Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2013, 08:06:03 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US: House Redistricting Massachusetts
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Print
Author Topic: US: House Redistricting Massachusetts  (Read 11547 times)
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11978


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: August 19, 2011, 11:31:17 am »
Ignore

Hmm, that sounds like a Cape and Islands district. Seems to ruffle more incumbents than is  needed, though.

Would this mean attaching the Cape to New Bedford and expecting Barney Frank to run there? That seems like a tall order. Is this for Therese Murray to run in when he retires or something? Because the other part of it, attaching Quincy and other nearby Norfolk County towns, to the 9th does make a lot of sense from a COI point of view, as does putting Newton in with the 8th or 7th and Brookline with the 8th.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5147


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: August 19, 2011, 12:22:47 pm »
Ignore

Hmm, that sounds like a Cape and Islands district. Seems to ruffle more incumbents than is  needed, though.

Would this mean attaching the Cape to New Bedford and expecting Barney Frank to run there? That seems like a tall order. Is this for Therese Murray to run in when he retires or something? Because the other part of it, attaching Quincy and other nearby Norfolk County towns, to the 9th does make a lot of sense from a COI point of view, as does putting Newton in with the 8th or 7th and Brookline with the 8th.

Could be. Would they be confident in Frank winning without half of Falls River (if he ditches that half to the expanding 3rd), and without Newton?
Logged
Former Moderate
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12179
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #102 on: August 19, 2011, 01:20:26 pm »
Ignore

If Quincy is not a part of a Cape & Islands district, then almost certainly Brockton and New Bedford have to be. Plymouth is just getting too Republican.

Because the other part of it, attaching Quincy and other nearby Norfolk County towns, to the 9th does make a lot of sense from a COI point of view, as does putting Newton in with the 8th or 7th and Brookline with the 8th.

If they're combining Lynch and Keating, then this new district is going to be taking in some very un-Norfolk-like chunks of Boston.

Is this for Therese Murray to run in when he retires or something?

Redistricting will be very interesting so far as Therese Murray is concerned. She barely won re-election in 2010, and it's going to be hard to make that district more Democratic, since it'll need to pick up more Plymouth territory (the Cape & Islands seat needs to expand -- it lost population).

It'll be a very interesting race if Romney winds up on the ticket.

Could be. Would they be confident in Frank winning without half of Falls River (if he ditches that half to the expanding 3rd), and without Newton?

Fall River is in McGovern's district, not Frank's.
Logged

whaeffner1
Newbie
*
Posts: 16


P P P
View Profile
« Reply #103 on: August 19, 2011, 08:56:53 pm »
Ignore

Is there even a slight chance that Democrats will just create a winnable district for the GOP (come on, just throw them a bone) in order to make their other districts even more safe?
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5147


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: August 19, 2011, 09:31:19 pm »
Ignore

If Quincy is not a part of a Cape & Islands district, then almost certainly Brockton and New Bedford have to be. Plymouth is just getting too Republican.

Because the other part of it, attaching Quincy and other nearby Norfolk County towns, to the 9th does make a lot of sense from a COI point of view, as does putting Newton in with the 8th or 7th and Brookline with the 8th.

If they're combining Lynch and Keating, then this new district is going to be taking in some very un-Norfolk-like chunks of Boston.

Is this for Therese Murray to run in when he retires or something?

Redistricting will be very interesting so far as Therese Murray is concerned. She barely won re-election in 2010, and it's going to be hard to make that district more Democratic, since it'll need to pick up more Plymouth territory (the Cape & Islands seat needs to expand -- it lost population).

It'll be a very interesting race if Romney winds up on the ticket.

Could be. Would they be confident in Frank winning without half of Falls River (if he ditches that half to the expanding 3rd), and without Newton?

Fall River is in McGovern's district, not Frank's.


Hmph, pulling it up on DRA shows it split between the 3rd and the 4th. Is that incorrect?
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11978


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: August 19, 2011, 11:25:44 pm »
Ignore

Is there even a slight chance that Democrats will just create a winnable district for the GOP (come on, just throw them a bone) in order to make their other districts even more safe?

Republicans are too few and too scattered to do this without gerrymandering. There's no need.
Logged
Former Moderate
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12179
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #106 on: August 21, 2011, 12:20:35 pm »
Ignore

If Quincy is not a part of a Cape & Islands district, then almost certainly Brockton and New Bedford have to be. Plymouth is just getting too Republican.

Because the other part of it, attaching Quincy and other nearby Norfolk County towns, to the 9th does make a lot of sense from a COI point of view, as does putting Newton in with the 8th or 7th and Brookline with the 8th.

If they're combining Lynch and Keating, then this new district is going to be taking in some very un-Norfolk-like chunks of Boston.

Is this for Therese Murray to run in when he retires or something?

