Alternate US States

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here's the IL split!

Nice work, Antonio! Fascinating stuff. Cruz actually comes much closer than I expected in alt-Illinois; he would probably have won had an actual primary like that been held, since his attention could've been more focused.

In general (as seen in the past few GE results), alt-Illinois looks a lot like Missouri, another State that was very close between Drumpf and Cruz that same day. Not sure if that means Cruz would have won it, since MO and IL already were the two States he was contesting, but it would certainly have made for an interesting matchup.

SF/NF next, then!

[Antonio the Sixth]

No maps from now on, because they take forever to make, and they're not very useful since you can see just as much on the regular State maps.


South Florida Republican Primary

Drumpf: 550970 (44.68%)
Lavenous: 364432 (29.55%)
Cruz: 182807 (14.82%)
Kasich: 91921 (7.45%)
Other: 43082 (3.49%)


North Florida Republican Primary

Drumpf: 528900 (46.86%)
Lavenous: 274229 (24.30%)
Cruz: 222084 (19.68%)
Kasich: 68055 (6.03%)
Other: 35325 (3.13%)


Once again, the Drumpf vote was surprisingly evenly spread.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All right, I've been putting it off long enough (first because I was too depressed to look at the results, then because I wasn't quite sure if they were final, and eventually just because I was too busy or because it slipped my mind). Here is, at long last, the update you've all been waiting for. Who would have won the 2016 election if it had been held under the Alternate US States map? The answer is...

2016



Hillary Clinton: 277 (+45)
Donald J. T***p: 261 (-45)

There we have it, folks. For the first time since I have collected data, my alternate State map would actually change the outcome of a Presidential election (you can count 1968 as a changed outcome, since the election would have been thrown to the House, but as we discussed it's likely that Nixon would still have prevailed there). In an alternate reality where these are the United States of America, Hillary Clinton is currently serving as their 45th President. The election would have been one of the closest in the country's history, certainly the closest of the 15 I've covered. Just like the RL election of 2000, it all comes down to one State: this time, Michigan instead of Florida. In reality, T***p won it by slightly over 10k votes. However, take away the Upper Peninsula, and the result flips: now Hillary wins the State by 16k - or, in other words, 0.35 points. This is what pushes Hilary just barely over the top - had Michigan's 16 electors remained in the GOP column, the outcome would have been exactly opposite, with T***p at 277 and Hillary at 261. Remember all those years ago, when I said that the MI/WI reshuffle would have been virtually inconsequential? Yeah, fun how things turn out sometimes (although still, it's only a 0.5 point shift that just happens to be decisive).

Of course, IRL, flipping Michigan wouldn't have been enough to deliver the victory for Hillary - she would still have been 22 EVs short instead of 7 ahead. So what accounts for the other 30ish she gained? Mostly, the fact that almost all the State splits work out in her favor. T***p's path to victory consisted in winning all the populous swing (or even Dem-leaning, like the aforementioned Michigan) States, most of them by narrow margins. With these States now split in two, Hillary is usually able to hold onto the traditionally Democratic part of these States. This is true, in particular, with three key components of T***p's victory: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. In all three cases, Hillary is able to turn what was a disadvantage for Obama into an advantage for her. If Ohio, Allegheny and North Florida cut into the former's EV margin, Erie, Pennsylvania and South Florida bolster hers. She nets 40 EVs in total (and costs T***p 34) in these 3 States alone. T***p partially makes up for it by comfortably winning Illinois, and especially by flipping Adirondack (the only new Obama-T***p State that this new map created), but Hillary's win in Rio Grande is enough to offset most of these losses. Finally, the nail in T***p's coffin comes from the existence, unlike IRL, of an actual Romney-Clinton State, in the form of California. Unlike what some valiant but premature efforts by Evergreen had showed, Hillary in fact comfortably won the State by 2.34 points (almost identical to the margin she carried Nevada by).

As much as this what-if scenario might rightfully make Democrats (myself included) rage in frustration, it's always worth remembering a couple things. First, resource allocation by both candidates would almost certainly have been drastically different under these circumstances. Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida being split into largely uncompetitive States (although ER and SF were close, it's hard to imagine them getting any closer), money and stump speeches would probably flow elsewhere. Maybe T***p would have campaigned in California and actually flipped the State (especially since it would probably have a pretty cheap media market), or maybe he would have put in that extra effort to flip Michigan or nearby Minnesota. Alternatively, maybe Hillary could actually have bothered to show up in Wisconsin, or visited her own backyard of Adirondack. Either way, there are a lot of unknowns (and unknowables) involved. In addition, such a razor-edge Electoral College victory, coupled with equally dismal results in Congressional and State elections, probably wouldn't bode well for the Democrats' future. Given his attitude before the election, it's obvious that T***p would have a field day whining about massive fraud, and "mainstream" Republicans would almost certainly join him to delegitimize Hillary's presidency. Lacking both a clear mandate and congressional majorities, she'd be a lame duck from her first day in office, and I am doubtful that McConnell would even let her appoint Merrick Garland to the Court. To say nothing of what a disaster the 2018 midterms would shape up to be. I for one am honestly not sure if I'd really prefer to live in such a dire alternate reality.

PVI map:


Donald J. T***p: 286 (-33)
Hillary Clinton: 252 (+33)

I've used the previous two PVI maps to talk about how polarized this alternate map is, but boy oh boy I hadn't seen anything yet. This map is brutal. The vast central expanse of Titanium-R States has grown even vaster, now engulfing even the historically swingy Lower Midwest. The Titanium-D column sees only two additions, but they are important and symbolic ones: California Del Sur and Massachusetts. There are, in fairness, some States that became more competitive, all to Democrats' detriment: AD, MI, ER, NE and SF. Still, this does little to change the picture of an increasingly fractured country. Once again, this map is not quite as bad as the RL PVI map, thanks to Democrats holding to their "pieces" of the split big-EV swing States (PA, ER, SF - although the closeness of ER, an ancestral Democratic stronghold, ought to scare the party sh*tless). They also simultaneously stop being hurt by the California split (thanks to Hillary winning the new CA by more than she won nationwide) and start drawing net benefits from the Texas split (with RG moving straight from lean-R to likely-D). All in all, still a poor map for Democrats, but with a couple more bright spots than IRL.

Swing/trend map:


Like last time, this trend map isn't very different from the RL ones. All of the States that were split have still swung and trended in the same direction, with the one exception of Chicago and Illinois - the former experiencing a robust Democratic trend, the latter a powerful Republican one. In a few cases, there are still noticeable nuances: Adirondack, Allegheny and Erie were far more sensitive to T***p's appeal than New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio respectively (the first two are easy enough to understand, but the concentration of Obama-T***p voters in Erie remains stunning to me). Conversely, while all the States carved out of RL California trended toward Hillary, California del Sur was the epicenter of this trend, with Pacific experiencing a robust shift as well, and the new California barely budging in comparison (although this slight D trend still proved decisive to Hillary's victory). In Texas and Florida, Hillary and T***p's gains, respectively, appear strikingly uniform (although it's worth noting that NF's trend is almost flat). So, overall, not too much to see here.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +48.20)
- Most Republican: West Virginia (PVI -43.77)
- Closest: Michigan (margin +0.35)
- Bellwether: California (PVI +0.25)
- Tipping point: Michigan (PVI -1.74), after MN
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Utah (trend +31.76)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Iowa (trend -13.45)
- Most Stable (absolute): Maryland (swing -0.28)
- Most Stable (relative): North Florida (trend -0.04)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Welp, guess this came in too late to be of any interest. Sorry folks.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No I am super interested!!! this is the coolest thing and I was so into it that I forgot to leave a devoted comment at the end

Thanks! Great sig, btw.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh wow, thanks! I'm really glad this project is reaching new people.

[Antonio the Sixth]

2016 snip



Hillary Clinton: 277 (+45)
Donald J. T***p: 261 (-45)

I'm incredibly glad you decided to come back and bump this thread with the 2016 results. After reading through all your posts over the past few years for the other elections this was a fitting conclusion and raises a lot of interesting questions about whether, in your world, the "suburban"-type states like inland California would have completed the Romney-Clinton swing and changed the election or whether Trump would have brought his campaign there like he focused on swing states IRL. All in all an interesting conclusion to a hyuge undertaking, glad you came back for it.

Thank you very much!

Yeah, campaign strategy is the big question lurking behind all this, and it's even harder in an election as crazy as 2016. On the one hand, T***p has been a lot better at targeting swing States in general, which Hillary neglected mostly because she thought she had them in the bag and wanted to reach for longer shots like Arizona. On the other hand, (new) California is more like Arizona demographically and culturally than like, say, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, and it's a State Obama lost last time around, so it's not crazy to think Hillary would want to spend time and money there. Nevada is probably the best comparison here, and it's one of the few States Hillary did carry. Also, 2 points is a pretty solid margin and I don't think T***p campaigning marginally more there would move the needle all that much (although I guess this plus the possibility of a competitive Senate race just might). So, overall, yeah, I'd say Hillary probably would narrowly edge it out under this map.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.

Trump, if I am not mistaken, is the first Republican in a long while to come within single digits in Erie.

Since George Bush Sr. in 1988, yes. They lost it by similar margins, but of course the difference is that Bush won the national PV by 8 points.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.

Trump, if I am not mistaken, is the first Republican in a long while to come within single digits in Erie.

Since George Bush Sr. in 1988, yes. They lost it by similar margins, but of course the difference is that Bush won the national PV by 8 points.

Did Trump win Erie minus Cuyahoga County?

Easily, yeah. Hillary won Erie by 117K votes but she won Cuyahoga by 214K.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Out of curiosity, what was the exact margin in Erie?

Here are the full results:

Hillary 50.01%
T***p 44.74%
Johnson 2.95%
Others 2.31%

That's a margin of 5.27, which means a PVI of 3.18 (the lowest ever for all the elections I have data for).

@JG: That's a fair point, although I'm not sure she invested as much into Pennsylvania and Ohio as she should have.

Trump, if I am not mistaken, is the first Republican in a long while to come within single digits in Erie.

Since George Bush Sr. in 1988, yes. They lost it by similar margins, but of course the difference is that Bush won the national PV by 8 points.

I see. What about Adirondack? I had read somewhere that Clinton won New York by just 10,000 votes if you took out New York City. Obviously, your state of New York includes the adjacent suburbs, and removing those gives Trump the remainder.

Yup:

Hillary 45.69%
T***p 47.92%
Johnson 3.77%
Others 2.62%

T***p won it by about 60K votes. Meanwhile, Hillary carried almost 2/3 of the vote in the new New York State.

[Antonio the Sixth]

NYC suburbs were a mixed bag in terms of trends. Hillary improved in the inner ring of suburbs (Westchester, Rockland, Nassau) but lost ground in the outer ring, especially Suffolk.



I'm guessing if Hillary had a home-state advantage, it makes sense that Manhattanites and Westchesterites would be the most sensitive to it, while T***p, himself a Queens guy, did better there and around Long and Staten Islands.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You were wrong about Feingold.

I mean, I wasn't wrong. My predictions reflected the consensus of the time, and the consensus of the time showed Feingold as a modest favorite. The fact that things turned out differently doesn't mean that it was the wrong call at the time.

Anyway, here's for gubernatorial elections.

2016 Gubernatorial Elections



Democrats: 3
Republicans: 5

Just like IRL, Republicans pick up MO and Democrats pick up NC by a hair. In Indiana, Holcomb wins even more comfortably. Finally, in NE, Hassan would have no reason to retire, but with the strong Republican trend this region had IRL I figured she'd still lose narrowly, let's say to Phil Scott since he seems like the strongest Republican from the region. RIP CLIMBIN' MAGGIE, FF.


Governorship Control in 2017:

Democrats: 16 (+1)
Republicans: 34 (=)
Independents: 1 (=)


Senate results coming hopefully tomorrow.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Somewhere, MT Treasurer shed a tear for what could have been.

Calm VT men beat out angry NH women.

[Antonio the Sixth]

2016



Democrats: 12 (=)
Republicans: 22 (=)

In keeping with RL results, I had the Senate map match the Presidential map perfectly - and just like IRL, this leads to a pickup of two seats for Democrats. The easiest pickup for Dems is Rio Grande, where an already old and stale Cornyn is unable to resist a high-turnout, increasingly Hispanic electorate. There's really only one logical choice for who would beat him, and that's obviously our friend Beto O'Rourke (even if he loses statewide, I fully expect him to beat Cruz by double digits in the parts of RL Texas that make up Rio Grande). The nailbiter of this cycle (equivalent to RL NH) would be California, where I could see a decent Democratic challenger narrowly edge it out. Maybe Ami Bera, since he's used to squeaking by in semi-unfriendly territory? Let me know if you have better suggestions. Apart from that, it's mostly just incumbents getting reelected (including Murray in WA, Portman in OH, Miller in NF, Reed in AD, Abbott in JF, Rodgers in OR, and, unlike RL but unsurprisingly given the new makeup of the State, Kirk in IL). All in all a disappointing year for Democrats but by no means a terrible one.

