I made this plan with three guidelines;

1. If possible, maintain county lines
2. Population deviation between -75 and +75
3. Try where possible to maintain current 'flavour' of existing districts.

Number two was the most important, and all districts except District 2 meet this criteria.







District 11 is just a simple majority African-American.

Obviously this plan is far from perfect, but it's my starting point, and I'll aim to refine from here. I really dislike Mansfield, and I'm not sure about the Springfield - Columbus district.

Album link in case pics don't load: http://img211.imageshack.us/g/ohiototal.jpg/

This is not a critique since your goal doesn't seem to be party/incumbent favoritism but I don't think Tiberi would like your 12th district very much.  Taking in that much of Franklin County might actually knock him in out in 2012.  The 15th looks like it would probably remain very competitive but I'm not sure I like the Columbus-Springfield connection.  Also, your new 5th is probably a lot more Democratic leaning than the current and could probably be considered competitive in a 2006/2008 type of year.  All the Democrats look safe or comfortable enough to get re-elected.

Maps of South Florida I made using the the "new estimates" button in the app.  There are two black majority districts and 4 Hispanic majority districts.  Here's the racial breakdown of all 9 that I drew.

FL-17 dark purple (54% Black, 25% Hispanic, 17% White)
FL-18 yellow (58% Hispanic, 34% White, 5% Black)
FL-19  pea green (65% White, 20% Hispanic, 12% Black)
FL-20 light pink (71% White, 19% Hispanic, 6% Black)
FL-21 dark red (57% Hispanic, 32% White, 8% Black)
FL-22 brown (73% White, 14% Hispanic, 10% Black)
FL-23 light blue (53% Black, 27% White, 16% Hispanic)
FL-25 dark pink (61% Hispanic, 29% White, 7% Black)
FL-27 bright green (68% Hispanic, 20% White, 10% Black)

If this map can be made with Dave's app then I'm sure a much more sophisticated map could be made that balances out the Hispanics enough to get four districts that are at least 60% Hispanic assuming the app's population estimates aren't too far removed from the current racial distribution.

I've heard Obama has been working on a tax overhaul that will supposedly somehow appeal to the tea party rhetoric so I'm interested in seeing how that plays out.  I don't think there is any hope for meaningful immigration or energy legislation.  From the Republican side, I suspect there will be a ton of political posturing via House hearings/investigations and lots of effort put into repealing Obamacare with not much to show for either in the end.

I started getting into politics by watching Stewart and Colbert during my junior year at college and then I branched out to get my political fix from other online sources.  Naturally, I found the Bush administration and Republican leadership to be complete idiots.  I grew up with a love of nature so I found their policies on energy and the environment to be lacking.  I was never exposed to any religious rhetoric regarding homosexuality so I found their nonsensical hatred of gay people completely repugnant.  And, I found the Republican defense of the invasion of Iraq to be completely baseless.  Those were the three major points that led me to become a Democrat in the first place and vote for the first time in 2006. 

I've since found many other points of agreement between my own philosophy and the Democratic platform.  I would probably characterize myself as a pragmatic "latte liberal.  My major issues remain environmental/energy policy and opposition to the agenda of the religious right.  I also favor most Democratic proposed regulations on big business as well as a progressive tax code.  I have moderate/unrepresented beliefs with regards to immigration, social security, and health care.

Shouldn't there be a new Hispanic majority district in South Florida?

Problem is there's nowhere for one to go. There have to be two black-majority seats and three Hispanic seats. Also, dilute the Cubans too much and you get Democratic seats. A 55% Hispanic seat in South Florida would probably elect a white Democrat before any Hispanic of either party as whites would control the Democratic primary and Cubans would be outvoted by the combined voting strength of whites and Puerto Ricans/other Hispanics.

I thought someone had posted a previous map which had 4 Hispanic seats in South Florida but perhaps I was mistaken.  I'll have to play around with it myself again.

I think this map is a more realistic version of Houston.

Districts 18 and 29 are black and Hispanic, the rest are all fairly strong McCain districts.

I believe that it is now possible to draw two majority Hispanic districts in addition to one black majority district in the Houston area.  Currently the 9th is a minority coalition district so I assume that it will be altered to become Hispanic majority and the remaining area can be cut up to prevent any new Democrats from getting elected.

Shouldn't there be a new Hispanic majority district in South Florida?

Rather than using the cube root rule, I think that its better to just say that the average congressional district size cannot exceed the population of the smallest state by more than say 10% or so.  If you divide the population of the fifty states by the population of Wyoming there would be about 544 members of the House.

I think there may be a lot of pressure to increase the number of representatives if Rhode Island loses its 2nd seat or if Montana's population reaches 1 million.  Also, if/when Puerto Rico becomes a state there would also likely be some sort of permanent increase in the size of the House.

