Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 29, 2014, 01:05:10 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: Wisconsin
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Wisconsin  (Read 10286 times)
JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6844


View Profile
« on: December 12, 2010, 04:25:41 pm »
Ignore

Since we seem to be doing separate threads for each state now, here's a Republican gerrymander of Wisconsin:




WI-01 (blue, Paul Ryan - R) - Removes Racine, adds more of the suburbs west of Milwaukee, so the district should have a small Republican lean now.
WI-02 (green, Tammy Baldwin - D) - Goes west instead of north, and is probably even more safe now.
WI-03 (purple, Ron Kind - D) - Stretches the length of the state to take in some of those heavily-Dem counties in the north, and also picks up most of Portage County. Should be solidly Dem now.
WI-04 (red, Gwen Moore - D) - Virtually unchanged. Safe D.
WI-05 (yellow, Jim Sensenbrenner - R) - The most Republican district in the state probably moves a few points to the left, as it pulls in Racine from Paul Ryan's district. Should still be a pretty safe Republican district, though.
WI-06 (teal, Tom Petri - R) - Somewhat different, but still safe R.
WI-07 (grey, Sean Duffy - R) - Stretches the northern end of the state to take in as much Republican territory as possible. Should at least lean Republican now.
WI-08 (light purple, Reid Ribble - R) - Population still centered in the Green Bay area, but the district goes west and south instead of north. Maybe slightly less Republican, but shouldn't be too much of a change.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27207
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2010, 08:27:11 pm »
Ignore

Are you sure that the GOP needs to throw in the towel on WI-03, in order to make all the GOP incumbents reasonably safe? I define reasonably safe as a Bush 2004 percentage of the two party vote of 54.5% or above. The goal of course is to leash the Dems to just two CD's, one taking in the inner city Milwaukee Dems, and the other taking in Madison, and anything else within conceivable reach that has a bunch of Dems in it. Are there any legal restrictions on gerrymandering in Wisconsin?  I assume the GOP has total control of the process here. Is that correct? I might turn my attention to Wisconsin next, now that I have completed my Michigan psephological CD line drawing artistry to my satisfaction. Smiley
« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 08:31:57 pm by Torie »Logged

JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6844


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2010, 10:06:16 pm »
Ignore

The Dem votes are too spread out in the western part of the state to pack them all into one district -- Dane County (Madison) alone takes up the lion's share of a district.

Looking at it from a pure numbers perspective, you'd have to shunt about 11-12 points of Republican performance from Sensenbrenner and Petri's districts to make Duffy safe and turn Kind's district into a Republican-leaning one. I don't really know how you'd do that without making a complete and utter mess of the map (and I doubt Sensenbrenner would take kindly to his district being made anything less than rock-solid Republican).
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27207
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2010, 10:14:12 pm »
Ignore

The Dem votes are too spread out in the western part of the state to pack them all into one district -- Dane County (Madison) alone takes up the lion's share of a district.

Looking at it from a pure numbers perspective, you'd have to shunt about 11-12 points of Republican performance from Sensenbrenner and Petri's districts to make Duffy safe and turn Kind's district into a Republican-leaning one. I don't really know how you'd do that without making a complete and utter mess of the map (and I doubt Sensenbrenner would take kindly to his district being made anything less than rock-solid Republican).

Dane back when in the more exurban and rural areas had a GOP lean at least. So maybe that county is a candidate for a split. I split both the university/government counties of Washtenaw and Inghram in Michigan, just because it was essential to do so. The towns, Lansing, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, were close to 3-1 Dem, while the balance of the two counties were marginal to comfortably GOP. Can't Madison erose around, and gerrymander itself into larger towns elsewhere, to take in the Dem parts of them?  That is the low hanging fruit I look at first, absent legal restrictions, in effecting GOP gerrymanders.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 10:15:57 pm by Torie »Logged

JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6844


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2010, 10:20:10 pm »
Ignore

Looks like Kerry won pretty much everywhere in Dane County, not just Madison. I only see a handful of towns that Bush won, and even those were fairly close.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27207
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2010, 10:45:54 pm »
Ignore

Below is a town map of the lay of the partisan land in the 2004 POTUS election. And yes, it will be a challenge to leash the Dems to two seats, leaving the balance comfortably GOP, or at least for all the GOP incumbents, with CD-03 maybe marginal to tilt GOP. But it can be done. What needs to be done, is to have the GOP heartland outside Milwaukee and farther north on the east side of the state, all join in to chop up the Dem areas outside the Dane and environs red zone per the map (inner city Milwaukee of course having its own CD).  I take your point about Dane. The whole county considers the GOP to be armed and dangerous and nutter, as it were.

Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8560


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2010, 11:05:13 pm »

Are you sure that the GOP needs to throw in the towel on WI-03, in order to make all the GOP incumbents reasonably safe? I define reasonably safe as a Bush 2004 percentage of the two party vote of 54.5% or above. The goal of course is to leash the Dems to just two CD's, one taking in the inner city Milwaukee Dems, and the other taking in Madison, and anything else within conceivable reach that has a bunch of Dems in it. Are there any legal restrictions on gerrymandering in Wisconsin?  I assume the GOP has total control of the process here. Is that correct? I might turn my attention to Wisconsin next, now that I have completed my Michigan psephological CD line drawing artistry to my satisfaction. Smiley

Unlike MI, WI has no statutory or constitutional provisions related to congressional redistricting. Despite split control in the last three remaps, an agreed congressional plan emerged, even as the legislative maps went to the courts. The last cycle was especially interesting, since the legislature came to agreement even as WI lost a seat.

This then is the first instance of single party control since the federal one-man-one-vote cases of the 60's. There is no suggestion that it will be anything other than a strictly partisan map.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4409
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2010, 11:34:15 pm »
Ignore

Below is a town map of the lay of the partisan land in the 2004 POTUS election. And yes, it will be a challenge to leash the Dems to two seats, leaving the balance comfortably GOP, or at least for all the GOP incumbents, with CD-03 maybe marginal to tilt GOP. But it can be done. What needs to be done, is to have the GOP heartland outside Milwaukee and farther north on the east side of the state, all join in to chop up the Dem areas outside the Dane and environs red zone per the map (inner city Milwaukee of course having its own CD).  I take your point about Dane. The whole county considers the GOP to be armed and dangerous and nutter, as it were.

That would take one hell of a nasty gerrymander. Even a plan that primaries Baldwin and Kind requires a sizable chunk of Dane County to be excluded, and you're still left with places like Eau Claire and Superior.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27207
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2010, 12:48:08 am »
Ignore

This will definitely be my next project. Smiley As was the case with Michigan, there is no partisan data on the Leips application, so it will take some work. Sad  And I will need to find good precinct maps for some places.  And a good township map.
Logged

JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6844


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2010, 08:07:52 am »
Ignore

I think you're missing the human ego part of things. Sure, from a game theory perspective, maximizing the amount of winnable seats is probably the best goal, but when you dilute Republican districts, you will get strong objections from some of the established Republicans. In this case, I don't think Sensenbrenner, who doesn't exactly have much crossover appeal, will take kindly to his district being made anything other than a heavily-Republican district.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27207
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2010, 11:20:28 am »
Ignore

Here is my first effort at achieving my goals. I have not cranked the numbers, but I think I am in the hunt. And yes, Sessenbrenner will not be overjoyed with his district, which now goes all  the way to La Cross. We shall see what his numbers look like. I did try to give him very heavily GOP slice of suburban and exurban Milwaukee to cheer him up.

It is hard to see, but not only did I do a a gerrymander of Wausau, but also a 3 way one in Green Bay. Green Bay has some very GOP precincts, which are extremely useful in this neck of the woods.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2010, 01:01:01 pm by Torie »Logged

dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 255
View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2010, 01:03:03 pm »
Ignore

You've also drawn Paul Ryan's hometown (Janesville) out of his district. 
Logged
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72080
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2010, 01:05:14 pm »
Ignore

McCain only won five precincts in Green Bay, one of which only had 15 votes. That gave him 80%, but the next strongest with a significant number of votes gave him less than 58%. Don't see too many GOP stronghold precincts there.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16807


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2010, 02:22:59 pm »
Ignore

You've also drawn Paul Ryan's hometown (Janesville) out of his district. 

That's going to be tough to work around as Janesville is very Democratic and a natural fit with Madison if you're trying to gerrymander to favor the GOP.
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4409
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2010, 02:25:41 pm »
Ignore

I doubt that Sensenbrenner would be happy with this map. In the whole counties of your proposed 5th District, Bush managed only 50.94%. In 2008, Obama earned 56.13% in those same counties. Granted, there is a large portion of heavily Republican Waukesha County not included in those figures, but the district still probably has a slight Democratic PVI, and Sensenbrenner is a very polarizing figure, and Kind lives in LaCrosse and will probably run in this district. Sensenbrenner would stand a better chance in your proposed 6th District, which you've left open (Petri lives in Fond du Lac).

EDIT: Actually, at second glace, it appears you have drawn Sensenbrenner into the proposed 6th. He lives in Menomonee Falls, in extreme northeastern Waukesha County. It seems logical that he would prefer the 6th to 5th.

EDIT #2: It's also worth pointing out that you've marginalized your proposed 3rd as well. In the whole counties in your proposed 3rd, Bush in 2004 received 52.20% of the vote, and Obama received 52.35% of the vote. Again, the split counties favor Republicans, and Petri should be able to hold the district, but it could be competitive if the seat becomes vacant. Petri will be 72 years old in 2012, and 80 in 2020, so a vacancy caused by retirement or death is very much possible.

In short, I think it would be far too risky for the GOP to try for a 6-2 map in Wisconsin. They would be better served to shore up their freshmen incumbents and maintain the 5-3 status quo.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2010, 03:47:38 pm by His Excellency Chancellor Vazdul, Senator of Bedford Parish »Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
Nhoj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5932
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2010, 05:56:10 pm »
Ignore

This map completely ignores communities of interest across the state particularly in WI-5 and 3 in favor of a gerrymander, I have a hard time believing local GOP chairs would find this map acceptable, for instance, would the la crosse GOP really like being represented by a Waukesha area rep or the other way around?

WI-7 which is my district I like for the fact that it covers all of the north woods, but dislike for the fact that it gos into green bay which really has nothing in common with the west part of the district, I really don't like the idea of being represented by someone from green bay. Its also quite possible that the district still voted for obama.

Also I do believe you need to be a lot closer to equal population than you have it [though you may know that]. A pretty good map I guess, though I am not sure it wouldn't backfire badly on the gop in bad year for them.
Logged

آزادی برای ایران


JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6844


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2010, 06:49:14 pm »
Ignore

I guess Torie and I just have differing philosophies on redistricting. If I were advising the Republicans on redistricting, I'd tell them to lock in their gains from 2010 rather than trying to take out even more Democrats. I'd rather have 200-ish seats locked in as fairly safe than trying to get even more Republicans in office while risking a landslide in the next Dem year.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8560


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2010, 07:09:26 pm »

I doubt that Sensenbrenner would be happy with this map. In the whole counties of your proposed 5th District, Bush managed only 50.94%. In 2008, Obama earned 56.13% in those same counties. Granted, there is a large portion of heavily Republican Waukesha County not included in those figures, but the district still probably has a slight Democratic PVI, and Sensenbrenner is a very polarizing figure, and Kind lives in LaCrosse and will probably run in this district. Sensenbrenner would stand a better chance in your proposed 6th District, which you've left open (Petri lives in Fond du Lac).

EDIT: Actually, at second glace, it appears you have drawn Sensenbrenner into the proposed 6th. He lives in Menomonee Falls, in extreme northeastern Waukesha County. It seems logical that he would prefer the 6th to 5th.

EDIT #2: It's also worth pointing out that you've marginalized your proposed 3rd as well. In the whole counties in your proposed 3rd, Bush in 2004 received 52.20% of the vote, and Obama received 52.35% of the vote. Again, the split counties favor Republicans, and Petri should be able to hold the district, but it could be competitive if the seat becomes vacant. Petri will be 72 years old in 2012, and 80 in 2020, so a vacancy caused by retirement or death is very much possible.

In short, I think it would be far too risky for the GOP to try for a 6-2 map in Wisconsin. They would be better served to shore up their freshmen incumbents and maintain the 5-3 status quo.

I agree that the opinions of the current GOP members will matter a lot in the remap. Past history in WI suggests little shifts in the districts, and I would expect the delegation to want some measure of stability.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 255
View Profile
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2010, 07:22:22 pm »
Ignore

I guess Torie and I just have differing philosophies on redistricting. If I were advising the Republicans on redistricting, I'd tell them to lock in their gains from 2010 rather than trying to take out even more Democrats. I'd rather have 200-ish seats locked in as fairly safe than trying to get even more Republicans in office while risking a landslide in the next Dem year.

They need to be aggressive in some (eg, North Carolina), in order to counteract expected losses in, say, Illinois and California.  But I would agree that Wisconsin is probably not the state to do it in.  

I think the goals should be
1) make sure all 5 Republicans are safe (or safer, at least);
2) tinker with WI-03 at the margins to make it slightly swingier;
3) keep communities of interest together (since there aren't huge gains to be made, may as well appeal to the good government sensibilities of Wisconsinites).

I'd keep Paul Ryan's district the way it is.  It's only at GOP+2 but, seeing as he hasn't dropped below 62% since his first run (where he got 57% in a bad GOP year), he'll be perfectly fine.  (There might be trouble if he gets tapped for a higher office, but I'm sure the GOP would trade a house seat for Paul Ryan at OMB.)  

Obviously the Milwaukee district stays put as well.  I'd slide all the other districts clockwise a bit:

Sensenbrenner's district goes west, pushing into Columbia, perhaps; Baldwin's takes as many strong Dem precincts as it can in in the southwestern counties.  

Petri picks up Portage from WI-07 and also some suburbs from Sensenbrenner, losing Manitowoc and Calumet to WI-08; it could also share Columbia with Sensenbrenner.  WI-07 pushes east across the woods, but keeps Superior (I don't like the idea of throwing it into WI-03; way too ugly).  WI-03 gets whatever it needs north of Eau Claire.  
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27207
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2010, 07:23:34 pm »
Ignore

McCain only won five precincts in Green Bay, one of which only had 15 votes. That gave him 80%, but the next strongest with a significant number of votes gave him less than 58%. Don't see too many GOP stronghold precincts there.

It is the county (Brown County). Most of the city I put in the 6th district.

The numbers need to be crunched, and if a map with 6 CD's with a Bush 2004 percentage of 54.5% or better can be created, or close to it - fine. If not, then the Dems get 3 seats. And then one moves on to a map that deals with incumbent issues and concerns and needs, and "disincumbances" Kind in CD-03. If something almost as good by the partisan numbers can be created, than that is the plan. Otherwise, the Pubbies have a choice to make. But all of the GOP incumbents should be able to hold Bush 2004 54.5% or better CD's I would think.  

I know the population numbers need to be equalized. That will be done when we get close to final drafts.

By the way, I just calculated CD-03. Bush 2004 got 54.35% of the two party vote there (Washington County is very GOP, and without CD-03's two thirds share of it, the Bush percentage drops to 51.9%); so with a bit of massaging, it should be possible fairly easily to get up to 54.5%, and maybe 55%. It depends on what the numbers are in the other 5 GOP CD's, and how much pad is available, or can be generated by massaging the two Dem CD's, and what can be done to move the pad where it is needed. Given that the two Dem CD's are 2-1 Dem, for the other 6 CD's, there is enough collective GOP pad to make them all meet my targets and a bit more, absent roadblocks. We shall see.

And CD-05, before factoring in its slug of hyper GOP precincts in Waukesha
(which will take considerable work to calculate), clocks in at 52.3% for Bush 2004 (it's sliver of Washington County alone bumped it up a full percentage point from 51.3% to 52.3%). That CD should be fine.

So far, my line drawing just based on eyeballing the map, and the percentage numbers for the counties available here on the Leips site, along with some more detailed work in a few counties, seems to be panning out, as a strictly partisan matter anyway.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2010, 09:33:39 pm by Torie »Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27207
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2010, 10:22:46 pm »
Ignore

This map completely ignores communities of interest across the state particularly in WI-5 and 3 in favor of a gerrymander, I have a hard time believing local GOP chairs would find this map acceptable, for instance, would the la crosse GOP really like being represented by a Waukesha area rep or the other way around?

WI-7 which is my district I like for the fact that it covers all of the north woods, but dislike for the fact that it gos into green bay which really has nothing in common with the west part of the district, I really don't like the idea of being represented by someone from green bay. Its also quite possible that the district still voted for obama.

Also I do believe you need to be a lot closer to equal population than you have it [though you may know that]. A pretty good map I guess, though I am not sure it wouldn't backfire badly on the gop in bad year for them.

CD-07 needs a slug of hyper GOP precincts in Brown County where Green Bay is located, precisely in order to take it out of reach for a Dem (and totally neutralize the three counties on Lake Superior that vote Dem 3-2 (that "Finnish" vote that Michael Barone and BRTD like to bitch slap each other about), collectively generating about a 10,000 Dem vote margin). The territory around the Dem Lake Superior three county region is marginal GOP. To render the Lake Superior counties harmless absent a rather large Dem wave, one needs to move to the northeastern part of the state and, to seal the deal, dip down into the part of the GOP heartland that is in the east central part of the state, and take in suburban Green Bay in Brown County. The "community of interest" is the GOP retaining this seat without much struggle. Provincialism is just so yesterday, for this exercise. The end.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2010, 10:33:55 pm by Torie »Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13449


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2010, 10:33:44 pm »
Ignore

I don't think your map would fly in good government Wisconsin, Torie. Much better to solidify the Milwaukee and Madison districts, while making WI-3 more of a swing district. If I was a pubbie assemblyman drawing the map, I would focus on making WI-7 a safe R district, not trying to take out Kind. And keep everything looking pretty at the same time.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2010, 10:36:56 pm by sbane »Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27207
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2010, 10:40:58 pm »
Ignore

I don't think your map would fly in good government Wisconsin, Torie. Much better to solidify the Milwaukee and Madison districts, while making WI-3 more of a swing district. If I was a pubbie assemblyman drawing the map, I would focus on making WI-7 a safe R district, not trying to take out Kind.

Wait until the final map, Sbane. "Everybody" should be happy, except of course the Dems. WI-7 is already secured in this map. And Kind is gone. Yes, the western part of the state needs to be chopped up. Something needs to be chopped up, why not the west?  Isn't that where the wicked witch lives?  Smiley

Gerrymandering is just so easy for a Pubbie in most places. You just Dem pack the inner cities and university/government towns, and a few rust belt precincts, and in some places gentry liberal precincts floating around outside the inner cities and university towns, often Jewish or secular WASP (which really don't exist much in Wisconsin), and life is a breeze.
Logged

Nhoj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5932
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2010, 02:02:41 am »
Ignore

I just noticed WI-8, thats suppose to be a republican gerrymander of that district? because looking at it, it may in fact be just as democratic as before.
Logged

آزادی برای ایران


Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27207
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2010, 11:35:01 am »
Ignore

I just noticed WI-8, thats suppose to be a republican gerrymander of that district? because looking at it, it may in fact be just as democratic as before.

OK, I did the cals now for CD-08. CD-08 is about 54% Bush 2004, before being diluted down to perhaps 53.5% (I have not calculated that yet) due to its thrust up into Marathon County to take in much of Wausau. So yes, it does need a bit of a boost to get to my benchmarks. I need to complete the calcs on the rest of the districts, to see what my options are. In its current configuration, Bush got 55.4% of the two party vote, so it will probably be made a tad more Dem on the final map than that, to accomplish the overall objectives of the map.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2010, 10:08:10 pm by Torie »Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines