US House Redistricting: Washington
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 10:43:51 PM
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 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Washington  (Read 83221 times)
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #475 on: December 28, 2011, 03:52:09 PM »
« edited: December 28, 2011, 03:56:39 PM by Alcon »

PVIs from RRH.

1. R+1
2. D+7
3. R+3
4. R+13
5. R+6
6. D+5
7. D+29
8. R+3
9. D+16
10. D+5

I don't really recall how PVI is calculated, but can that really be right?  WA-10 more D than WA-03 is R, and barely less D than WA-05 is R?

And, yes, congrats CK.  sad congrats!
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #476 on: December 28, 2011, 03:58:02 PM »

Quick question: Why did the Dem appointees agree to this map? Wouldn't the courts have drawn a better deal for us?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #477 on: December 28, 2011, 03:58:13 PM »

PVIs from RRH.

1. R+1
2. D+7
3. R+3
4. R+13
5. R+6
6. D+5
7. D+29
8. R+3
9. D+16
10. D+5

I don't really recall how PVI is calculated, but can that really be right?  WA-10 more D than WA-03 is R, and barely less D than WA-05 is R?

And, yes, congrats CK.

If they calculated it correctly it is average of the two party vote from Pres 2004 and 2008. The average is then compared to 51.3% Dem which is the national average for those two races.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #478 on: December 28, 2011, 04:25:43 PM »
« Edited: December 28, 2011, 04:29:41 PM by Alcon »

On the LD level, the redistricting commission is currently fighting (a hostile conflict) over how minority to make the majority-minority 15th LD in Yakima County.

Spokane County, obviously, is also a point of conflict.
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 #479 on: December 28, 2011, 04:34:38 PM »

  "its well scripted and i appreciate it that"
        "hes good at playing that game"

- Tom Huff


Hahaha, he's the most shameless proponent of gerrymandering.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #480 on: December 28, 2011, 05:48:32 PM »

The WaPo says the Washington Democratic Party strongly endorsed this map. Interesting.
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 #481 on: December 28, 2011, 05:49:07 PM »

The WaPo says the Washington Democratic Party strongly endorsed this map. Interesting.


Denny Heck and Rick Larsen must have more influence in the party than I thought.

Apparently the establishment will be backing Steve Hobbs in WA-01, which isn't a terrible move given the map.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #482 on: December 28, 2011, 07:07:56 PM »

My thoughts: While this map is obviously not the best for Democrats, anyone who was really expecting that was being kind of foolish. Regardless of the partisan make-up of the state, the Democrats and Republicans have equal power in our redistricting process and so concessions were obviously going to have to be made to the Republicans compared to a "fair" map. I also think the 1st is winnable with the right candidate, so we could very well end up with a 6-4 map in the end which I think is pretty reasonable.
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 #483 on: December 28, 2011, 07:37:29 PM »

My thoughts: While this map is obviously not the best for Democrats, anyone who was really expecting that was being kind of foolish. Regardless of the partisan make-up of the state, the Democrats and Republicans have equal power in our redistricting process and so concessions were obviously going to have to be made to the Republicans compared to a "fair" map. I also think the 1st is winnable with the right candidate, so we could very well end up with a 6-4 map in the end which I think is pretty reasonable.

The end result isn't terribly shocking, but I still was hoping to avoid the awful lines they came up with. The majority-minority district is simply inexcusable and ruins the entire Seattle-area.

What annoys me even more, was that the Democrats were willing to accept the M-M CD (which obviously benefits the GOP), but then when the Democrats want to make the 15th LD a true majority-minority district (that would also be a swing district), the Republicans refuse and they have to quit for the day! What kind of compromise involves the Republicans getting a chance at a whole CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT and the Democrats not even getting a shot at a legislative district in return?

Huff's map is also very unclear in Spokane (the numbers basically block the view of it completely).

I will admit that I was very naive to think the Democrats would actually ignore the racists arguing for the majority-minority district.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #484 on: December 28, 2011, 07:43:24 PM »

Hmm, maybe the complaining about Arizona and definitely about California will stop now. That 1st district is ridiculous. That being said the rest of the map is ok. The Arizona map looks to be drawn to help a Phoenix area Democrat, and this map seems to have been drawn to help a Republican in the Bellingham area. The California map doesn't have anything that ridiculous that can't be explained by VRA constraints. And the Arizona district cannot be explained by the VRA.
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #485 on: December 28, 2011, 08:04:48 PM »
« Edited: December 28, 2011, 09:00:22 PM by Fuzzy »

Here's the map, redrawn by me.





Logged
hfred
Rookie
**
Posts: 39


Political Matrix
E: 5.81, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #486 on: December 28, 2011, 08:43:48 PM »

Looks pretty good for us. Although I will be moved from a R district to a D district.
Logged
redcommander
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,816
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #487 on: December 28, 2011, 09:46:06 PM »

So we can assume that if the political environment doesn't better for the President we're looking at a 5-5 delegation next year?
Logged
hfred
Rookie
**
Posts: 39


Political Matrix
E: 5.81, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #488 on: December 28, 2011, 09:51:41 PM »

So we can assume that if the political environment doesn't better for the President we're looking at a 5-5 delegation next year?
Not quite, a 6-4 Dem advantage is still possible if the Democrats hold the 1st.
Logged
Seattle
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 783
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #489 on: December 28, 2011, 09:55:38 PM »

So we can assume that if the political environment doesn't better for the President we're looking at a 5-5 delegation next year?

No, I wouldn't say that yet. We don't know who the Republican candidate will be for the first and if it only voted 51% Rossi, it really is a 50-50 district.
I'd say there is an equal chance the delegation will be 6-4 D or 5-5.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #490 on: December 29, 2011, 12:39:35 AM »

So we can assume that if the political environment doesn't better for the President we're looking at a 5-5 delegation next year?

No, I wouldn't say that yet. We don't know who the Republican candidate will be for the first and if it only voted 51% Rossi, it really is a 50-50 district.
I'd say there is an equal chance the delegation will be 6-4 D or 5-5.

I think a toss up district is the intent of the mappers. They can fairly say that a new seat was added and it favors neither party. That would be consistent with state law.
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 #491 on: December 29, 2011, 01:49:35 AM »

Animated gif showing 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s:



Fun to watch the districts shift.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #492 on: December 29, 2011, 03:27:55 AM »

I calculated some numbers for the 10th CD.

2010 Senate: Murray 52.8%, Rossi 47.2%
2008 President: Obama 57.2%, McCain 41.0%, Others 1.8%
2008 Governor: Gregoire 54.3%, Rossi 45.7%
2004 President: Kerry 52.3%, Bush 46.2%, Others 1.6%

The Cook PVI is D+4
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #493 on: December 29, 2011, 07:20:57 AM »

Hmm, maybe the complaining about Arizona and definitely about California will stop now. That 1st district is ridiculous. That being said the rest of the map is ok.
God, no.

On both the first and the third sentence.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #494 on: December 29, 2011, 12:01:55 PM »

I thought it would be amusing to review of our early thoughts on a 10 district division. This thread is from early 2008. Smiley
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 #495 on: December 29, 2011, 01:41:25 PM »

Aw, you can tell I've never watched the redistricting process before. I was so optimistic and naive, actually thinking logical districts would be drawn! Sigh.
Logged
timothyinMD
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 438


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #496 on: December 29, 2011, 08:36:36 PM »

We deserve this after getting screwed in Arizona.

The 2nd district makes perfect sense.  All those I-5 cities belong in one seat, the rural areas belong in one seat. 
Logged
Seattle
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 783
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #497 on: December 29, 2011, 08:41:13 PM »

We deserve this after getting screwed in Arizona.

The 2nd district makes perfect sense.  All those I-5 cities belong in one seat, the rural areas belong in one seat. 
Uh... no. Well, you can make the case that I-5 corridor fits together, but the resulting rural areas in the first are not even road contiguous, and the Northern part of the district has nothing to do with the urban seattle suburbs in King county.

The way the second is now make plenty more sense. Honestly, they could have just pulled out Everett from the second and kept Lake Stevens/Snohomish/Monroe, and boom you have a great tossup district.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #498 on: December 29, 2011, 11:36:18 PM »

We deserve this after getting screwed in Arizona.

The 2nd district makes perfect sense.  All those I-5 cities belong in one seat, the rural areas belong in one seat. 
Uh... no. Well, you can make the case that I-5 corridor fits together, but the resulting rural areas in the first are not even road contiguous, and the Northern part of the district has nothing to do with the urban seattle suburbs in King county.

The way the second is now make plenty more sense. Honestly, they could have just pulled out Everett from the second and kept Lake Stevens/Snohomish/Monroe, and boom you have a great tossup district.

A district can be entirely placed in Snohomish county with about 41K to spare. However Everett has about 100K and can't be removed and leave a whole district. If there is a district entirely within Snohomish part must be used to connect part of Island county through Stanwood, and another part should be used to connect King to Stevens Pass. What's left is a district entirely within Snohomish that is going to lean D.
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 #499 on: December 30, 2011, 12:15:55 AM »
« Edited: December 30, 2011, 12:45:19 AM by bgwah »

A non-partisan map, where you don't have to care about incumbents or which party would be favored, would have basically resulted in WA-02 containing all of Whatcom, Skagit, Island, San Juan, and part of Snohomish. WA-01 would contain the rest of Snohomish as well as part of King County.

Such a map would result in a swingy 2nd (but likely more Republican than it currently is) and a Democratic 1st. Back in the real world, Rick Larsen wants a safe seat and the Republicans want a chance in one of the districts... so we end up with the crappy map they proposed.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 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 0.056 seconds with 11 queries.