Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 28, 2014, 12:07:45 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: New York
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: New York  (Read 48477 times)
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72076
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #225 on: June 17, 2011, 09:25:18 pm »
Ignore

2 and 4 in that map are obviously gerrymandered, and while 12 looks OK that's only because it's mostly water.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #226 on: June 21, 2011, 11:29:58 am »
Ignore

Reworking the state with some updated ideas and the real census figures, and I have a problem here - the Upper Manhattan district now needs to cross into unequivocally Harlem, devoid of Whites areas (or into the Northwest Bronx). So I was wondering - maybe you could as it were merge Velazquez' and Rangel's districts, with some weird one-block connection along the East River? 
Superenhance



D11 68-32 Obama, 57 white - 20 hispanic - 14 asian
Yeah, the one major group in New York City royally screwed over by the current alignment is White Brooklyn Democrats, shared up between Nadler, Velazquez, the Staten seat and the Black seats. As a result, this is bona fide wide open.
D13 81-18 Obama, 68 white - 17 hispanic - 7 asian - 6 black
Upper Manhattan. The color line on the east side is ridiculously well defined on 96th street, the west side's is weird. Used to be that the poor lived closer to the river in Manhattan, but not anymore. Anyways that long north-south split is a retread from the 80s. Sets up Nadler against Maloney, though he might want to try the 8th instead. Actually, I suppose he's favored in a primary in either.
D14 95-4 Obama, 56 hispanic - 36 black
Rangel's district crosses the Harlem River. He's used to representing Hispanics (though not quite so many... but he had whites too in the last 20 years), he's never had a racially motivated primary challenge to my knowledge. 'Course, with his ethics problems, who knows.

Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16807


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #227 on: June 21, 2011, 11:40:18 am »
Ignore

I would shoot that Upper Manhattan district into Riverdale (NW Bronx) before combining Rangel and Velasquez. I also don't like the way you split up the Hispanic vote around Corona--surely it would be neater and more reasonable to put all of Forest Hills in the NE Queens seat and all of Corona in the central/NW Queens seat.

As for the idiots arguing about the Hasidic Jewish vote... Sue Kelly would like a word with you on them being reliable Republicans. As a group, they're way too fickle in their voting patterns for any Republican to want them in their district.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2011, 11:44:03 am by Verily »Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #228 on: June 21, 2011, 12:18:48 pm »
Ignore

Yah, the swap in Queens was already argued-and-self-conceded by me a couple of posts below the one I'm quoting here IIRC. Smiley
The White Brooklyn seat has since been reconfigured to take in all the Brooklyn Hasidim, btw (it's still 64% Obama). But the merger of Greenpoint, hispanic parts of Williamsburg, some adjoining territory in Queens, the Lower East Side, Harlem, anything right by the river in between, and a bit of the Upper West Side (South of the Columbia campus, including the Hispanic enclave there. Forced simply by the remaining Manhattan White Sink being full) worked surprisingly well. Overall it's 33% White, 29% Hispanic, 22% Black and 14% Asian. Grin

Oh, and while drawing Maloney into Riverdale would have made sense, it would have introduced an extra county split... and that's against my rules here. Smiley
« Last Edit: June 21, 2011, 12:23:20 pm by Jakob Bronsky »Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #229 on: June 21, 2011, 02:05:41 pm »
Ignore

I would shoot that Upper Manhattan district into Riverdale (NW Bronx) before combining Rangel and Velasquez. I also don't like the way you split up the Hispanic vote around Corona--surely it would be neater and more reasonable to put all of Forest Hills in the NE Queens seat and all of Corona in the central/NW Queens seat.

As for the idiots arguing about the Hasidic Jewish vote... Sue Kelly would like a word with you on them being reliable Republicans. As a group, they're way too fickle in their voting patterns for any Republican to want them in their district.

Given the choice between "fickle" swing voters, and reliably Democratic voters, the Republicans would prefer the swing voters every time.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
timothyinMD
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 441


View Profile
« Reply #230 on: June 21, 2011, 05:06:36 pm »
Ignore

It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area

Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about?  The last round of redistricting had a Republican Governor and a Republican State Senate.

If the Dems could draw the Congressional map like they drew the Assembly map that year, the Congressional map could easily have zero Republican NYC seats by connecting Staten Island to Manhattan instead of Brooklyn.

NYC is a convoluted mess at the Congressional level, like all of New York State, due to incumbent protection gerrymandering mixing with VRA majority-minority districts, and the negative space created by those districts.

VRA is racially divisive, and I don't agree with that.  That's why I paid no attention to racial communities when I drew my NYC map.  One man, one vote.  Period
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1808


View Profile
« Reply #231 on: June 21, 2011, 05:24:56 pm »
Ignore

At any rate, given the bloc voting element in the Gingles test I think you could make a pretty good case that there are no VRA considerations anywhere in New York City except along the line where black and (outer) white Brooklyn meet.

Racialized Democratic party factions, on the other hand, there are aplenty.
Logged
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72076
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #232 on: June 21, 2011, 09:15:56 pm »
Ignore

It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area

Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about?  The last round of redistricting had a Republican Governor and a Republican State Senate.

If the Dems could draw the Congressional map like they drew the Assembly map that year, the Congressional map could easily have zero Republican NYC seats by connecting Staten Island to Manhattan instead of Brooklyn.

NYC is a convoluted mess at the Congressional level, like all of New York State, due to incumbent protection gerrymandering mixing with VRA majority-minority districts, and the negative space created by those districts.

VRA is racially divisive, and I don't agree with that.  That's why I paid no attention to racial communities when I drew my NYC map.  One man, one vote.  Period

LOL. A brief look at the Long Island districts clearly disproves that.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #233 on: June 21, 2011, 09:38:39 pm »
Ignore

It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area

Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about?  The last round of redistricting had a Republican Governor and a Republican State Senate.

If the Dems could draw the Congressional map like they drew the Assembly map that year, the Congressional map could easily have zero Republican NYC seats by connecting Staten Island to Manhattan instead of Brooklyn.

NYC is a convoluted mess at the Congressional level, like all of New York State, due to incumbent protection gerrymandering mixing with VRA majority-minority districts, and the negative space created by those districts.

VRA is racially divisive, and I don't agree with that.  That's why I paid no attention to racial communities when I drew my NYC map.  One man, one vote.  Period

LOL. A brief look at the Long Island districts clearly disproves that.



Would you care to explain why you believe race rather than partisan result drove the map? Or, more to your point, how the map "proves" race was the primary factor?
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72076
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #234 on: June 21, 2011, 09:40:49 pm »
Ignore

The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8557


View Profile
« Reply #235 on: June 21, 2011, 09:50:29 pm »

At any rate, given the bloc voting element in the Gingles test I think you could make a pretty good case that there are no VRA considerations anywhere in New York City except along the line where black and (outer) white Brooklyn meet.

Racialized Democratic party factions, on the other hand, there are aplenty.

Primary votes can also be used to show bloc voting under the Gingles test. I would expect there are still VRA considerations in NYC.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #236 on: June 21, 2011, 10:06:03 pm »
Ignore

The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11.

No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them.

Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them?
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
metalhead2
Newbie
*
Posts: 17
View Profile
« Reply #237 on: June 22, 2011, 10:23:00 pm »
Ignore

It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area

Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about?  The last round of redistricting had a Republican Governor and a Republican State Senate.

If the Dems could draw the Congressional map like they drew the Assembly map that year, the Congressional map could easily have zero Republican NYC seats by connecting Staten Island to Manhattan instead of Brooklyn.

NYC is a convoluted mess at the Congressional level, like all of New York State, due to incumbent protection gerrymandering mixing with VRA majority-minority districts, and the negative space created by those districts.

VRA is racially divisive, and I don't agree with that.  That's why I paid no attention to racial communities when I drew my NYC map.  One man, one vote.  Period

LOL. A brief look at the Long Island districts clearly disproves that.

At what point does race trump community of interest considerations?
Logged
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72076
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #238 on: June 22, 2011, 10:26:50 pm »
Ignore

The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11.

No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them.

Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them?

So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #239 on: June 22, 2011, 11:13:15 pm »
Ignore

The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11.

No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them.

Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them?

So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats.


1) "Gerrymandered seats" are a reference to what Gerry did. It was the egregiousness of what Gerry did that resulted in the phrase "Gerrymandering." The map he drew did not make any egregious choices so comparing it to Gerry's drawing of the district that looked like a Salamander is completely unjust.


2) His basic claim is correct. Long Island has nine state Senate seats all held by Republicans. Gerrymandering can't explain it since no Democratic "dumping" districts were created. Every district has about the same partisan performance, and that is good enough for the Republicans to win them all. 2-2 on Long Island seems entirely natural unless unnatural steps are taken to create a Republican "dumping" district. Staten Island is connected to Bay Ridge by bridge, and is therefore, and natural Republican district.  With VRA districts bounding the West and North, the remaining areas in South Brooklyn create a natural slightly Republican district there, as his map indicates.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8557


View Profile
« Reply #240 on: June 23, 2011, 02:58:07 pm »

Here's my initial post-Weiner map of the NYC/LI districts. After Weiner's district is chopped, all other incumbents remain in district (I hope). All districts are within 100 of the ideal. There are 3 Black-majority and 3 Hispanic-majority districts. Here's the map and summary.



CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama
CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 57.5% Obama
CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain
CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 53.5% Obama
CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 45.0%, Asian VAP 28.2%
CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.7%
CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6%
CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6%
CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain
CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 54.5%
CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 51.1%
CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 59.2%
CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3%
CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7%
CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5%
CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4%
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14288


View Profile
« Reply #241 on: June 23, 2011, 06:41:53 pm »
Ignore

The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11.

No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them.

Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them?

So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats.


1) "Gerrymandered seats" are a reference to what Gerry did. It was the egregiousness of what Gerry did that resulted in the phrase "Gerrymandering." The map he drew did not make any egregious choices so comparing it to Gerry's drawing of the district that looked like a Salamander is completely unjust.


2) His basic claim is correct. Long Island has nine state Senate seats all held by Republicans. Gerrymandering can't explain it since no Democratic "dumping" districts were created. Every district has about the same partisan performance, and that is good enough for the Republicans to win them all. 2-2 on Long Island seems entirely natural unless unnatural steps are taken to create a Republican "dumping" district. Staten Island is connected to Bay Ridge by bridge, and is therefore, and natural Republican district.  With VRA districts bounding the West and North, the remaining areas in South Brooklyn create a natural slightly Republican district there, as his map indicates.


Having a little wing to take the heaviest Democratic and minority areas out of NY-2 (N Amityville to Wyandanch) and then shove NY-4 down into SE Nassau, but decide to leave out the more mixed and Democratic precincts of East Massapequa is surely a gerrymander.  Especially when the NY-3 you created would still be a Democratic seat without those areas. 
Logged

BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #242 on: June 23, 2011, 07:24:10 pm »
Ignore

The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11.

No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them.

Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them?

So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats.


1) "Gerrymandered seats" are a reference to what Gerry did. It was the egregiousness of what Gerry did that resulted in the phrase "Gerrymandering." The map he drew did not make any egregious choices so comparing it to Gerry's drawing of the district that looked like a Salamander is completely unjust.


2) His basic claim is correct. Long Island has nine state Senate seats all held by Republicans. Gerrymandering can't explain it since no Democratic "dumping" districts were created. Every district has about the same partisan performance, and that is good enough for the Republicans to win them all. 2-2 on Long Island seems entirely natural unless unnatural steps are taken to create a Republican "dumping" district. Staten Island is connected to Bay Ridge by bridge, and is therefore, and natural Republican district.  With VRA districts bounding the West and North, the remaining areas in South Brooklyn create a natural slightly Republican district there, as his map indicates.


Having a little wing to take the heaviest Democratic and minority areas out of NY-2 (N Amityville to Wyandanch) and then shove NY-4 down into SE Nassau, but decide to leave out the more mixed and Democratic precincts of East Massapequa is surely a gerrymander.  Especially when the NY-3 you created would still be a Democratic seat without those areas. 

Extending the underpopulated VRA seat in Queens into the surrounding area with minorities is not "gerrymandering." It is taking the VRA seriously.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
patrick1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7542


View Profile
« Reply #243 on: June 23, 2011, 10:12:02 pm »
Ignore

Here's my initial post-Weiner map of the NYC/LI districts. After Weiner's district is chopped, all other incumbents remain in district (I hope). All districts are within 100 of the ideal. There are 3 Black-majority and 3 Hispanic-majority districts. Here's the map and summary.

CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama
CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 57.5% Obama
CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain
CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 53.5% Obama
CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 45.0%, Asian VAP 28.2%
CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.7%
CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6%
CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6%
CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain
CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 54.5%
CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 51.1%
CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 59.2%
CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3%
CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7%
CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5%
CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4%


Oh, I dislike that McCarthy district a lot. (ingenious inventiveness though) It just creates a 3 borough mess where the communities have nothing in common. This, I think, makes it harder for a rep. to advocate for their constituencies. Not even sure I would still be in her district.  Ugh, perhaps I'd be chucked into a Meeks district.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8557


View Profile
« Reply #244 on: June 23, 2011, 10:58:11 pm »

Here's my initial post-Weiner map of the NYC/LI districts. After Weiner's district is chopped, all other incumbents remain in district (I hope). All districts are within 100 of the ideal. There are 3 Black-majority and 3 Hispanic-majority districts. Here's the map and summary.

CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama
CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 57.5% Obama
CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain
CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 53.5% Obama
CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 45.0%, Asian VAP 28.2%
CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.7%
CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6%
CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6%
CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain
CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 54.5%
CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 51.1%
CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 59.2%
CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3%
CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7%
CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5%
CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4%


Oh, I dislike that McCarthy district a lot. (ingenious inventiveness though) It just creates a 3 borough mess where the communities have nothing in common. This, I think, makes it harder for a rep. to advocate for their constituencies. Not even sure I would still be in her district.  Ugh, perhaps I'd be chucked into a Meeks district.

There's no question it was the most challenging district to draw. I started with the 3 black districts, and that forced a line across Brooklyn and Queens and into Hempstead in Nassau to get enough black population. At the same time I put in Velazquez' district which needed North Corona to bring the Hisp. numbers up high enough to get a reasonably solid seat (I'd prefer 60%, but 59.2% is fine at VTD granularity).

Those four districts build a wall. I could still split between CD 6 and 10, but then one ends up with a district that is virtually the same as the current NY-9. That leaves no CD-5 for Ackerman.

The expansion of 6 and the tear up of 9 leaves CD 4 to do the ugly work. My original draft was neater, but McCarthy lives at the northern edge of her district in Mineola. Keeping that linked to the Coney Island area resulted in the unpleasant shape in my map.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14288


View Profile
« Reply #245 on: June 24, 2011, 03:08:47 am »
Ignore

The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11.

No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them.

Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them?

So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats.


1) "Gerrymandered seats" are a reference to what Gerry did. It was the egregiousness of what Gerry did that resulted in the phrase "Gerrymandering." The map he drew did not make any egregious choices so comparing it to Gerry's drawing of the district that looked like a Salamander is completely unjust.


2) His basic claim is correct. Long Island has nine state Senate seats all held by Republicans. Gerrymandering can't explain it since no Democratic "dumping" districts were created. Every district has about the same partisan performance, and that is good enough for the Republicans to win them all. 2-2 on Long Island seems entirely natural unless unnatural steps are taken to create a Republican "dumping" district. Staten Island is connected to Bay Ridge by bridge, and is therefore, and natural Republican district.  With VRA districts bounding the West and North, the remaining areas in South Brooklyn create a natural slightly Republican district there, as his map indicates.


Having a little wing to take the heaviest Democratic and minority areas out of NY-2 (N Amityville to Wyandanch) and then shove NY-4 down into SE Nassau, but decide to leave out the more mixed and Democratic precincts of East Massapequa is surely a gerrymander.  Especially when the NY-3 you created would still be a Democratic seat without those areas. 

Extending the underpopulated VRA seat in Queens into the surrounding area with minorities is not "gerrymandering." It is taking the VRA seriously.

I'm not sure if Meek's district qualifies as needing a black majority.  Putting that aside from now.  It still doesn't explain the partisan racialmander in western Suffolk & extreme SE Nassau you have going on between the 3rd and 4th.  Not to mention the whole thing of leaving McCarthy with a district that covers 5% of her current one.
Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #246 on: June 24, 2011, 04:18:56 am »
Ignore

That's a gerrymander to elect another Republican (who would, of course, never be safe) that might actually work.
There is no reason to extend Meeks into Long Island. Expanding a little in the north works just fine.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
patrick1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7542


View Profile
« Reply #247 on: June 24, 2011, 04:52:12 am »
Ignore

There is no reason to extend Meeks into Long Island. Expanding a little in the north works just fine.

Yep.  I agree.

Further, I take the general view that it is better to maintain a LI/NYC divide whenever possible. There are naturally some different concerns among the constituencies. LI makes up just barely 4 seats(I believe Cinyc said 35k short) and there are fringe city areas on the border that work well with a LI rep (Orthodox parts of Far Rock w. same rep as Five towns).
I think carving out these majority_____ minority districts for its own sake is getting ridiculous and with ever expanding diversity will become a fools errand. I think it is much better to have some pluralities with districts that have geographic continuity and common concerns. 
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8557


View Profile
« Reply #248 on: June 24, 2011, 09:33:14 am »

There is no reason to extend Meeks into Long Island. Expanding a little in the north works just fine.

Yep.  I agree.

Further, I take the general view that it is better to maintain a LI/NYC divide whenever possible. There are naturally some different concerns among the constituencies. LI makes up just barely 4 seats(I believe Cinyc said 35k short) and there are fringe city areas on the border that work well with a LI rep (Orthodox parts of Far Rock w. same rep as Five towns).
I think carving out these majority_____ minority districts for its own sake is getting ridiculous and with ever expanding diversity will become a fools errand. I think it is much better to have some pluralities with districts that have geographic continuity and common concerns. 

As long as there are significant differences in the voting behavior of protected minorities compared to the white population, the Constitution through the VRA will require districts where minorities have the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice. In areas where the minorities are thinly spread in the general population, there is unlikely to be a need to create those districts, but where they are concentrated differences in voting patterns can be more readily distinguished, so special districts tend to be needed. In any case the situation for a minority must be examined on both the level of the state as well as in each locale.

The state-level facts for NY show that blacks make up 15.2% of the voting age population and Hispanics make up 16.2% of the voting age population. Based on the DeGrandy decision, if NY draws fewer than 4 black-majority and 4 Hispanic-majority districts than they could be open to a challenge if additional seats could be reasonably drawn. Both black and Hispanic populations outside of NYC are too dispersed to provide congressional seat majorities, so 3 districts each is a reasonable upper limit.

There is the additional challenge of making sure that the Hispanic population can control the vote in their districts due to turnout and citizenship factors. This tends to necessitate districts with larger Hispanic majorities to achieve electoral success, and that tends to reduce the number of districts. No agreed upon standard exists for Hispanic districts between the federal Appellate Courts, and many observers expect that SCOTUS will have to deal with this question this decade.

So, the specific issue is what to do about Meeks' district? A cautious mapmaker would want to avoid a clear opportunity for a challenge, and would bring the VAP for that district over 50%. The only choices to do that are an extension into Nassau or a long thin bridge to Harlem or the Bronx. I think everyone would agree that the former is the better choice, since it's arguably the more compact choice and reflects closer communities of interest.

Now in the real world, map makers could get an agreement from major civil rights groups like the NAACP. That agreement could include districts that were a lower percentage, but still likely to allow the minority to elect the candidate of their choice. If the NAACP and other major black civil signed off on a CD 6 with less than 50% black VAP, the chance of a successful challenge diminishes. But, since I don't have that concurrence, I was left with the more cautious route.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16807


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #249 on: June 24, 2011, 09:59:25 am »
Ignore

I think even the cautious mapmaker would be well-aware that, even if there were anti-black bloc voting in the Democratic primary or general election in SE Queens (which there isn't), the split nature of the surrounding communities means it is a clear the black-preferred candidate would be elected regardless. After all, you're not drawing a 47% black, 46% white sort of seat. You're drawing a 47% black, 21% Hispanic, 17% white, 15% Asian sort of seat--an enormous difference.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines