vote and still losing, yes, that would be a failure according to VRA. The ethnicity of the representative doesn't matter, only the ethnicity of his voters does. The same way that TN-9 is stll a VRA district despite electing Steve Cohen. He has been elected only with substantial African-American support in the Democratic primary.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on September 07, 2010, 08:21:24 PM
Wow.  You're telling me, it would violate the VRA to create a theoretical district that consists solely of Bexar county, Because despite being a Hispanic-majority district, a Republican might win it without winning the Hispanic vote?  That doesn't make any sense.  TX-15, TX-23, TX-27, and TX-28 all voted for Bush despite being Hispanic-majority because Bush won the small white populations in each district by more than Kerry won the Hispanic.  By the rules you give, none of those districts would be eligible for VRA certification, as in each a small white population can out-vote the Majority Hispanic population to flip the districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 07, 2010, 09:20:48 PM
Wow.  You're telling me, it would violate the VRA to create a theoretical district that consists solely of Bexar county, Because despite being a Hispanic-majority district, a Republican might win it without winning the Hispanic vote?  That doesn't make any sense.  TX-15, TX-23, TX-27, and TX-28 all voted for Bush despite being Hispanic-majority because Bush won the small white populations in each district by more than Kerry won the Hispanic.  By the rules you give, none of those districts would be eligible for VRA certification, as in each a small white population can out-vote the Majority Hispanic population to flip the districts.

The presidential vote is not so relevant here, since it does not go towards electing a representative of that minority group. Also, there may specific elections where the majority minority does not succeed with a specific candidate (for instance during a "wave" election), but that does not affect the district for compliance with section 2 of the VRA. If 50% VAP is insufficient for a minority group to elect candidates of their choice, then there would have to be sufficient evidence to support a different percentage in that district.

Each case is considered uniquely under the VRA. That's one factor that adds to the challenge. A person drawing the district lines must consider the past history and current voting behavior of the particular group to ascertain compliance. So to your assertion about Bexar (which is actually larger than 2 CDs) it might or might not be valid depending on the totality of TX districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 07, 2010, 09:32:46 PM
Tom DeLay already tried that loophole with heavily Republican districts with non-voting Hispanics, and it got shot down by a federal court, hence why Ciro Rodriguez is back in Congress. Safe to say the Obama DOJ won't be more lenient.

Really it would take a rather vile gerrymander not to draw at least one new district in South Texas that is supermajority Hispanic.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on September 07, 2010, 09:35:14 PM
Quote
If 50% VAP is insufficient for a minority group to elect candidates of their choice, then there would have to be sufficient evidence to support a different percentage in that district.

Is there a SCOTUS case that clearly says that Muon2?  Just asking.

And what does candidate of their choice mean - the chap whom at least 50% + 1 of Hispanics vote for?  That seems kind of hard to effect. How does one know? Is there any case law on what the definition of "candidate of their choice" means?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on September 07, 2010, 09:36:57 PM
Tom DeLay already tried that loophole with heavily Republican districts with non-voting Hispanics, and it got shot down by a federal court, hence why Ciro Rodriguez is back in Congress. Safe to say the Obama DOJ won't be more lenient.

Really it would take a rather vile gerrymander not to draw at least one new district in South Texas that is supermajority Hispanic.

I know the Bonilla case turned on VAP versus population. The Bonilla district was based on population (barely over 50% Hispanic) and not VAP, and Kennedy said it had to be VAP. 


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on September 07, 2010, 10:11:51 PM
Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.
()
()
()
()
()

Will more respect for county lines be required?  You have 4 districts crossing the Los Angeles San Bernadino county line.



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 07, 2010, 11:05:42 PM
Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.
()
Will more respect for county lines be required?  You have 4 districts crossing the Los Angeles San Bernadino county line.

I found that I used 4 as well. However, two were for majority-minority districts (Hispanic and Asian). The other two were dictated in part by road connections and mountains, so they made sense from that perspective.



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 07, 2010, 11:15:18 PM
Quote
If 50% VAP is insufficient for a minority group to elect candidates of their choice, then there would have to be sufficient evidence to support a different percentage in that district.

Is there a SCOTUS case that clearly says that Muon2?  Just asking.

And what does candidate of their choice mean - the chap whom at least 50% + 1 of Hispanics vote for?  That seems kind of hard to effect. How does one know? Is there any case law on what the definition of "candidate of their choice" means?


The Bartlett case made it clear that no action was required for populations that were under 50% of a district's VAP. Other cases make it clear that when there is 50% then all circumstances must be evaluated to determine if a majority-minority district is required. If it is required, then the district must be drawn so that the minority can elect the candidate of their choice.

The court has deferred on the question about citizen VAP vs total VAP, which could create a situation where higher percentages are needed. Some map makers have looked at election returns to estimate the threshold a minority (esp. Hispanics) would need to elect the candidates of their choice. For instance an area of 60% Hispanic population might repeatedly fail to elect their candidates due to a high non-citizen population. Some maps take this into account and other do not, but I'm not aware of a court decision that would give definite direction. Since some anticipate that it might happen, the safe course is to draw a map accordingly.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on September 07, 2010, 11:30:58 PM
How does one know how Hispanics actually voted?  Exit polls?  Or is the game just one involving what surname seems to get elected? Has SCOTUS ruled on this notion, that if 50% +1 Hispanic VAP seems to still elect Anglos, and in particular Anglo Republicans, that further inquiry is needed?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 07, 2010, 11:45:45 PM
How does one know how Hispanics actually voted?  Exit polls?  Or is the game just one involving what surname seems to get elected? Has SCOTUS ruled on this notion, that if 50% +1 Hispanic VAP seems to still elect Anglos, and in particular Anglo Republicans, that further inquiry is needed?

What I'm saying is that SCOTUS has not ruled on this specific question. However, they have clearly left open the possibility that the state could find a way to make a 50% VAP district that would be drawn to favor the white candidate instead of the minority candidate. The De Grandy court has intentionally left itself the ability to rule against the state in that circumstance.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on September 07, 2010, 11:52:52 PM
How does one know how Hispanics actually voted?  Exit polls?  Or is the game just one involving what surname seems to get elected? Has SCOTUS ruled on this notion, that if 50% +1 Hispanic VAP seems to still elect Anglos, and in particular Anglo Republicans, that further inquiry is needed?

What I'm saying is that SCOTUS has not ruled on this specific question. However, they have clearly left open the possibility that the state could find a way to make a 50% VAP district that would be drawn to favor the white candidate instead of the minority candidate. The De Grandy court has intentionally left itself the ability to rule against the state in that circumstance.

OK. So if Bonilla had won anyway, due to the remaining hyper GOP Anglo precincts remaining in that CD after being redrawn, we might have had another case! Will we have another case if Ciro loses?  Sure his opponent is Hispanic, but Ciro will get the majority of the Hispanic vote, or of the fictive Hispanic VAP vote (if they all in some alternative universe assuming citizenship voted in percentage numbers equaling the Anglos) in all events. I guess not given the place we are at on the decennial calendar. This is just so much fun, not.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 07, 2010, 11:54:23 PM
I managed to draw a 60% white district in Minnesota. Someone do better. This district is a real work of art by the way, it goes out from the Twin Cities the Red Lake Reservation and the precincts in Rochester with high black populations to the heavily Native precincts in Duluth.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on September 07, 2010, 11:55:39 PM
How does one know how Hispanics actually voted?  Exit polls?  Or is the game just one involving what surname seems to get elected? Has SCOTUS ruled on this notion, that if 50% +1 Hispanic VAP seems to still elect Anglos, and in particular Anglo Republicans, that further inquiry is needed?
You take election results and correlate precinct results with the portion of the voters who are Hispanic-surnamed.  Depending on what you are trying to prove, you choose your expert witnesses carefully, and they choose the elections that prove the point you want to prove.  You roll in some 10-year old census data, and make adjustments for Hispanics who are not Hispanic surnamed, and non-Hispanics who have a Hispanic surname.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on September 08, 2010, 12:01:08 AM
Tom DeLay already tried that loophole with heavily Republican districts with non-voting Hispanics, and it got shot down by a federal court, hence why Ciro Rodriguez is back in Congress. Safe to say the Obama DOJ won't be more lenient.

Really it would take a rather vile gerrymander not to draw at least one new district in South Texas that is supermajority Hispanic.
You can only do that if you draw another fajita strip district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 08, 2010, 12:19:16 AM
The new seat I drew was just Cameron County plus a strip into Hidalgo County.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on September 08, 2010, 12:32:37 AM
The new seat I drew was just Cameron County plus a strip into Hidalgo County.
Which means you cut Nueces County loose which will need counties to the NE and will be a chance for a Republican pickup, since you will still need counties like Willacy, Kleberg, and Jim Wells for the border districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 08, 2010, 12:44:25 AM
Nope. The 27th kept Nueces County and is still 64% Hispanic.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on September 08, 2010, 01:54:52 AM
Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.
()
()
()
()
()

Will more respect for county lines be required?  You have 4 districts crossing the Los Angeles San Bernadino county line.



CD 26 is all along I-210 and makes sense as a district, notwithstanding the different counties it is in. It's really just one metro area, the county lines don't matter much. CD 25 connects high desert semi-exurban communities that have commonalities. CD 38 joins West Covina/Pomona with Ontario/Chino in San Bernardino county creating a majority Hispanic district. These areas are more inland and could be considered a community of interest. CD 40 is a district that takes in more Anglo/Asian areas in LA county like Diamond Bar and Walnut as well as wealthy Chino Hills in San Bernardino county. This is joined with more Anglo/Asian areas like Fullerton and Buena park in OC. These areas are all close by and are quite similar to each other.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on September 08, 2010, 04:24:42 AM
Nope. The 27th kept Nueces County and is still 64% Hispanic.

()

Which you created by fajita-stripping (or more fajita-stripping to be precise) the 15th district, that is even worse than the 15th that Delay originally drew.  It stretches from McAllen to the Houston Metro area--you don't get much uglier than that.  In a fair map, I usually just cut out the rural central Texas/San Antonio parts of the 27th, 15th, and 28th, and make them each like 90% Hispanic.

I'm also curious as to whether or not creating minority-majority districts where they are not VRA required would be struck down.  Making a 60% Black one in Houston makes the rest of Harris county more than 55% Republican, but it's not very compact (not really ugly, like IL-17 or something, but kind of long and sweeping).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 08, 2010, 07:30:29 AM
How does one know how Hispanics actually voted?  Exit polls?  Or is the game just one involving what surname seems to get elected? Has SCOTUS ruled on this notion, that if 50% +1 Hispanic VAP seems to still elect Anglos, and in particular Anglo Republicans, that further inquiry is needed?

What I'm saying is that SCOTUS has not ruled on this specific question. However, they have clearly left open the possibility that the state could find a way to make a 50% VAP district that would be drawn to favor the white candidate instead of the minority candidate. The De Grandy court has intentionally left itself the ability to rule against the state in that circumstance.

OK. So if Bonilla had won anyway, due to the remaining hyper GOP Anglo precincts remaining in that CD after being redrawn, we might have had another case! Will we have another case if Ciro loses?  Sure his opponent is Hispanic, but Ciro will get the majority of the Hispanic vote, or of the fictive Hispanic VAP vote (if they all in some alternative universe assuming citizenship voted in percentage numbers equaling the Anglos) in all events. I guess not given the place we are at on the decennial calendar. This is just so much fun, not.

Not if it were a one-off election; LA-02 is not a VRA violation. But if Rodriguez lost, and his Republican replacement were consistently reelected without winning the Hispanic vote, then it would be a VRA violation until and unless the replacement began winning a majority of the Hispanic vote (a la Steve Cohen).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on September 08, 2010, 08:07:33 AM
I'm also curious as to whether or not creating minority-majority districts where they are not VRA required would be struck down.  Making a 60% Black one in Houston makes the rest of Harris county more than 55% Republican, but it's not very compact (not really ugly, like IL-17 or something, but kind of long and sweeping).

This may not be exactly what you are talking about, but you don't necessarily need to achieve the same high numbers with African-American VRA districts because of much higher levels of citizenship among the minority population and because of the likelihood in a place like urban Houston where the crucial test is ability to win the Democratic primary, not the general election. That remaining 40% is not likely to be exclusively Anglo and certainly not 85+% Republican voting which means that the minority community can win as part of a Democratic coalition they dominate.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 08, 2010, 09:49:06 PM
Nope. The 27th kept Nueces County and is still 64% Hispanic.

()

Which you created by fajita-stripping (or more fajita-stripping to be precise) the 15th district, that is even worse than the 15th that Delay originally drew.  It stretches from McAllen to the Houston Metro area--you don't get much uglier than that.  In a fair map, I usually just cut out the rural central Texas/San Antonio parts of the 27th, 15th, and 28th, and make them each like 90% Hispanic.

I'm also curious as to whether or not creating minority-majority districts where they are not VRA required would be struck down.  Making a 60% Black one in Houston makes the rest of Harris county more than 55% Republican, but it's not very compact (not really ugly, like IL-17 or something, but kind of long and sweeping).

By possible but not required, I would assume that this means that the Gingles test is not met. The Bartlett decision clearly said that states could do more than the minimum to assist minority groups, but there was no mandate to do that. Their comment was with respect to the creation of coalition districts, but it would seem that the same logic would apply to creating majority-minority districts.

An example would be creating majority-Asian districts in CA. There is little sign of bloc voting by whites against Asian candidates there and Asians are not as prone to bloc voting for the same candidate. The court would not mandate an Asian-majority district, nor would it be forbidden unless it caused a violation with another minority group.

As far as the black district in Houston, a reasonably shaped one could be created at 52%, leaving two solid Hispanic ones.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on September 08, 2010, 10:17:06 PM
Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.
()
()
()
()
()

Will more respect for county lines be required?  You have 4 districts crossing the Los Angeles San Bernadino county line.



CD 26 is all along I-210 and makes sense as a district, notwithstanding the different counties it is in. It's really just one metro area, the county lines don't matter much. CD 25 connects high desert semi-exurban communities that have commonalities. CD 38 joins West Covina/Pomona with Ontario/Chino in San Bernardino county creating a majority Hispanic district. These areas are more inland and could be considered a community of interest. CD 40 is a district that takes in more Anglo/Asian areas in LA county like Diamond Bar and Walnut as well as wealthy Chino Hills in San Bernardino county. This is joined with more Anglo/Asian areas like Fullerton and Buena park in OC. These areas are all close by and are quite similar to each other.
You have explained why you drew the districts that you did.  You did not explain why your districts complied with the California Constitution.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on September 08, 2010, 10:30:36 PM
Nope. The 27th kept Nueces County and is still 64% Hispanic.

()
LULAC v Perry specifically rejected the McAllen to Austin district since it was merely connecting disparate areas of the state based on skin color.  Some of the remedies suggested drawing districts that went from McAllen to almost Austin, but were rejected by the district court, which implied that Laredo-San Antonio and McAllen-San Antonio districts were suspect.  In the past, these could be justified on the basis of insufficient population along the border.    But in 2011, you'll be able to draw 4 districts along the border.   (1) El Paso; (2) Laredo-Mid Valley-Trans Pecos;  Cameron-Hidalgo;  Hidalgo.  Include the Brush Country as necessary.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: ag on September 08, 2010, 10:34:20 PM
I managed to draw a 60% white district in Minnesota. Someone do better. This district is a real work of art by the way, it goes out from the Twin Cities the Red Lake Reservation and the precincts in Rochester with high black populations to the heavily Native precincts in Duluth.

Got much better: 52% white, 20% black, 12% Hispanic, 11% Asian, 2% Nat. Am., 3% other. And it didn't really have to get that ugly: w/ exception of couple precincts (which I could probably drop without major harm, it all fit into the Hennepin and Ramsey counties. I don't think I can get it under 50% white, though.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on September 09, 2010, 12:48:59 PM
Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.
()
()
()
()
()

Will more respect for county lines be required?  You have 4 districts crossing the Los Angeles San Bernadino county line.



CD 26 is all along I-210 and makes sense as a district, notwithstanding the different counties it is in. It's really just one metro area, the county lines don't matter much. CD 25 connects high desert semi-exurban communities that have commonalities. CD 38 joins West Covina/Pomona with Ontario/Chino in San Bernardino county creating a majority Hispanic district. These areas are more inland and could be considered a community of interest. CD 40 is a district that takes in more Anglo/Asian areas in LA county like Diamond Bar and Walnut as well as wealthy Chino Hills in San Bernardino county. This is joined with more Anglo/Asian areas like Fullerton and Buena park in OC. These areas are all close by and are quite similar to each other.
You have explained why you drew the districts that you did.  You did not explain why your districts complied with the California Constitution.

Communities of interest is one of the criteria looked at by the redistricting commission, which is what is relevant here. One of the districts would be mandated by the VRA. The rest of them are communities that are close to each other and are similar. It certainly makes more sense to put Chino Hills in a district with Diamond Bar and Walnut than in a district with Chino. Don't let the names confuse you. The communities along the 210 tend to be similar, slightly more anglo than usual and wealthier. The 26th district puts them together. I don't really think courts are going to be nitpick too much about county lines in a big metro area. Outside of LA and the bay area, I have tried to respect county lines as much as possible and still create Hispanic districts.

And lastly I have not made the districts in such a fashion to favor either party. Remember we had incumbent protection last time around, which meant Drier's district was drawn to include areas like La Canada Flintridge which wasn't even contiguous with the rest of the population in the district. That should be frowned down upon more than crossing some irrelevant county line. Anyone who has actually driven around the area and known people who live in the area (Pomona) can tell you that there isn't a huge difference between San Bernardino county and LA county as the districts have been drawn. Now whether the courts will decide county lines are more important or more homogenous districts, I can't say. But I don't think it is possible to draw districts in the LA area, trying to incorporate VRA mandated districts and communities of interest, and not cross county lines. If the final map doesn't have some districts going across county lines, I will eat my hat.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on September 09, 2010, 09:12:59 PM
As long as there is a good reason to cross a county line, it should be OK.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on September 10, 2010, 12:05:31 AM
As long as there is a good reason to cross a county line, it should be OK.

Quote from: California Constitution Article 21, Section 2 (d)(4)
The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, neighborhood, or community of interest shall be respected to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding subdivisions.  ...

The previous subdivisions deal with population equality, VRA compliance, and contiguity.  It may be necessary to span county boundaries for purposes of population equality or VRA, but in general it should be possible to do this without more than one district spanning a county boundary. 

The findings section of Proposition 11 explicitly noted the splitting of cities, and I think that a reasonable interpretation of legislative intent was to avoid splitting counties and cities.  "counties shall be respected to the extent possible" should be read as "counties shall be disrespected only to the extent necessary to comply with population equality and the VRA"

The proposition that would put congressional redistricting under the redistricting commission adds language to that section:

"The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, local neighborhood, or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes their divsion to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding subdivisions."

It also further refines the definition of "local community of interest".  Perhaps you could argue that districts spanning county boundaries were necessary to avoid splitting a "community of interest".  But unless, the extent of these local community of interests were defined in advance, and consistently respected it gives the appearance of mere rationalization.  BTW, defining these "local community of interest" will give the commission something to do while waiting for census data.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on September 14, 2010, 05:12:26 AM
Okay, I think I just found the Holy Grail of Redistricting--The Black Plurality, Republican-voting District.  In Georgia, using a 14-district plan with the new Population estimates, make a district that contains Clayton, Henry, Rockdale, and Newton counties, and part of Spalding county.  The result is a district that is 46% black to 41% White, and Voted for Bush by a few thousand votes in 2004 according to this map:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

Not that this would actually be useful to Republicans in the future, as this part of Georgia was probably the Biggest swing towards Obama of any region in the country, as it would have gone to him with somewhere close to 65% of the vote, but still.  Are the South Atlanta Suburbs famous for Black Republicans or something?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on September 14, 2010, 04:20:54 PM
Okay, I think I just found the Holy Grail of Redistricting--The Black Plurality, Republican-voting District.  In Georgia, using a 14-district plan with the new Population estimates, make a district that contains Clayton, Henry, Rockdale, and Newton counties, and part of Spalding county.  The result is a district that is 46% black to 41% White, and Voted for Bush by a few thousand votes in 2004 according to this map:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

Not that this would actually be useful to Republicans in the future, as this part of Georgia was probably the Biggest swing towards Obama of any region in the country, as it would have gone to him with somewhere close to 65% of the vote, but still.  Are the South Atlanta Suburbs famous for Black Republicans or something?

No, the area is just experiencing very rapid growth among its minority population. Take a look a the shift in demographics since 2000.

Clayton County:
2000: 34.94% White, 51.08% Black, 7.50% Hispanic, 4.52% Asian, 0.23% Native American, 1.73% Other
2008: 20.03% White, 61.55% Black, 11.65% Hispanic, 4.99% Asian, 0.28% Native American, 1.50% Other.

Henry County:
2000: 80.06% White, 14.61% Black, 2.26% Hispanic, 1.77% Asian, 0.21% Native American, 1.10% Other.
2008: 58.13% White, 32.35% Black, 5.19% Hispanic, 2.75% Asian, 0.21% Native American, 1.38% Other.

Rockdale County:
2000: 72.69% White, 18.07% Black, 5.96% Hispanic, 1.96% Asian, 0.24% Native American, 1.07% Other.
2008: 46.79% White, 39.83% Black, 9.84% Hispanic, 2.06% Asian, 0.22% Native American, 1.26% Other.

Newton County:
2000:  74.20% White, 22.08% Black, 1.87% Hispanic, 0.73% Asian, 0.21% Native American, 0.91% Other
2008: 57.58% White, 36.26% Black, 3.81% Hispanic, 1.02% Asian, 0.18% Native American, 1.15% Other

The four counties combined:
2000: 56.39% White, 33.73% Black, 5.28% Hispanic, 3.00% Asian, 0.22% Native American, 1.38% Other.
2008: 40.47% White, 46.26% Black, 8.31% Hispanic, 3.34% Asian, 0.24% Native American, 1.38% Other.

The minority population is growing so fast that the accompanying political transformation is just as rapid.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on September 14, 2010, 06:33:03 PM
Just to show the rapidness of the political transformation... Clinton won Clayton County, GA 45-41 in 1992. By 2000, Gore won it 65-33. And in 2008, Obama won it 83-17. Similar is now happening in Henry, Newton and Rockdale Counties, and also in nearby Douglas, Cobb and Gwinnett Counties.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: danny on September 14, 2010, 06:40:02 PM
Okay, I think I just found the Holy Grail of Redistricting--The Black Plurality, Republican-voting District.  In Georgia, using a 14-district plan with the new Population estimates, make a district that contains Clayton, Henry, Rockdale, and Newton counties, and part of Spalding county.  The result is a district that is 46% black to 41% White, and Voted for Bush by a few thousand votes in 2004 according to this map:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

Not that this would actually be useful to Republicans in the future, as this part of Georgia was probably the Biggest swing towards Obama of any region in the country, as it would have gone to him with somewhere close to 65% of the vote, but still.  Are the South Atlanta Suburbs famous for Black Republicans or something?

No, the area is just experiencing very rapid growth among its minority population. Take a look a the shift in demographics since 2000.

Clayton County:
2000: 34.94% White, 51.08% Black, 7.50% Hispanic, 4.52% Asian, 0.23% Native American, 1.38% Other
2008: 20.03% White, 61.55% Black, 11.65% Hispanic, 4.99% Asian, 0.28% Native American, 1.50% Other.

Henry County:
2000: 80.06% White, 14.61% Black, 2.26% Hispanic, 1.77% Asian, 0.21% Native American, 1.10% Other.
2008: 58.13% White, 32.35% Black, 5.19% Hispanic, 2.75% Asian, 0.21% Native American, 1.38% Other.

Rockdale County:
2000: 72.69% White, 18.07% Black, 5.96% Hispanic, 1.96% Asian, 0.24% Native American, 1.07% Other.
2008: 46.79% White, 39.83% Black, 9.84% Hispanic, 2.06% Asian, 0.22% Native American, 1.26% Other.

Newton County:
2000:  74.20% White, 22.08% Black, 1.87% Hispanic, 0.73% Asian, 0.21% Native American, 0.91% Other
2008: 57.58% White, 36.26% Black, 3.81% Hispanic, 1.02% Asian, 0.18% Native American, 1.15% Other

The four counties combined:
2000: 56.39% White, 33.73% Black, 5.28% Hispanic, 3.00% Asian, 0.22% Native American, 1.38% Other.
2008: 40.47% White, 46.26% Black, 8.31% Hispanic, 3.34% Asian, 0.24% Native American, 1.38% Other.

The minority population is growing so fast that the accompanying political transformation is just as rapid.
I hate to be this pedantic (but I will be anyway) but you have the other % in 2000 wrong.
Other than that, interesting numbers.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on September 14, 2010, 10:05:49 PM
Okay, I think I just found the Holy Grail of Redistricting--The Black Plurality, Republican-voting District.  In Georgia, using a 14-district plan with the new Population estimates, make a district that contains Clayton, Henry, Rockdale, and Newton counties, and part of Spalding county.  The result is a district that is 46% black to 41% White, and Voted for Bush by a few thousand votes in 2004 according to this map:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

Not that this would actually be useful to Republicans in the future, as this part of Georgia was probably the Biggest swing towards Obama of any region in the country, as it would have gone to him with somewhere close to 65% of the vote, but still.  Are the South Atlanta Suburbs famous for Black Republicans or something?

No, the area is just experiencing very rapid growth among its minority population. Take a look a the shift in demographics since 2000.

Clayton County:
2000: 34.94% White, 51.08% Black, 7.50% Hispanic, 4.52% Asian, 0.23% Native American, 1.38% Other
2008: 20.03% White, 61.55% Black, 11.65% Hispanic, 4.99% Asian, 0.28% Native American, 1.50% Other.

Henry County:
2000: 80.06% White, 14.61% Black, 2.26% Hispanic, 1.77% Asian, 0.21% Native American, 1.10% Other.
2008: 58.13% White, 32.35% Black, 5.19% Hispanic, 2.75% Asian, 0.21% Native American, 1.38% Other.

Rockdale County:
2000: 72.69% White, 18.07% Black, 5.96% Hispanic, 1.96% Asian, 0.24% Native American, 1.07% Other.
2008: 46.79% White, 39.83% Black, 9.84% Hispanic, 2.06% Asian, 0.22% Native American, 1.26% Other.

Newton County:
2000:  74.20% White, 22.08% Black, 1.87% Hispanic, 0.73% Asian, 0.21% Native American, 0.91% Other
2008: 57.58% White, 36.26% Black, 3.81% Hispanic, 1.02% Asian, 0.18% Native American, 1.15% Other

The four counties combined:
2000: 56.39% White, 33.73% Black, 5.28% Hispanic, 3.00% Asian, 0.22% Native American, 1.38% Other.
2008: 40.47% White, 46.26% Black, 8.31% Hispanic, 3.34% Asian, 0.24% Native American, 1.38% Other.

The minority population is growing so fast that the accompanying political transformation is just as rapid.
I hate to be this pedantic (but I will be anyway) but you have the other % in 2000 wrong.
Other than that, interesting numbers.

Thanks. Fixed.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on September 14, 2010, 10:25:13 PM
Just to show the rapidness of the political transformation... Clinton won Clayton County, GA 45-41 in 1992. By 2000, Gore won it 65-33. And in 2008, Obama won it 83-17. Similar is now happening in Henry, Newton and Rockdale Counties, and also in nearby Douglas, Cobb and Gwinnett Counties.

During the 1990's Clayton County experienced one of the largest (if not THE largest) increases in minority population in the nation. In 1990, Clayton County was 71.30% White-- that percentage was more than halved by 2000.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 19, 2010, 01:13:54 PM
It is possible, btw, to draw a majority-minority CD in Wisconsin. It looks hideous, though, because the Milwaukee ghettos have to be connected via very thin strips with high-minority areas of Racine and Kenosha.

I tried to get a seat as low white as possible, and got one to 42% white.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: ag on September 19, 2010, 04:14:43 PM
It is possible, btw, to draw a majority-minority CD in Wisconsin. It looks hideous, though, because the Milwaukee ghettos have to be connected via very thin strips with high-minority areas of Racine and Kenosha.

I tried to get a seat as low white as possible, and got one to 42% white.

I got it to 41% white without much trouble. I think, 48% white is possible without Racine and Kenosha, all just from 1 county (simply try to include every precinct in and around Millwaukee w/ 75% or less white (for contiguity, a few 80%-white and over precincts will go in).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 20, 2010, 07:32:40 PM
Here's a map of my seat:

()

And yeah I bet it can be done in just Milwaukee county.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 20, 2010, 10:27:51 PM
Actually I just had a similar thought to muon, what about South Carolina? 7x0.3=2.1. Blacks would be "entitled" to a second seat with one gained. Anyone drawn an SC map with two majority black districts?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on September 20, 2010, 10:35:33 PM
Actually I just had a similar thought to muon, what about South Carolina? 7x0.3=2.1. Blacks would be "entitled" to a second seat with one gained. Anyone drawn an SC map with two majority black districts?

Some really ugly ones.  You have to dive into NC-1 levels of district drawing to get two districts like that in South Carolina, as the Black Voters aren't all that concentrated outside of the black belt, and even then there are still pockets of whites.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on September 21, 2010, 01:01:19 PM
Actually I just had a similar thought to muon, what about South Carolina? 7x0.3=2.1. Blacks would be "entitled" to a second seat with one gained. Anyone drawn an SC map with two majority black districts?

Some really ugly ones.  You have to dive into NC-1 levels of district drawing to get two districts like that in South Carolina, as the Black Voters aren't all that concentrated outside of the black belt, and even then there are still pockets of whites.

Here's the version I put together a year ago. Both CD-6 (teal) and CD-7 (grey) have just over 50% black population, I don't think they look all that bad if you saw them in isolation.

For me the worst looking districts are the coastal ones. There's too much population for just one district so Charleston gets split between CDs 1 (blue) and 2 (green), and CD2 has to snake down long the GA line and around the Hilton Head corner to get there.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 22, 2010, 11:39:10 PM
You can move it if you find that one more appropriate.

Moderator's note: I've moved it to the US House Redistricting: Virginia (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=124018.0) thread, but I've titled the relocated posts Virginia Redistricting for Incumbent Protection so readers can track their origin.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 30, 2010, 07:07:37 PM
In case Minnesota doesn't lose a seat here's my map that could cleanse us of Bachmann:

()

The new sixth isn't exactly a Democratic district but there is no way Bachmann could win in it as it consists of the areas in her district that currently vote against her combined with some more Democratic territory.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RI on October 02, 2010, 02:32:41 AM
Does anyone know if it's possible to make a third Asian-majority district in California, specifically by using the Asian populations near and in the San Francisco/Daly City area? I've been playing around with it, and so far I've gotten districts with about 46%/47% Asian with full population with just those areas. In another version, I took in some Asian areas in Oakland as well, and I got it up to 49% Asian. It might be possible with some finesse to make one that reaches 50%, if someone wants to give it a try, though it probably won't be pretty.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: CatoMinor on October 04, 2010, 01:17:53 AM
think this would warrant a lawsuit?
()

The blue district in the west is 51% white / 47% black


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 04, 2010, 01:31:14 AM
That'd be a VRA violation, yes.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on October 04, 2010, 06:41:05 AM
Does anyone know how many California districts are VRA-protected for African Americans? (9th, 33rd, 35th, and 37th).  None are black plurality, let alone black majority districts, but they reliably elect African American congressmen in a state with a not-insignificant African American population.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on October 04, 2010, 08:18:34 AM
Does anyone know how many California districts are VRA-protected for African Americans? (9th, 33rd, 35th, and 37th).  None are black plurality, let alone black majority districts, but they reliably elect African American congressmen in a state with a not-insignificant African American population.

None of them.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 04, 2010, 10:08:06 AM
Does anyone know how many California districts are VRA-protected for African Americans? (9th, 33rd, 35th, and 37th).  None are black plurality, let alone black majority districts, but they reliably elect African American congressmen in a state with a not-insignificant African American population.

None of them.

Correct. California statewide is not covered by the VRA.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on October 04, 2010, 11:02:02 AM
New Hampshire? Why?

Also interesting that the Jamaica district is not VRA-protected. Better gerrymandering in East Queens, here we come.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 04, 2010, 11:20:07 AM

I have absolutely no clue. Also no clue why two rather random townships in Michigan are covered as well. The counties in Florida seem pretty random as well and not the type of places I'd expect to be covered.

Also interesting that the Jamaica district is not VRA-protected. Better gerrymandering in East Queens, here we come.

I don't think county coverage affects drawing maps. It just means they have to adhere to the other federal regulations for areas covered by the VRA. Personally I think NYC should be "bailed out" by now (exempted, that's the case with those striped counties in Virginia) since it's obvious they won't be trying to disenfranchise any minority voters and the regulations require federal approval to change anything about elections. In other words if a voting place is being moved next door or across the street this can't pass unlike the DoJ approves it. I understand why it was set up that way but it's clearly not needed in some locations anymore.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on October 04, 2010, 12:32:38 PM
Yeah, I think two issues are being confused.

Section 2 of the VRA has various general requirements that voting procedures not discriminate against minorities. There have been various interpretations of the exact consequences of this for district drawing, but this section is the basic source of the idea that minorities get their own districts.