The 115th Senate (2017-2019)



Democrats: 46 (-2)
Republicans: 56 (+4)

The particularly unfavorable makeup of the other two classes compared to IRL for Democrats (especially, ironically, the 2012 one) means that Republicans maintain a comfortable 10-seat majority, far more daunting than their RL one of just 4 at this point in time. Flipping Jeff Sessions' Alabama seat later in the year would only marginally reduce it to 8, meaning that Republicans would still have little trouble pushing forward their agenda. Of course, this would be far less consequential without a President T***p to actually sign the bills that come out of such a GOP-dominated Congress - but then again, that would be a double-edged sword for Democrats' electoral prospects going into 2018.

This is where we hit the limits of projects like these when it comes to actually predicting alternate election outcomes: once it changes who actually wins the Presidency, the repercussions far exceed the simple role of geographic redrawings. Having a different President in office means different issues, different events both at home and abroad, and a different political climate. If this map was
actually in place, Democrats would be facing obliteration in 2018, with 5 seats all but gone and 6 others in serious danger. Republicans would almost certainly emerge from it with a filibuster-proof majority, ready to enact draconian policy changes as soon as the White House would fall to them (which, let's face it, would be very likely in 2020). Again, kind of terrifying tbh.

Of course, since this thread is about alternate election results rather than an alternate timeline as such, I will be covering 2018 results based on the actual political climate we are seeing IRL. So don't worry, you should still expect a lot of read on the 2018 maps.

[Antonio the Sixth]

When do you think you can make a map of the 2020 election using those state boundaries?

Are you going to make a 2020 map anytime soon?

Appreciate the interest! A full set of maps and analysis will be forthcoming, but probably not for another couple months because 1. I'm pretty busy right now and will be for a while and 2. I do want to wait until the results are 100% definitive.

In the meantime, if someone wants to calculate preliminary results, you're obviously welcome to do so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Source: States official election results.

Yeesh.

If this is true, it'd be a 1.8-point swing to the right from 2016. And the first time in the entire series (so going back to at least 1960, but more likely actually to 1936) that Erie had a Republican PVI. Pretty devastating.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Okay, I know I've waited so long that the hype is probably long dead now, but here is at long last the 2020 update!

2020



Joe Biden: 315 (+9)
Donald J. T***p: 223 (-9)

Biden wins with a slightly larger share of the Electoral College. By and large, the changes made to the map cancel each other out. The splits tend to favor Biden, as he nets a lot of EVs out of Rio Grande, South Florida and Erie (even though his margin of victory in all these states is underwhelming compared to previous Dems in recent elections). He of course loses Allegheny and Illinois, also in line with the previous few maps. Hilariously enough, the shifting of the Upper Peninsula from MI to WI, which was so critical in flipping the result for Hillary in 2016, ends up working against Biden this time around: he still wins Michigan fairly comfortably, but ends up losing Wisconsin by just a tenth of a point. As a result, all of Biden's Rust Belt flips IRL are nullified by this map: PA, AY, MI and WI all voted the same way in 2020 as in 2016. Whereas Biden was acclaimed IRL for bringing Democrats back into the Midwest, this map appears to put more emphasis on the Sun Belt component of his victory. GA and AZ, which are unaffected by the redrawing, still barely flip to the Democrats. The third and final flip of this map (which is otherwise a perfect clone of 2016) is Adirondack, where Biden's solid appeal among White working-class Northeasterners seems to have proved decisive. Still, overall, there's far more continuity with 2016 than change here.

PVI map:


Donald J. T***p: 322 (+11)
Joe Biden: 216 (-11)

While the topline map looks pretty good for Biden, looking below the surface to state PVIs reveals a far bleaker picture. Even bleaker, in fact, than even the RL map. Nearly 60% of the Electoral College under this scenario would be drawn from a state with a Republican PVI, which almost all the swing states leaning to the right. Minnesota is the lone Dem-leaning swing state, with a D+3 PVI. On the other end, though, there are a full 9 states (totaling 109 EVs) with a PVI between 0 and R+5. This is a striking reversal from even just 2016, where you could see plenty of pink on that map. What happened? Many states that used to be slightly Dem-leaning saw unfavorable trends this cycle, largely having to do with their losses with Hispanics (which cost them SF, NV and CA) or further erosion with the Midwestern working class (costing them ER). There are also some states like AZ and GA which have trended Democratic, but not enough to flip their PVI. Overall, one interesting pattern is that a lot of states that used to be split between a clearly D one and a clearly R one see that difference erode: SF and ER are both striking in that regard. On the other hand, you have California reverting to a Republican PVI, and thus making the 3-way split of RL California matter again. It will be interesting to see where things go from there in that regard. While the breadth of Republican structural dominance is enhanced compared to the RL map, it is worth noting that its depth is significantly lessened. While IRL, the tipping point state (WI/PA had a R+3.5 PVI), under this map, it would be Nevada at a much more reasonable R+2. So Biden's victory would have looked far more comfortable and safe from the outset, compared to the nailbiters in PA/WI/AZ/GA that defined the election night IRL.

Swing/trend map:


The swing map is actually pretty informative, especially in isolating the places where Biden underperformed. We clearly see the Republican gains in large Northern city-states like NY and CH (as well as Erie, with its WWC electorate and its flagging Black turnout). We also see Biden's underperformance with Hispanic voters, especially Cubans in SF but also Mexicans in RG and CS. That aside, the swing map is a sea of pink, showing a fairly uniform swing to the left compared to 2016. The trend map largely confirms this picture, although it muddies it somewhat with the whole weirdness that we saw even in the RL trend map. Still, a few notable patterns arise. Most pleasantly, AD's Democratic trend contrasts with NY's Republican one, and creates a nice continuity with the New England states. RG also continues to stand out from the rest of RL Texas. Generally speaking, though, this map is pretty similar to the one we can see on Atlas.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +45.80)
- Most Republican: West Virginia (PVI -43.38)
- Closest: Wisconsin (margin -0.11)
- Bellwether: California (PVI -0.06)
- Tipping point: Nevada (PVI -1.97), after CA, AD, ER and MI
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Colorado (trend +6.24)
- Strongest Republican Trend: South Florida (trend -7.37)
- Most Stable (absolute): Pacific (swing -0.05)
- Most Stable (relative): North Carolina (trend -0.05)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fascinating as always, Antonio. Somehow this ends up being both tantalizing and chilling.

Thanks!! And yeah, I keep wondering if this map would be better or worse than IRL.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Absolutely loved reading through this years ago. To (hopefully) help and to satisfy my own curiosity I've calculated the reapportionment for the 2020 census under these alternate states.

