Redistricting Scorecard

[minionofmidas]

MA D -1 R 0
NY D -1 R -1
NJ D -1 R 0
PA D -1 R 0
OH D -1 R -1
IN D -1 R +1
IL D +5 R -6
MI D -1 R 0
IA D -1 R 0
MO D -1 R 0
MD D +1 R -1
NC D -4 R +4
SC D 0  R +1
GA D -1 R +2
FL D +2 R 0
LA D 0  R -1
TX D +2 R +2
AZ D +2 R -1
UT D -1 R +2
NV D +1 R 0
WA D 0 R +1
CA D +2 R -2
sum D 0 R 0

A lot of assumptions in there (that can be explained and questioned etc), and but a rough estimate. Sound about right, though.

It was time to update this bastard.  Pennsylvania-12 has not been counted as an R district because it does not seem to represent much of an effort to pick off the seat, while WA-2 has been because it clearly does; even though Republican chances in both districts are probably roughly similar (and would look better to the outsider in PA). TN of course, the R's left one on the table that I hadn't expected.

List of states to yet redistrict to the best of my knowledge:
NH (Senate stalling on the House map, which is apparently quite the piece of work and probably in violation of the Constitution. They'll get to the Congressional map once they're through with that.)
NY (deadlocked in behind-the-scenes negotiations)
MN (gone to court)
KS (Battle thunders on. Sanity map - shoring up the third a wee bit and making the second a wee bit more marginal as a result - has bipartisan support in the Senate. House Republicans still want the hardcore gerry.)
FL (everybody's assuming that the Senate will ditch its plan in favor of the House's, but technically atm we have two different maps, each chamber passing a different one)
KY (officially gone to court as of two days ago.)
TX (we have a new map, and the numbers have been updated to reflect it. There's no dots on any i's and no crosses on any t's, though.)

[minionofmidas]

I see that my little TN map inspired you Lewis in the right direction. It just goes to show that you are not totally uneducable.

Of course not. I'm not 60 years old. -_-

I *think* that *on balance* my assumptions in the table above are *somewhat* GOP-favoring, by the way. It's sort of by design.
In Calif., I counted Bilbray as hanging on but Gallegly as a goner. I counted IA-3 as a likely Latham win. In Texas, I'm using the map they passed until the preclearance battle is lost for good. In New Jersey, it seems easier to draw a map that draws two Dems together and non-fatally weakens some Reps than the other way round. Stuff like that.
Of course, you can't very well factor in a table like that all the many marginals or new gains (WI-7, TX-27 and such) that got made safer.

[minionofmidas]

Assuming these assumptions will play out in the real world: doesn't this basically maintain the existing Republican majority in the House?

The net seat change is minor, but that means the distribution of seats for each party stays the same from the 2010 elections right?

Yes.

Obviously, there's a lot of room for error. In both Illinois and North Carolina, for instance, some of those new districts are fairly marginal and might not fall, or not fall right away. The numbers used are the mapmakers' intended result.

[minionofmidas]

AZ-09 is in the bag for the Dems eh?  I guess you agree with me that the Dems baseline data was cooked so much that there is absolutely no red/pink left in the filet; rather it's all a hideous brownish tan.

9 is in the bag, I think. 1 is not, but using a binary opposition here, I had to count it for somebody. I chose to count it as a Democratic district.

[minionofmidas]

LA D 0  R +1

typo here, surely.

(I can delete this later).

A typo there, an addition error caused by it, and a factual error in Illinois (I somehow assumed Rep's have 10 seats at current. They have 11.)
All corrected now.

[minionofmidas]

I finally thought to update this thingy.

[minionofmidas]

I finally thought to update this thingy.

5 Pub incumbents are going down in Illinois Lewis?  Is the CW's body count that high?

Quite possibly not, but that is the map's intent. I also don't believe that Matheson is going down.

[minionofmidas]

Oh yes. Obviously this "wash" impression arises only because of the many GOP gains and regains of 2010 that are being fortified all around the country.
But then, it's difficult to separate the effects of regerrying and those of necessary redistribution to reflect the shifts in population distribution. Obviously the latter factor naturally works in the GOP's favor - or rather in the Dems' favor at the end of the decade, which would be now being corrected if maps were being drawn fairly everywhere and all the time.
Which leads me to another observation I've long wanted to spell out. Fair maps would help the Dems once they get out of date, not only because urban constituencies become underpopulated and outer suburban ones overpopulated, but also because middle suburban seats will tend to trend in their direction. And these will tend to be quite swingy in fair maps. In bipartisan gerrymander maps, these areas will usually be divided between seats anchored in inner cities, and thus Dem from the beginning, and seats anchored in outer suburban areas, thus safe R for the duration. This is a part of why Dems didn't gain anything in California over the decade and why Illinois was also more stable than it might have been - a bipartisan gerry at the beginning of the decade will tend to work as a mildish R gerrymander at the end of it.
It would help if Democratic operatives understood that.

[minionofmidas]

I'm not sure that it's fair to say that the Democrats didn't gain anything in California; now, a number of congressional and legislative seats drawn for Republicans vote comfortably Democratic.

A grand total of one congressional district. Don't know about the state lege.

[minionofmidas]

Updated.