Section 5, meanwhile, requires certain jurisdictions which have a history of Section 2 violations or other racial discrimination to "preclear" any changes to their voting procedures with the federal justice department to ensure they don't discriminate against minorities.

BRTD's map is a map of areas which require preclearance under Section 5. I have no idea why those New Hampshire towns are in there; presumably they have some history of discriminatory voting laws from way back when. It's only a small handful of towns, though, not all the counties in pink: the map uses the term "township coverage" to mean just "at least one township in this county".


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on October 04, 2010, 01:28:10 PM
The New Hampshire townships are probably on there just for having less than 50% of the voting age population participate in one of the 1960 or 1964 Presidential elections, which I know is why the California counties are covered.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 04, 2010, 02:20:17 PM
If that's the reason it might be time to let them off the hook by now.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on October 04, 2010, 11:44:43 PM
There are 10 townships in New Hampshire that are covered, including one that has no population.

The counties in New York and California, and the townships in New Hampshire were caught under a provision that if there was a literacy test and less than 50% of the CVAP voted in the 1968 presidential election they were covered.

New Hampshire's literacy test had not been enforced, but was still on the books.  Since elections in New Hampshire are based on towns, the percentage test was also applied to each town.

The 4 counties in California were all tied to military bases (some of which have been BRAC'ed.  Military were counted in the population, though relatively few voted locally.  In one county, the census bureau may have miscalculated the CVAP, by projecting all adult population growth from a census to have been citizens, and the county barely missed 50%.

In California, the state Supreme Court had already declared the literacy test to be unconstitutional, and it was officially repealed a month after the specified trigger date.

The two townships in Michigan were caught under the language provisions, both due to a large Spanish-speaking population coupled with low voting participation.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 06, 2010, 10:48:21 AM
The New Hampshire townships have a total population of about 16,000.

The two in Michigan includes one that's about 30% Hispanic (kind of odd, it's in the middle of nowhere and the county population is only about 5% Hispanic), the other is just outside of Saginaw and is less than 10% Hispanic but majority black.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: CatoMinor on October 08, 2010, 12:26:21 AM
I redrew WA's districts in a way that ( I think) makes it a little bit more competitive.

()

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on October 08, 2010, 10:01:44 AM
CD's 6 and 8 both look gerrymandered there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on October 08, 2010, 10:14:17 AM
CD's 6 and 8 both look gerrymandered there.

The 6th for sure, the 8th not really.  It covers both Tacoma and Olympia pretty nicely.  If that one big Grey block if moved to the 8th it would look better.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on October 08, 2010, 10:15:29 AM
CDs 4 and 5, too. The only place you should be crossing the Cascades is along the Columbia River at the southern edge of the state. And Island and San Juan Counties are only accessible from the eastern side of Puget Sound; connecting them to the western side makes no sense at all.

CD-8 is very gerrymandered; it's blatant gerrymandering to include two unrelated cities and nothing else in a district.

Basically, the whole map is a Republican gerrymander.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on October 08, 2010, 11:20:32 PM
The New Hampshire townships have a total population of about 16,000.

The two in Michigan includes one that's about 30% Hispanic (kind of odd, it's in the middle of nowhere and the county population is only about 5% Hispanic), the other is just outside of Saginaw and is less than 10% Hispanic but majority black.
The one near Saginaw is kind of odd, because it is covered under the language provisions, but is majority black, and people think it is covered because of the black population.  In recent elections, participation by blacks was higher than among whites.

Clyde Township I assume must be migrant farm workers of some sort.  It is about half way between Muskegon and Benton Harbor on Lake Michigan and well away from Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo.  The census shows an extremely large share of the Hispanics were born in Mexico.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on October 08, 2010, 11:22:12 PM

New Hampshire hired a redistricting consultant who wouldn't believe that parts of New Hampshire were covered by the VRA.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on October 08, 2010, 11:29:31 PM
If that's the reason it might be time to let them off the hook by now.
When the last time the VRA was renewed they could not come up with any objective test that would justify coverage.  Hawaii would have been the only covered State.  So they simply extended coverage - and the Supreme Court chickened out and wouldn't call them on it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on October 08, 2010, 11:32:19 PM
CD's 6 and 8 both look gerrymandered there.

The 6th for sure, the 8th not really.  It covers both Tacoma and Olympia pretty nicely.  If that one big Grey block if moved to the 8th it would look better.
Fort Lewis isn't it? 


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 10, 2010, 03:19:40 PM
Democratic gerrymander of Colorado:

()
()
()

Democrats probably win everything except the Colorado Springs and giant gray districts, so 5:2.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on October 10, 2010, 07:02:07 PM
There's no need to make the map so complicated. Have CO-05 take in all the ski lands and wrap around the west of Denver instead of the east. Put Greeley into the Boulder district to make up for the lost population. There should be a map like that that I did recently lying around somewhere...


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 10, 2010, 11:54:40 PM
Greeley isn't a Democratic city though. You can't see it well on the map that far out, but I had the yellow district take in only the eastern half of it (the older part of the city which is also heavily Hispanic.) The western half (which looks like new development and suburban hell on Google Street View) is in the gray district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Skill and Chance on October 11, 2010, 02:32:10 PM
What would a Dan Malloy Dem gerrymander of CT look like?  Alternatively, what would be the best possible GOP map in CT?  I imagine the GOP map would have Hartford and New Haven in the same CD?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on October 11, 2010, 05:07:25 PM
Alternatively, what would be the best possible GOP map in CT?

There doesn't seem to be a way to guarantee the GOP even a single seat in Connecticut. The best I managed to do without splitting towns was this:

()

This district uses estimates and has a deviation of +72. Even this district was carried by Obama by over 20,000 votes, and in 2000 Bush was held to a margin of 2,236 votes.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on October 11, 2010, 06:07:56 PM
Greeley isn't a Democratic city though. You can't see it well on the map that far out, but I had the yellow district take in only the eastern half of it (the older part of the city which is also heavily Hispanic.) The western half (which looks like new development and suburban hell on Google Street View) is in the gray district.

Greeley's not particularly Republican (maybe the city itself even voted for Obama), and it doesn't matter anyway. You'd have to be putting Boulder with something like Grand Junction for a district containing it to be at all vulnerable.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 11, 2010, 06:11:17 PM
Remember the district already contains southern Jefferson County and the most densely populated part of Douglas, Tom Tancredo territory. Also the city Loveland south of Fort Collins which had no problems voting for Marilyn Musgrave. It can easily absorb and handle that now, but something 50/50 like Greeley might leave it a bit too open.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on October 11, 2010, 06:18:11 PM
Remember the district already contains southern Jefferson County and the most densely populated part of Douglas, Tom Tancredo territory. It can easily absorb and handle that now, but something 50/50 like Greeley might leave it a bit too open.

Not really. Try this (CO-01 is majority Hispanic):

()
()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 12, 2010, 06:26:16 PM
I took a stab at this. However I will warn, it was done in the wee hours of the morning.

()


()

1. Is very similar but more compact. Majority Black
2. This is probably illegal because its not Majority black but its fairly close (42 b 35 W)
3. Basically the old 13thAs long as KP and Flyers are still in it, thats all I care about it.
4. A more compact 8th, all of Bucks.
5. The old 15th
6. Meet the new sixth, only slightly better then old one.
7. Pretty much the same probably a little more of Chester then before.
8. The old 16th. Not that much change
9. Holden's new seat, still a 54% or McCain seat. He should be fine
10. Stretched Westward slightly. About the same partisanship as before.
11. Stretched more to West and slightly less Dem.
12. The old 19th
13. Pittsburg, 62% Obama or so.
14. The old 9th and part of the old 12. 55%-59% Republican
15. The old 18th, about 53%-54% Republican.
16. The old 5th stretched SW to Westmoreland County.
17. The old 4th stretch to Westmoreland County.
18. The old 3rd stretched to Westmoreland.

I wasn't planning on splitting Westmoreland five ways but it was the first composition that gave the 17th and 18th enough people, and it was 4:00 AM :P. The largest deviations in population were the 17th and 18th of 1,100 and 1,900. All the others were under 1,000.

The biggest problem was that once the districts got so large and diverse, the Partisan data got shooved off the display bar so many of these are guesses. This was espeically troublesome in the Philly districts. Is there a way to fix that?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: CatoMinor on October 14, 2010, 04:10:23 PM
Had some fun with Colorado
CD1: Solid Dem
CD2: Solid Dem
CD3: Lean Dem
CD4: Solid GOP
CD5: Toss-up
CD6: Lean GOP
CD7: Lean GOP

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on October 14, 2010, 08:10:12 PM
I was actually able to redraw New Mexico 2-1 for McCain. (Current map is 2-1 Obama.) Both McCain districts were very close, but it was done.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on October 14, 2010, 10:37:44 PM
Here's a deceptive gerrymander of NM. Every district is 57% for Obama, but only one county (Bernalillo) is split. NM-01 and NM-02 are majority Hispanic, while NM-03 is 41% white, 34% Hispanic, 21% Native. (All three districts are either 41% or 42% white as well.)

It's not obvious from this screenshot, but Las Cruces is in NM-01.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on October 14, 2010, 11:12:41 PM
Here it is.

()

District 1: Obama 49%, McCain 49% (McCain won by 712 votes)
District 2: Obama 48%, McCain 51%. 48% Hispanic, 46% white.
District 3: Obama 73%, McCain 26%. 47% Hispanic, 30% white.

District 2 underwent little to no change. It must be one of the few McCain districts to also be majority-minority.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 17, 2010, 08:28:54 PM
Just finished Nebraska with new census numbers. Pretty proud of myself for finding every precinct and getting the three districts within 100 people of each other, as well as only one split county.

()

Note: I couldn't fit it all on, but just in case you didn't know, everything missing on the left is in CD-03.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 17, 2010, 11:24:45 PM
Obviously it won't ever happen, but what's everyone think of this Pennsylvania?

()

Oddly while I didn't intend for it to be a Dem gerrymander it basically is.

PA-01: Phil now gets Brady instead of Schwartz. 74% Obama.
PA-02: 71% black. 94% Obama.
PA-03: 61% Obama. Schwartz will take this now.
PA-04: 59% Obama. Safe for a Dem, Sestak can take this back if he loses and Meehan wins.
PA-05: 54% Obama. Not safe Dem of course, Gerlach might win it.
PA-06: I love this seat. 60% Obama. Not sure what Democrat would take it though, maybe the mayor of Lancaster or York or something.
PA-07: 60% McCain, Todd Platts probably wins it.
PA-08: 54% Obama. Would be held by either Murphy or Fitzpatrick. The two could might end up like Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel.
PA-09: 56% McCain, new Republican would win it.
PA-10: 54% Obama. Carney might want to move here, as well as Dent.
PA-11: Also 54% Obama. Hazelton is removed, but I suppose that racist loon might move here anyway. He'd probably lose to anyone besides Kanjorski though.
PA-12: 54% McCain, but Tim Holden could probably win it.
PA-13: Phil would prefer this new PA-13. 63% McCain. Bill Shuster would be safe.
PA-14: 59% McCain. Very conservative seat, Thompson is fine.
PA-15: 53% McCain, but Critz would probably hold it.
PA-16: The new Pittsburgh seat, 65% Obama, easy hold for Doyle.
PA-17: 52% McCain seat, but Altmire probably would hold it, it's less conservative than his current seat.
PA-18: 52% Obama. Dahlkemper could return to this seat which is more Dem.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 23, 2010, 11:07:39 AM
Inspired by the brief discussion of Oregon's redistricting process (which prevents party affiliation as a basis for drawing districts, and protects communities of interest), I thought I'd try my hand at a nonpartisan map of the state:

()

I'm not sure if splitting up Portland and Gresham would be kosher, but otherwise I think the map is pretty solid. The blue, purple, and red districts would all be swing districts, with the Dems probably having a slight advantage in the blue and red ones.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: CatoMinor on October 25, 2010, 04:01:40 PM
I attempted to un-gerrymander MA, tried not slitting up towns but had to in a few places.
I think MA-04, 5, 6, & 10 could be competitive.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 26, 2010, 12:58:48 AM
Someone on SSP posted a map of a hypothetical Republican gerrymander of Massachusetts. It had a grand total of two Republican seats and one more maybe winnable one.

Massachusetts is simply not a state where most of the seats SHOULD be competitive. Yes the current map is ugly and not fair to many areas and kind of defies explanation why such an ugly drawing should be needed (I suppose it's largely to maximize the influence of the Boston area, but it's not like they'd be underrepresented without it.) But that doesn't mean drawing it non-gerrymandered would mean Republicans would be likely to win many seats. It's much like saying that the Republicans can't win any of the non-Staten Island seats in NYC because it's gerrymandered, it may be but that's not the reason why Republicans don't win there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on October 26, 2010, 05:06:31 PM
The MA map currently looks as awful as it does as an attempt to make sure no Republicans under any circumstances would win any seat.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on October 26, 2010, 05:29:46 PM
The MA map currently looks as awful as it does as an attempt to make sure no Republicans under any circumstances would win any seat.

No, that's not true. It's about incumbent protection with crazy combinations resulting from seats lost to other states. It's quite close to the map drawn in the 1990s with the contribution of Gov. Weld who wanted the 5th to be Republican accessible.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 26, 2010, 10:28:56 PM
The MA map currently looks as awful as it does as an attempt to make sure no Republicans under any circumstances would win any seat.

No, that's not true. It's about incumbent protection with crazy combinations resulting from seats lost to other states. It's quite close to the map drawn in the 1990s with the contribution of Gov. Weld who wanted the 5th to be Republican accessible.

It's complicated by the fact that 6 of the 10 reps live in Boston and its nearby suburbs. To provide for the incumbents requires districts that spoke out from Boston. But they don't call it the Hub for nothing. :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on October 27, 2010, 07:54:05 AM
It's complicated by the fact that 6 of the 10 reps live in Boston and its nearby suburbs. To provide for the incumbents requires districts that spoke out from Boston. But they don't call it the Hub for nothing. :)

I wouldn't consider Salem to be a suburb of Boston, but yes, this is the biggest scandal of the map. Framingham, New Bedford, Nantucket, and Taunton all having reps living within 10 miles of downtown Boston is ridiculous.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Skill and Chance on October 27, 2010, 08:51:34 PM
So here's a puzzle.  What would a legal Dem gerrymander of CT look like?  Could you make all 5 districts ~D+5 without splitting towns?  Could you do 4 ~D+8-10 districts and one district that is as Republican as possible?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 27, 2010, 09:53:47 PM
It's complicated by the fact that 6 of the 10 reps live in Boston and its nearby suburbs. To provide for the incumbents requires districts that spoke out from Boston. But they don't call it the Hub for nothing. :)

I wouldn't consider Salem to be a suburb of Boston, but yes, this is the biggest scandal of the map. Framingham, New Bedford, Nantucket, and Taunton all having reps living within 10 miles of downtown Boston is ridiculous.

We agree on the map, but I'll respectfully disagree about Salem. It's very much a part of the the north suburbs of Boston.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on October 28, 2010, 10:35:32 AM
It's complicated by the fact that 6 of the 10 reps live in Boston and its nearby suburbs. To provide for the incumbents requires districts that spoke out from Boston. But they don't call it the Hub for nothing. :)

I wouldn't consider Salem to be a suburb of Boston, but yes, this is the biggest scandal of the map. Framingham, New Bedford, Nantucket, and Taunton all having reps living within 10 miles of downtown Boston is ridiculous.

We agree on the map, but I'll respectfully disagree about Salem. It's very much a part of the the north suburbs of Boston.

Perhaps not a nearby suburb like Malden or Quincy. Let me phrase it this way: It's reasonable for an Essex-based district to include Salem and be shaped the way it is, and for the rep to be from Salem. It's not really comparable to districts that start in Boston and reach out in all directions.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: CatoMinor on October 28, 2010, 06:35:36 PM
LA with 3 black majority districts.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 28, 2010, 10:59:27 PM
Just finished Nebraska with new census numbers. Pretty proud of myself for finding every precinct and getting the three districts within 100 people of each other, as well as only one split county.

()

Note: I couldn't fit it all on, but just in case you didn't know, everything missing on the left is in CD-03.

Did you try splitting no counties? If so how close could you get? I'm always curious as to how well the IA model would work in other states.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 28, 2010, 11:41:27 PM
Not really possible because of the Omaha area.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on October 29, 2010, 01:32:58 AM
Just finished Nebraska with new census numbers. Pretty proud of myself for finding every precinct and getting the three districts within 100 people of each other, as well as only one split county.

()

Note: I couldn't fit it all on, but just in case you didn't know, everything missing on the left is in CD-03.

Did you try splitting no counties? If so how close could you get? I'm always curious as to how well the IA model would work in other states.

It works surprisingly well in some states where you wouldn't expect it, Like Tennessee (assuming an exception is made for the Shelby county by putting all of Memphis in one district).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 29, 2010, 05:34:00 AM
Just finished Nebraska with new census numbers. Pretty proud of myself for finding every precinct and getting the three districts within 100 people of each other, as well as only one split county.

()

Note: I couldn't fit it all on, but just in case you didn't know, everything missing on the left is in CD-03.

Did you try splitting no counties? If so how close could you get? I'm always curious as to how well the IA model would work in other states.

It works surprisingly well in some states where you wouldn't expect it, Like Tennessee (assuming an exception is made for the Shelby county by putting all of Memphis in one district).

Aren't the counties around Nashville too populous to get a district of 100 persons deviation without splits?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on October 29, 2010, 05:43:24 AM
Just finished Nebraska with new census numbers. Pretty proud of myself for finding every precinct and getting the three districts within 100 people of each other, as well as only one split county.

()

Note: I couldn't fit it all on, but just in case you didn't know, everything missing on the left is in CD-03.

Did you try splitting no counties? If so how close could you get? I'm always curious as to how well the IA model would work in other states.

It works surprisingly well in some states where you wouldn't expect it, Like Tennessee (assuming an exception is made for the Shelby county by putting all of Memphis in one district).

Aren't the counties around Nashville too populous to get a district of 100 persons deviation without splits?

I Said "Suprisingly well" not perfect.  You can get within like 20k, which is great considering that all those counties have like 200,000 people in them


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on October 29, 2010, 06:51:42 AM
Just finished Nebraska with new census numbers. Pretty proud of myself for finding every precinct and getting the three districts within 100 people of each other, as well as only one split county.

()

Note: I couldn't fit it all on, but just in case you didn't know, everything missing on the left is in CD-03.

Did you try splitting no counties? If so how close could you get? I'm always curious as to how well the IA model would work in other states.

It works surprisingly well in some states where you wouldn't expect it, Like Tennessee (assuming an exception is made for the Shelby county by putting all of Memphis in one district).

Aren't the counties around Nashville too populous to get a district of 100 persons deviation without splits?

I Said "Suprisingly well" not perfect.  You can get within like 20k, which is great considering that all those counties have like 200,000 people in them

Unfortunately 20K won't survive a court challenge. For the IA system to work, there has to be enough small jurisdictions (like counties in IA) that districts can be constructed by an independent body using simple rules. Those districts have to come out very close to equal for the court to determine that the state's interest in preserving its districting rules justify the deviations from exact equality. If the rules allow splits in general, then the court will determine that exact equality should be achieved by splitting to the extent needed.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Nichlemn on November 05, 2010, 01:59:43 AM
LA with 3 black majority districts.

()

Wow, this is probably the most convoluted gerrymander I have ever seen.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vepres on November 06, 2010, 06:49:22 PM
Two black majority districts in Alabama (blue and green):

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 07, 2010, 02:01:37 PM
With the midterm result in, here's an idea for a bipartisan incumbent protection map of Virginia:

()

Click for huge. (http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/vabipartisan.png)

VA-01 (Rob Wittman - R) - Hasn't changed a whole lot; takes in some more of Prince William, loses part of Stafford/Spotsylvania, and adds the two Eastern Shore counties (they were in VA-01 prior to the 2000 map).
VA-02 (Scott Rigell - R) - Snakes up the shore to take in some Republican territory (Poquoson, parts of York and Gloucester), picks up the VA-01 bit of Hampton, and loses the Eastern Shore. Should move the needle to the Republicans by a couple points.
VA-03 (Bobby Scott - D) - Takes Petersburg out of VA-04, mostly unchanged. 62% black.
VA-04 (Randy Forbes - R) - Also not changed a whole lot, aside from losing Petersburg, which should flip the district to McCain.
VA-05 (Robert Hurt - R) - Removes Charlottesville and most of Albemarle, adds the rest of Bedford, Lynchburg, and Amherst. Should be no trouble at all for the Republicans to hold now.
VA-06 (Bob Goodlatte - R) - Snakes up from Roanoke, where Goodlatte lives, through the Shenandoah Valley, and pulls in Charlottesville and Albemarle and some outer NoVa counties. Shouldn't endanger Goodlatte.
VA-07 (Eric Cantor - R) - Actually a little less ridiculous now, it's a solidly-Republican suburban Richmond/Fredericksburg area district. Still should be solidly Republican.
VA-08 (Jim Moran - D) - Remains solidly Dem; continues to hold the trifecta of Alexandria, Arlington, and Falls Church, but goes west instead of south. Maybe a couple points less Democratic, but still a safe D district.
VA-09 (Morgan Griffith - R) - Not much changed here; added Salem, Martinsville, and some more of Roanoke County. Safe R.
VA-10 (Frank Wolf - R) - Added almost all of Shenandoah County, and removes some parts of Fairfax. Retains the most Republican parts of Fairfax. Safe for Wolf, should lean Republican in an open seat, unless it's a particularly good Dem year.
VA-11 (Gerry Connolly - D) - Replaces the Republican PW County parts with the solidly-Dem SE PW County. Should be a pretty safe Dem seat.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on November 07, 2010, 03:54:32 PM
I am getting a registry error when I try to open the redistricting application today. Is anyone else having that problem?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on November 07, 2010, 03:57:30 PM
I am, too.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on November 07, 2010, 03:59:56 PM

OK. That is good news, that it is not my computer. I am a long way from IT help right now!  

CC:  Muon2


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on November 07, 2010, 08:45:10 PM

OK. That is good news, that it is not my computer. I am a long way from IT help right now!  

CC:  Muon2

I've used it this evening without any difficulty. However, about a week ago it started hanging my Firefox. Since then I've been using IE with the App.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on November 07, 2010, 09:43:37 PM
It started working again this evening for me.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: CatoMinor on November 09, 2010, 12:25:47 PM
Here is a map with IA losing a district. Drawn without thinking of parties, but after looking at it I think IA-04 would be solidly GOP, IA-02 solidly Dem, and the 1st & 3rd being battle ground districts.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on November 10, 2010, 06:10:27 PM
Remember the district already contains southern Jefferson County and the most densely populated part of Douglas, Tom Tancredo territory. It can easily absorb and handle that now, but something 50/50 like Greeley might leave it a bit too open.

Not really. Try this (CO-01 is majority Hispanic):

()
()


Did you draw this map with the new population estimates? I had the basic Hispanic district as yours, and I adjusted the precincts a bit based on your map, but I still came up short. And not 48 or 49%, but 46%.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 11, 2010, 10:46:41 PM
I've been playing around with making "nonpartisan" maps. My general standards are that the districts should be relatively compact without dividing up counties/cities, and partisanship isn't taken into consideration. I do preserve existing VRA districts, though.

Here's one for Georgia (14 districts):

()

The green, purple, and blue districts in the Atlanta area are all 51% black. It would probably maintain the status quo; four of the five current Dems have pretty much the same maps, and Barrow would likely run in the light green district, which is 39% black. The teal Gwinnett County district might be interesting in a decade or so; according to the app it's only 48% white, but of course, the suburbs are still pretty solidly Republican for now.

And here's one for Michigan (also 14 districts):

()

The two majority-black seats retain their majorities. Democrats would easily win those, the red Oakland, purple Wayne/Oakland, and gray Flint/Saginaw districts. The yellow Macomb district, green Lansing-area district, teal Washtenaw, and possibly even the light blue midstate district would be swing districts. Republicans wouldn't have much trouble holding the remaining five districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 12, 2010, 10:29:03 AM
Dave is supposed to be releasing a new version of the app today. All the old maps should still work with it, but it should have some improved features, I guess.

That said, here's another nonpartisan map: Ohio (16 districts).

()

I managed to (just barely) preserve the black majority district without it plunging into Akron. On this one, the Dems would have five safe districts: the blue, green, red, and yellow NE ones, the new purple Columbus district. Republicans would have no trouble holding the magenta district, light blue Columbus suburban district, light purple and brown Cincinnati suburban districts, light green NW district, and probably the teal Erie to Holmes district. In addition, the pink Dayton district would probably favor Republicans, although not overwhelmingly so. Similarly, the orange Toledo-area district would still lean to the Democrats, but not as strongly as before. That leaves the Cincinnati district, which would remain a swing district, the purple NE district, which gets pushed towards the Dems but also remains swingy, and the grey mid-eastern district, which would probably lean to the Republicans but not by a large margin. So, a 7R-6D map with three swing districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on November 12, 2010, 10:45:03 AM
Interesting GA map.

Something like the red district will probably actually exist- there's been a big call in the northwest to get their own district, and IIRC the chairman of the redistricting committee in the State House is from up there and has Congressional ambitions...

The neon green district would make me feel really bad for John Barrow. He lived in Athens (Clarke County) when he first got elected to the district, then when the GOP did their mid-decade redistricting that cut Athens out so Barrow moved to Savannah (Chatham County). Now your map takes Savannah out of the district too so poor Barrow would have to move a second time in six years!

What's the race breakdown of Bishop's district (goldish brown)? I feel that he could quite easily lose it. In fact, if he had that district last week I'm pretty sure he would have lost.

Demographic change would definitely make the Cobb and Gwinnett districts in your map competitive for the Democrats after a few years (which is exactly why we won't see something resembling those districts after the GOP actually redistricts!) Cobb county was 44.5% Obama in 2008, and from eyeballing it I'd say Obama probably got around 46-47% in your Gwinnett district.

The only district I really don't like is the pink district. It looks like a hodgepodge of different areas without any central community of interest. Walton and Oconee are super-white wealthy outer suburbia, while Rockdale, Newton, and Henry (to a lesser extent) are middle class areas with sizable minority communities. Bibb County is the city of Macon and doesn't fit in with the Atlanta suburbs at all (even though that happens in the current districts, lol) while the counties in the middle of the district have little in common with either Macon or the suburb areas.

Still, nice map.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 12, 2010, 11:40:25 AM
The brown district is 51% white, 43% black. The borders didn't actually change much, now that I look at it; Brooks, Dooly, Crisp, and Lowndes Counties got removed, and Peach, Harris, and parts of Muscogee and Colquitt got added.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 13, 2010, 09:12:58 AM
Version 2.0 of the app has been released. For those of you with bookmarks directly to the app, you'll need to change it to this URL:

http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/davesredistricting2.0.aspx

It's certainly an interesting change, but it'll take some getting used to.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on November 13, 2010, 01:09:51 PM
Version 2.0 of the app has been released. For those of you with bookmarks directly to the app, you'll need to change it to this URL:

http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/davesredistricting2.0.aspx

It's certainly an interesting change, but it'll take some getting used to.

Just started it. I haven't yet tried to do anything with it, however. The first thing I noticed was the use of Bing Maps. Thank God they're using the old color scheme; I hate the blue scheme used now.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on November 13, 2010, 11:57:48 PM
The brown district is 51% white, 43% black. The borders didn't actually change much, now that I look at it; Brooks, Dooly, Crisp, and Lowndes Counties got removed, and Peach, Harris, and parts of Muscogee and Colquitt got added.

It's possible to make it majority black. Although it isn't majority now, after his scare I think Bishop may ask the Obama administration/DOJ to pressure Georgia to make it so. And I think the Georgia Republicans wouldn't mind shoring up the mostly unbeatable Bishop to ensure that no new Dixiecrats pop up in South Georgia.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Padfoot on November 14, 2010, 01:25:45 AM
Version 2.0 of the app has been released. For those of you with bookmarks directly to the app, you'll need to change it to this URL:

http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/davesredistricting2.0.aspx

It's certainly an interesting change, but it'll take some getting used to.

I'm not sure I really see what's better about this version.  It seems much harder to use than the old version.  There are no city lines anymore and all of the colors are too muted.  Its also impossible to see anything if you're trying to look at the entire state and you have all the voting districts turned on.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on November 14, 2010, 03:17:25 AM
Version 2.0 of the app has been released. For those of you with bookmarks directly to the app, you'll need to change it to this URL:

http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/davesredistricting2.0.aspx

It's certainly an interesting change, but it'll take some getting used to.

I'm not sure I really see what's better about this version.  It seems much harder to use than the old version.  There are no city lines anymore and all of the colors are too muted.  Its also impossible to see anything if you're trying to look at the entire state and you have all the voting districts turned on.

And turning off voting districts also turns off congressional districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on November 14, 2010, 09:42:29 AM
Having struggled with the new version of the application in my exercise of packing as many Pittsburgh area Dems into one district as possible, what you have to do, is keep turning the partisan data button on and off, and be careful that you have turned off the coloring button. So you look at your district that you have colored so far, look at adjacent areas with the partisan button on, and then slowly expand your district, either with both the partisan and color button on (territory not in your district will then color, while that already within it will not), or with the partisan button off (if you have memorized the shape of the precincts that you want to append).

After you have added your next handful of precincts, if you have not already, you then turn the partisan button  off again, and make sure that you got it right, and then you repeat the process, for the next batch of precincts. Where you see the break points on the map, where say in the case of Pittsburgh, you see precincts GOP enough that you don't want them in the Dem pack CD, you put those precincts  in an adjacent district in another color, as guideposts which help channel how you are going to expand the district that you are working on.  

You really need to get good at turning off the color button, or your mouse will wreak havoc, undoing much of the work that you have already done.  It's a learning curve, no doubt about it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Badger on November 22, 2010, 01:18:23 PM
Interesting map, JL. A couple comments/questions:

Would the green Cinci district really be that much a swing district? At first glance it appears a lot of GOP voting area from the current OH-1 has been removed for a more Cinci-dominated seat. What's the likely PVI?

I'm not sure that magenta version of OH-2 is quite that strong GOP. Although the new territory added still generally tends Republican, other than Highland and Gallia the PVI of the added areas are notably closer to even than most of the current OH-2. Schmidt could have increased trouble holding this district (though of course anyone but Jean Schmidt should make either version of OH-2 safe GOP). ;)


Any chance Montgomery and Clark counties could be mostly combined for a swingish Dayton-Springfield district? Both counties now have a slight GOP PVI lean I think (or about even with Montgomery). I suspect both counties combined would be too many voters for a single district, so it may depend on which GOP suburbs would/could be cut to bring the district down to appropriate numbers. I'm wondering if that can be done to include both cities and still maintain a competitive district?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 22, 2010, 07:01:23 PM
It's hard to say what the numbers for the Cincinnati district would be, since there's no precinct-level breakdown handy. I guess, on second thought, it would probably lean to the Dems.

The magenta district, eyeballing it, would probably have voted in the mid-50s for McCain. No problem for a Republican who's not Jean Schmidt to hold, and even Schmidt has quieted down (for the most part).

From a competitiveness standpoint, a Dayton/Springfield district would be more logical, but it would go against my nonpartisan, "communities of interest" approach, since presumably western Greene County is suburban Dayton.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: CatoMinor on December 09, 2010, 04:27:26 PM
Tried making a map that if the GOP had great candidates in a wave year might get 2 or 3.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 09, 2010, 10:15:56 PM
That's basically just the current map with a very ugly CD 7. Just refer to the Swing State Project's hypothetical Republican gerrymander of Massachusetts, it contains one McCain district and one barely Obama district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on December 14, 2010, 09:07:46 PM
So, I tried clicking on the new version of the App, having only used the original version, and a pop-up box came up saying I needed to download an updated version of Silverlight, so I clicked on the link, downloaded the new version of Silverlight, and installed it - or at least, installed it as far as I can tell, since it said "the software was successfully installed" at the last step of the installer - but now both the new version and the original App don't work - instead when I click on either link, all I get is a light blue icon in the top left telling me... to install Microsoft Silverlight!

:(

Any thoughts from the more IT-savvy out there?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 14, 2010, 11:23:49 PM
So, I tried clicking on the new version of the App, having only used the original version, and a pop-up box came up saying I needed to download an updated version of Silverlight, so I clicked on the link, downloaded the new version of Silverlight, and installed it - or at least, installed it as far as I can tell, since it said "the software was successfully installed" at the last step of the installer - but now both the new version and the original App don't work - instead when I click on either link, all I get is a light blue icon in the top left telling me... to install Microsoft Silverlight!

:(

Any thoughts from the more IT-savvy out there?

What browser are you using?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on December 15, 2010, 12:25:10 AM
So, I tried clicking on the new version of the App, having only used the original version, and a pop-up box came up saying I needed to download an updated version of Silverlight, so I clicked on the link, downloaded the new version of Silverlight, and installed it - or at least, installed it as far as I can tell, since it said "the software was successfully installed" at the last step of the installer - but now both the new version and the original App don't work - instead when I click on either link, all I get is a light blue icon in the top left telling me... to install Microsoft Silverlight!

:(

Any thoughts from the more IT-savvy out there?

What browser are you using?

Firefox, though the same thing happens when I try it with Safari.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 15, 2010, 12:30:27 AM
The original running seamless in IE for me is one of IE's few redeeming features (and one of only two things I use it for. The other watching on Netflix Watch Instantly.) The new one works fine on Opera though, which is my main browser.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on December 15, 2010, 08:06:30 PM
I just re-installed the same version of Silverlight, and now it's working. So who knows.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: nclib on December 15, 2010, 08:13:38 PM
BTW, this Dave isn't Dave Leip, is he?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on December 15, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
BTW, this Dave isn't Dave Leip, is he?

No, this is one Dave Bradlee.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: nclib on December 15, 2010, 08:30:05 PM

Yeah, I thought it wasn't Leip, but some posters have referred to it as "Leip's Redistricting App".


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Free Palestine on December 17, 2010, 11:35:17 PM
Oooh, version 2.0 is smexy.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on December 17, 2010, 11:51:49 PM
So, I tried clicking on the new version of the App, having only used the original version, and a pop-up box came up saying I needed to download an updated version of Silverlight, so I clicked on the link, downloaded the new version of Silverlight, and installed it - or at least, installed it as far as I can tell, since it said "the software was successfully installed" at the last step of the installer - but now both the new version and the original App don't work - instead when I click on either link, all I get is a light blue icon in the top left telling me... to install Microsoft Silverlight!

:(

Any thoughts from the more IT-savvy out there?

What browser are you using?

Firefox, though the same thing happens when I try it with Safari.

It works perfectly with IE (even version 6!)

It could be this, however:

Quote
The application runs on Windows and Mac and requires Silverlight 4.0 (it will ask you to download if you don't have it already).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on December 17, 2010, 11:54:02 PM
BTW I've come to hate version 2.0 of this application, and have returned to using only version 1.0.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on December 18, 2010, 10:57:59 AM
I find the new version much easier to use when coming up with nonpartisan maps; being able to see the actual lay of the land makes the "communities of interest" standard easier to apply.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on December 22, 2010, 05:14:22 PM
Here's a redo of Indiana.  I'm not really sure why their districts were so funky looking in the first place.
You need to draw a 10-district plan first.

Then choose a district in the middle of the state to dismantle, and it can't include the Marion County seat.  To the extent possible, add 11% of the dismantled district to each of the 9 remaining districts.  If you could do this, the old representative won't be able to find enough of his old district available to challenge anyone.

If that isn't possible, try to spread the additions from among several adjoining districts (eg for the Gary district, add 5% going east and 6% going south).  But be careful that you don't disrupt the other districts too much.

Alternatively, combine two districts in the middle of the state in a way that the incumbents can't really avoid a primary battle and the distribute the rest of the combined districts as above.

No... You split Marion county amongst the 4 surrounding districts (Good bye Andre Carson)
Find a way to force Vislowsky and silent Joe Donnelly into the same district (bye bye Donnelly)
Create a North Central District (Kokomo, Rochester, Peru, South Bend) which would be represented by Jackie Walorski.



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: CultureKing on December 22, 2010, 07:16:08 PM
Here is my take on Washington with 10 congressional districts:

()

Close-up of Puget Sound:
()


This would put the new 10th district in the South Sound. While Thurston county would lean democratic the addition of Lewis and southern Pierce would moderate the district (honestly I am not sure exactly how it would vote).

1st district (Northern Seattle/Snohomish county): Would be solid dem
2nd district (Everett to Bellingham): I actually barely changed the 2nd, would remain lean dem.
3rd district (Vancouver crossing into Eastern WA): Changes to lean/moderate Republican
4th district (Tri-cities): Remains solid Republican
5th district (Spokane): Would probably become slight less Republican but still difficult for democrats to capture even under good conditions.
6th district (Aberdeen/Bremerton/Tacoma): Slighlty less dem because of losses in Tacoma but remains lean dem.
7th district (Seattle): Even more solid dem
8th district (Bellevue): Goes from toss-up to slight dem. With the loss of Pierce county Reichart would be in BIG trouble
9th district (Kent/Federal Way): Becomes more solid democratic

End Result:
7 dem districts
3 rep districs
(though likely the 8th and 10th could switch to either party)

Any thoughts?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Napoleon on December 24, 2010, 03:42:42 PM
()

Stuck Murphy in the green district so that the red district would be a more Republican, Waterbury based district.

Just for fun. It would still be about D+2 or D+3 though.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: davebradlee on January 12, 2011, 12:11:35 AM
Hi Everyone,

I'm the author of the redistricting app. Not long ago I ran across all of your posts here on the app and I wanted to say "Thanks" and let you know what's going on with the app. I've posted diaries about the app on SwingStateProject.com over the last 1.5 years if you want to look at some of the history.

Until now, the app has been an avocation. I had a good chunk of time between jobs in the winter of 2008-09 when I got started on this, but since May 2009 I've had a "real" job...until now. I'm taking the plunge and working on the app full time for at least the first 1/2 of this year. I've been talking to a bunch of people and am trying to get some funding for it. At the moment it looks good, but not yet a done deal.

I plan to get all the new 2010 census data when it's available (Feb-Mar). The partisan data story is still unknown. Getting the data at the right granularity and format is a pain. For the states that have it now it's a few other people who have made that possible.

Version 2.0.4 is up there now. I can see many of you have used 2.0.x. I've created a survey that is open until next Monday night, January 17th (at 11:59pm PST). To take the survey paste www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=HBNLOI_a50d3df (http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=HBNLOI_a50d3df) in your browser (without the blanks -- since I'm a newbie the Blog won't accept me putting a link in there.) The survey will help give me some direction in my work over the next few months.


I bought a Mac and have been debugging the app there and so hope to have some improvements for you Mac users (boy -- the MacBook is really nice :-))

Anyway, please fill out the survey if you feel inclined. I will now try to check in here periodically to hear your thoughts and let you know when I'm making upgrades.

Thanks!

Dave


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: CatoMinor on January 12, 2011, 12:18:21 AM
Thank you for your wonderful redistricting app :D


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on January 12, 2011, 12:25:51 AM
Thank you for your wonderful redistricting app :D


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on January 12, 2011, 05:33:22 AM
I plan to get all the new 2010 census data when it's available (Feb-Mar).
Great!
Thank you for your wonderful redistricting app :D




Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 13, 2011, 07:19:04 PM
Here's the link that Dave Bradlee couldn't post:

www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=HBNLOI_a50d3df


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: bgwah on January 13, 2011, 07:44:08 PM
Your app is pretty much a dream come true. I had always wished there was something like it!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on January 14, 2011, 09:39:39 PM
Here's the link that Dave Bradlee couldn't post:

www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=HBNLOI_a50d3df

I fixed it in his post as well.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 23, 2011, 01:07:20 PM
For those who have wanted to draw state leg districts or whatever for At-Large states, there is now data for every state except Alaska up.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RI on January 23, 2011, 01:32:23 PM
For those who have wanted to draw state leg districts or whatever for At-Large states, there is now data for every state except Alaska up.

Hooray!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 23, 2011, 01:49:20 PM
OK while doing North Dakota I must ask what this "New Minneapolis" (amusing name) place is, I see it in Stutsman County off I-94 which I've driven a million times but have never seen any road sign for it and this is the first I've heard of it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Kevinstat on January 23, 2011, 03:01:55 PM
For those who have wanted to draw state leg districts or whatever for At-Large states, there is now data for every state except Alaska up.

Hooray!

Dave also now has block groups available for New England states, which, for Maine and New Hampshire at least, are better than the voting districts which for Maine were the tracts of territory in the same county, state senate district, state house district and county commissioner district (but not necessarily the same congressional district) before the 2003 redistricting (so under the lines drawn based on the 1990 census) and in New Hampshire were the wards of cities (or perhaps some non-cities) with all other municipalities in each county being lumps into "Voting Districts not defined, [Whatever] County" (except for Carroll County which apparently has no cities and had the entire county in the "CARROLL Voting District").

In both of those states (at least), however, some block groups include multiple towns, in Maine at least one pair of towns (Rome and Vienna) which were not only in different "Voting Disrricts" (as they were (and still are) in different state house districts) but were each coterminous with one "Voting District."  Overall, however, the block groups are definitely more useful, although it would be nice if the name of the census tract were included in the block group name rather than just "Block Group 1" or "Block Group 2" and if I new how the '(part)'s of block groups were divided (at least adjacent "Block Group 1"s of different census tracts in the same county are in different districts ('disticts' here being the indivisible building blocks of 'CD's)).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 23, 2011, 03:37:00 PM
In celebration of this achievement, I've made 2-CD maps of all the at-large states (minus Alaska), with the intent of giving the minority party in each state a CD they could win.

Delaware:

()

The green district might have actually been a narrow Obama win, but it would be dominated by Kent and Sussex, so Republicans would be able to win it pretty easily. The blue district is probably over 70% Obama.

Montana:

()

The blue district is around 53-44 Obama, while the green one is around 55-42 McCain.

North Dakota:

()

This one, along with Delaware, has the advantage of looking pretty nice as well. No county splits even! The blue district is about 52-46 Obama, while the green one is about 60-38 McCain.

South Dakota:

()

Less so here. Blue district is pretty much even, while the green one is about 58-40 McCain.

Vermont:

()

Really no way to make a Republican-opportunity district here. The blue district almost certainly is over 60% Obama, while the green one is over 70% Obama.

Wyoming:

()

Opposite problem, thought not *quite* as bad. My guess is the blue district is around 60% McCain, while the green one is over 70%.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 24, 2011, 12:43:14 AM
How many state legislative seats do the Democrats have in Delaware outside of New Castle County? With the maps I'm drawing I'm having a tough time seeing them win anything outside of up to two Dover based House seats and one Dover Senate seat. Dover's black population is so high though that the Democrats would probably win anything based around it even without the state employee voters that make most state capitals more Democratic than the state.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 24, 2011, 09:09:23 AM
In the Senate, they've got SD-14 (split between New Castle and Kent) SD-17 (Dover), SD-20 (beach towns, Millsboro, Selbyville), and SD-21 (Laurel/Delmar).

SD-17 and 20 were up last year, the former being a 2-1 win and the latter unopposed. They lost SD-15 last year, which is the western half of Kent County.

In the House, there's HD-14 (Rehoboth), HD-28 (Smyrna), HD-31 (Dover), HD-32 (Dover), and HD-41 (Millsboro), though HD-41's representative is only a Democrat because he was a Republican who had to resign from the House due to a scandal (domestic abuse, to be specific), then he came back and ran as a Democrat.

The 14th was close (54-46) last year, 28th and 31st weren't, the 32nd was a 50-44 win, and the 41st was a 55-45 win. They lost the 33rd 52-48 last year, which is Milford and Riverview.

Here are the current maps:

http://elections.delaware.gov/information/districtmaps/districtmaps.shtml


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 24, 2011, 10:36:28 AM
Weird, they must hold some pretty conservative areas then. Some of those districts would've had to voted for O'Donnell. I have a tough time seeing how anyone could vote for both O'Donnell and a Democrat.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 24, 2011, 11:53:34 AM
Results by House district. (http://elections.delaware.gov/archive/elect10/elect10_General/html/stwres.shtml) Coons carried HD-14 by 49-48 (about 150 votes), HD-28 by 55-42, HD-31 by 57-39, and HD-32 by 51-44.

Looks like HD-41 was the one Dem-held House district that voted for O'Donnell, 58-38. HD-33, which the Republicans picked up, went for O'Donnell as well (57-39). Meanwhile, Coons carried every seat in New Castle County, including the five Republicans left there (HD-11, 12, 20, 21, 22), and the three House seats they picked up (HD-6, 9, and 24).

After a quick calculation of the Senate districts that were up last year... SD-14 went for Coons by 55-41, while SD-20 went for O'Donnell 56-40. SD-17, which the Dems lost, went for O'Donnell 54-42.

So that's two districts that were up that went for O'Donnell/a Democrat. As I've said, Atkins is a DINO, and Bunting (the Senator from SD-20), aside from being unopposed, is pretty conservative, I believe.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 24, 2011, 12:38:43 PM
Weird, they must hold some pretty conservative areas then. Some of those districts would've had to voted for O'Donnell. I have a tough time seeing how anyone could vote for both O'Donnell and a Democrat.

Knowing rural Delaware, at least some of those Democratic legislators from Sussex County probably voted for O'Donnell.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 24, 2011, 12:56:54 PM
Weird, they must hold some pretty conservative areas then. Some of those districts would've had to voted for O'Donnell. I have a tough time seeing how anyone could vote for both O'Donnell and a Democrat.

Knowing rural Delaware, at least some of those Democratic legislators from Sussex County probably voted for O'Donnell.

Delaware has ConservaDems? Kind of weird, it's traditionally Republican rather than Democratic and never had any type of Dixiecrat machine. FDR even failed to win it in 1932.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 24, 2011, 01:06:55 PM
Weird, they must hold some pretty conservative areas then. Some of those districts would've had to voted for O'Donnell. I have a tough time seeing how anyone could vote for both O'Donnell and a Democrat.

Knowing rural Delaware, at least some of those Democratic legislators from Sussex County probably voted for O'Donnell.

Delaware has ConservaDems? Kind of weird, it's traditionally Republican rather than Democratic and never had any type of Dixiecrat machine. FDR even failed to win it in 1932.

Well, yeah, New Castle County has always dominated the state, and back when Philly was GOP, so was Wilmington. But Sussex and to a lesser extent Kent County might as well be in rural Alabama, politically. See also: Eastern Shore of Maryland.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 24, 2011, 01:10:49 PM
Still kind of odd that they'd still be around this late, and that the guy in HD-41 was even welcomed into the caucus (I'd be pretty outraged about that if I were a Delaware Democrat, though I don't know the whole story, maybe they were pretty reluctant.)

I just found something odd though it might just be an error, there's a precinct near Wilmington which is literally 100% white, and it has almost 1000 people (close to Canby Park). It's about in the area where the black population starts to fade, but not to that level, the surrounding precincts are about 20% black.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 24, 2011, 01:12:57 PM
Yeah, Sussex and Kent culturally belong with the Eastern Shore of Maryland. You could cut the state off at the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_and_Delaware_Canal) and put the southern part in with Maryland and I doubt anyone would complain.

Sussex actually still has a slight Dem registration edge (52k to 49k), while Kent's is more pronounced (46k to 33k).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 24, 2011, 01:23:19 PM
Still kind of odd that they'd still be around this late, and that the guy in HD-41 was even welcomed into the caucus (I'd be pretty outraged about that if I were a Delaware Democrat, though I don't know the whole story, maybe they were pretty reluctant.)

I just found something odd though it might just be an error, there's a precinct near Wilmington which is literally 100% white, and it has almost 1000 people (close to Canby Park). It's about in the area where the black population starts to fade, but not to that level, the surrounding precincts are about 20% black.

Democrats didn't pick up the House until 2008, so they may have been hedging their bets in case Atkins became the deciding vote for Speaker. A little googling suggests that he presented himself as a "changed man", so maybe he's cleaned up his act.

That precinct is probably just an error. I looked at the neighborhood on Google and it's a mix of townhouses, split-levels, and other small single-family homes; doubtful that it's 100% white.

Edit: Although maybe not, there are some other heavily-white precincts in the area (near the cemetary). Maybe it's a white working-class neighborhood like Hampden in Baltimore.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 24, 2011, 04:53:33 PM
I'm curious if anyone knows--has Dave's Redistricting been updated for the 2009 ACS figures? I ask specifically about Georgia (I know he has new figures for New England.) I was poking around the NYT map, and then verified this info on the American FactFinder Census site, and the black population is increasing so fast in some parts of the suburban Atlanta metro that it may in fact be not only possible but easy to draw a fourth black majority seat in the Atlanta metro (which could affect whether the DOJ  sues to force one).

For example, Rockdale County, GA was estimated at 32.6% black in 2008 ACS and is now estimated at 37.0% black in the 2009 ACS. On that 3.4% annual increase, it would be around 39% black at the 2010 Census (which is less than a full year after the ACS). Similar rapid growth is shown in Newton County, Henry County, Douglas County and Cobb County (and to a lesser extent in Gwinnett County, where Hispanics and Asians form the larger part of the new residents, and in Clayton County, which increased from 51% black in 2000 to 60% in the 2009 ACS but seems to have stabilized recently). It is accompanied by a slight decline in Fulton County, but the decline in Fulton is tiny relative to the increase in the others. If the changes really are that rapid, how easy a black district is to create might change dramatically from the 2008 estimates to the 2009 ones, or to the actual 2010 census figures (which will include another half-year of change after the 2009 estimates). And even on the 2008 numbers it is possible, just barely, to craft four black majority seats in the area (albeit only 50-51% black each).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 24, 2011, 05:22:06 PM
He's been updating the states with the ACS figures, but I'm assuming he hasn't gotten them all in yet. When he does updates, he posts them on SSP and on the launch page:

http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/launchapp.html


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on January 24, 2011, 05:44:52 PM
Just checked, and it appears Georgia at least is up-to-date on the block group version. Awesome; time to try to draw 4 black majority seats in the Atlanta metro.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 25, 2011, 03:00:42 PM
I posted a diary about redistricting the Virginia Senate at SSP. Check it out if you like. (http://swingstateproject.com/diary/8291/redistricting-the-virginia-state-senate-can-democrats-maintain-a-majority)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on January 25, 2011, 06:00:19 PM
He's been updating the states with the ACS figures, but I'm assuming he hasn't gotten them all in yet. When he does updates, he posts them on SSP and on the launch page:

http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/launchapp.html

The ACS figures are from 2005-2009, so are kind of a blurry 2007 estimate, but will still provide better intracounty distribution.




Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on January 25, 2011, 07:01:37 PM
I've just done an Arizona map.

All states but Iowa and Wyoming are on ACS figures for the block groups now. (Which means it makes sense to use these rather than the Voting Districts in the future.)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on February 08, 2011, 02:31:05 PM
 An article about Dave's Redistricting App  (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=547258)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Mexino Vote on February 08, 2011, 04:03:28 PM
This App is great :D

I'm trying to make a OKC DEM seat. The best I got so far is around 53% R


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on February 08, 2011, 04:40:34 PM
Did you include Norman?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Platypus on February 10, 2011, 12:20:40 AM
OK, I know this has been asked and answered many times before, but...how do I save a map? I've got an Ohio I'd like to share.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on February 10, 2011, 12:43:39 AM
OK, I know this has been asked and answered many times before, but...how do I save a map? I've got an Ohio I'd like to share.
Either click "save view" or just do a screenshot.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on February 13, 2011, 06:21:49 PM
()

As of Census 2000, Omaha has only one minority-majority seat in the Unicameral - the 11th. (). That however was 72% Black, 20% White. It's conceivable that no. 7 is majority hispanic now - in 2000 it was 58% White, 32% Hispanic.

In the map above (with 2005-9 ACS data), I drew three. And none of them has any major lily-white areas slapped on just to make the numbers, something I always find distasteful. Most of the blocks around their edges are majority white, but they are mixed.

The 7th-like seat in the southeast corner is 57% Hispanic, 35% White, the pale red seat is 51% Black, 32% White, and the grey seat north of it is 50% Black, 41% White. The ugly tan thing between them is 76% White, 10% Hispanic, 7% Black.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Mexino Vote on February 13, 2011, 08:01:51 PM

yes, but only the University areas and the minority precincts. The map looks very ugly. I am still working on it as I want to extend it into what is currently OK-02 aka Mega-ugly-gerrymander :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 16, 2011, 08:31:53 PM
The app has been updated with the 2010 census data and 2008 partisan data for Virginia.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Platypus on February 17, 2011, 08:16:50 PM
() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/westvirgina7districts.jpg/)

7 district WV, for no particular reason. Districts must be within 75 of the ideal and county splits should be avoided.

Vague attempt at getting a split delegation (3-3 with 1 swing) but in WV it's hard to be precise about that kind of thing.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on February 23, 2011, 08:59:35 AM
I gotta say, I love how the app w/ census data has boxes for both population and VAP.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on February 26, 2011, 10:07:38 AM
I gotta say, I love how the app w/ census data has boxes for both population and VAP.

That's actually I request I sent to him about a month ago. I pointed out that VAP is the correct measure for legal purposes. I was impressed to see how fast it was implemented.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: nclib on February 26, 2011, 06:55:26 PM
Are any of the following possible?

- McCain district in New England (I'm guessing only NH is possible)
- McCain district in New York City excluding Staten Island
- Obama, white non-Hispanic majority district in Texas, Arizona, or New Mexico
- Obama district in West Virginia
- Obama Hispanic district in Florida


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on February 26, 2011, 08:11:07 PM
It's pretty easy to make a McCain district in southern Brooklyn; I just made a 59% McCain district there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 26, 2011, 09:59:32 PM
White-majority Obama district in NM:

()

It's easy to make one by connecting Santa Fe with eastern Bernalillo and Los Alamos, so I tried to make one that was at least 60% white.

And here's a cornucopia of white-majority Obama districts in Texas (I didn't use the new pop estimates because they apparently reduce the total population for some reason; I did use the new apportionment numbers):

()

You may have to open the latter in a new window to see it better.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 26, 2011, 10:15:19 PM
- Obama Hispanic district in Florida

Already exists. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's seat voted for Obama. You could probably make two if you diluted the Cuban vote more (but the data isn't out yet).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on February 27, 2011, 05:48:04 PM
Are any of the following possible?

- McCain district in New England (I'm guessing only NH is possible)
- McCain district in New York City excluding Staten Island
- Obama, white non-Hispanic majority district in Texas, Arizona, or New Mexico
- Obama district in West Virginia
- Obama Hispanic district in Florida

I remember SSP had a map of Massachusetts with 2 McCain Districts, though those were ugly and only barely McCain.  Also, I'm pretty sure you can draw at least one in Connecticut (Northern Fairfield county and then some white suburbs around the state)

Yeah, it's easy to draw one in South Brooklyn.  You can actually draw a district with like 150,000 people in it that voted 80% McCain (Hasidic Jews vote very Republican)

As for Arizona, you probably can draw a white, Obama district just by drawing one in the city of Tuscon.  Also, one going from Tempe stretching around the Democratic parts of Phoenix might work as well, though in both cases its just Highly Democratic Hispanics out-voting the Marginally Republican whites.

As for West Virginia, I doubt it.  his best county was Boone, with 54% of the Vote, and there's no county in WV big enough where you might be able to draw an Obama-leaning part out of it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on February 27, 2011, 05:53:32 PM
As for West Virginia, I doubt it.  his best county was Boone, with 54% of the Vote, and there's no county in WV big enough where you might be able to draw an Obama-leaning part out of it.

Sure there is. Kanawha County has very clear polarization between the poor, Democratic areas along the river and the less poor, Republican areas uphill. I'm sure you could draw an Obama seat in WV if you had partisan data by voting district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 27, 2011, 09:53:05 PM
The app has been updated with 2010 census data for all the states that are currently out, with the exception of Oregon.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Horus on February 28, 2011, 07:10:18 AM
Chicago 2000 vs. Chicago 2010. Notice the clear migration of blacks from downtown to the suburns, not that we didn't already know this. For as diverse as it is, North Chicago doesn't look too different.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on February 28, 2011, 07:57:02 AM
Are the Hispanic areas dense enough for two districts, or will we be seeing a return of the Earmuffs?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on February 28, 2011, 08:57:33 AM
Are the Hispanic areas dense enough for two districts, or will we be seeing a return of the Earmuffs?

The SW Chicago area easily has enough Hispanic population for a 65% (58% VAP) district by itself. That's just using the data in the App. No earmuffs should be needed. 

The NW area may have enough for a district as well, but that depends on how far out into the suburbs the district extends. Precincts can be pretty coarse for setting up minority districts. Block-level data will give a better idea as to the possibilities on the NW side.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on February 28, 2011, 10:13:42 AM
I recently learned about the race riot in Cicero in the 1950s (?) when a black family tried to move into town... they were driven out by mobs of white people. You can see the outcome today in the sharp right angle delineating largely Hispanic neighborhoods of Cicero from African-American neighborhoods. The town still has almost no black residents.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Torie on February 28, 2011, 10:35:57 AM
I recently learned about the race riot in Cicero in the 1950s (?) when a black family tried to move into town... they were driven out by mobs of white people. You can see the outcome today in the sharp right angle delineating largely Hispanic neighborhoods of Cicero from African-American neighborhoods. The town still has almost no black residents.


When I was in Chicago, about 1970, a black family moved in on the west side of Cicero Blvd/Ave/St (the dividing line between Chicago and Cicero) in the afternoon, a mob formed, and the block captain moved them out that evening, with his boys moving out all their furniture. And that was the end of that. Nobody seemed to wonder why law enforcement seemed absent.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on February 28, 2011, 10:46:52 AM
I recently learned about the race riot in Cicero in the 1950s (?) when a black family tried to move into town... they were driven out by mobs of white people. You can see the outcome today in the sharp right angle delineating largely Hispanic neighborhoods of Cicero from African-American neighborhoods. The town still has almost no black residents.


When I was in Chicago, about 1970, a black family moved in on the west side of Cicero Blvd/Ave/St (the dividing line between Chicago and Cicero) in the afternoon, a mob formed, and the block captain moved them out that evening, with his boys moving out all their furniture. And that was the end of that. Nobody seemed to wonder why law enforcement seemed absent.

That must have been it. I read about it in The Warmth of Other Suns, a great book.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sam Spade on February 28, 2011, 01:06:41 PM
Are the Hispanic areas dense enough for two districts, or will we be seeing a return of the Earmuffs?

The SW Chicago area easily has enough Hispanic population for a 65% (58% VAP) district by itself. That's just using the data in the App. No earmuffs should be needed. 

The NW area may have enough for a district as well, but that depends on how far out into the suburbs the district extends. Precincts can be pretty coarse for setting up minority districts. Block-level data will give a better idea as to the possibilities on the NW side.

Which reminds me - have you had a chance to look at Austin and environs to see if a Hispanic majority CD can be created w/o San Antonio. My 10 min look at last night the VTD suggests it'll fall a few percent short and would be extremely ugly anyway.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on February 28, 2011, 03:40:26 PM
Are the Hispanic areas dense enough for two districts, or will we be seeing a return of the Earmuffs?

The SW Chicago area easily has enough Hispanic population for a 65% (58% VAP) district by itself. That's just using the data in the App. No earmuffs should be needed. 

The NW area may have enough for a district as well, but that depends on how far out into the suburbs the district extends. Precincts can be pretty coarse for setting up minority districts. Block-level data will give a better idea as to the possibilities on the NW side.

Which reminds me - have you had a chance to look at Austin and environs to see if a Hispanic majority CD can be created w/o San Antonio. My 10 min look at last night the VTD suggests it'll fall a few percent short and would be extremely ugly anyway.

The core area for a district is Eastern Travis, Caldwell, Gonzales and Dewitt. I added short spurs to pick up New Braunfels and Seguin, which didn't look so bad. I then had to add a long spur through Victoria to Port Lavaca to get a full district at 50.2% VAP. That keeps out of San Antonio. It may be possible to run to Bryan instead of Port Lavaca, but I haven't fully worked on that.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on February 28, 2011, 03:55:41 PM
- McCain district in New York City excluding Staten Island

I've actually tried that, and it is possible. NY-9 (Anthony Weiner's district) is based in Kings County (Brooklyn) and Queens County, and I was able to make it into a Republican district in this 28-district map (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97085.msg2375576#msg2375576).

(I know, New York lost 2 districts instead of 1, so I'll have to redraw the map into 27 districts, but I'm sure NY-9 still works. You should remember, as I recall you asked me which districts had which colors.)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sam Spade on February 28, 2011, 04:37:54 PM
Are the Hispanic areas dense enough for two districts, or will we be seeing a return of the Earmuffs?

The SW Chicago area easily has enough Hispanic population for a 65% (58% VAP) district by itself. That's just using the data in the App. No earmuffs should be needed. 

The NW area may have enough for a district as well, but that depends on how far out into the suburbs the district extends. Precincts can be pretty coarse for setting up minority districts. Block-level data will give a better idea as to the possibilities on the NW side.

Which reminds me - have you had a chance to look at Austin and environs to see if a Hispanic majority CD can be created w/o San Antonio. My 10 min look at last night the VTD suggests it'll fall a few percent short and would be extremely ugly anyway.

The core area for a district is Eastern Travis, Caldwell, Gonzales and Dewitt. I added short spurs to pick up New Braunfels and Seguin, which didn't look so bad. I then had to add a long spur through Victoria to Port Lavaca to get a full district at 50.2% VAP. That keeps out of San Antonio. It may be possible to run to Bryan instead of Port Lavaca, but I haven't fully worked on that.

That will be one ugly district.  I also have to wonder if it would withstand LULAC (or any number of other court decisions).

As for Bryan, unless the numbers have really changed, there won't be enough Hispanics to make it.  The Victoria area has far more Hispanics.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on March 14, 2011, 11:40:27 AM
Donations are being accepted (https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5921/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=4792) to help Dave continue to work on the app (I believe he's doing this full-time or close to full-time now). I chipped in $5; can't really afford more than that, thanks to my employment status, but considering how much I've used it, I figured I should give him something.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Brittain33 on March 14, 2011, 07:38:46 PM
Donations are being accepted (https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5921/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=4792) to help Dave continue to work on the app (I believe he's doing this full-time or close to full-time now). I chipped in $5; can't really afford more than that, thanks to my employment status, but considering how much I've used it, I figured I should give him something.

I donated a nice chunk of change for all the joy it's brought me. I hope its affiliation with a left-wing group doesn't cost it support from any who'd otherwise donate...


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on March 15, 2011, 05:48:55 AM
Arizona '10 is up! (And a lot of other states, but I'd been waiting impatiently for Arizona.)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Nhoj on March 15, 2011, 11:57:29 AM
Yeah Wisconsin is up too, and it pleases me greatly! I can now find the population for any township in Wisconsin with ease instead of going through fact finders crap.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on March 15, 2011, 12:07:06 PM
Who determines the Precinct Boundries in each state?  Is it the legislature?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on March 23, 2011, 11:29:21 PM
Who determines the Precinct Boundries in each state?  Is it the legislature?

In IL it is determined by the counties following guidelines set by state statute. Precincts are expected to conform to congressional and legislative district boundaries, and county board and ward boundaries are supposed to conform to precincts as nearly as practicible.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: will101 on March 30, 2011, 05:57:21 PM
I have a dumb question.  I've been playing with DRA for a couple of weeks now, and I can't figure how to make a jpeg (or any similar format) of the entire state, or any detailed section.  And I looked here, but this is getting to be a looong thread.  Any tips?  MTIA


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on March 31, 2011, 03:45:21 AM
Expand the area views section. You'll find a button titled "save view as jpg".

Or use screenshots. That's what Torie does.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on March 31, 2011, 03:25:54 PM
Yeah, I always just use screenshots. Use your keyboard's "Print Scr" button, then paste into MSPaint or something; modify as necessary.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: will101 on April 01, 2011, 06:50:44 PM
I'll try that.  Thanks


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on April 05, 2011, 10:16:29 AM
Dave's added partisan data for Washington (the 2010 Senate election).


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on April 06, 2011, 04:36:15 PM
Dave's added partisan data for Washington (the 2010 Senate election).

But not the 2008 presidential election? Interesting.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on April 06, 2011, 04:41:43 PM
Dave's added partisan data for Washington (the 2010 Senate election).

But not the 2008 presidential election? Interesting.

Someone sent him a spreadsheet with the 2010 results and apparently it was not too much work to convert it for use.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on May 03, 2011, 03:09:21 PM
Partisan data has been added for Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, and Nevada.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on May 11, 2011, 07:24:44 AM
More states with partisan data: GA, OH, SC, TX, and WI, with the caveat: "Note: The statewide vote totals for Georgia and South Carolina will look very low. That's because those states did not report early and absentee voting by precinct, and there was a lot of early voting. Rather than attempt to distribute them, we've left the precincts as is. It still should give a pretty accurate representation of Dem/Rep strength."


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 11, 2011, 10:38:33 AM
Texas has had it for awhile.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on May 11, 2011, 11:18:00 AM
Not with the 2010 census numbers.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: DrScholl on May 11, 2011, 12:04:47 PM
Jackpot.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Dgov on May 11, 2011, 12:55:05 PM
The Texas numbers are off.  I seriously Doubt that Houston and Dallas have changed that much in a decade--it looks like someone drew random digits on a color-by-numbers.  There's a ton of 90% Hispanic precincts next to 90% Black next to 90% White ones, so the numbering system is probably off there, and i seriously doubt University park is now Majority-Black while Western Ft. Worth is Majority WHite.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on May 11, 2011, 01:08:06 PM
Sounds like the same problem Illinois had, I'd give Dave a day or so to fix it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sam Spade on May 11, 2011, 01:44:40 PM
The Texas numbers are off.  I seriously Doubt that Houston and Dallas have changed that much in a decade--it looks like someone drew random digits on a color-by-numbers.  There's a ton of 90% Hispanic precincts next to 90% Black next to 90% White ones, so the numbering system is probably off there, and i seriously doubt University park is now Majority-Black while Western Ft. Worth is Majority WHite.


I'll have to examine.  You do get more situations like that in Houston and Dallas (especially Houston) than you might think, but University Park ain't black, of course.