Redistricting will be very interesting so far as Therese Murray is concerned. She barely won re-election in 2010, and it's going to be hard to make that district more Democratic, since it'll need to pick up more Plymouth territory (the Cape & Islands seat needs to expand -- it lost population).

It'll be a very interesting race if Romney winds up on the ticket.

Could be. Would they be confident in Frank winning without half of Falls River (if he ditches that half to the expanding 3rd), and without Newton?

Fall River is in McGovern's district, not Frank's.


Hmph, pulling it up on DRA shows it split between the 3rd and the 4th. Is that incorrect?

Oh, it looks like it's split between the two. My mistake.
Logged

Former Moderate
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12179
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #107 on: August 21, 2011, 12:21:17 pm »
Ignore

Is there even a slight chance that Democrats will just create a winnable district for the GOP (come on, just throw them a bone) in order to make their other districts even more safe?

There's already a winnable district for Republicans: MA-10. It's just that they did a pretty lousy job of winning it last time around.
Logged

So the Heroes Fall
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 68117
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: September 21, 2011, 09:32:13 pm »
Ignore

I don't expect fair maps, persay, just ones that aren't hideously gerrymandered like Ohio this year or Maryland or Massachusetts last time around. I think we ought to be drawing Indiana/Wisconsin type maps that do favor the party who drew them but aren't ridiculous. As for Illinois, I'd like to have seen something a little more even-handed, but it wasn't truly awful.

As ugly as Massachusetts is, it's obviously not for partisan gain. You'd get the same result on a fair map.
Logged

TJ in Wisco
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3304
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: 7.30

View Profile
« Reply #109 on: September 21, 2011, 09:45:02 pm »
Ignore

I don't expect fair maps, persay, just ones that aren't hideously gerrymandered like Ohio this year or Maryland or Massachusetts last time around. I think we ought to be drawing Indiana/Wisconsin type maps that do favor the party who drew them but aren't ridiculous. As for Illinois, I'd like to have seen something a little more even-handed, but it wasn't truly awful.

As ugly as Massachusetts is, it's obviously not for partisan gain. You'd get the same result on a fair map.

Half the districts in the state seem to find their way into Boston so it's not exactly a fair map. Still, you're likely right that Massachusetts would have a straight-Dem delegation regardless, but they have effectively removed the potential for contested elections. They might otherwise have to spend money or actually campaign in some seats.
Logged

"The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."
-G. K. Chesterton
realisticidealist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6198
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: 3.48

View Profile
« Reply #110 on: September 23, 2011, 09:36:49 pm »
Ignore

I don't expect fair maps, persay, just ones that aren't hideously gerrymandered like Ohio this year or Maryland or Massachusetts last time around. I think we ought to be drawing Indiana/Wisconsin type maps that do favor the party who drew them but aren't ridiculous. As for Illinois, I'd like to have seen something a little more even-handed, but it wasn't truly awful.

As ugly as Massachusetts is, it's obviously not for partisan gain. You'd get the same result on a fair map.

Half the districts in the state seem to find their way into Boston so it's not exactly a fair map. Still, you're likely right that Massachusetts would have a straight-Dem delegation regardless, but they have effectively removed the potential for contested elections. They might otherwise have to spend money or actually campaign in some seats.

They only do that because most of the incumbents live near Boston.
Logged

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return."
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5089
France


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: September 24, 2011, 01:04:28 pm »
Ignore

They only do that because most of the incumbents live near Boston.

The incumbents live near Boston because of the way the districts are drawn.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11978


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: September 24, 2011, 01:39:31 pm »
Ignore

They only do that because most of the incumbents live near Boston.

The incumbents live near Boston because of the way the districts are drawn.

What does that mean?

Ed Markey and Barney Frank represented quite different districts when they were first elected before the 1982 redistricting. Frank's district looks the way it does because they were considering eliminating him, even though he lived close to Boston. Markey's district only later extended west.

The 10th district as drawn today, reaching up to Quincy, was represented by a Cape resident (Gerry Studds) until 1996 and the Dem primary that year was a very close contest between a Boston-area politician and a Cape politician.

I don't need to tell you where the last district eliminated in Massachusetts was, I believe.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5089
France


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: September 24, 2011, 06:17:33 pm »
Ignore

They only do that because most of the incumbents live near Boston.

The incumbents live near Boston because of the way the districts are drawn.

What does that mean?
Because politicians don't tend to like to live in areas where their constituents live, and their constituents are too busy with ordinary lives to run for office, districts divvy up the more politically active areas.  When reapportionment is done, rather than combining areas where the politicians live, the districts are extended like toothpaste.

In 2000, in Houston, the area inside the I-610 loop was entitled to a little over 4 representatives.  There were 13 districts in the area, and 9 representatives living there.


I don't need to tell you where the last district eliminated in Massachusetts was, I believe.
Wasn't it Margaret Heckler's district?

Which is now partially included in a district stretching from Brookline to New Bedford, somehow avoiding both Brockton and Fall River (which are in districts based in Boston and Worcester), and has little more than touchpoint connectivity in two places (Wellesley-Dover and Norfolk-Foxborough).

Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11978


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: September 24, 2011, 07:40:42 pm »
Ignore

Because politicians don't tend to like to live in areas where their constituents live, and their constituents are too busy with ordinary lives to run for office, districts divvy up the more politically active areas.  When reapportionment is done, rather than combining areas where the politicians live, the districts are extended like toothpaste.

Yes, but I think you'll find that (with some exceptions--MA-7's journey west being the main one) that this is not true of the history of Massachusetts's districts.

Quote
In 2000, in Houston, the area inside the I-610 loop was entitled to a little over 4 representatives.  There were 13 districts in the area, and 9 representatives living there.

Residential growth patterns in Houston and the country in general are different than they are in Massachusetts. We don't have much suburban/exurban growth at all here. When it does happen, it's in established towns. This is due both to New England's history of town settlement and our anti-growth policies in most places.

Quote from: jimrtex
I don't need to tell you where the last district eliminated in Massachusetts was, I believe.
Wasn't it Margaret Heckler's district?

No, that was in 1982. (Also, her merger with Frank's district was a fair fight; the old 4th stretched out northwest to Fitchburg.) Another district was eliminated in 1992. That district's representative decided to retire from office rather than compete in a primary. Guess where he lived?

Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11978


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: September 24, 2011, 07:45:55 pm »
Ignore

BTW, of course the 4th district is ridiculous, it's just that people offended by it usually guess wrong as to why and how it came to be.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5089
France


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: September 24, 2011, 10:48:45 pm »
Ignore

BTW, of course the 4th district is ridiculous, it's just that people offended by it usually guess wrong as to why and how it came to be.

It would be better to merge the two adjacent districts with the smallest total population and let voters in districts with more population switch to a less populous adjacent district if they thought that would make their vote more effective.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11978


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: September 25, 2011, 06:35:31 am »
Ignore

That's one possible perspective, sure.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11978


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: October 13, 2011, 07:59:04 am »
Ignore

Quote from: jimrtex
I don't need to tell you where the last district eliminated in Massachusetts was, I believe.
Wasn't it Margaret Heckler's district?

No, that was in 1982. (Also, her merger with Frank's district was a fair fight; the old 4th stretched out northwest to Fitchburg.) Another district was eliminated in 1992. That district's representative decided to retire from office rather than compete in a primary. Guess where he lived?

Jim, are you still working on this? Have you tried sources on redistricting history?
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5089
France


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: October 13, 2011, 09:18:46 am »
Ignore

Quote from: jimrtex
I don't need to tell you where the last district eliminated in Massachusetts was, I believe.
Wasn't it Margaret Heckler's district?

No, that was in 1982. (Also, her merger with Frank's district was a fair fight; the old 4th stretched out northwest to Fitchburg.) Another district was eliminated in 1992. That district's representative decided to retire from office rather than compete in a primary. Guess where he lived?

Jim, are you still working on this? Have you tried sources on redistricting history?

Must be Donnelly, since Atkins lost in the primary. Early and Mavroule's lost in the general, and O'Conte didn't exactly retire.  Boston?

Still working on the Gonzales-Gorman figures?
Logged
Former Moderate
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12179
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #120 on: October 14, 2011, 08:29:15 pm »
Ignore

Massachusetts should be releasing their first draft State House and State Senate maps next Tuesday.
Logged

JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6862


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: October 19, 2011, 05:30:16 pm »
Ignore

Looks like it might be Olver or McGovern that gets the axe.

Quote
One scenario now under serious consideration would pair incumbents James P. McGovern, of Worcester, and John W. Olver, of Amherst, in the same district, forcing them to run against each other, according to Democrats informed of the latest proposals.

The legislative redistricting committee - required to reduce the number of congressional districts from 10 to nine because of the state’s anemic population growth - is also focusing on the creation of a Southeastern Massachusetts-based seat that would be centered around New Bedford, Fall River, and Taunton. Such a plan would acknowledge the area’s fast-paced growth and emerging regional identity.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11978


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: October 19, 2011, 07:33:38 pm »
Ignore

Redrawing the map to make sense and not try to keep two western Mass districts with ridiculous tendrils? Too good to be true?
Logged
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8981


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: October 19, 2011, 08:22:20 pm »
Ignore

I just...I...

...well at least it seems like if this happens Northampton will end up in 01. That would be something at least.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 08:29:40 pm by Nathan »Logged

Professor Nathan: A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights. Can you really trust him?

It's like one minute you're preaching from the pulpit at some exceedingly dull church; the next you're a giving a Womens' Studies lecture at Berkeley.
So the Heroes Fall
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 68117
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: October 20, 2011, 12:54:16 am »
Ignore

Olver = should retire anyway for being so old.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Forums Directory