Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 22, 2014, 08:57:14 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: California
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 18 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: California  (Read 29291 times)
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27403
United States


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: March 08, 2011, 03:22:38 pm »
Ignore

Why are you so sure they will draw that appendage though? Why not just add Pasadena and other areas closer by instead? And why are you so sure they won't do that? That they won't just be satisfied with a 30% Asian district. And it's not even as if Asians are a monolithic group, so I really wouldn't be so sure it will happen. Don't the Chinese near Monterey Park and surroundings tend to be from the mainland while I know for a fact that Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights is a heavily Taiwanese community.

They get along fine, and all speak Mandarin. Pasadena is Asian light for some reason. Anglos really like to live in Pasadena now. We shall see how it plays out, when the final population numbers come out. I am not going to do anymore CA drawing, until the final numbers are imputed into Bradlee's software. The issue is always whether or not doing one thing, causes a problem elsewhere or not, which can be due to a variety of factors.  And where should Diamond Bar and Hacienda Heights go anyway? One possibility is a grab bag CD running along the Orange County line perhaps, right up from Belmont Heights in Long Beach to Diamond Bar. But somehow I doubt that will happen. Another is adding it to Drier's CD, but we shall see whether he "needs it" or not.

Are you concerned that my little extension might make the Asian CD too GOP?  The Commission is not supposed to worry about such mundane matters. Tongue
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27403
United States


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: March 08, 2011, 03:25:27 pm »
Ignore

Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.
Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13506


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: March 08, 2011, 05:55:04 pm »
Ignore

Why are you so sure they will draw that appendage though? Why not just add Pasadena and other areas closer by instead? And why are you so sure they won't do that? That they won't just be satisfied with a 30% Asian district. And it's not even as if Asians are a monolithic group, so I really wouldn't be so sure it will happen. Don't the Chinese near Monterey Park and surroundings tend to be from the mainland while I know for a fact that Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights is a heavily Taiwanese community.

They get along fine, and all speak Mandarin. Pasadena is Asian light for some reason. Anglos really like to live in Pasadena now. We shall see how it plays out, when the final population numbers come out. I am not going to do anymore CA drawing, until the final numbers are imputed into Bradlee's software. The issue is always whether or not doing one thing, causes a problem elsewhere or not, which can be due to a variety of factors.  And where should Diamond Bar and Hacienda Heights go anyway? One possibility is a grab bag CD running along the Orange County line perhaps, right up from Belmont Heights in Long Beach to Diamond Bar. But somehow I doubt that will happen. Another is adding it to Drier's CD, but we shall see whether he "needs it" or not.

Are you concerned that my little extension might make the Asian CD too GOP?  The Commission is not supposed to worry about such mundane matters. Tongue

Instead of CD 42 twisting around Riverside county, it could take in Diamond Bar, Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights. That would of course depend on how much territory CD 44 needs in Riverside Co. after you take out it's eastern extention, so a bit of CD 42 might still be in Riverside. It's quite possible those precincts of Corona will be needed in CD 42 after the final numbers are put in. In any case if the numbers allow for a Riverside city based Hispanic district as well as a San Bernardino based Hispanic district, it will be drawn, and that will affect the shape of CD 42 as well. I just don't know if they will be so meticulous to draw ugly district just to bump up the VAP numbers from 50 to 52%.

As for the Asian district, adding that extention in will actually make it an "optimal" Democratic district, voting about 61-63% for Obama, so it's beneficial not to add it in from a GOP perspective.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27403
United States


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: March 08, 2011, 06:02:46 pm »
Ignore

Don't worry, be happy, sbane. Putting aside the Asian extension, it will all look quite pretty in the end. CD-44 will be quite compact I think. Again, the point is to try to figure out what the commission will do in the end. The rest is noise. Now if Diamond Bar Chinese Asians make it clear in the hearings that they don't want to be associated with those Chinese Asian jerks in South Pasadena, or the snobs in San Marino, or the rather clannish Monterey Park crew, that of course could make a difference. But somehow I doubt that will happen.

