Congressional district population data

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's a site I highly recommend for data on congressional district population:

http://proximityone.com/cd.htm

I did a quick look at the relationship between the 2008 population of a district and the party of the representative from the district, looking only at districts with populations well outside the norm.  Specifically districts with either fewer than 600,000 or more than 800,000

Here's what I found:

                              Democrat          Republican

Under 600K                 15                       5

800K or more                 9                     29
     

[Padfoot]

Here's a little more detailed (and perhaps slightly biased) look.


White majority seats in states not projected to gain or lose seats:

                              Democrat              Republican

under 600k               6                            2

800k or more            3                            3

The seats above are mostly at large seats (DE, MT, SD, WY) and small state seats (ID-1, NE-3, RI-1, RI-2, WV-1, WV-3) where you're more likely to have abnormally large or small CDs.  But, there are two outliers in IN-5 and VA-10.  With the exception of perhaps VA-10, not much partisan change can be expected here as related to redistricting.
 
In the under 600k group there are 7 Democratic held (AL-7, MI-13, MI-14, MO-1, OH-11, PA-2, TN-9) and 1 Republican held (LA-1) majority-minority seats.  Even if redistricting causes an increase in white voters these districts, they will likely be very similar to their current incarnations in their partisan leanings.

That leaves 2 Republican districts (IA-4 and IA-5) and 5 Democratic districts (IA-1, MN-5, NY-28, OH-10, PA-14) with under 600k population that are at serious risk of being dismantled or severely altered by redistricting.

On the 800k+ side you have almost all seats (excluding those in the first chart) coming from a group of 6 states projected to gain seats plus 4 states on the edge of gaining and 1 state actually projected to lose a seat.

                     Democrat                Republican

Arizona                   1                              2
Florida                    0                              4
Georgia                   0                              3
Nevada                   2                              1
Texas                     1                               8
Utah                       1                               2
**************************************
California               1                                3
North Carolina       0                                1   
South Carolina       0                               1 
Washington           0                                1
**************************************
Illinois                    1                                0

In the first group, you have mostly states who's growth is being fueled heavily by migration from Latin America and (to a lesser extent California).  To me, this indicated an influx of left leaning voters.  Texas will almost definitely be forced to create additional Hispanic districts.

In the latter two groups of states you have districts where Democrats are on the upswing:  CA-11, CA-25, CA-44, CA-45, IL-11, NC-9, SC-1, and WA-8.  These districts are more likely to be closer to swing districts after redistricting rather than partisan strongholds.

In summary, although many traditional Democratic leaning areas are projected to lose seats and many traditionally Republican leaning areas are projected to lose seats, that doesn't not necessarily translate into automatic Republican gains.  In fact, the results of reapportionment and redistricting may very well cause a further increase in the number of Democratic representatives from the South and West making up for any losses experienced in the rust belt.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry Padfoot, but your examples are neither detailed nor representative,

To give you one example, your assertion that Democrats will gain a seat in California as a result of redistricting, assumes a pretty mammoth gerrymandering of the congressional districts.

According to the data in the source I cited, of the 34 districts now represented by Democrats, the average population is 666,858 (2008), whereas for the 19 districts represented by Republicans the average population is 741,236 (2008).

[Brittain33]

According to the data in the source I cited, of the 34 districts now represented by Democrats, the average population is 666,858 (2008), whereas for the 19 districts represented by Republicans the average population is 741,236 (2008).

And the presumption is that the Democratic districts include 666,858 Democratic voters and zero Republicans, while the Republican districts include 741,236 Republican voters and zero Democrats, leading to a turnover of several districts when they are rebalanced.

[Padfoot]

Sorry Padfoot, but your examples are neither detailed nor representative,

To give you one example, your assertion that Democrats will gain a seat in California as a result of redistricting, assumes a pretty mammoth gerrymandering of the congressional districts.

According to the data in the source I cited, of the 34 districts now represented by Democrats, the average population is 666,858 (2008), whereas for the 19 districts represented by Republicans the average population is 741,236 (2008).

California is already a mammoth bipartisan gerrymander meant to protect all incumbents.  If Democrats have enough control they could very easily take out one of the weaker Republicans.

Also, I thought my examples were very specific.  With regards to California, as I said, Democrats have seen a dramatic improvement in their performance in the 4 California districts listed as having over 800k.  Take a look at the presidential voting swing from 2004 to 2008.  All four districts swung significantly more than the California statewide swing:

                     Bush         Kerry          Obama           McCain          swing

CA-11         53.9             45.3            53.8              44.5             D+17.9
CA-25         58.8             39.9            49.4              48.3             D+20.0
CA-44         59.0             39.9            49.5              48.6             D+20.0
CA-45         56.0             43.1            51.5              46.9             D+17.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California    44.4             54.3            60.9              36.9             D+14.0               
National      50.7             48.3            52.9              45.6             D+9.7

That indicates that a significant amount of the population growth experienced in these districts can be attributed more to left-leaning voters rather than right-leaning voters.  Plus, CA-44 and CA-45 are right next to each other so I'm sure that a more Democratic seat could be eked out somewhere in there given the above.

