US House Redistricting: Washington
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 05:56:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  US House Redistricting: Washington
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 23
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Washington  (Read 83236 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #375 on: September 14, 2011, 04:51:07 AM »

If the US would build a border fence, there would be a road along the fence, and this would be just like Imperial County to Chula Vista.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #376 on: September 14, 2011, 09:25:52 AM »

Looking at Huff's map, it may be that the VRA will require such a majority-minority CD no? Perhaps it is a close call, but it is not as if the minority CD is some erose monster.  If so, does it impact the partisan balance between how the CD's are divied up?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #377 on: September 14, 2011, 11:22:44 AM »

What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #378 on: September 14, 2011, 11:24:05 AM »

If the US would build a border fence, there would be a road along the fence, and this would be just like Imperial County to Chula Vista.

...except without the (sketchy, sorta-kinda-y) community of interest.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #379 on: September 14, 2011, 11:39:19 AM »

What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?

Won't happen. The Republicans would much rather take whatever deal the Democrats offer them than risk a court drawn map that would endanger Reichert.
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #380 on: September 14, 2011, 01:11:26 PM »

If the US would build a border fence, there would be a road along the fence, and this would be just like Imperial County to Chula Vista.

...except without the (sketchy, sorta-kinda-y) community of interest.

Also the Northern Border in that area is part of a National Park (North Cascades National Park) which means you would not be able to build a road up there (also it would be closed in Fall/Winter/Spring anyways, just like the North Cascades Highway). Trying to build a road in the National Park would definitely spur protests from the environmental community in the Pacific NW and I probably don't have to mention how influential they are here.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #381 on: September 14, 2011, 01:38:10 PM »

Now I think you're getting a little too defensive. It's not as if anybody thinks they would actually build that fence through the mountains. Smiley
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #382 on: September 14, 2011, 01:53:18 PM »

What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?

Won't happen. The Republicans would much rather take whatever deal the Democrats offer them than risk a court drawn map that would endanger Reichert.

If the Democrats actually believe that, it will end up in the Courts. The Republicans aren't going to be that stupid. Already, three of the commissioner have chosen to cross the Cascades in the same way. Seems like we have an agreement on the first element of the final map. Given how much his district shifts East, Reichert would really have to be screwed not to have a better district.

The issue is the new seat. Democrats have been spouting the meme that the final map will be a trade of given Reichert a better seat for giving the Democrats the new seat. The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans. Drawing a fifth Republican seat is as easy of a task as drawing a sixth Democratic district. The natural compromise would be keeping the five Democrats, strengthening Reichert, and drawing a "fair fight" district.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #383 on: September 14, 2011, 01:54:16 PM »

The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans.

Eastern Washington is growing more slowly than western Washington. That's two of the districts.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #384 on: September 14, 2011, 02:03:17 PM »
« Edited: September 14, 2011, 02:07:06 PM by Meeker »

What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?

Won't happen. The Republicans would much rather take whatever deal the Democrats offer them than risk a court drawn map that would endanger Reichert.

If the Democrats actually believe that, it will end up in the Courts. The Republicans aren't going to be that stupid. Already, three of the commissioner have chosen to cross the Cascades in the same way. Seems like we have an agreement on the first element of the final map. Given how much his district shifts East, Reichert would really have to be screwed not to have a better district.

The issue is the new seat. Democrats have been spouting the meme that the final map will be a trade of given Reichert a better seat for giving the Democrats the new seat. The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans. Drawing a fifth Republican seat is as easy of a task as drawing a sixth Democratic district. The natural compromise would be keeping the five Democrats, strengthening Reichert, and drawing a "fair fight" district.

Wrong. Democratic commissioners also have an incentive to keep incumbent members happy and keep them in their existing districts. That wouldn't happen under a court drawn plan. That leaves us in a situation where both sides have strong incentive not to go to court but one side (the D's) have slightly more leverage.
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #385 on: September 14, 2011, 02:09:15 PM »
« Edited: September 14, 2011, 02:12:47 PM by CultureKing »

What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?

Won't happen. The Republicans would much rather take whatever deal the Democrats offer them than risk a court drawn map that would endanger Reichert.

If the Democrats actually believe that, it will end up in the Courts. The Republicans aren't going to be that stupid. Already, three of the commissioner have chosen to cross the Cascades in the same way. Seems like we have an agreement on the first element of the final map. Given how much his district shifts East, Reichert would really have to be screwed not to have a better district.

The issue is the new seat. Democrats have been spouting the meme that the final map will be a trade of given Reichert a better seat for giving the Democrats the new seat. The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans. Drawing a fifth Republican seat is as easy of a task as drawing a sixth Democratic district. The natural compromise would be keeping the five Democrats, strengthening Reichert, and drawing a "fair fight" district.

Wrong. Democratic commissioners also have an incentive to keep incumbent members happy and keep them in their existing districts. That wouldn't happen under a court drawn plan. The leaves us in a situation where both sides have strong incentive not to go to court but one side (the D's) have slightly more leverage.

Yep. Although personally I would prefer the courts to draw the maps; I feel like using common sense and keeping communities of interest together would benefit the dems (although maybe not all of the incumbents).

I am not sure how a 5-4-1 map is 'fair' in a state that leans so heavily to one side. Honestly I feel that a 6-3-1 map would be the most 'fair', one that would ensure that the Eastside district remains the competitive district while conceding the Vancouver district to the R's.

Oh and a question for others: Not a single map has Herrera adding in Yakima. Does anyone else see this as a big risk for the next ten years? The district while still a bit more republican after losing Thurston county wouldn't be nearly as conservative as one that includes more areas to the east. Should Vancouver shift even a bit to the left I feel like it could spell trouble for Herrera..
Logged
Sounder
Rookie
**
Posts: 102
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #386 on: September 14, 2011, 02:51:36 PM »

The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans.

Eastern Washington is growing more slowly than western Washington. That's two of the districts.

The 8th and 3rd are in Western and SW Washington.  The 4th, which is in EW grew fast.  Tri-Cities, Vancouver, Olympia, and the deep Seattle periphery were the hot growth spots.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #387 on: September 14, 2011, 03:13:05 PM »

The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans.

Eastern Washington is growing more slowly than western Washington. That's two of the districts.

Technically Eastern Washington grew a tiny bit faster.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #388 on: September 14, 2011, 03:40:50 PM »

My favorite comments from the Seattle Times article about the majority-minority proposals:

"You will be like SHARECROPPERS in the nation your ancestors founded."

"Pathetic. Racist voting districts, nothing more."

"The ruling Corporatist Statist party divides itself into Republicans and Democrats to give the illusion of choice to the public so that voting for one or the other is still giving legitimacy to a Corporatist Statist Elite. Citizens arise, Blow it up."

"We already have a minority congressman.Comrade Mc Dermott could not get ecected in 85 % of the districts in the US."
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #389 on: September 14, 2011, 03:50:29 PM »

I liked how Krist Novoselic was posting in the comments... Tongue
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #390 on: September 14, 2011, 04:16:57 PM »

The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans.

Eastern Washington is growing more slowly than western Washington. That's two of the districts.

The four Republican-held districts are overpopulated by about 398,000 people, while the five Democratic-held districts are overpopulated by about 274,000 people.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #391 on: September 14, 2011, 04:20:44 PM »

The four Republican-held districts are overpopulated by about 398,000 people,

How much of that overpopulation is in two districts, WA-8 and WA-3, one of which was held by a Democrat for the past decade?
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #392 on: September 14, 2011, 04:38:03 PM »

The four Republican-held districts are overpopulated by about 398,000 people,

How much of that overpopulation is in two districts, WA-8 and WA-3, one of which was held by a Democrat for the past decade?

Probably the majority. Also I think I should add that at least in WA-3 the most growth was in the Vancouver and Olympia Metro areas which are respectively moderate (perhaps lean GOP) and rabidly liberal.
Logged
Sounder
Rookie
**
Posts: 102
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #393 on: September 14, 2011, 06:50:31 PM »
« Edited: September 14, 2011, 06:53:04 PM by Sounder »



How much of that overpopulation is in two districts, WA-8 and WA-3, one of which was held by a Democrat for the past decade?

If Linda Smith never vacated the seat to run for Senate, it probably wouldn't have been in Democrat hands going all the way back to 1994 (except maybe a take over in 2008).  Bush carried the 3rd in 2004.  It is a swing district that leans slightly right.  Take away Olympia and it gets much more right.   Olympia is split into the 9th and the 3rd.  The 9th section grew a lot faster, but the 3rd part of town is considerably heavier Democrat.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #394 on: September 14, 2011, 06:52:39 PM »

What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?

Won't happen. The Republicans would much rather take whatever deal the Democrats offer them than risk a court drawn map that would endanger Reichert.

If the Democrats actually believe that, it will end up in the Courts. The Republicans aren't going to be that stupid. Already, three of the commissioner have chosen to cross the Cascades in the same way. Seems like we have an agreement on the first element of the final map. Given how much his district shifts East, Reichert would really have to be screwed not to have a better district.

The issue is the new seat. Democrats have been spouting the meme that the final map will be a trade of given Reichert a better seat for giving the Democrats the new seat. The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans. Drawing a fifth Republican seat is as easy of a task as drawing a sixth Democratic district. The natural compromise would be keeping the five Democrats, strengthening Reichert, and drawing a "fair fight" district.

The reality is two of the four Republican seats are swing districts that, while currently having Republican representatives, also voted for Barack Obama. One of them had a Democratic Congressman until last year, when he retired (he probably would've held the seat had he run again). The compromise wouldn't just be strengthening Reichert, but strengthening Herrera as well. The most simple way of strengthening Herrera, and we see this in all 4 of the commission's proposed maps, is to eliminate Democratic stronghold Olympia from her district. So what happens with Olympia, then? This is what could result in the new seat being marginally Democratic. Either by creating the new 10th in the South Sound or by creating a majority-minority district in South King County (which would be solidly Democratic, and then shift other districts like the 9th more towards Olympia, keeping them marginally Democratic). Nevertheless, suburban Thurston and some of suburban Pierce could very well be in this district, and they are much more friendly to the GOP, which is why this seat would only be marginally Democratic. Maybe 50-51% or so Murray---certainly not an impossible seat for the GOP.

Strengthening Reichert can be done multiple ways. If we do expand his district into Eastern Washington, keep in mind that his district was by far the most overpopulated, with something like 138,000 extra people. If we give him Chelan and Kittitas counties in Eastern Washington as the several of the commission's proposals do, you're adding another 113,000 people to the district. Which means 251,000 people  have to be cut from the Western Washington portions of the district. And that leaves a real possibility of some Democratic-friendly areas like Bellevue being cut out from his district. That may result in the 1st absorbing some of it (there are numerous possibilities here, so I'm just speculating). But I could see the 1st being a swing district that may be very marginally Democratic... The commissioners have some very different ideas for the 1st, which of course is an open seat with Inslee running for Governor, so it's harder to figure out what they may do.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,688


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #395 on: September 14, 2011, 06:52:56 PM »

A good portion of that population growth in Eastern Washington was from Hispanics, fyi.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #396 on: September 14, 2011, 07:02:15 PM »

A good portion of that population growth in Eastern Washington was from Hispanics, fyi.

This is true, but they don't vote nearly as much as whites... It's a bit of a Texas issue. Tongue
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #397 on: September 14, 2011, 07:39:53 PM »



How much of that overpopulation is in two districts, WA-8 and WA-3, one of which was held by a Democrat for the past decade?

If Linda Smith never vacated the seat to run for Senate, it probably wouldn't have been in Democrat hands going all the way back to 1994 (except maybe a take over in 2008).  Bush carried the 3rd in 2004.  It is a swing district that leans slightly right.  Take away Olympia and it gets much more right.   Olympia is split into the 9th and the 3rd.  The 9th section grew a lot faster, but the 3rd part of town is considerably heavier Democrat.

I disagree. Linda Smith got elected in that district riding the 94' wave, we need to remember that she won by less than 200 votes in 1996 and that she would have fallen sometime (she wasn't an untouchable political genius).
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #398 on: September 14, 2011, 09:47:20 PM »

So are there demographic and political numbers for the proposed districts anywhere?
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #399 on: September 14, 2011, 10:17:22 PM »

So are there demographic and political numbers for the proposed districts anywhere?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/14/1016954/-Washington-Redistricting:-Numbers?via=sidebytagfeed
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 23  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 12 queries.