As to CA-42, it may look a bit ugly, but it is a community of interest far more than if it included Diamond Bar. Folks go back and forth to work and to shop and whatnot from the OC CA-42 zone to the CA-42 Riverside zone all the time through that FWY pass (I think it's the 91). And those transportation patterns are specifically mentioned in the governing statute. I am quite confident that CA-42 will be drawn that way, unless it creates some other problem elsewhere.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 06:28:28 pm by Torie »Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13506


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: March 08, 2011, 06:54:30 pm »
Ignore

I think the problem is with it snaking around to those precincts south of Riverside. Corona and Norco, or at least parts of it, being in the 42nd do make sense.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8045


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: March 08, 2011, 07:18:55 pm »
Ignore

Torie-

Just to follow up the overestimation/underestimation discussion, California's overall population was 0.79% higher than the 2009 ACS estimate (2010 population-2009 estimate)/(2009 estimate). 

The following of the top 20 cities were most overestimated, relative to the state as a whole (2010 City Population-2009 Estimated City Population)/(2009 Estimated City Population)-0.79:

Santa Ana: 5.4%
Oakland: 5.3%
San Jose: 2.7%
San Francisco: 2.0%
Los Angeles: 1.8%

And these of the top 20 cities were most underestimated:
Chula Vista: 8.2%
Bakersfield: 6.3%
San Bernardino: 5.0%
Oxnard: 4.7%
Fontana: 3.5%

Most county errors were smaller.  Among the overestimated:
San Francisco: 2.0%
Orange: 1.3%
Los Angeles: 1.1%
Santa Clara: 1.0%
San Mateo: 0.9%

And the underestimated:
Santa Barbara: 3.3%
Kern: 3.2%
Riverside: 2.2%
Tulare: 2.1%
Ventura: 1.7%


Note again that the errors are relative to the error for rest of the state, which is most relevant for Torie's purposes.   To compute the actual error, you need to subtract 0.79 from the underestimated and add it to the overestimated.   San Mateo County's estimate, for example, was pretty much dead on, and Santa Barbara County's population was actually underestimated by 4.1%.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #131 on: March 08, 2011, 07:27:29 pm »
Ignore

Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.

I don't see why. You barely changed the current CA-53, just dropped Lemon Grove and added some marginal areas to the north. True, that will drop the PVI slightly, but I would be somewhat surprised if your CA-53 were under D+10. (The current one is D+14.)

There are a lot of liberal Anglos in the city of San Diego. After all, the current CA-53 is 51% non-Hispanic white and 68% Obama.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 07:30:21 pm by Verily »Logged
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72515
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: March 08, 2011, 08:48:05 pm »
Ignore

Yeah San Diego's conservative reputation comes from the suburbs mostly. Not surprising that all the white liberals in the area live in the city proper.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13506


View Profile
« Reply #133 on: March 08, 2011, 10:22:26 pm »
Ignore

Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.

I don't see why. You barely changed the current CA-53, just dropped Lemon Grove and added some marginal areas to the north. True, that will drop the PVI slightly, but I would be somewhat surprised if your CA-53 were under D+10. (The current one is D+14.)

There are a lot of liberal Anglos in the city of San Diego. After all, the current CA-53 is 51% non-Hispanic white and 68% Obama.

I tried to draw it approximately how Torie drew it, and it came out to be about 63% Obama.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5809
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: March 08, 2011, 11:54:13 pm »
Ignore

These are updated based on the 2010 censuses.  I did not adjust the districts from my original distribution.  The 2010 census pushes the population more to the east, even relative to the 2009 estimates.

One needs to start at the Mexican border and move north to do this map stuff. That will tell you exactly how much of OC will go to a CD that is also in San Diego County. The Commission is just not going to do that ridiculous appending of Imperial County to San Diego. That is DOA - especially since an Hispanic CD can be carved out of south San Diego, and another inland taking in Imperial County. And it makes no sense for CA-49 to go into Riverside County, given the Coachella Valley chop that is necessary to create an Hispanic CD, an Hispanic CD that might well be dictated by the VRA in fact.

If you do a subapportionment, it will be easier when going north and west from LA and San Bernadino:

Based on July 2009 estimates:

San Francisco Bay: 10.011 (8 counties, including Solano and Sonoma, but not Napa).  You can start at the Golden Gate and go CCW.

2010: 9.979 the deficit of about 15,000 can be made up from northern California, north of Sacramento.  The Bay Area + 23 counties including Napa is equivalent to 12.9993 districts.

Starting at the Presidio:

The ideal population is 702,905, so figure 10% equals 70,000 and 1% equals 7,000.

San Francisco: 1.000
San Francisco: 0.146 + San Mateo 0.854
San Mateo: 0.166 + Santa Clara 0.834
(San Mateo is at 1.022, but to create its own district you would have to push about 100,000 San Franciscans across a bridge.  The northern and southern ends of San Mateo are probably more closely tied to San Francisco and San Jose than to each other, so the split is OK).
Santa Clara 1.000
Santa Clara 0.701, Alameda 0.299
(Or you could create two whole districts in Santa Clara and wrap a district around the southern tip of the bay: San Mateo 0.166, Santa Clara 0.535, Alameda 0.299).
Alameda 1.000
Alameda 0.850, Contra Costa 0.150
Contra Costa 1.000
Contra Costa 0.342 + Solano 0.589 + Napa(?) 0.021 + Sonoma 0.048
(the portion of Contra Costa that is placed in the Solano-majority district around 240,000 people would best come from areas south of the bridges near Vallejo.  So it could make sense to not have an eastern district entirely in Contra Costa, but have it come further south in the inland area of Alameda County (Livermore, etc.), which would push the other Alameda-Contra district further north.  Basically, choose the Contra Costa portion that goes with Solano; put the area along the coast through Richmond with a Berkeley, Oakland district, and the area to east (Walnut Creek, etc., extend south into Alameda County).
Sonoma 0.640, Marin 0.359

Far North: 1.010 (Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity)

2010: 1.009

North Valley: 1.033 (Butte, Napa, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba)

2010: 1.030 (or 1.009 if Bay Area deficit is made up in Napa).

North Mountains: 0.984 (Amador, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sierra)

2010: 0.981

As discussed before, this could be rearranged to create a North Coast district, but overall the northern counties have a collective 3 districts.

Sacramento: 2.009

2010: 2.018

San Joaquin: 0.968

2010: 0.975

Sacramento and San Joaquin collectively are at 2.993

Total to here is 16.015

2010: 15.993

Central Coast: 2.001 (Santa Cruz to Santa Barbara, including San Benito).

2010: 2.029 (most of this is in Santa Barbara which was 3.4% over the 2010 estimate)

The split here would be just north of the Montery-SLO line, so basically a Monterey-Santa Cruz-San Benito district, and a Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo district.

Modesto-Merced: 1.084 (Merced, Stanislaus)

2010: 1.096

Central Valley: 1.912 (Alpine, Calaveras, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Tuolumne)

2010: 1.927

These two will need to be handled together.   You could split between Modesto and Merced, but you would have to come pretty far south (to Madera) to get enough population, so it will be better to trim off some more remote areas of Merced and or Stanislaus).  You can draw a district right around Fresno (city), so you end up with a leftovers district.  If the commission decides to draw a Hispanic majority district, then you just draw the other two districts with what is left.  But I'm not sure that they will, since you still have large numbers of Hispanics in the "white" districts.

Total to here: 21.012

2010: 19.016 (but I left out the Central Coast, where the extra 20,000 or so can be taken from Santa Barbara and placed

Central Leftovers: 1.817 (Inyo, Kern, Mono, Tulare)

2010: 1.870 (Kern is up 3.2% over 2009 estimate)

Total to here: 22,829.

Total to here 20.886 (excluding Central Coast).

Lancaster and Palmdale together are too large to make up the deficit to get to 23 seats, so they either get split, or you try to piece together 120,000 people from the desert areas of San Bernadino Riverside, but there may not be enough population.  Kern has enough for its own district, but Tulare has enough for 3/5 of a district.  So Kern may get chopped up, but this could end up being in Bakersfield.  Or you end up with Visalia in a district with 29 Palms and Barstow.

2010: We are now only 80,000 short of the 21st  district, which can probably be picked up in the desert portions of San Bernardino, rather than the more populated areas of the Los Angeles High Desert (it may come down to how close you can come to creating a northern LA district (Santa Clarita, Palmdale, Lancaster, without dipping into the San Fernando Valley).

Southern Coast: 23.992 (Ventura to San Diego). 

2010: 23.826 (Los Angeles was 1.1% below the 2009 estimate, and Orange 1.4%, while Ventura and San Diego were up.  These weren't entirely due to bad estimates, since Los Angeles had already lost 0.774 seats from 2000 to 2009, so about 1/2 of the loss would just be a continuation of earlier trends.  With the continued loss in this area, we will need to make up about 100,000 additional persons, probably from San Bernardino (Ontario area).

Incidentally, this is a loss of almost one whole district.

Ventura: 1.151
Los Angeles: 14.121
Orange: 4.340
San Diego: 4.379

2010:

Santa Barbara: 0.029 (excess from Central Coast)
Ventura: 1.171
Los Angeles: 13.969
Orange: 4.283
San Diego: 4.404

So the LA-Orange district is about 1/4 in LA and the Orange-San Diego district is 3/5 in Orange.

2010: It is now 0.313 LA-0.687 Orange and 0.596 Orange-San Diego 0.404

Inland Empire: 6.180 (includes Imperial).

2010: 6.259

If the excess goes to Kern, then this is 6 districts, and would argue against significant border crossings between Los Angles-San Bernardino; Orange-Riverside; or San Diego-Riverside.

2010:  This is a significant excess, which would require some population going across the Los Angeles-San Bernardino line:

Alternatively, the excess is almost identical to the population of Imperial (0.248).  In addition, Riverside (3.115) and San Bernardino (2.895) are reasonably close to 3 districts each.  If one were wanting to roughly respect county boundaries, Imperial-San Diego-Orange (8.935), and Riverside-San Bernardino (6.010) are a better match.  

If you get the extra needed for a Kern County district from San Bernardino, then you would have to come across the Los Angeles-San Bernardino to include Pomona.

If I were advising a redistricting commission, I'd try both routes, placing Imperial with San Diego and Riverside, and drawing two sets of districts.  So you would have one path of districts coming up the coast, and another inland.  To see the full impact the two paths would continue into Los Angeles County (everything east of the city of Los Angeles).   And then choose the overall best alignment.  Whether Imperial County is a better fit with San Ysidro and Chula Vista or the Coachella Valley and Mareno Valley, or even a bad socioeconomic fit with El Cajon should not dictate the placement of 20+ districts in southern California.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27403
United States


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: March 09, 2011, 12:15:16 am »
Ignore

Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.

I don't see why. You barely changed the current CA-53, just dropped Lemon Grove and added some marginal areas to the north. True, that will drop the PVI slightly, but I would be somewhat surprised if your CA-53 were under D+10. (The current one is D+14.)

There are a lot of liberal Anglos in the city of San Diego. After all, the current CA-53 is 51% non-Hispanic white and 68% Obama.

The partisan numbers are what they are, but my CA-53 is 65% Anglo (probably the most Anglo CD in Socal, with the possible exception of whatever "Hollyweird" CD is drawn), rather than 51%. The old version (having just looked at it) looks to me like a Dem gerrymander more or less (its erose lines on the northern edges are there for a reason, and that reason was that this CD in the deal the parties cut, was to be Dem). The new one isn't.   In any event, I wonder what the Bush 2004 numbers were as well. Like CA-48, I suspect there was a huge swing to Obama, which as you probably know, included yours truly. Smiley
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27403
United States


View Profile
« Reply #136 on: March 09, 2011, 01:01:33 am »
Ignore

Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.

I don't see why. You barely changed the current CA-53, just dropped Lemon Grove and added some marginal areas to the north. True, that will drop the PVI slightly, but I would be somewhat surprised if your CA-53 were under D+10. (The current one is D+14.)

There are a lot of liberal Anglos in the city of San Diego. After all, the current CA-53 is 51% non-Hispanic white and 68% Obama.

I tried to draw it approximately how Torie drew it, and it came out to be about 63% Obama.

How do you figure that out, sbane? It would be very laborious (probably take at least three hours, and that assumes that the precinct returns can be slapped on your excel spreadsheet in tabular form, so you can use the data sort function), unless you found some utility that did it automatically. Is there a Dave Bradlee utility that I missed somewhere?
Logged

Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #137 on: March 09, 2011, 07:09:21 am »
Ignore

Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.

I don't see why. You barely changed the current CA-53, just dropped Lemon Grove and added some marginal areas to the north. True, that will drop the PVI slightly, but I would be somewhat surprised if your CA-53 were under D+10. (The current one is D+14.)

There are a lot of liberal Anglos in the city of San Diego. After all, the current CA-53 is 51% non-Hispanic white and 68% Obama.

The partisan numbers are what they are, but my CA-53 is 65% Anglo (probably the most Anglo CD in Socal, with the possible exception of whatever "Hollyweird" CD is drawn), rather than 51%. The old version (having just looked at it) looks to me like a Dem gerrymander more or less (its erose lines on the northern edges are there for a reason, and that reason was that this CD in the deal the parties cut, was to be Dem). The new one isn't.   In any event, I wonder what the Bush 2004 numbers were as well. Like CA-48, I suspect there was a huge swing to Obama, which as you probably know, included yours truly. Smiley

The northern edge is not drawn to favor Democrats in this seat. Rather, it is drawn to favor Republicans in CA-50, which is a much more marginal seat (R+3 against D+14 in CA-53) that needed to get the ultra-Dem parts of La Jolla, including UCSD, taken out (and CA-53 was the best place to put them). The southern edges of CA-50 that you put in CA-53 are still D-leaning, but not so much that they could not be balanced out in CA-50 by R-leaning places like Escondido.

Dave's redistricting still has the partisan data for California available. The demographic data on that version is less accurate, but not particularly different from the 2009 estimates.

Anyway, the swing in CA-53 was not particularly strong. Kerry won 61% of the vote in 2004, so the swing to Obama was about the same as the national swing.

The increased Anglo vote is interesting but not terribly notable as there are plenty of Dem Anglos in northern San Diego (and well to the north, in heavily Anglo Del Mar, Solana Beach and Encinitas)--not as Dem as the Hispanics downtown, but certainly not going to shift the seat to marginal.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 07:20:38 am by Verily »Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27403
United States


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: March 09, 2011, 09:54:33 am »
Ignore

OK Verily. Just how the Commission will draw CD-53 at the northern edges is an open question. Plus I have some northern bits of the city of San Diego split between the two CD's to the north, CA-50 and 52. It is a bit of a mess. The final population numbers therefore might make a difference, and it is possible that CA-50 might take in La Jolla/UCSD (it has Del Mar and Solana Beach which are closely tied to it), and CA-53 take in some more inland territory. But Escondido will still be in CA-50 I would think, and I suspect the commission is more likely than not, not to do that, but we shall see.
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27403
United States


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: March 09, 2011, 02:46:21 pm »
Ignore

OK sbane and verily, my CA-53 is 61.1% Obama, with a Dem PVI of 8.53% (because it is 62.2% Obama of the two party vote, which is the way I calculate the baselines, just using the two party splits and ignoring 3rd party votes). So the Dems don't lose any partial points for this CD. Isn't it fun to show up the old man? Smiley
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 02:48:05 pm by Torie »Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13506


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: March 09, 2011, 03:30:37 pm »
Ignore

OK sbane and verily, my CA-53 is 61.1% Obama, with a Dem PVI of 8.53% (because it is 62.2% Obama of the two party vote, which is the way I calculate the baselines, just using the two party splits and ignoring 3rd party votes). So the Dems don't lose any partial points for this CD. Isn't it fun to show up the old man? Smiley

And not only is it 61% Obama, that area didn't experience the extreme swing your neighborhood did. It was greater than the national swing, but about the same as the California swing, so about 14 points. And this is for both the old 53rd as well as the 50th, portions of which are in the new 53rd as you have drawn it.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2300
United States


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: March 09, 2011, 03:31:24 pm »
Ignore

What Torie said, though I'm a bit surprised that southern/southeast OC is not that Republican anymore. Not only is this area wealthy (places like Mission Vejo, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita), but it's also pretty white (like 70-80%).
[/quote]

Keep in mind that my southeast quadrant includes Irvine, which is surprisingly willing to vote democratic.
Logged

-1.38, -1.38
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38877
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: March 10, 2011, 04:25:13 pm »
Ignore

Keep in mind that my southeast quadrant includes Irvine, which is surprisingly willing to vote democratic.

UC Irvine
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2300
United States


View Profile
« Reply #143 on: March 14, 2011, 11:13:23 am »
Ignore

what's going to happen to Jim Costa? When the district was drawn in 2001, the 20th was supposed to be a "token democrat" district in the otherwise conservative San Joaquin Valley. It basically took in all the democratic precincts in Fresno and Bakersfield and connected them through I-5 and was supposed to help make Bill Thomas safer. The district is oddly shaped and Costa barely was re-elected in a D+5 district. If they draw a more compact district, he could be DOA.
Logged

-1.38, -1.38
JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6850


View Profile
« Reply #144 on: March 14, 2011, 11:40:59 am »
Ignore

CA-18 and 20 are both majority-Hispanic, according to the new Census figures, so they should be protected by the VRA.
Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1309


Political Matrix
E: 0.51, S: -9.21

View Profile
« Reply #145 on: March 16, 2011, 12:33:28 pm »
Ignore

Daves redistricting is now working for California, however, some of the districts contain over 50,000 people so the data is impossible to work with. Hopefully some block group figures will be released?
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8045


View Profile
« Reply #146 on: March 16, 2011, 01:48:53 pm »
Ignore

Daves redistricting is now working for California, however, some of the districts contain over 50,000 people so the data is impossible to work with. Hopefully some block group figures will be released?

Block group and block figures have been released.  Dave's redistricting app doesn't handle them for 2010 as of yet.

California's redistricting file is so long that Excel can't easily handle it.  It has 1,072,087 lines of data.  I had to use a database program to open it.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13506


View Profile
« Reply #147 on: March 16, 2011, 09:44:50 pm »
Ignore

Daves redistricting is now working for California, however, some of the districts contain over 50,000 people so the data is impossible to work with. Hopefully some block group figures will be released?

It's actually not that bad since they all follow municipality lines and redistricting in California requires it. It might be a bit harder to draw Hispanic districts, but I had no problems drawing one in SD, the Imperial valley/Palm Springs as well as the Riverside/Moreno Valley districts. I imagine the rest won't be too bad either. Central Valley could be a mess though. We shall see.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13506


View Profile
« Reply #148 on: March 21, 2011, 01:50:19 pm »
Ignore

Has anybody drawn the Central Valley using the final numbers? I think there can be 3 Hispanic districts drawn without having to dip into the Salinas area. And another one can be drawn from Salinas to San Jose? Is that what is likely to happen, 4 norcal Hispanic districts?
Logged
Bacon King
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16152
United States Minor Outlying Islands


View Profile
« Reply #149 on: March 22, 2011, 11:06:47 am »
Ignore

CA-18 and 20 are both majority-Hispanic, according to the new Census figures, so they should be protected by the VRA.

The 20th has been; it was 63.1% Hispanic according to 2000 numbers. The 18th is majority-Hispanic now, barely, but almost certainly not majority-Hispanic by VAP so it wouldn't be protected.
Logged

BK without all the crazy drugs just wouldn't be BK.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 18 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines