US House Redistricting: South Carolina
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:47:15 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: South Carolina
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: South Carolina  (Read 19363 times)
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: June 15, 2011, 02:28:22 PM »

That's right, Democrats took about 3/7th of the SC vote, so they should by right get about 3/7th of seats. Right? Tongue

A.  Dems didn't get 3/7th of the vote.
Sure did. More than that. (Okay, so I'm specifically talking of Barack Obama in 2008. Not going to look up the congressional total for each and every year. Especially seeing as the state had 1.5 non-joke contests in both 2008 and 2010.)
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Of course not. But you know what it was in reference to (though I suppose you weren't being serious in using that as a defence of your own NY gerrymander either.)

1) I see the VRA is now being reintrepreted to protect White liberals. In case you have forgotten, White liberals have never been subjected to the types of acts that the VRA was suppose to remedy.

2)  This presumes a closed primary system in which White voters whom typical vote Republican don't nominate the White Democrat in the primary.
Lolwut?

For your reading comprehension:

Obviously this map does not conform to the VRA in any way - if anything, it might be conceivable if the VRA were overturned and Dems had control of redistricting (though they'd make the southern seats more erose to shore them up a bit). And how likely is that, exactly?
The part about
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
refers to a map not posted - a cleaner-looking version of the two black seats map. These would still be Black enough to elect what I called Black Democrats (though not Bobby Rush or Cynthia McKinney, obviously. Oh, and on rereading, my wording was a bit unclear: I meant to include Steve Cohen or even John Barrow with the Black Democrats because they have much the same electoral coalition as Black Democrats. Basically, I was saying the districts would elect a Sanford Bishop / GK Butterfield / Artur Davis type or possibly a John Barrow type.). They wouldn't be over 50% Black VAP is all. The 50% thingy in case law creeps in due to the need to demonstrate to a court that SC (arguably; according to current case law) must draw the two seats. If South Carolina had a commission for these things that was forced to interpret the VRA in good faith, it would draw two such seats.

The gist of the lawsuit, he said, would be to encourage the U.S. Justice Department to approve a S.C. plan that moves African-American voters out of majority-black districts to other districts, giving them more sway over who is elected.
LOL, what a bunch of hacks! They say the opposite in so many other states, and for that matter, in the same state for the Congressional map.
So they're saying Blacks are overpacked - seems to me like that's exactly what they're saying about the Congressional map in the same state. (Guilty as charged on being a bunch of hacks and saying the opposite in some other states, of course!)



And now, for comic relief again. An attempt at a "colorblind" but otherwise "fair" map of South Carolina - something a British boundary commission might have come up with (except with very little leeway for deviation, as common in US congressional districts. Maximum deviation here is 177). And like a British boundary commission's map, this is a first draft - details would be likely to change after a hearing with people on the ground.



Charleston (blue) Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester Counties - the three counties to be partly in the Charleston built-up area - are barely too large for one constituency. Using a uniform correction, McCain barely edged Obama here. However, as it's almost exactly made from three counties, we can just use the actual figures, and the lead was 1.odd% in real life. Guess the gap between absentee and in-person votes was smaller in Charleston than elsewhere in the state.

South Carolina South West (green) takes in the remainder of the low country and some adjoining country to the north. Uniform correction makes this McCain by 2.3 or so.

Pee Dee (purple) Based on Horry, with its (blacker and less Republican) hinterland. McCain by 5 or so.

Columbia (red) Richland and Lexington are too small for one district, but not by much. Obama by 3 or so.

Rock Hill & South Carolina North East (yellow) Bit unfortunate design, but not much choice (see also next para.) McCain by 4 or so.

Spartanburg & Greenville South (cyan) Doesn't actually take in any part of Greenville proper (if precinct names can be trusted). Still, had to split the Greenville metro. The alternatives like drawing a donut around Greenville County or a donut around just the urban cores of Greenville and Spartanburg or including Anderson in the green district and anything at all removed from the Savannah in other districts are all worse. Very safe Republican (almost 60% McCain).

Greenville North & Anderson (grey) Even safer - 64.odd% McCain.

Now... the issue with this map (which I drew without looking at the race or election figures) is... every seat is at least 56% White. That's because the semi-solid belt of rural Black settlement is split between four constituencies. Which obviously doesn't fly if race is any consideration at all - nvm the only specially legally protected consideration as in the US right now.
Oh, and instead of a 5-2 map, I came out with more of a 3-0-4 map. Lol.
Logged
Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: June 15, 2011, 02:30:30 PM »
« Edited: June 15, 2011, 02:42:19 PM by belgiansocialist »

And, I worked it out for myself:



SC as a whole, bear in mind that the underlying assumption is that the app has a structural GOP bias of about 2,5% , as someone said in this very thread. It's entirely possible that I'm mistaken, in whcih case this map won't be too sweet for the Dems.