The main point I was trying to get across was that population growth in districts currently held by Republicans and population losses in Democratic held districts does not automatically translate into more Republican seats after redistricting.  You have to look at the underlying trends contributing to those shifts in order to discern how those areas will vote in the future.  I'm really not sure how specific you think the data needs to be in order to get across the broader point that the Southwest has experienced an influx of Latino voters who tend to vote for Democrats by at least a 2:1 ratio.  That trend coupled with native outmigration from California and Democratic areas of the Northeast and Midwest has created a scenario where expected Democratic losses due to reapportionment might not be as catastrophic as some Chicken Littles out there would have us believe.  Traditional Republican strongholds aren't growing simply because Republicans breed faster (Utah is of course the exception).  Those areas are growing because more left-of-center voters are moving in. 

[Stranger in a strange land]

yeah, i know it's a bit weird, but many of the Republican districts with 800k+ tend to be exurbia. The Democratic ones with 600K or less are mostly dying industrial rust-belt type areas. Rhode Island seems likely to eventually lose its 2nd congressional seat, though that probably won't happen for at least a few more decades.

[CARLHAYDEN]

According to the data in the source I cited, of the 34 districts now represented by Democrats, the average population is 666,858 (2008), whereas for the 19 districts represented by Republicans the average population is 741,236 (2008).

And the presumption is that the Democratic districts include 666,858 Democratic voters and zero Republicans, while the Republican districts include 741,236 Republican voters and zero Democrats, leading to a turnover of several districts when they are rebalanced.

Sorry you made such a silly presumption, which I never made!

A little busy now, but will provide detailed elaboration latter.

[CARLHAYDEN]

According to the data in the source I cited, of the 34 districts now represented by Democrats, the average population is 666,858 (2008), whereas for the 19 districts represented by Republicans the average population is 741,236 (2008).

And the presumption is that the Democratic districts include 666,858 Democratic voters and zero Republicans, while the Republican districts include 741,236 Republican voters and zero Democrats, leading to a turnover of several districts when they are rebalanced.

Sorry you made such a silly presumption, which I never made!

A little busy now, but will provide detailed elaboration latter.

Well, I got around to running the results for the California congressional races in California in 2008 (a good year for Democrats) and:

Party                              # Votes      % of vote     Proportional     Actual

Democrats                    7,380,525       58.55               31                34
Republicans                  4,799,202       38.07            20/21              19
Libertarians                     220,117         1.75                 1                  0
Independents                   90,340          0.71                 0                 0
Greens                              60,593          0.48                 0                 0
Peace & Freedom              47,659         0.38                  0                 0
American Independent        6,286         0.01                 0                  0

Total                           12,605,082

So, in conclusion, the suggestion by Padfood, using highly selected and unrepresentative examples, that Progressive/Socialists Democrats will benefit from redistricting (unless highly gerrymandered) is simply not supported by a reasonable analysis of the facts.

It should also be noted that the special elections in the two California congressional districts this year have provided results far more favorable to Republicans (and less favorable to Democrats) than the 2010 Results:

District          Party                     % 2008 Vote          % 2009 Vote

10               Democrat                     65.12                      52.86
                   Republican                   31.13                      42.83
32               Democrat                     99.99                      61.82
                   Republican                     0.00                      32.96

[Brittain33]

Many of the Democratic districts in California, as in other states with large immigrant and minority populations, include large numbers of both non-voting citizens and non-citizens. Look at how many votes Lucille Roybal-Allard gets in a given election and compare it to any Republican in the state. That makes the number of votes per Democratic district lower than per Republican district with equal population, but it's not an inequity that can be resolved by changing district lines and won't be affected by redistricting. Every 1 Democratic voter in that district carries with him a cohort of 3-5 non-voters who are counted for redistricting, while the ratio is barely 1:2 in exurban districts where only the young, the very poor, and immigrants don't vote.

Even if Tom Delay and Dick Cheney drew a map for California, there's no way they could make it so that Democratic reps got the same number of votes as most of the Republican reps. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Brittain,

If you follow the thread, you will see that I was providing information to contradict your and Padfoot's assertions that even though districts represented by Republicans have larger population on average that those represented by Democrats, somehow (mystically, magically)m when redistricting comes about the Democrats will gain seats (lol)?!?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It should also be noted that the special elections in the two California congressional districts this year have provided results far more favorable to Republicans (and less favorable to Democrats) than the 2010 Results:

District          Party                     % 2008 Vote          % 2009 Vote

32               Democrat                     99.99                      61.82
                   Republican                     0.00                      32.96

So in other words, the Republicans do better when they run a candidate than when they don't run a candidate.

Amazing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It should also be noted that the special elections in the two California congressional districts this year have provided results far more favorable to Republicans (and less favorable to Democrats) than the 2010 Results:

District          Party                     % 2008 Vote          % 2009 Vote

32               Democrat                     99.99                      61.82
                   Republican                     0.00                      32.96

So in other words, the Republicans do better when they run a candidate than when they don't run a candidate.

Amazing.

Hmm.

Noticed you omitted the race in CD 10.

[nclib]

It should also be noted that the special elections in the two California congressional districts this year have provided results far more favorable to Republicans (and less favorable to Democrats) than the 2010 Results:

District          Party                     % 2008 Vote          % 2009 Vote

32               Democrat                     99.99                      61.82
                   Republican                     0.00                      32.96

So in other words, the Republicans do better when they run a candidate than when they don't run a candidate.

Amazing.

Hmm.

Noticed you omitted the race in CD 10.

Tauscher was a long-time incumbent. (Though Garamendi should have gotten some name recognition boost for being Lt. Gov.)

[CARLHAYDEN]

It should also be noted that the special elections in the two California congressional districts this year have provided results far more favorable to Republicans (and less favorable to Democrats) than the 2010 Results:

District          Party                     % 2008 Vote          % 2009 Vote

32               Democrat                     99.99                      61.82
                   Republican                     0.00                      32.96

So in other words, the Republicans do better when they run a candidate than when they don't run a candidate.

Amazing.

Hmm.

Noticed you omitted the race in CD 10.

Tauscher was a long-time incumbent. (Though Garamendi should have gotten some name recognition boost for being Lt. Gov.)

Sorry, but as I pointed out to Lunar, Tauscher got essentially the same percentage of the vote in her district as Obama did.  So, the insinuation that she did better than the Democrat line by being an incumbent, is simply NOT the case!

Specifically, Obama got 64.9% of the vote in 2010 in CD 10 whereas Tauscher got 65.2% of the vote in the same district in the same year.  Now, the Green candidate (McKinney) got 0.2% of the vote in the district in 2010 while Tauscher did not have a Green party opponent.  So, her three tenths of one per cent greater vote than Obama (which is nothing for an incumbent to brag about) can largely be explained by that difference.

[Sbane]

Dude, Garamendi is a carpetbagger and a statewide elected official of California. Not very popular creatures right now. And this was a special election so the base which was fired up showed up.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Dude, Garamendi is a carpetbagger and a statewide elected official of California. Not very popular creatures right now. And this was a special election so the base which was fired up showed up.

Well, Dude, you really should read the entire thread.

I agree that the electorate in the special election was more unfavorable to Democrats than is the normal.

However, I equally maintain that the 2008 election was unusually favorable to the Democrats.

Bottom line, no matter how you slice it, the Republican represented districts in California have greater population on average than the Democrat represented districts and the percentage of the Republican vote statewide for their congressional candidates was greater than the number of U.S. Representatives they actually elected.  These two factors are interrelated, and when redistricting occurs, absent a really obscene gerrymandering, Republicans are likely to net gain one or two seats.

[Brittain33]

The argument is that Democrats win districts in California with substantially fewer votes than Republicans do, for the reasons that have been mentions, so statewide totals are misleading. Secondly, Democratic gains in the House would presume an at least somewhat grotesque gerrymander, because the heart of what you are saying is correct: many Democratic districts need to expand just to meet minimum population.

You're diagnosing problems accurately but you need to go further in depth, as Padfoot has, to make the leap from that diagnosis to the conclusion that Democratic gains through redistricting are impossible. Looking at statewide data is not going to do it.

[Torie]

A Dem gerrymander in California could potentially take out about 3 GOP seats, but that is about it due to requirement to preserve minority districts. Granted some GOP seats may be lost over time due to the ongoing swing to the Dems among higher income Anglos in the metro areas.

However, an independent commission now draws the lines in California, so there won't be a gerrymander, and instead of about three competitive districts in California, there might be seven or eight.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

However, an independent commission now draws the lines in California, so their won't be a gerrymander, and instead of about three competitive districts in California, there might be seven or eight.

Only for state legislative seats.

[Torie]

However, an independent commission now draws the lines in California, so their won't be a gerrymander, and instead of about three competitive districts in California, there might be seven or eight.

Only for state legislative seats.

OH. Well that sucks.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It should also be noted that the special elections in the two California congressional districts this year have provided results far more favorable to Republicans (and less favorable to Democrats) than the 2010 Results:

District          Party                     % 2008 Vote          % 2009 Vote

32               Democrat                     99.99                      61.82
                   Republican                     0.00                      32.96

So in other words, the Republicans do better when they run a candidate than when they don't run a candidate.

Amazing.

Hmm.

Noticed you omitted the race in CD 10.

The others who knew more covered that. Comparing a special election to a general is rather pointless anyway because of turnout. I'm just pointing out the sheer inanity in that particular example and how it was so obvious it's comical it was even brought up.

[jimrtex]

However, an independent commission now draws the lines in California, so their won't be a gerrymander, and instead of about three competitive districts in California, there might be seven or eight.

Only for state legislative seats.

OH. Well that sucks.

Most of the criteria apply to the congressional districts as well, and the legislature is required to report how they applied them - at least making them subject to a legal challenge under the California constitution.  So they are subject to requirements of compactness and respecting city and county boundaries to the extent practicable.  One difference is that the legislature may consider the residence of incumbents or political candidate, and may favor or discriminate against a candidate or party.

If you'd like to apply to become a member of the Redistricting Commission click here.