US House Redistricting: Washington
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 01:48:07 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 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Washington  (Read 83227 times)
Seattle
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 783
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #500 on: December 30, 2011, 12:36:15 AM »

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.
While you can fit one in Snohomish county, where do you put Whatcom and Skagit counties? It makes no sense to put them into eastern Washington and conntecting them to the Olympic Peninsula, while its been done before, it is not ideal and it makes plenty more sense to simply continue south into Snohomish county.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #501 on: December 30, 2011, 12:47:57 AM »

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.
While you can fit one in Snohomish county, where do you put Whatcom and Skagit counties? It makes no sense to put them into eastern Washington and conntecting them to the Olympic Peninsula, while its been done before, it is not ideal and it makes plenty more sense to simply continue south into Snohomish county.

I'm just saying that if you start with King plus the counties over the Cascades you have almost exactly 3 districts. That leaves a natural district in Snohomish, and then one is left with a 1980's style plan that crosses the sound for CD-2. One can argue that Bellingham has as much in common with Port Angeles as it does with Everett, and there's not the crazy county split in the Commission map.
Logged
Seattle
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 783
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #502 on: December 30, 2011, 12:58:55 AM »

Between the cities, sure, but in terms of transportation.... its pretty ridiculous. From Bellingham you would have to drive to Anacortes, go through Deception Pass (a bridge) drive 2/3 through Whidbey Island, get on the Port Townsend - Keystone ferry and then drive from PT to Port Angeles. vs. taking an hour drive on I-5 to Everett.

There is precedent.... but Im talking about in terms of what's more sensible. Counties are big in WA, don't try to crack them, but communities of interest are far more important.
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 #503 on: December 30, 2011, 01:02:14 AM »

Crossing the Puget Sound would just result in splitting another big county (Kitsap, which has been split for a while but has finally been unified in the new map). Alternatively you could go for Grays Harbor, Mason, Pacific, and Wahkiakum counties to minimize county splits... but that would be a very big district.
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #504 on: December 30, 2011, 01:11:49 AM »

ugh... I still can't get over how needlessly horrendous the 2nd is. The mappers could have accomplished all the same objectives without creating such an eyesore.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #505 on: December 30, 2011, 01:33:13 AM »

Crossing the Puget Sound would just result in splitting another big county (Kitsap, which has been split for a while but has finally been unified in the new map). Alternatively you could go for Grays Harbor, Mason, Pacific, and Wahkiakum counties to minimize county splits... but that would be a very big district.

This is what it might look like with a cross-Puget CD-2 using the Cascade crossing from the Commission. I've kept whole districts in all the large counties except Pierce. Except for Pierce the county splits to equalize population remove relatively small parts of the county population. Note that both Snoqualmie and Stevens Passes are used to connect CD 8. I agree that CD 2 is big, but no bigger than CD 5.

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 #506 on: December 30, 2011, 01:38:51 AM »

The 2nd is still huge, but that's not as bad as I was thinking. Wink
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #507 on: December 30, 2011, 05:19:28 AM »

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. 
5% of that district's population are rural.
Logged
timothyinMD
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 438


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #508 on: December 30, 2011, 02:39:07 PM »

Actually I think Slade Gorton's first map is pretty good.  Doesn't have the district 2 squiggle, and would probably elect 5 D 5 R

http://www.redistricting.wa.gov/assets/maps/122811_drafts/c-gc_2-0_color_statewide_handout.pdf
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 #509 on: December 30, 2011, 02:52:03 PM »

Actually I think Slade Gorton's first map is pretty good.  Doesn't have the district 2 squiggle, and would probably elect 5 D 5 R

http://www.redistricting.wa.gov/assets/maps/122811_drafts/c-gc_2-0_color_statewide_handout.pdf

You just linked the final map?
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #510 on: December 31, 2011, 04:01:55 PM »

The Redistricting Commission still hasn't been able to come to a compromise on the Eastern Washington legislative districts... nor have they resolved the legislative districts that fall on the Pierce/King County lines. The commissioners are only allowed to approve a plan that includes both Congressional and legislative maps, so if they aren't able to compromise in the next 35 hours then the whole thing goes to the State Supreme Court.

I'm confident they'll come up with a map... but the clock is ticking.
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 #511 on: December 31, 2011, 04:28:42 PM »

The Redistricting Commission still hasn't been able to come to a compromise on the Eastern Washington legislative districts... nor have they resolved the legislative districts that fall on the Pierce/King County lines. The commissioners are only allowed to approve a plan that includes both Congressional and legislative maps, so if they aren't able to compromise in the next 35 hours then the whole thing goes to the State Supreme Court.

I'm confident they'll come up with a map... but the clock is ticking.

Yeah, they'll come up with something. And by that I mean the Republicans will win.
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #512 on: December 31, 2011, 05:29:45 PM »

Honestly I would prefer a court-drawn map myself.

...So go dead-lock!!! Whoot!
Don't they only have until today (when is the deadline)?
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #513 on: December 31, 2011, 05:32:12 PM »

Honestly I would prefer a court-drawn map myself.

...So go dead-lock!!! Whoot!
Don't they only have until today (when is the deadline)?

They have until 11:59 PM tomorrow.
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 #514 on: December 31, 2011, 05:39:23 PM »
« Edited: December 31, 2011, 05:42:08 PM by bgwah »

I watched one of the hearings. Huff was basically like "We had an agreement, you guys get to draw the Democratic districts in Seattle and we get to draw the Republican districts in Eastern Washington!"

They're usually very good about appearing all reasonable and non-partisan in public, and taking recesses to go to the real work behind closed doors, so I enjoyed that...

I wonder if there's more to the story. Perhaps Democrats accepted the M-M congressional district that helps Republicans in WA-01, in exchange for a real M-M legislative district in Eastern Washington that would help Democrats, and now the Republicans are trying to have a watered down district they know they'll easily win.

But I can only speculate, as the public isn't actually involved in the process, despite the charades they put up.

I'm also cheering for a court drawn map at this point. I definitely don't expect it to happen, though.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #515 on: December 31, 2011, 08:27:48 PM »

Commission has been in recess since 2 this afternoon and has extended the recess several times; strong signal that they're making progress on something.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,820
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #516 on: December 31, 2011, 11:07:57 PM »

http://www.theolympian.com/2011/12/31/1931862/redistricting-is-headed-to-new.html
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #517 on: January 01, 2012, 12:29:12 AM »

Does anyone have the Presidential numbers for each new district? 
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #518 on: January 01, 2012, 01:47:18 AM »

Crisis averted; compromise Eastern WA plan has been posted. Dems get their majority-minority district in the Yakima Valley.
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #519 on: January 01, 2012, 03:00:28 AM »

yay, I guess? Oh well, I guess we are stuck with horrible CD boundaries for the next 10 years.
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 #520 on: January 01, 2012, 03:36:25 AM »

This is still a good deal for the Republicans, IMO. A swing congressional district for a swing legislative district? The Republicans would've been silly not to take it... But that's just my opinion. FTR, I drew the most minority legislative district in Yakima possible, and it was still a fifty-point-something Rossi district. The new 15th will definitely be a swing district.

But from what I understand, the deal also stops the 6th LD from becoming Republican, keeping it as a swing district. So there's that, too, I guess.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #521 on: January 01, 2012, 05:12:27 AM »

Looking at the compromise map, I'm not totally clear on what the Dems traded for.  They seem to have gotten their ideal 15th LD and basically their ideal 6th LD too?
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #522 on: January 01, 2012, 07:08:09 AM »

So these maps are going to be better for Republicans for the U.S. House, state senate, and state house?

Do they have a shot of getting a majority in the state legislature (or one of its chambers)?
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 #523 on: January 01, 2012, 11:17:13 AM »

Looking at the compromise map, I'm not totally clear on what the Dems traded for.  They seem to have gotten their ideal 15th LD and basically their ideal 6th LD too?

A 51% Rossi 1st district? Tongue
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #524 on: January 01, 2012, 11:36:51 AM »

Yeah, it's not as if Republicans could risk letting a court draw the congressional map.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.055 seconds with 11 queries.