CD1: McCain 50,5 - Obama 48,0 TOSS-UP
CD2: McCain 43,7 - Obama 55,3 LEAN/SOLID Dem
CD3: McCain 70,6 - Obama 27,7 SOLID Rep
CD4: McCain 67,9 - Obama 30,8 SOLID Rep
CD5: McCain 48,8 - Obama 50,0 T0SS-UP/ LEAN Dem
CD6: McCain 50,3 - Obama 48,6 TOSS-UP
CD7: McCain 61,1 - Obama 37,6 SOLID GOP

Again, if there should turn out to be no structural GOP-advantage due to something with absentee ballots/abstention/..., this map wouldn't be too hot. That said, i have to say that what started as an attempt at a Dem Gerrymander, actually finished as quite a fair map. In a good year the Dems can win 4 seats, in a bad year none at all.

Oh, and a zoom-in of the North Chareston area, which is quite badly mangled, I'm afraid.


And, while the map may look horrible, all seats are geographicaly consistent; Anyone could go anywhere in their district without having to leave it.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: June 15, 2011, 02:33:06 PM »

SC as a whole, bear in mind that the underlying assumption is that the app has a structural GOP bias of about 2,5% , as someone said in this very thread. It's entirely possible that I'm mistaken.
You can easily test that claim with the app (just look at the blank map, click on unassigned and let it show you the election stats). I did. Smiley
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: June 15, 2011, 07:27:06 PM »

I'm sick of this disgraceful, race based gerrymandering.  That section of the VRA must be stricken.  It's archaic.   The notion that minorities must have their own "majority" seats is inherently biased, racist and segregationist

You do realize the reasons those laws exist is because in the districts were previously drawn to race bait gerrymander and dilute minority votes as much as possible right??

Think of how Austin is being split into five districts to limit the voting power of Austin liberals as much as possible, well that is exactly how it use to be with areas that had large minority populations.  Split them up as much as possible to dilute any possible voting power they have.
Logged
timothyinMD
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 438


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: June 16, 2011, 05:42:34 PM »
« Edited: June 16, 2011, 05:49:49 PM by timothyinMD »

2010 Democrat House candidates got 40.09%

537,323 out of 1,340,189 = 40.09%

http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/19077/40477/en/summary.html

I assumed you referred to the congressional number. If you're talking about '08 Obama, yes he got 44.9% or whatever.    Under that logic, 36% of the Massachusetts vote went to McCain.  Where are our 3 house seats from Massachusetts?
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: June 16, 2011, 05:50:49 PM »

2010 Democrat House candidates got 40.09%

537,323 out of 1,340,189 = 40.09%

http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/19077/40477/en/summary.html

I assumed you referred to the congressional number. If you're talking about '08 Obama, yes he got 44.9% or whatever.    Under that logic, 36% of the Massachusetts vote went to McCain.  Where are our 3 house seats from Massachusetts?

Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: June 18, 2011, 05:48:28 AM »
« Edited: June 18, 2011, 05:50:46 AM by Jakob Bronsky »

Here's a version of the last map where race was taken into account as one of many factors. Max deviation 366. Purple district is majority Black, plurality Black VAP. Getting it to majority Black VAP requires really ugly stuff on the eastern edge and/or entering the Charleston or Columbia built-up areas.



Politically speaking it's 4-1-2, with the Charleston (& points west) marginally Republican and the Columbia seat marginally Democratic.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: June 18, 2011, 06:01:49 AM »

And because I was unhappy with Kershaw County in that one...



Aiken town has been racially split. Still doesn't take purple over 50% Black VAP. Maximum Deviation has been gotten down to 97, though.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: June 18, 2011, 10:30:55 AM »

As much as I admire what you've done to Joe Wilson, neither plan would never pass the General assembly because of that.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: June 24, 2011, 07:05:17 PM »

Congressional redistricting debate splinters Senate

(link - The State)

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As mentioned later in the article, the GOP will do its best to find a plan to agree to so as to avoid having a three-judge Federal panel draw the lines and possibly giving the Democrats the chance to elect a second Representative.

The Senate will resume debate on redistricting on Monday.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: June 27, 2011, 08:47:40 AM »

Congressional redistricting debate splinters Senate

(link - The State)

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As mentioned later in the article, the GOP will do its best to find a plan to agree to so as to avoid having a three-judge Federal panel draw the lines and possibly giving the Democrats the chance to elect a second Representative.

The Senate will resume debate on redistricting on Monday.

I wonder if part of the public fight stems from a private recognition that any 6-1 plan will be vulnerable to a challenge. Black statewide VAP is 26.3%, which is equivalent to 1.84 congressional districts. The standard is "rough proportionality", but there's no clear guidance as to whether 1 district is roughly proportional to 1.84. Perhaps the lawyers internally are suggesting that it would be unlikely to be viewed that way.

It would be bad politically to have the SC GOP appear to give away their new seat to the Dems. If there is no agreement and federal judges give that seat away, then perhaps the political blame is on the judges, not the SC Senate.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: June 27, 2011, 05:01:14 PM »

I wonder if part of the public fight stems from a private recognition that any 6-1 plan will be vulnerable to a challenge. Black statewide VAP is 26.3%, which is equivalent to 1.84 congressional districts. The standard is "rough proportionality", but there's no clear guidance as to whether 1 district is roughly proportional to 1.84. Perhaps the lawyers internally are suggesting that it would be unlikely to be viewed that way.

It would be bad politically to have the SC GOP appear to give away their new seat to the Dems. If there is no agreement and federal judges give that seat away, then perhaps the political blame is on the judges, not the SC Senate.

Doubtful.  Clyburn had already given the SC GOP the political cover they needed to pass a 6-1 plan which would as a side effect ensure he has a super-safe district to run in for the next decade.  To the degree that politics rather than regional pride is involved, it is more likely due to internal GOP differences than VRA worries.  The upstate is a bastion of social conservatives while the midlands and coast is more fiscal conservative/libertarian in nature. If the new 7th district contains Horry County then it will be significantly less socially conservative than it would be if it did not.  In other words, without Horry the 7th would be likely to elect someone like DeMint and with Horry it would be likely to elect someone like Graham.
Logged
timothyinMD
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 438


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: June 27, 2011, 07:20:45 PM »

I'm pretty sure the Constitution says nothing of dividing congressional districts according to race.  Enough said.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: June 27, 2011, 09:12:38 PM »

I'm pretty sure the Constitution says nothing of dividing congressional districts according to race.  Enough said.

The 15th Amendment to the Constitution bars voting discrimination on account of race and gives Congress the power to enact laws to enforce the amendment. It gave Congress broad power as part of the Reconstruction Acts. In some ways the Reconstruction Amendments were among the broadest grants of power to Congress within the Constitution.

Drawing districts very much affects the power of an individual's vote; the art of gerrymandering is to minimize the potency of your opponents' votes while maximizing your sides' potency at the ballot. So discrimination in redistricting is akin to discrimination in voting. In 1965 the Voting Rights Act became law, and was promptly challenged in court. SCOTUS ruled that the VRA was a proper exercise of the power granted by the 15th Amendment.

So, I would conclude that the Constitution specifically granted Congress the power to require race as a factor in drawing districts.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: June 27, 2011, 09:21:50 PM »

I drew a plan that might result if the process is handled by a special master assigned by the court should there be no agreement. I take as assumptions that the court directs that 2 districts be drawn with majority black VAP, and that the cores of the 5 white-majority districts be maintained when possible. In this map all districts are within 100 of the ideal population and CD 6 and 7 are 50.2% and 50.1% black VAP respectively.

Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: June 27, 2011, 11:11:16 PM »

Congressional redistricting debate splinters Senate

(link - The State)

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As mentioned later in the article, the GOP will do its best to find a plan to agree to so as to avoid having a three-judge Federal panel draw the lines and possibly giving the Democrats the chance to elect a second Representative.

The Senate will resume debate on redistricting on Monday.

I wonder if part of the public fight stems from a private recognition that any 6-1 plan will be vulnerable to a challenge. Black statewide VAP is 26.3%, which is equivalent to 1.84 congressional districts. The standard is "rough proportionality", but there's no clear guidance as to whether 1 district is roughly proportional to 1.84. Perhaps the lawyers internally are suggesting that it would be unlikely to be viewed that way.


Substitute "Hispanic" for "Black," and "California" for "South Carolina" and you have about 20 "Hispanic" VRA districts. Good Luck drawing that many seats. The reality is that Hispanics are fairly dispersed in California, and Blacks are fairly dispersed in the South, including South Carolina.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: June 27, 2011, 11:41:03 PM »

Congressional redistricting debate splinters Senate

(link - The State)

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As mentioned later in the article, the GOP will do its best to find a plan to agree to so as to avoid having a three-judge Federal panel draw the lines and possibly giving the Democrats the chance to elect a second Representative.

The Senate will resume debate on redistricting on Monday.

I wonder if part of the public fight stems from a private recognition that any 6-1 plan will be vulnerable to a challenge. Black statewide VAP is 26.3%, which is equivalent to 1.84 congressional districts. The standard is "rough proportionality", but there's no clear guidance as to whether 1 district is roughly proportional to 1.84. Perhaps the lawyers internally are suggesting that it would be unlikely to be viewed that way.


Substitute "Hispanic" for "Black," and "California" for "South Carolina" and you have about 20 "Hispanic" VRA districts. Good Luck drawing that many seats. The reality is that Hispanics are fairly dispersed in California, and Blacks are fairly dispersed in the South, including South Carolina.

Strict proportionality would provide 17.54 districts in CA based on 33.1% Hispanic VAP. Last year I posted a CA map that met that standard with 18 Hispanic-majority districts. However, as has been noted in the IL thread, a 50% VAP generally will not be sufficient for Hispanics to elect a candidate of choice. If one uses a 60% standard, then one would roughly expect 5/6 the number of districts, or 14.6 districts out of 53. That same map has 15 districts meeting that threshold.

I would conclude that the minority populations are not so dispersed as to prevent reasonable districts from being drawn.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: June 28, 2011, 05:29:25 AM »

Ooh, pretty good. That's a map you could take the state to court with.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: June 28, 2011, 09:53:07 AM »

Ooh, pretty good. That's a map you could take the state to court with.

Smiley
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: June 29, 2011, 05:46:45 PM »

Senate passes surprise plan
Beaufort would anchor new congressional district

The State

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: June 29, 2011, 06:58:48 PM »

Senate passes surprise plan
Beaufort would anchor new congressional district

The State

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.



It's so hard to imagine these goings on in SC. It is inconceivable to think that a split among Dems in IL would result in a rogue group banding with the GOP to pass an alternate plan.

Then again, maybe I should be prepared to submit my credentials to the federal court in SC. Wink
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: June 29, 2011, 07:09:33 PM »

Senate passes surprise plan
Beaufort would anchor new congressional district

The State

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.



It's so hard to imagine these goings on in SC. It is inconceivable to think that a split among Dems in IL would result in a rogue group banding with the GOP to pass an alternate plan.

Then again, maybe I should be prepared to submit my credentials to the federal court in SC. Wink

We saw the same in Louisiana. Regional morons; in the end they will fall in line.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: June 29, 2011, 07:42:03 PM »

It's so hard to imagine these goings on in SC. It is inconceivable to think that a split among Dems in IL would result in a rogue group banding with the GOP to pass an alternate plan.

Then again, maybe I should be prepared to submit my credentials to the federal court in SC. Wink

I can believe it.  A couple decades we had a similar squabble over reapportioning the General Assembly. The then minority Republicans and Black Democrats worked together to pass a plans that created more GOP districts and more Black majority districts. It worked, but with a couple of white Democrats who switched parties, the Republicans took control of the Assembly and have never relinquished it since. Ooops!

I don't think any three-judge panel plan is likely to create two safe Democratic seats, maybe one safe Dem and one lean Dem seat, but as I posted earlier, for most Republicans, this is about which Republican will be elected from the 7th district, especially since the area the 7th covers will determine who can run and what type of Republican will be likely to win. I haven't checked, but I'm willing to bet that some Republican State Senator from Beaufort County is hoping to run for Congress in 2012.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: June 29, 2011, 07:47:43 PM »

It's so hard to imagine these goings on in SC. It is inconceivable to think that a split among Dems in IL would result in a rogue group banding with the GOP to pass an alternate plan.

Then again, maybe I should be prepared to submit my credentials to the federal court in SC. Wink

I can believe it.  A couple decades we had a similar squabble over reapportioning the General Assembly. The then minority Republicans and Black Democrats worked together to pass a plans that created more GOP districts and more Black majority districts. It worked, but with a couple of white Democrats who switched parties, the Republicans took control of the Assembly and have never relinquished it since. Ooops!

I don't think any three-judge panel plan is likely to create two safe Democratic seats, maybe one safe Dem and one lean Dem seat, but as I posted earlier, for most Republicans, this is about which Republican will be elected from the 7th district, especially since the area the 7th covers will determine who can run and what type of Republican will be likely to win. I haven't checked, but I'm willing to bet that some Republican State Senator from Beaufort County is hoping to run for Congress in 2012.

It still strikes me as quite dangerous, since I don't think the state GOP could seriously rule out a judicial requirement to create two black-majority districts. This could be a costly gamble at the national level.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: June 29, 2011, 08:03:43 PM »

The way population trends are going right now, a plan with two minority-barely majority districts could end up being a 7-0 GOP plan by the end of the decade.  Why do you think Clyburn hasn't been pushing for minority majority districts?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« 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 0.078 seconds with 13 queries.