Most deceptive gerrymander?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We can all complain about the hideous ones like Florida and Maryland, but what's the one that doesn't look so bad yet really is?

I vote for Virginia. It's a Republican gerrymander designed to limit Democrats to only the inner Beltway seat, the black majority one based around Richmond, and Boucher's with his personal vote. It was quite successful at first though it folded under conditions and some demographic changes, but is pretty bad even though it looks kind of logical.

Michigan is another one, the districts are mostly squarish and not that ugly, but it is a nasty Republican map. Lansing being in a Republican-leaning district is evidence enough. At least that one probably won't be repeated.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Michigan. It was gerrymandered to have 9 Republicans and 6 Democrats, but they avoided anything obviously hideous looking.

[Bo]

OH, GA (GOP version), and IN.

[Joe Republic]

Wyoming.

Their congressional district map looks pretty dull and rational at first glance, but if you look closer you'll see that there haven't been any Democrats elected at all since the 1970s.  Very clever cartographic machinations, if you ask me.

[minionofmidas]

OH, GA (GOP version), and IN.

Ohio is sort of like Michigan, though not quite as bad. GA (GOP version) and IN (a Dem map) are really quite mild gerrymanders of the type I cannot care about as long as far worse outrages exist.

VA is not really deceptive at all. It's hideous at first glance.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Michigan works.

Georgia doesn't look too bad, as long as you don't know that Savannah is split between the southern tip of GA-12 and northeastern tip of GA-01. GA-08 is the only egregious one, from a size and shape standpoint.

Ohio looks pretty bad to me at first glance; look at OH-05, OH-06, OH-07, and OH-18, they're all long, thin districts that stretch across the state. Virginia and Indiana have the same problem.

Pennsylvania also looks bad to me -- PA-12 and PA-18? Seriously? Also, the ridiculous squiggles that are PA-06 and PA-13.

[tpfkaw]

CA. It looks fine, but it's so well 'mandered that only one of its 53 congressional districts is listed as competitive by Nate Silver.

[tmthforu94]

Despite Daniels vows to make redistricting fair to both sides, I think Republicans are going to benefit heavily from it.
The district on the left is the current and on the right is the proposed.


This, in my opinion, is as fair as it's going to get. If Baron Hill survives in 2010, he'll have an even tough time in 2012. Same with Joe Donnelly. The new map favors 7 Republicans and only 2 Democrats. Parts of current heavy-Republican districts are being moved to the battlegrounds, which in the end will make no district 100% safe like some currently are, but will give 7 districts a Republican edge.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

That doesn't actually change Donnelly's district much. Makes it a point or two more Republican at most.

Four districts that stretch into the Indianapolis suburbs, though, is ridiculous.

[Verily]

Agreed. That map is an absurd gerrymander, even though it doesn't look like one. The Indianapolis suburbs should be in two districts at most. Anything more is an obvious attempt to use them to overwhelm the Dem-leaning college towns and small industrial centers.

[Dgov]

That doesn't actually change Donnelly's district much. Makes it a point or two more Republican at most.

Not really.  It gains the Republican part of Elkhart county (like 70+% R), and loses the Southern tips that stretch into the cities of North-Central Indiana, which lean D.  It's probably a McCain district now.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Add up the totals from the seven counties entirely in the district and it's 54-46 Obama. 147,201 votes for Obama, 125,850 for McCain.

[Hatman 🍁]

I know it's a Canadian example, but Saskatchewan

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Despite Daniels vows to make redistricting fair to both sides, I think Republicans are going to benefit heavily from it.
The district on the left is the current and on the right is the proposed.


This, in my opinion, is as fair as it's going to get. If Baron Hill survives in 2010, he'll have an even tough time in 2012. Same with Joe Donnelly. The new map favors 7 Republicans and only 2 Democrats. Parts of current heavy-Republican districts are being moved to the battlegrounds, which in the end will make no district 100% safe like some currently are, but will give 7 districts a Republican edge.

Don't they usual wait until they get the census data to make a new map?

[muon2]

Despite Daniels vows to make redistricting fair to both sides, I think Republicans are going to benefit heavily from it.
The district on the left is the current and on the right is the proposed.


This, in my opinion, is as fair as it's going to get. If Baron Hill survives in 2010, he'll have an even tough time in 2012. Same with Joe Donnelly. The new map favors 7 Republicans and only 2 Democrats. Parts of current heavy-Republican districts are being moved to the battlegrounds, which in the end will make no district 100% safe like some currently are, but will give 7 districts a Republican edge.

Don't they usual wait until they get the census data to make a new map?

No. In all 50 states, both sides already have draft maps. You can buy estimate data to the block-level and state parties do. Of course the official map has to wait for official numbers, but drafts give a good idea of the direction that a party should pursue.

[Mr.Phips]

That doesn't actually change Donnelly's district much. Makes it a point or two more Republican at most.

Not really.  It gains the Republican part of Elkhart county (like 70+% R), and loses the Southern tips that stretch into the cities of North-Central Indiana, which lean D.  It's probably a McCain district now.

Its pretty much the same district that Democrat Tim Roemer held for years. 

[jimrtex]

No. In all 50 states, both sides already have draft maps. You can buy estimate data to the block-level and state parties do. Of course the official map has to wait for official numbers, but drafts give a good idea of the direction that a party should pursue.

What are the estimates based on?  ACS PUMS?

The 5-year ACS to the block group level will be released this December.

[muon2]

No. In all 50 states, both sides already have draft maps. You can buy estimate data to the block-level and state parties do. Of course the official map has to wait for official numbers, but drafts give a good idea of the direction that a party should pursue.

What are the estimates based on?  ACS PUMS?

The 5-year ACS to the block group level will be released this December.

The public estimates for 2009 at the county and place level can also be acquired at the block level for use in GIS redistricting programs. I doesn't look like it's just an even spread of the high level data. I'll have to see if I can identify the provenance of the data.

[Dgov]

I've been thinking, could you argue that states like Florida or Michigan are Naturally Gerrymandered to favor the Republican party?  I mean just in the population demographics and distribution.

I think any fairly drawn Map would benefit the Republicans in either state more than the state-wide totals would suggest, given how Concentrated the Democrats are in specific areas.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, no. It's more that concentrated strength makes it easier to gerrymander effectively.

[minionofmidas]

Well, no. It's more that concentrated strength makes it easier to gerrymander effectively.

Well, specifically in the case of Michigan, community of interest considerations would certainly create the two Black seats and probably Sander Levin's too - though very little else of the state would look anything like it does now.

[Dgov]

Well, no. It's more that concentrated strength makes it easier to gerrymander effectively.

Well, specifically in the case of Michigan, community of interest considerations would certainly create the two Black seats and probably Sander Levin's too - though very little else of the state would look anything like it does now.

Community of interest maps would create only 1 black seat--Detroit.  They way it's split now is designed to split the 80% Black Detroit into 2 Districts to comply with VRA regulations for the state, but you can fit a district entirely inside the city easily (though the central enclaves would make such a map messy)

[minionofmidas]

Well, no. It's more that concentrated strength makes it easier to gerrymander effectively.

Well, specifically in the case of Michigan, community of interest considerations would certainly create the two Black seats and probably Sander Levin's too - though very little else of the state would look anything like it does now.

Community of interest maps would create only 1 black seat--Detroit.  They way it's split now is designed to split the 80% Black Detroit into 2 Districts to comply with VRA regulations for the state, but you can fit a district entirely inside the city easily (though the central enclaves would make such a map messy)

But you can't fit all the areas that really "ought" to be in a purely urban district into a single district.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Well, no. It's more that concentrated strength makes it easier to gerrymander effectively.

Well, specifically in the case of Michigan, community of interest considerations would certainly create the two Black seats and probably Sander Levin's too - though very little else of the state would look anything like it does now.

Really? I'd say all of the following are pretty natural from a "communities of interest" point of view:
- putting the UP district down the more blue-collar eastern half of the LP rather than the summer playgrounds around Traverse City
- a district for the Thumb
- a district for Flint/Saginaw
- an affluent Oakland district - granted, Pontiac is out of place, but Pontiac will be out of place anywhere unless you do a snake up to Flint which would be even more of a GOP gerrymander.

And then there isn't anything obviously disastrous about west Michigan. I agree that the Lansing district and the Ann Arbor/Dingell combination are clearly gerrymandered, but Michigan is going to have more GOP seats than the popular vote would dictate in pretty much any district-based FPTP system unless you give Detroit the fajita treatment.

[minionofmidas]

- putting the UP district down the more blue-collar eastern half of the LP rather than the summer playgrounds around Traverse City

It extends all the way into the Saginaw suburbs, leaving out a lot of areas further northeast that fit in much better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It only looks that way on the map, it's mostly a Detroit suburban district. With another bit of the Bay City area thrown in if I remember correctly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not all of Saginaw.

All of these are related of course - the result of trying hard to eliminate the safe-but-not-overwhelming-D Saginaw-based district that existed until 2000. And to create a seat tailored for Miller - who, with McCotter, essentially drew the map.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ann Arbor/Dingell is merely hilarious. (Though might have happened even with a commission.) Lansing is plain disgusting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes - they'd still be winning half the seats if down a fair few points. But never two thirds.