Redistricting favoring big cities?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:57:41 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)
  Redistricting favoring big cities?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Redistricting favoring big cities?  (Read 1720 times)
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 15, 2011, 06:50:36 PM »

I haven't seen detailed numbers, but several people have said the 2010 census favors larger cities and urban areas.

Anybody else hear this?

I did notice that the population for D.C. jumped about 5% (the first increase in decades), but D.C. isn't a state.

Maybe it only appears to favor big cities because of the fact that the 2000 census deliberately skipped so many urban areas.

Also, if the redistricting doesn't accommodate the cities' growth, will there be a lawsuit to remedy it? And will the new census figures make some Republican-leaning states lean Democratic?
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 #1 on: January 15, 2011, 07:10:06 PM »

Many major cities have started seeing growth again. But it's usually still below the nationwide growth, and the growth seen in the suburbs, so they'll generally lose CDs again. You mention how DC grew 5%, the first time it's seen growth in a long time. Notable, but the nation grew 10%. If it were part of Maryland or Virginia, a DC-based district would have had to expand into the suburbs.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2011, 07:16:41 PM »

Many major cities have started seeing growth again. But it's usually still below the nationwide growth, and the growth seen in the suburbs, so they'll generally lose CDs again. You mention how DC grew 5%, the first time it's seen growth in a long time. Notable, but the nation grew 10%. If it were part of Maryland or Virginia, a DC-based district would have had to expand into the suburbs.

Yes, but it's usually worse than this.

D.C. has pretty much a fixed boundary and was already pretty well built-up, but what about other big cities?

Somebody said that Louisville and Lexington together now make up a much larger proportion of Kentucky's population (even if you adjust Louisville for merging with the county). I'm wondering how close it'll be to bringing Kentucky back into the Democratic column.
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 #3 on: January 15, 2011, 07:21:33 PM »

Many major cities have started seeing growth again. But it's usually still below the nationwide growth, and the growth seen in the suburbs, so they'll generally lose CDs again. You mention how DC grew 5%, the first time it's seen growth in a long time. Notable, but the nation grew 10%. If it were part of Maryland or Virginia, a DC-based district would have had to expand into the suburbs.

Yes, but it's usually worse than this.

D.C. has pretty much a fixed boundary and was already pretty well built-up, but what about other big cities?

Somebody said that Louisville and Lexington together now make up a much larger proportion of Kentucky's population (even if you adjust Louisville for merging with the county). I'm wondering how close it'll be to bringing Kentucky back into the Democratic column.

I highly doubt Louisville's pre-merger population has exceeded statewide growth.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2011, 08:36:35 PM »

I haven't seen detailed numbers, but several people have said the 2010 census favors larger cities and urban areas.

Anybody else hear this?

I did notice that the population for D.C. jumped about 5% (the first increase in decades), but D.C. isn't a state.

Maybe it only appears to favor big cities because of the fact that the 2000 census deliberately skipped so many urban areas.

Also, if the redistricting doesn't accommodate the cities' growth, will there be a lawsuit to remedy it? And will the new census figures make some Republican-leaning states lean Democratic?
Most are no longer declining, and 20 of the 50 largest are growing faster the country as a whole.  The following is based on census estimates projected forward to the 2010 census.  These estimates do include boundary changes through 2009.


1New York4.4%
2Los Angeles2.7%
3Chicago-1.6%
4Houston14.4%
5Phoenix19.8%
6Philadelphia2.5%
7San Antonio18.2%
8San Diego6.2%
9Dallas9.0%
10San Jose6.6%
11Detroit-3.0%
12San Francisco4.2%
13Jacksonville9.6%
14Indianapolis3.0%
15Austin16.0%
16Columbus, OH6.8%
17Fort Worth33.5%
18Charlotte23.0%
19Memphis-1.6%
20Boston7.7%
21Baltimore-1.3%
22El Paso10.2%
23Seattle8.7%
24Denver8.8%
25Nashville-Davidson10.2%
26Milwaukee1.5%
27Washington4.0%
28Las Vegas15.0%
29Louisville/Jefferson2.3%
30Portland6.3%
31Oklahoma City10.1%
32Tucson10.4%
33Atlanta27.7%
34Albuquerque17.5%
35Kansas City, MO8.9%
36Fresno11.0%
37Mesa13.3%
38Sacramento11.8%
39Long Beach-0.5%
40Omaha10.9%
41Virginia Beach1.5%
42Miami19.9%
43Cleveland-9.3%
44Oakland1.5%
45Raleigh37.2%
46Colorado Springs9.3%
47Tulsa-0.7%
48Minneapolis1.2%
49Arlington, TX12.2%
50Honolulu1.0%
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2011, 08:43:48 PM »

Among mid0sized cities, 26 of 50 are growing faster than the country.

51Wichita5.8%
52St. Louis2.0%
53New Orleans-27.5%
54Tampa12.5%
55Santa Ana0.1%
56Anaheim2.5%
57Cincinnati0.6%
58Bakersfield32.0%
59Aurora, CO15.8%
60Toledo0.4%
61Pittsburgh-6.1%
62Riverside12.8%
63Lexington-Fayette13.1%
64Stockton14.9%
65Corpus Christi4.6%
66Anchorage9.1%
67St. Paul-2.0%
68Newark1.7%
69Plano, TX18.0%
70Buffalo-7.2%
71Henderson, NV35.7%
72Fort Wayne1.2%
73Greensboro11.7%
74Lincoln11.1%
75Glendale, AZ10.8%
76Chandler, AZ33.7%
77St. Petersburg-1.5%
78Jersey City0.9%
79Scottsdale, AZ13.7%
80Orlando21.3%
81Madison, WI11.4%
82Norfolk-0.7%
83Birmingham-4.3%
84Winston-Salem13.0%
85Durham20.8%
86Laredo24.4%
87Lubbock12.3%
88Baton Rouge-0.6%
89North Las Vegas84.7%
90Chula Vista, CA23.3%
91Chesapeake, VA10.7%
92Gilbert, AZ81.6%
93Garland, TX1.4%
94Reno17.6%
95Hialeah, FL-3.9%
96Arlington, VA13.6%
97Irvine, CA37.1%
98Rochester, NY-5.2%
99Akron-4.2%
100Boise City4.4%
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2011, 08:46:43 PM »

Wow! Look at Boston!

And Tulsa is one of few big cities to shrink?

Wow. Just wow.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2011, 08:51:51 PM »

Mid-small 13 faster than country.

101Irving, TX5.6%
102Fremont, CA-0.7%
103Richmond, VA3.4%
104Spokane3.7%
105Modesto3.7%
106Montgomery0.5%
107Yonkers1.8%
108Des Moines0.0%
109Tacoma2.6%
110Shreveport-0.0%
111San Bernardino4.0%
112Fayetteville, NC-0.6%
113Glendale, CA0.1%
114Augusta-Richmond, GA-0.3%
115Grand Rapids-2.1%
116Huntington Beach, CA1.3%
117Mobile-2.0%
118Newport News6.7%
119Little Rock4.9%
120Moreno Valley, CA34.5%
121Columbus, GA2.2%
122Amarillo9.3%
123Fontana, CA24.5%
124Oxnard, CA7.8%
125Knoxville4.8%
126Fort Lauderdale7.6%
127Salt Lake City0.4%
128Worcester6.7%
129Huntsville, AL13.0%
130Tempe, AZ12.6%
131Brownsville, TX22.0%
132Jackson, MS-4.8%
133Overland Park, KS13.6%
134Aurora, IL16.5%
135Oceanside, CA5.4%
136Tallahassee13.8%
137Providence-1.7%
138Rancho Cucamonga, CA30.1%
139Ontario, CA7.0%
140Chattanooga8.6%
141Santa Clarita, CA7.1%
142Garden Grove, CA0.3%
143Vancouver, WA12.0%
144Grand Prairie, TX25.0%
145Peoria,AZ41.4%
146Sioux Falls23.5%
147Springfield, MO3.6%
148Santa Rosa, CA4.6%
149Rockford4.0%
150Springfield, MA3.1%
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2011, 11:10:37 PM »

Wow! Look at Boston!

And Tulsa is one of few big cities to shrink?

Wow. Just wow.
Tulsa lost 12K between 2000 and 2005 and gained 8K from 2005 to 2009.  The projection assumed constant change from 2000 to 2009, so it will be low.  Tulsa is pretty hemmed in by suburbs which all grew strongly (Broken Arrow, Jenks, Bixby, Owasso, Glenpool)

Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2011, 11:12:29 PM »

So Cleveland is even worse off than Detroit?
Logged
danny
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,768
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2011, 11:41:00 PM »

Many major cities have started seeing growth again. But it's usually still below the nationwide growth, and the growth seen in the suburbs, so they'll generally lose CDs again. You mention how DC grew 5%, the first time it's seen growth in a long time. Notable, but the nation grew 10%. If it were part of Maryland or Virginia, a DC-based district would have had to expand into the suburbs.

Yes, but it's usually worse than this.

D.C. has pretty much a fixed boundary and was already pretty well built-up, but what about other big cities?

Somebody said that Louisville and Lexington together now make up a much larger proportion of Kentucky's population (even if you adjust Louisville for merging with the county). I'm wondering how close it'll be to bringing Kentucky back into the Democratic column.

Even if the cities were to grow faster than the suburbs that wouldn't necessarily make more democratic. people probably won't vote for a different party just because they moved, it could be that people that moved to the city were predisposed to vote for the democrats even before they moved to the cities. Conversely, it could be Republicans moving from the suburbs but they will just keep voting republican which would simply make the cities more republican.
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 #11 on: January 16, 2011, 12:39:07 AM »

Many of the faster-growing cities are sprawling ones that include what many of us would consider suburbs, anyway. So it ultimately comes down to where we've drawn the arbitrary lines on the map. At a glance, though, Atlanta's growth seems fairly impressive, though. But considering its large land area, its total population isn't terribly high, IMO... And I'm not sure how much they annexed.

Seattle's growth has really picked up in the past few years, while it grew quite slowly during the boom years.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2011, 12:54:29 AM »

Sprawl in Atlanta is so bad that the two black majority districts will probably end up being roughly the same size as Newt Gingrich's old seat. Even the black areas are sprawly messes.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2011, 02:22:14 AM »

Sprawl in Atlanta is so bad that the two black majority districts will probably end up being roughly the same size as Newt Gingrich's old seat. Even the black areas are sprawly messes.

Dekalb and Clayton counties: African American suburbs (mostly).

Douglas is starting to trend that way too.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2011, 02:31:46 AM »

Something I was thinking about a few days ago is that Cynthia McKinney haters should be quite thankful she represented a middle-class suburban black district instead of inner-city Atlanta. She could easily still be around if she was from that district. The fact that that district elected the very respectable John Lewis and McKinney's elected her for so long is quite odd compared to the pattern of where the craziest black reps tend to be come from.

Of course in South Florida now you have the slums electing a classy lady with great taste in fashion and the middle-class suburban black neighborhoods electing a guy who was impeached by the same body he now serves in.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2011, 11:05:31 AM »

Atlanta's boundaries are quite small and the city itself achieved a large population decades ago before falling as people moved out to the suburbs. The recent population growth is a result of successful in-fill in the city.
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 #16 on: January 16, 2011, 03:24:41 PM »

Atlanta's boundaries are quite small and the city itself achieved a large population decades ago before falling as people moved out to the suburbs. The recent population growth is a result of successful in-fill in the city.

132 square miles is pretty large. And I know they did some annexations, but it might not have been very many people. Anyway, it will be interesting to see where the growth was when we get census tract results.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2011, 04:57:04 PM »

For some reason, I though Atlanta had peaked at a number well north of its current population back around 1970, but I'm wrong.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2011, 07:27:12 PM »

In a roundabout way, perhaps. Most inner-city districts are D+10+ and have to be expanded. Their reps can easily afford to take in some GOP precints in the burbs without any problems. However, high growth suburban districts are, on average, more marginal for the GOP. Depending on how lines are drawn, GOP reps, especially those who were just swept in this year, may find themselves in less friendly territory. If the Dems do get a boost from redistricting, it will be the big city pols with the seniority and clout.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.085 seconds with 13 queries.