The current map is already an obscene Republican gerrymander - if they tried to make it any more Republican, they would either run afoul of the VRA or set themselves up for a big reversal if the natinonal environment changed again - which was what happened in 2008.

The GOP challenge in OH is how to deal with the loss of two seats on the current map. Realistically they may have to reduce both one D and one R seat, but the remaining seats can be just as strongly drawn R as they were 10 years ago.

I think its going to be really difficult for the GOP to create a 12R-4D map that would hold for more than one or two elections.  Although the map you've put forth certainly gives the Republicans a huge advantage I think its stretching them a bit too thin in some places.  In a bad GOP year like 2006 or 2008 I could definitely see things ending up as at least 8R-8D or even 7R-9D depending on candidate quality and the number of open seats.  Although it might sting to do it, I think the Republicans would be much better served over the course of 2012-2020 to draw a safe 11-5 map and eliminate two of their incoming freshmen.

[1. Preserve metropolitan areas (as defined by the census bureau) and county lines.]

I think that too much focus is put on competitiveness when people talk about "fair redistricting."  I much prefer following a simple hierarchy of "communities of interest" as well as established boundaries between populations.  Although I suppose people could have differing viewpoints on what a "community of interest" actually is, I think its the type of thing that could easily be hashed out in a fair way.  When I draw a map I usually keep the following thoughts in mind while also trying to uphold the VRA:

1. Preserve metropolitan areas (as defined by the census bureau) and county lines.  This works particularly well in states with multiple large cities because it essentially subdivides the state into smaller units that can be districted almost independently.  Any counties that are left out of metro areas can be combined to create rural districts or grouped into a nearby metro area to get a whole number of districts without splitting counties.

2. Preserve city and town boundaries (incorporated areas). Within the metro area I typically try not to split cities and towns since they are such strong indicators of community.
3. Preserve townships and census designated places (unincorporated areas).  These can also have strong community identities but often times they're less coherent than the identities of incorporated places. 
4. Use major roads/highways, bodies of water, and other large uninhabited areas as natural dividers when splitting communities.  If it is necessary to divide a city or other central community then these types of lines and gaps are typically good to follow as they are more likely to indicate boundaries between distinct neighborhoods.

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.

[a choice between two extremists in the general]

a choice between two extremists in the general.

How does the two party system create extremes? The last few elections have been anything but extremists.

Clinton v Dole
Bush v Gore
Bush v Kerry
Obama v McCain

These guys were extremists? More like party hacks.

Presidential primaries are no where near the same as congressional primaries.  In individual congressional races the choices are often between a far right Republican and a far left Democrat.

Who gives a f***?  Are we all ten or something?  OMG you said a nawty!  Ima gonna tell teacher on you!

[Republican and Democratic congresspeople are among the least likely to support it]

Can't we just switch to Proportional representation?  It would eliminate this problem entirely.

That's the key, but it's unlikely, because it would require a constitutional amendment, and Republican and Democratic congresspeople are among the least likely to support it.

That's the major problem.  Democrats and Republicans have entrenched the two-party system into election law in order to protect themselves and they are therefore the least likely to support any kind of reform, let alone an amendment to the Constitution.

IMO a much easier reform to pass than a proportional representation would be implementing instant run-off voting.  That's how you'd get independents like Crist and other moderates elected.  It would pull everything back to the center instead of pushing it out to the extremes like the current two-step system where the primaries eliminate the moderates and you end up with a choice between two extremists in the general.  If people don't feel like they're wasting their votes on third parties then they'll be more likely to vote for them.

I think OH, IN, AZ, and PA are already Republican gerrymanders and are of course likely to stay that way.  Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

There is an off-chance that OH could end up as a compromise if Democrats are able to hold their slim General Assembly majority.

I'm also holding out hope that GOP candidate for Secretary of State will encourage a fair redistricting process.  Over the past year he has been working towards bipartisan redistricting reform without much success but I'm hoping his presence on the reapportionment board that draws state legislative districts will be moderating.

The GOP regaining the Senate in 2012 depends on whether Obama wins or loses reelection. 

I agree, if Obama wins reelection then Democrats will maintain control of the Senate.

[You've already got Collins, Snowe, Brown. If Kirk and Ayotte are elected that's two more potential moderates.]

There is also the possibility Murkowski leaves the Republican party depending on how she is treated by them if she wins in November.

Very true.

Also, I'm not sure what morgan's map looks like but under certain circumstances there is actually opportunity for a semi-moderate GOP group to reform.  You've already got Collins, Snowe, Brown.  If Kirk and Ayotte are elected that's two more potential moderates.  If Murkowski wins she might be a wild card vote.  Then there are the random rogue votes like Hatch, Grahm, Lugar, and Hutchinson.  If Democrats pick the right issues they might actually be able to get things done especially if the more reasonable members of the GOP feel like they're being attacked by their incoming crazy teabagger colleagues too much.

why would you put Ayotte in the same category? she seems like a pretty standard conservative.

I guess I hadn't really bothered to check into her positions all that much.  I just assumed that since she was an "establishment" candidate from the northeast in a competitive primary that made her the most moderate choice.  However, after checking out her wikipedia page I feel as though that assumption may have been too hasty.  Nonetheless, as a new Senator from a competitive state she may find it more prudent at times to buck her party and vote with the Democrats especially if that vote is made easier by the presence of other "rebels."

Also, as I mentioned in my original post, if moderate or even "normal" members of the GOP feel as if their new Tea Party colleagues are pulling them too far to the right and preventing progress they may decide to form a working group to negotiate with the Democrats similar to the so-called "gang of 14."  There should be a lot of Democratic senators just as willing to do this considering 22 of them are up for re-election in 2012.

There is also the possibility Murkowski leaves the Republican party depending on how she is treated by them if she wins in November.

Very true.

Also, I'm not sure what morgan's map looks like but under certain circumstances there is actually opportunity for a semi-moderate GOP group to reform.  You've already got Collins, Snowe, Brown.  If Kirk and Ayotte are elected that's two more potential moderates.  If Murkowski wins she might be a wild card vote.  Then there are the random rogue votes like Hatch, Grahm, Lugar, and Hutchinson.  If Democrats pick the right issues they might actually be able to get things done especially if the more reasonable members of the GOP feel like they're being attacked by their incoming crazy teabagger colleagues too much.

Democratic voters are starting to wake up to the scary idea of a GOP controlled Senate populated with teabagging nuts.  States like Washington are going to make or break whichever party winds up in control.

I've read several articles that indicate algae scrubbers may be the best way to produce "clean coal" and biofuels.  The only problem is that despite its abundance now, coal is still a finite non-renewable resources that will eventually run out.  Plus, the methods of obtaining it are dangerous and destructive.  Although I see the short-term economic advantages of coal I remain unconvinced that the long-term damage is worth it.

13 and 2 also could well go Democratic with such large portions of Cincinatti and Cuyahoga.

A Generic R could easily hold 2, given that Eastern Hamilton County is more Conservative than the rest.  The Current one is R + 13, and the one drawn here is not much different.

Actually both CD 1 and 2 as I drew them would have voted McCain in 2008. CD 1 is closest at 51.5-48.5, and CD 2 would have been 54-46. In an even statewide year like 2004 they both would be about 56 or 57% R.

What's your approximation for CD-6 & CD-7.  They both seem to have the largest chunks of Franklin county.

If Republicans pick up more than three seats in Ohio, its going to be pretty much impossible not to see one Republican seat eliminated.  

Not Necessarily.  The GOP can Shut the Dems out of Southern and Central Ohio pretty well (better than the current map actually, as they can expand the 1st and 15th further into the Cincinnati and Columbus Suburbs), and they can limit the Democrats to 5 in Northern Ohio if they draw the lines right.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a 10-6 or 11-5 GOP map in 2012.

That could well open up OH-07 to a Democratic pickup if you take too many suburbs out of that district.  

The other problem the GOP has is OH-14 which will almost certainly be forced to take on a good chunk of Democratic leaning territory.  I'm betting that Latourette and Ryan are probably going to be pitted against each other.

I really wish this increasingly battered wing of the GOP would break off and form a third party.  I think that Charlie Crist is evidence enough that such a party could be competitive in general elections.  All it would take is a small but respectable group of current GOP moderates with decent name recognition.  Trying to change the party from within clearly isn't working for them and I think the presence of a moderate center-right party would be a boon to the progressive agenda.

When DVD players were launched commercially some of them cost upwards of $300 IIRC and now you can get cheap ones for about $30.  If the technology is sound and the demand is there the price will come down eventually.  Truck-driving rednecks and SUV-driving suburban moms might not be clamoring for this thing but you can bet your butt that the latte-liberals are already drooling at the chance to get there hands on one.  And once the granola-crunchers start buying them in droves the price will drop and it will become affordable for your average car consumer.

Triage?  Dude, it's time to call in the mortician, the "patient" is starting to rot.

Even if the magic number of 218 is unrealistic (for the record I think both sides have a legitimate chance at the majority) Democrats are smart to be "triaging" competitive districts instead of blindly throwing money around.  It also ensures a stronger base of incumbents for future elections and the chance to perhaps bring in new blood in 2012 should a number of weaker incumbents go down in marginal or Dem-leaning districts.