Anyway, I'll get back to work now.  :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on May 11, 2011, 04:33:57 PM
Yeah, Texas racial numbers are definitely off since the partisan data was added (maybe the partisan ones, too, didn't check). It looks like the precinct data got randomized within each county, which means its only really obvious in the large, diverse counties. But it's absolutely wrong.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on May 12, 2011, 03:45:26 AM
Yeah, Texas racial numbers are definitely off since the partisan data was added (maybe the partisan ones, too, didn't check). It looks like the precinct data got randomized within each county, which means its only really obvious in the large, diverse counties. But it's absolutely wrong.
I came across something like that when doing the 2006  gubernatorial race.  IIRC The precinct results from the county election sites wasn't matching the shapefiles from the legislative council because of renumbering of precincts, and other changes.

I think I corresponded with someone with the legislative council and they were doing something like normalizing the data to the 2000 VTDs.

It is possible that the political data is from the legislative council site, and the VTD shapefiles from the 2010 census bureau site?  Or maybe Dave is using the 2010 census racial data, and shapefiles from the legislative council?

The 2010 census data and 2010 census VTD shapefiles do match up, since that is what I used for the senate districts.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on May 12, 2011, 04:18:50 PM
More states with partisan data: GA, OH, SC, TX, and WI, with the caveat: "Note: The statewide vote totals for Georgia and South Carolina will look very low. That's because those states did not report early and absentee voting by precinct, and there was a lot of early voting. Rather than attempt to distribute them, we've left the precincts as is. It still should give a pretty accurate representation of Dem/Rep strength."

Note that some Georgia counties (Gwinnett is the only one I know of, but I'm pretty sure there are more) do report absentees by precinct and they are included in the App numbers.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on May 13, 2011, 01:41:57 PM
Partisan data is also available for Idaho, which I know everyone was clamoring for.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on May 13, 2011, 03:46:52 PM
The Georgia data has been updated to reflect the absentee/early voting totals.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on May 13, 2011, 04:41:08 PM
The Georgia data has been updated to reflect the absentee/early voting totals.

A few precincts, especially around Columbus, seem to be missing all of the data.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on May 13, 2011, 04:59:22 PM
The Georgia data has been updated to reflect the absentee/early voting totals.

A few precincts, especially around Columbus, seem to be missing all of the data.

Which precincts? It could just be the uninhabited parts of Fort Benning.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on May 13, 2011, 05:05:51 PM
The Georgia data has been updated to reflect the absentee/early voting totals.

A few precincts, especially around Columbus, seem to be missing all of the data.

Which precincts? It could just be the uninhabited parts of Fort Benning.

They have residents in the thousands. Check it out yourself.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 13, 2011, 09:25:32 PM
Partisan data is also available for Idaho, which I know everyone was clamoring for.

Actually it's pretty interesting to see what's the strongest Obama LD you can draw. A 66% Obama one is actually possible.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: MaxQue on May 25, 2011, 01:58:39 AM
Version 2.2 is out.

It allows you to do congressional districts, State Senate, State Assembly and Counties Assemblies, all in the same file.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 01, 2011, 08:22:41 PM
Partisan data for FL, MI, NY, and NC is up:

"Florida and New York have only presidential data.

Michigan and North Carolina have some average data. Also, the vote totals are slightly low, I think due to missing absentees, but the numbers are not that significant. In Michigan, at least 1 precinct is missing data.

The average for Michigan is the three 2006 statewide elections: governor, attorney general and SoS. Granholm (D) won the governorship that year, but Republicans won the other two, skewing the average toward Republicans.

The average for North Carolina is broader: all statewide elections (incl Pres) from 2004-2010."


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 02, 2011, 12:02:08 AM
A good partisan measure of the area is probably just to average the Obama figures and the "average" numbers.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 08, 2011, 07:32:09 AM
Partisan data has been added for IN, NM, OK, and PA:

Quote
IN and PA have 2008 presidential data only. NM has persidential plus an average over all 2010 statewide races. OK has presidential plus an average over the 2004 and 2008 presidential and the 2006 Gov, Lt Gov and AG races.

The presidential numbers for IN, NM and OK are slightly lower than actual, I think because of absentees not being counted by precincts.

Not that exciting, except for PA.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on June 08, 2011, 01:55:46 PM
Heh, I managed to draw a 51.9% Obama district in Oklahoma. Zig-zags across the state and back taking in every remotely Democratic precinct.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on June 08, 2011, 03:16:28 PM
Heh, I managed to draw a 51.9% Obama district in Oklahoma. Zig-zags across the state and back taking in every remotely Democratic precinct.
Color by election is a wonderful tool:

()

53.4% Obama. 52.0% White.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: davebradlee on June 13, 2011, 05:13:18 PM
I've uploaded DRA Version 2.2.4, which has a new feature for California, which allows you to work with a subset of the state at a time. Because California is so large, even on a fast machine panning and zooming can be pretty slow. By working with a subset those operations are noticably faster. (And it's not the old feature where it automatically puts a bunch of districts around the center of the screen! :-))

Also, I uploaded Block Groups for California. These were much needed because some voting districts had more than 100,000 people in them -- way too big to reasonably work with.

The new feature for California only, and only using 2010 vote districts or block groups, lets you select between a predefined set of overlapping regions. There's a box in the lower right. This is the way you select regions of the state. For example, if Central is selected, block groups (or voting districts in the center of the state are shown, but if you were to pan up north, block groups for the northern counties would not be shown.

Other new features:
-- additional check boxes under Tools have been moved to More Options and the new features are found there.
-- You can toggle Color By Election between Presidential and Average.
-- You can turn off showing vote district and block group tool tips.

I also fixed a bug where if you saved a DRF using non-US regional settings (comma and period flipped for numbers) you could not load it. That should work now, but will have to be loaded using the save settings as when you saved.

Enjoy.

Dave's Redistricting is a project of ProgressiveCongress.org. You can support the project with a tax-deductible contribution thru the link on the app. Thanks.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 13, 2011, 10:37:44 PM
I've uploaded DRA Version 2.2.4, which has a new feature for California, which allows you to work with a subset of the state at a time. Because California is so large, even on a fast machine panning and zooming can be pretty slow. By working with a subset those operations are noticably faster. (And it's not the old feature where it automatically puts a bunch of districts around the center of the screen! :-))

That's the main reason I haven't made any California maps. Thanks!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 29, 2011, 04:32:57 PM
Partisan data for NJ and TN:

"The TN presidential vote counts are about half of what they should be, I think due to early and absentees (although the notes from the team was not specific on this). The overall percentage is about right. In any case, the average is there as well and should provide a useful guideline. Average includes presidential, governor, senate and house races from 2004-2008.

The NJ vote counts are just a little low. Some vote districts changed between 2008 and 2010 and the team had to distribute vote counts across some vote districts. The average includes presidential, governor and senate races from 2002-2009."


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on June 30, 2011, 11:48:11 AM
The NJ partisan data seems to be missing all of downtown Jersey City, the Ironbound in Newark, part of Trenton, and a couple of stray precincts elsewhere (including most of the city of Salem). Overall probably amounts to a tenth or two in favor of the Republicans, but not a big difference.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Verily on June 30, 2011, 11:59:10 AM
Actually, there's something weird in Lakewood, too. There are precincts with 3,000 people with only 10-20 votes in them. Now, this is an Orthodox area, so there will be weird patterns (and all of those precincts are about 90% McCain, which wouldn't surprise me), but as far as I am aware the Lakewood Orthodox have ordinary voter turnout, not ridiculously low turnout, although maybe I am wrong.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: bloombergforpresident on July 18, 2011, 06:46:48 PM
I'm having problems saving. Could anyone give me steps on how to do this.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: bore on August 11, 2011, 09:49:56 AM
Newbie question here, does anyone know how to remove a precinct from a district? Thanks in advance.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 11, 2011, 11:17:32 AM
Newbie question here, does anyone know how to remove a precinct from a district? Thanks in advance.


In the list of districts, the first option is to unassign precincts. Click on that, and then color the precincts you want removed the same way you color them to add them to a district.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: bore on August 11, 2011, 12:20:18 PM
Newbie question here, does anyone know how to remove a precinct from a district? Thanks in advance.


In the list of districts, the first option is to unassign precincts. Click on that, and then color the precincts you want removed the same way you color them to add them to a district.

Thanks a lot


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: whaeffner1 on August 19, 2011, 09:07:45 PM
I would like to see the next version of the App have voter registration totals, at least for voting precincts.  I know that the data is out there, if he could just compile it together, it would make the redistricting process even better.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 27, 2011, 09:53:54 AM
Partisan data for Colorado has been added.

Edit: Looks off, though. Might be Kerry/Bush numbers, but the totals don't line up with the Atlas numbers.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on August 27, 2011, 10:44:34 AM
It's the average of all statewide races in 2010 though I have no clue how the gubernatorial one was handled, maybe Tancredo + Maes was added for the Rep figures?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on August 27, 2011, 10:50:42 AM
Ah. That's kind of useless.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on August 28, 2011, 01:28:20 AM
Bennet vs. Buck is probably a better measure of the state's partisanship than the 2008 numbers, so it's not entirely worthless. Still I'd like a little clarification of the algorithms used because of the gubernatorial thing mentioned, Hickenlooper vs. Maes + Tancredo isn't a bad measure but I'd like some confirmation that's what was averaged.

The Republicans won all the other races though, AG with 57-43, Treasurer by about 2 points, and Sec of State with barely over 50% but by 7 points thanks to a Constitution Party candidate (I suspect just the two party numbers are averaged), so it's not surprising the numbers are slightly GOP-leaning. Probably shift them two points to the Democrats to get a more accurate number.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: dpmapper on August 28, 2011, 07:51:10 AM
The partisan numbers are probably most useful when used to compare new districts with old ones.  I posted numbers for a few old districts in the CO redistricting thread. 


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 30, 2011, 03:42:04 PM
2008 election data has been added for Kansas, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wyoming. Exciting, I know.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on October 30, 2011, 03:47:05 PM
2008 election data has been added for Kansas, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wyoming. Exciting, I know.
I could see uses for three of those! :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on October 30, 2011, 04:14:08 PM
How many Obama LDs can be drawn in Wyoming? It has 30.

From what I can tell only 3: One in Cheyenne (barely), one in Laramie and one in Teton County.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Miles on October 30, 2011, 04:30:45 PM
2008 election data has been added for Kansas, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wyoming. Exciting, I know.
I could see uses for three of those! :)


Awesome!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on October 30, 2011, 04:35:23 PM
Isn't there supposed to be 2008 election data for Washington State?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on October 30, 2011, 04:47:36 PM
57% Dem district in Kansas by removing the more Republican parts in Johnson and adding Topeka to the 3rd.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 30, 2011, 05:53:52 PM
How many Obama LDs can be drawn in Wyoming? It has 30.

From what I can tell only 3: One in Cheyenne (barely), one in Laramie and one in Teton County.

I got five (four that are barely Obama districts) by cutting Laramie in half and stringing a district from the Indian reservation in Freemont County to Teton County.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on October 31, 2011, 01:11:39 PM
Also, Wyoming has 60 LDs, not 30. 30 SDs, 60 HDs. And a nesting requirement (well, not sure if it's a requirement, but they do it anyways.) And a bizarre numbering scheme that doesn't reflect that in the slightest.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on November 01, 2011, 12:40:21 PM
()

Two Democratic districts in Kansas. You could probably do without the southeastern leg entirely as the 2nd is 52.9% Obama, but I was happy to finally have the populations right. (I still have it open... I think I'll do it.) I'm pretty sure you can't do it without Wichita, though maybe it's just about barely possible on a super-contorted map. The third district is 49.5-49.1 Dem.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on November 01, 2011, 12:53:49 PM
Much better.

()

Still 52.6%. 3rd now at 49.9%.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on November 03, 2011, 12:49:23 PM
()

Two Democratic districts in Kansas. You could probably do without the southeastern leg entirely as the 2nd is 52.9% Obama, but I was happy to finally have the populations right. (I still have it open... I think I'll do it.) I'm pretty sure you can't do it without Wichita, though maybe it's just about barely possible on a super-contorted map. The third district is 49.5-49.1 Dem.

And you only had to go from Missouri to half-way to Colorado.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on November 03, 2011, 02:35:38 PM
()

Two Democratic districts in Kansas. You could probably do without the southeastern leg entirely as the 2nd is 52.9% Obama, but I was happy to finally have the populations right. (I still have it open... I think I'll do it.) I'm pretty sure you can't do it without Wichita, though maybe it's just about barely possible on a super-contorted map. The third district is 49.5-49.1 Dem.

And you only had to go from Missouri to half-way to Colorado.

How is that any worse than the Republican map, which goes from Missouri all the way to Colorado (aside from the obvious non-compactness)?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on November 04, 2011, 12:50:18 PM
()

Two Democratic districts in Kansas. You could probably do without the southeastern leg entirely as the 2nd is 52.9% Obama, but I was happy to finally have the populations right. (I still have it open... I think I'll do it.) I'm pretty sure you can't do it without Wichita, though maybe it's just about barely possible on a super-contorted map. The third district is 49.5-49.1 Dem.

And you only had to go from Missouri to half-way to Colorado.
I did that, but I didn't have to, as you can see in the 2nd map below. :) Happened because I was drawing from a 2nd district basis, of course.
Also, of course, the first district still goes all the way to Missouri in these maps.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: jimrtex on November 04, 2011, 01:14:15 PM
()

Two Democratic districts in Kansas. You could probably do without the southeastern leg entirely as the 2nd is 52.9% Obama, but I was happy to finally have the populations right. (I still have it open... I think I'll do it.) I'm pretty sure you can't do it without Wichita, though maybe it's just about barely possible on a super-contorted map. The third district is 49.5-49.1 Dem.

And you only had to go from Missouri to half-way to Colorado.
I did that, but I didn't have to, as you can see in the 2nd map below. :) Happened because I was drawing from a 2nd district basis, of course.
Also, of course, the first district still goes all the way to Missouri in these maps.

But it doesn't reach Colorado in those maps.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on November 04, 2011, 01:18:35 PM
Only because the map is chopped. :P


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Jackson on November 05, 2011, 04:38:29 AM
2008 data has been released for New Hampshire.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Miles on November 07, 2011, 02:03:44 AM
PARTISAN DATA FOR LOUISIANA!!!!!!!!

I CAN'T THANK DAVE ENOUGH!!!!!!!!


...damn! The neighborhood that I was born and raised in voted 71/26 McCain!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Miles on November 07, 2011, 06:24:34 PM
Here's the map I would draw; I went for 4-2 D.

()

CD1
72.4/25.9 McCain
66.2/33.8 Republican
Like the current 1st, very Republican. Safe for Scalise or his R successor.

CD2
57.3/40.9 Obama
63.3/36.7 Democratic
To unpack Democratic votes, this seat goes from majority-black to majority-coalition. White VAP  is up to 49.3% with blacks at 39.3%. The one problem here is that, while a white Democrat would fare best in the general election, the Democratic electorate is heavily black.
I could see a black Democrat being elected, but his appeal would be fairly limited to New Orleans, as the electorate in the other parishes would be quite hostile.

CD3
60.7/37.7 McCain
57.8/42.2 Republican
I actually drew this seat for a Chris John comeback. John was popular in the during his time in Congress and he's only 51. While the trend here is strongly Republican both Obama performance and the Democratic average are up 3% in the new 3rd, compared to the old 7th. Jeff Landry retains his New Iberia base, but Boustany would have more territory. A John-Boustany-Landry jungle primary would be the best scenario.

CD4
74.5/23.9 McCain
69.1/30.9 Republican
This district, not the 1st, is actually the most Republican seat in the state. It was pretty much the leftover district after I drew the other 5. It would actually be open.

CD5
54.4/44.7 McCain
50.7/49.3 Republican
Alexander and Flemming would be thrown into a jungle primary here; maybe one of them could run in the super-safe 4th instead. This district includes Shreveport plus the liberal parts of Monroe, both of which a Dixiecrat could use as bases. Its under 55% McCain and only narrowly Republican at the state level, so its certainly within reach of a Dixiecrat.
Flemming's 2008 opponent, Paul Carmouche, fell only 350 votes short in a district that McCain won 59/40; certainly a 54/45 McCain seat could be winnable for him.
Still, like CD3, the trend here is aggressively Republican.

CD6
51.3/47.4 Obama
55.4/44.6 Democratic
This is Louisiana's Cajun version of a Texas 'fajita strip' district. Besides the 2nd, this would be the other safely Democratic seat; actually voting for Obama and its comfortably Democratic at the state level. Its actually white majority (52-42). Louisiana State Senator-elect Rick Ward III, one of the more conservative Democrats, would be a good candidate here.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 14, 2011, 07:11:29 PM
Partisan data for Delaware, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota have also popped up.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on November 14, 2011, 11:52:53 PM
Delaware has been around for awhile.

The rest interest me in seeing how many Obama LDs can be drawn.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Jackson on November 15, 2011, 12:37:55 AM
Maine and Massachusetts are up.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on November 15, 2011, 12:39:26 AM
Can a McCain seat be drawn in Massachusetts?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Miles on November 15, 2011, 02:11:01 AM

Massachusetts only has Dem/Rep numbers; I don't see Obama/McCain data.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Jackson on November 15, 2011, 03:39:25 AM
Massachusetts appears to be averages. Otherwise the numbers would make no sense.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Bacon King on November 15, 2011, 07:06:44 PM
What exactly went into the Massachusetts average? It's pretty easy to draw a 6R-3D map and there's no way that's right.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 15, 2011, 07:15:26 PM
I'm guessing the Senate special election and the 2010 gubernatorial election. It's beyond useless.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 11, 2012, 06:51:50 PM
Alaska, DC, and Puerto Rico are available now. Partisan data should be available for Connecticut in the next few days. Partisan data for DC (seriously) should be available as soon as Dave uploads it.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Napoleon on January 11, 2012, 07:10:16 PM
Alaska, DC, and Puerto Rico are available now. Partisan data should be available for Connecticut in the next few days. Partisan data for DC (seriously) should be available as soon as Dave uploads it.

:D


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 11, 2012, 07:36:50 PM
Will there be any presidential data for Washington State later on? 


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: bgwah on January 11, 2012, 07:39:21 PM
Will there be any presidential data for Washington State later on? 

It's already been added.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 11, 2012, 07:44:08 PM
Will there be any presidential data for Washington State later on? 

It's already been added.

:D


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Horus on January 11, 2012, 08:08:58 PM
Anyone else having trouble finding DC and PR in the app?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Miles on January 11, 2012, 08:27:31 PM
Anyone else having trouble finding DC and PR in the app?

They're at the very end of the states list.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 11, 2012, 10:42:07 PM
Partisan data for Utah is also available.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 11, 2012, 11:38:54 PM
Utah actually has a possible function: Finding the most Obama congressional district that can be drawn.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 11, 2012, 11:49:06 PM
So it looks like if you draw a "natural" district in Salt Lake County from the top down south it ends up about 55% Obama. You could drawn into Park City to boost it, but that's not very big. 55% is pretty impressive for Utah though.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Miles on January 12, 2012, 12:03:23 AM
I got 56% Obama between northern Salt Lake county and Summit county.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Seattle on January 12, 2012, 12:05:10 AM

About time! :D


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 12, 2012, 12:15:03 AM
So it looks like if you draw a "natural" district in Salt Lake County from the top down south it ends up about 55% Obama. You could drawn into Park City to boost it, but that's not very big. 55% is pretty impressive for Utah though.

Nonpartisan redistricting in Utah would certainly create a district that would at least be Democratic-leaning.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 12, 2012, 12:20:28 AM
Oh definitely. The Democratic district would also be the most compact and community of interest based one easily.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: bgwah on January 12, 2012, 12:34:13 AM
I gerrymandered as much as possible and still only got it up to 57.3% Obama.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 12, 2012, 02:54:30 AM
Four district non-partisanly drawn Utah actually divides pretty nicely, you get one district for the whole northern part of the state north of SLC, one for the SLC area which is basically the northern half of Salt Lake County, one for the southern part of Salt Lake County and Provo/Orem area, and then one giant district for the rest of the state. Too bad it's not happening.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 12, 2012, 08:00:30 AM
I got 57.5% Obama by combining parts of Salt Lake County, Park City, and Ogden.

DC has partisan data now. The most Republican city council district (there are eight) you can draw is 79-20 Obama.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on January 12, 2012, 10:25:03 AM
()

1st distict San Jose town and eastern suburbs, 2nd western and southern suburbs with a little extension along the coast, 3rd eastern and southeastern parts of the island, 4th southwest with the cities of Ponce and Mayaguez, 5th (okay 0th) northwest. 1st to 3rd all within 4 of ideal population, 4th 68 under, 5th 61 over.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 18, 2012, 08:57:37 PM
Partisan data for Connecticut is available.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 18, 2012, 10:20:48 PM
Is a McCain district possible?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on January 18, 2012, 10:53:56 PM

Sure, if you don't mind discarding such quaint notions as compactness, not splitting municipalities, and even road contiguity.

()

49.5% McCain, 49.3% Obama.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: RI on January 18, 2012, 10:54:45 PM

Yes, though barely. The Yellow district is 49.975% McCain. It may be possible to get it over 50%.

()


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 18, 2012, 10:33:19 AM
I actually got DRA 2.2 to load on my slow connection finally, but I keep getting this Async Error everytime I try to load a state after selecting which data to use. It happens on every state, and all three data types. It is happening on both my new and old computers. Has anyone experienced this before?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on February 18, 2012, 02:50:02 PM
I actually got DRA 2.2 to load on my slow connection finally, but I keep getting this Async Error everytime I try to load a state after selecting which data to use. It happens on every state, and all three data types. It is happening on both my new and old computers. Has anyone experienced this before?

Yes this happens on some servers, but not on others. It's also more likely with larger states. I sent a note to Dave a few weeks ago, and I saw some improvement after that.

When it happens to me I find a server where I can download the state and set up the number of districts I want. If I save that file I find I can open it back at a location where the state wouldn't download and continue editing from there.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on February 23, 2012, 06:19:59 PM
Could someone please add election data for AR, KY, and IA and presidential election data for MA?  Thanks!


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: I'm JewCon in name only. on February 23, 2012, 08:20:19 PM
I redistricted Kansas...Forgot to save map, but i got the numbers.

KS-01: 64% McCain
KS-02: 54% McCain
KS-03: 49% McCain
KS-04: 57% McCain

Only ugly parts is where I split Topeka three ways. Oh, and KS-03 was pretty fugly, but it's a completely urban district (Wyandotte, Johnson counties, and part of Shawnee county, and a few other decent sized counties.)



I think KS-02 maybe the only district who's representative who's congressperson was misplaced lol.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 23, 2012, 09:00:19 PM
Could someone please add election data for AR, KY, and IA and presidential election data for MA?  Thanks!

It would be nice if it were that easy.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on February 24, 2012, 08:35:55 AM
Could someone please add election data for AR, KY, and IA and presidential election data for MA?  Thanks!

It would be nice if it were that easy.

Fair enough :P


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on February 24, 2012, 10:32:35 AM
I redistricted Kansas...Forgot to save map, but i got the numbers.

KS-01: 64% McCain
KS-02: 54% McCain
KS-03: 49% McCain
KS-04: 57% McCain

Only ugly parts is where I split Topeka three ways. Oh, and KS-03 was pretty fugly, but it's a completely urban district (Wyandotte, Johnson counties, and part of Shawnee county, and a few other decent sized counties.)



I think KS-02 maybe the only district who's representative who's congressperson was misplaced lol.


If you have the map you might want to put that on the Kansas thread instead of here.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: I'm JewCon in name only. on February 25, 2012, 03:58:54 PM
I redistricted Kansas...Forgot to save map, but i got the numbers.

KS-01: 64% McCain
KS-02: 54% McCain
KS-03: 49% McCain
KS-04: 57% McCain

Only ugly parts is where I split Topeka three ways. Oh, and KS-03 was pretty fugly, but it's a completely urban district (Wyandotte, Johnson counties, and part of Shawnee county, and a few other decent sized counties.)



I think KS-02 maybe the only district who's representative who's congressperson was misplaced lol.


If you have the map you might want to put that on the Kansas thread instead of here.

yea im trying to re duplicate the map, ill post it there when im done :)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 01, 2012, 11:35:40 AM
So anyone else having trouble opening it now? It'll open for me but not load any states. I reinstalled Silverlight including downgrading to the suggested version, have tried different browsers and a new computer user.

Also emailed Dave about it. But any other suggestions?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Napoleon on March 01, 2012, 11:44:18 AM
Same.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Gass3268 on March 01, 2012, 12:26:38 PM
Happy I'm not the only one having issues.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on March 01, 2012, 01:20:57 PM
Happy I'm not the only one having issues.

Same here.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Miles on March 01, 2012, 03:11:31 PM
It still won't load the states for me.

They won't even load on version 1.0.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 01, 2012, 04:29:49 PM
This is obviously a sick attempt by the NY political insiders to reduce the number of private plans submitted so their terrible ideas will be all there is. $10K bet that they hacked the site. :P ;)


I finally get the time to put my nefarious plans into action with something newer then 1.0 (I got 2.1 working last week), and they all quit. ::)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 05:20:29 PM
This is obviously a sick attempt by the NY political insiders to reduce the number of private plans submitted so their terrible ideas will be all there is. $10K bet that they hacked the site. :P ;)


I finally get the time to put my nefarious plans into action with something newer then 1.0 (I got 2.1 working last week), and they all quit. ::)

ditto ditto ditto (I actually had a non gerrymandered NY plan that would have increased Republican representation)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 01, 2012, 06:42:26 PM
This is obviously a sick attempt by the NY political insiders to reduce the number of private plans submitted so their terrible ideas will be all there is. $10K bet that they hacked the site. :P ;)


I finally get the time to put my nefarious plans into action with something newer then 1.0 (I got 2.1 working last week), and they all quit. ::)

ditto ditto ditto (I actually had a non gerrymandered NY plan that would have increased Republican representation)

I think he's being sarcastic.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: NY Jew on March 01, 2012, 07:34:30 PM
This is obviously a sick attempt by the NY political insiders to reduce the number of private plans submitted so their terrible ideas will be all there is. $10K bet that they hacked the site. :P ;)


I finally get the time to put my nefarious plans into action with something newer then 1.0 (I got 2.1 working last week), and they all quit. ::)

ditto ditto ditto (I actually had a non gerrymandered NY plan that would have increased Republican representation)

I think he's being sarcastic.

many coincidences are not coincidences.  NY is the most gerrymanderd state in the country and any fair redistricting effort would lead to more Republican or Conservative  representation.  therefore it is not surprising that a website that was created by a very big liberal would shut down for the first time on the day that NY allowed any individual to submit a map.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Sbane on March 01, 2012, 08:40:17 PM
Damnit! So I have a test that got cancelled for tomorrow. Thought I would relax with a couple beers and keep working on the 100k California map, but no. Grrr...


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Miles on March 02, 2012, 02:03:39 AM
Its working for me now.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: minionofmidas on March 02, 2012, 04:06:06 AM
It probably crashed because so many people were trying to download New York at the same time.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 28, 2012, 07:41:47 PM
I am trying to load Kentucky in version 2.1, and the bar won't got beyond 3/4ths completion. I have tried this about 3 or 4 times on differenct days, across two and half weeks and it always stops at 75%. Do I need to clear my cache or something like that?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on April 28, 2012, 08:10:04 PM
I am trying to load Kentucky in version 2.1, and the bar won't got beyond 3/4ths completion. I have tried this about 3 or 4 times on differenct days, across two and half weeks and it always stops at 75%. Do I need to clear my cache or something like that?

I seem to have difficulty loading Kentucky on version 2.1 as well (although I didn't really wait that long, since I have a pretty fast connection). But I have no trouble at all loading it on version 2.2, so you might want to give that a try if you can.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 30, 2012, 04:12:47 PM
So far, I haven't been able to load 2.2 on my connection.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: morgieb on September 07, 2012, 10:50:34 PM
I made some maps without taking into account partisanship or the VRA.

Alabama....

() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/alabamamap.png/)

AL-01 (blue) (Mobile and South Alabama) - R+16 (safe Republican) - 68% white, 26% black.

Bonner should win easily here as always.

AL-02 (green) (Montgomery, East Black Belt) - R+5 (toss-up/leans Republican) - 54% white, 40% black.

If Bobby Bright wanted a political comeback, he should win easy here. Even if not, a Blue Dog style Dem would have a good shot here. Roby gets screwed.

AL-03 (magenta) (West Black Belt) - R+11 (toss-up/leans Republican) - 60% white, 35% black. [new district]

This district is basically tied at the local level, so a good Blue Dog Dem would win here. Also, there is no real Republican incumbent.

AL-04 (red) (Birmingham) - R+2 (toss-up/leans Democrat) - 53% white, 40% black. [new district]

Obama actually won here, so automatically it becomes good for the Dems. Terri Sewell would probably run here, though the Dems would have a better shot with a Blue Dog. Republicans would no doubt get Bacchus to try and run here.

AL-05 (yellow) (Birmingham exurbs, east Alabama) - R+25 (safe Republican) - 76.5% white, 17% black [new district]

Umm...yeah. However, this sets Bacchus and Rogers up for a grudge match, so it wouldn't be a yawner exactly.

AL-06 (teal) (North Alabama) - R+29 (safe Republican) - 86% white [old AL-04]

Even safer Republican than AL-05, though less so on a local level (but still heavily R).

AL-07 (grey) (North Alabama, Huntsville) - R+14 (leans Republican) - 72% white, 18% black [old AL-05]

Solid for Brooks, but still winnable with the right Dem.

In a good year, this could be a 4-3 Dem advantage. In a bad year, however, Republicans could win all districts here.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Miles on September 08, 2012, 12:10:44 AM
Over at DKE, roguemapper notes a number of recent upgrades to DRA.  (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/06/1128448/-DRA-Update)


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: catographer on April 14, 2017, 01:40:24 PM
Sorry to reply to such an old topic. Anybody know of alternative redistricting applications on the internet? DRA doesn't appear to work anymore with new versions of Firefox, Edge, Chrome, or Explorer (really any app). Even tried downloading Opera and still didn't work.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: nclib on April 14, 2017, 04:54:40 PM
DRA still works with some old versions of Internet Explorer.

Unrelated, but DRA now has Oregon 2008 election data.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Attorney General, LGC Speaker & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon on April 14, 2017, 05:00:34 PM
It still works on IE 11 at least.  It doesn't work on the latest version of Firefox due to using sliverlight, but if you can get back to the previous version, then it should work.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: publicunofficial on April 15, 2017, 03:28:25 AM
I don't understand how hard it could possibly be to add 2016 or at least 2012 election data into DRA.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on April 15, 2017, 07:16:44 AM
I don't understand how hard it could possibly be to add 2016 or at least 2012 election data into DRA.

Precincts (VTDs) in many states changed after the 2010 Census, so that would require loading all the shapefiles for precincts and matching them up with election data. Some states change precincts after each election cycle. It's a lot of work to keep up. The Atlas doesn't have that available for all states either.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: publicunofficial on April 16, 2017, 05:03:09 PM
I don't understand how hard it could possibly be to add 2016 or at least 2012 election data into DRA.

Precincts (VTDs) in many states changed after the 2010 Census, so that would require loading all the shapefiles for precincts and matching them up with election data. Some states change precincts after each election cycle. It's a lot of work to keep up. The Atlas doesn't have that available for all states either.

Haven't multiple places (Decision Desk HQ) already mapped out the 2016 vote by precinct?


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: muon2 on April 16, 2017, 07:53:42 PM
I don't understand how hard it could possibly be to add 2016 or at least 2012 election data into DRA.

Precincts (VTDs) in many states changed after the 2010 Census, so that would require loading all the shapefiles for precincts and matching them up with election data. Some states change precincts after each election cycle. It's a lot of work to keep up. The Atlas doesn't have that available for all states either.

Haven't multiple places (Decision Desk HQ) already mapped out the 2016 vote by precinct?

But that doesn't translate into data in DRA. It's unlikely that anyone would invest that much time loading that much new data into software that is unsupported by the current browsers.

Decision Desk HQ's map is down at present. I'm curious to see how they mapped IL precincts over the last three elections. They change every two years and the state doesn't have a single source for the precinct geographies. They have to collect them county by county, and some counties only keep paper records of the precinct maps. The only time it gets pulled together in a GIS is to prepare for the Census, which will happen over the next two years.

Edit: With a little digging I found that the map is up (https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dives/creating-a-national-precinct-map/), it's just that they have a message elsewhere saying that it isn't. Clearly the author put a vast amount of time into it (Dave Leip is cited in the acknowedgements). They even have the changes in IL precincts between 2012 and 2016 that I'm aware of. Presumably this will be a great resource for the 2020 cycle of redistricting apps, but that doesn't help a legacy product like DRA 2.


Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 17, 2017, 05:46:07 PM
I remember in late 2008 there was a redistricting game that someone had linked to on the forum and after playing all the scenarios through, I said it would be great if they had something like this to do the real states and maps with. And people thought it would be pointless at the time.


Now we are to a point where DRA 2.5 is now considered a legacy product.

Well, then is there plans for a DRA 3.0 on something other than Silverlight?



Title: Re: Dave's Redistricting App
Post by: Attorney General, LGC Speaker & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon on April 17, 2017, 05:55:33 PM
^ Probably not until after the next census.