State	2010 Population	2020 Population	% Change	'10 CDs	'20 CDs	Change
California del Sur	21,146,847	22,123,016	+4.62%	30	29	−1
New York	13,038,826	13,863,559	+6.33%	18	18
South Florida	11,039,035	12,452,991	+12.81%	16	16
Georgia	9,687,653	10,711,908	+10.57%	14	14
North Carolina	9,535,483	10,439,388	+9.48%	13	14	+1
Jefferson	8,796,339	10,180,914	+15.74%	12	13	+1
Texas	8,599,827	9,953,278	+15.74%	12	13	+1
Chicago	9,686,021	9,838,421	+1.57%	14	13	−1
Michigan	9,572,279	9,775,723	+2.13%	14	13	−1
Washington	8,573,432	9,731,383	+13.51%	12	13	+1
Pacific	8,906,504	9,610,480	+7.90%	13	13
New Jersey	8,791,894	9,288,994	+5.65%	12	12
North Florida	7,762,275	9,085,196	+17.04%	11	12	+1
Rio Grande	7,749,395	9,011,313	+16.28%	11	12	+1
Virginia	8,001,024	8,631,393	+7.88%	11	11
Massachusetts	7,600,196	8,127,296	+6.94%	11	11
Pennsylvania	7,773,451	8,105,693	+4.27%	11	11
Maryland	7,273,209	7,856,717	+8.02%	10	10
California	7,166,682	7,771,312	+8.44%	10	10
Arizona	6,392,017	7,151,502	+11.88%	9	9
Ohio	6,852,201	7,137,023	+4.16%	10	9	−1
Tennessee	6,346,105	6,910,840	+8.90%	9	9
Adirondack	6,339,276	6,337,690	−0.03%	9	8	−1
Missouri	5,988,927	6,154,913	+2.77%	8	8
Wisconsin	5,831,921	6,026,175	+3.33%	8	8
Indiana	5,664,265	5,954,448	+5.12%	8	8
Colorado	5,029,196	5,773,714	+14.80%	7	8	+1
Minnesota	5,303,925	5,706,494	+7.59%	7	8	+1
South Carolina	4,625,364	5,118,425	+10.66%	7	7
Alabama	4,779,736	5,024,279	+5.12%	7	7
Allegheny	4,928,928	4,897,007	−0.65%	7	7
Erie	4,684,303	4,662,425	−0.47%	7	6	−1
Louisiana	4,533,372	4,657,757	+2.74%	6	6
Kentucky	4,339,367	4,505,836	+3.84%	6	6
Oregon	3,549,764	4,050,260	+14.10%	5	5
Illinois	4,130,574	3,974,318	−3.78%	6	5	−1
Oklahoma	3,751,351	3,959,353	+5.54%	5	5
Connecticut	3,574,097	3,605,944	+0.89%	5	5
New England	3,270,572	3,382,965	+3.44%	5	5
Lincoln	3,039,812	3,326,837	+9.44%	4	4
Utah	2,763,885	3,271,616	+18.37%	4	4
Iowa	3,046,355	3,190,369	+4.73%	4	4
Nevada	2,734,474	3,138,029	+14.76%	4	4
Arkansas	2,915,918	3,011,524	+3.28%	4	4
Mississipi	2,967,297	2,961,279	−0.20%	4	4
Kansas	2,853,118	2,937,880	+2.97%	4	4
New Mexico	2,059,179	2,117,522	+2.83%	3	3
Nebraska	1,826,341	1,961,504	+7.40%	3	3
West Virginia	1,852,994	1,793,716	−3.20%	3	2	−1
Hawaii	1,360,301	1,455,271	+6.98%	2	2
Alaska	710,231	733,391	+3.26%	1	1

Oh, that's really cool, thanks!

I would have made the calculations eventually, but knowing me it would probably have taken way too long.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Washington	8,573,432	9,731,383	+13.51%	12	13	+1
Oregon	3,549,764	4,050,260	+14.10%	5	5

Okay, I ended up running my own calculations after all. They track yours everywhere except here, because I have WA at 9,729,077 and OR at 4,052,566. So there are 2306 people you put in WA that I put in OR. Not sure where those come from since there's no single county with that population, but maybe there was a switcheroo somewhere.

Still, great work!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fascinating! Thank you both for your contributions.

OBD is right that Republicans in OH would probably go for the hard gerrymander, but I love seeing fair maps too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fascinating! Thank you both for your contributions.

OBD is right that Republicans in OH would probably go for the hard gerrymander, but I love seeing fair maps too.

Thanks!

Is there a county map somewhere? Interested in trying Rio Grande but I'm not sure what the exact district lines are.

Here's the map that I posted to illustrate its politics back in the day (2012 Presidential vote):

[Antonio the Sixth]

While digging through this thread to find the other county maps, I found this 6R gerrymander of IL Muon made in 2014 and recreated it in the new DRA.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/2356cfe1-ed89-4d24-8927-cfc98d20fb79

IL loses one seat for 2020 and goes down to 5R

https://davesredistricting.org/join/90b28a5f-0945-4f1b-a7b9-7492497bf0d9

Wow, the 5-seat one doesn't even look gerrymandered. I guess downstate IL is just that Republican nowadays...

[Antonio the Sixth]

While digging through this thread to find the other county maps, I found this 6R gerrymander of IL Muon made in 2014 and recreated it in the new DRA.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/2356cfe1-ed89-4d24-8927-cfc98d20fb79

IL loses one seat for 2020 and goes down to 5R

https://davesredistricting.org/join/90b28a5f-0945-4f1b-a7b9-7492497bf0d9

Wow, the 5-seat one doesn't even look gerrymandered. I guess downstate IL is just that Republican nowadays...

Yep. Here's a Dem friendly map to illustrate this.

Yeesh, wow. One D+3 PVI district is all and one R+7 one all you can scrounge up for Dems. That's quite a fall from even just 2008 when Obama won outright.