US House Redistricting: Arizona
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:26:00 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: Arizona
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 21
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Arizona  (Read 69038 times)
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: August 14, 2011, 03:57:16 AM »

What.is.this.I.don't.even.

Okay, I get the map 1 Tucson Dem sink. I'd never expect it to happen (Grijalva vs Giffords primary and end to the congressional career hopes of that Palin lovebunny who lost to Giffords and then got his campaign manager onto the redistricting commission) but it does make sense on the ground.
But divvying the Navajo Rez? Seriously?
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: August 15, 2011, 12:47:41 PM »

"After months of administrative drudgery and political tumult the five-person panel charged with redrawing Arizona’s political districts released its first set of working maps Saturday. The initial “grid” maps only meet two of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s six constitutionally mandated criteria - equal population and contiguity. From there, significant adjustments will be made..."

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/08/13/redistricting-commission-unveils-first-set-of-maps/

The map is so preposterous (not suprising given that the authors of the map are Democrat party hacks) its highly unlikely to be implemented.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: August 19, 2011, 09:04:26 AM »

What.is.this.I.don't.even.

Okay, I get the map 1 Tucson Dem sink. I'd never expect it to happen (Grijalva vs Giffords primary and end to the congressional career hopes of that Palin lovebunny who lost to Giffords and then got his campaign manager onto the redistricting commission) but it does make sense on the ground.
But divvying the Navajo Rez? Seriously?
It's a pair or starting point maps. And they are starting with #2.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/08/18/20110818arizona-redistricting-panel-starting-map.html
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: August 19, 2011, 09:51:55 AM »

Ok, so what does this mean? It looks like 5-4 at first glance, with all three border districts being at least lean D, but that's be right, can it?

Did they put Tempe in the 7th?
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: August 19, 2011, 10:29:44 AM »

Ok, so what does this mean? It looks like 5-4 at first glance, with all three border districts being at least lean D, but that's be right, can it?

Did they put Tempe in the 7th?

It's a starting point, which is going to be modified, but that map isn't 5-4. Roughly (its hard to map this of course):

Probably doesn't mean a whole lot, but better to start from 2 than 1. This is a very good Maricopa gerrymander for the GOP; and if they avoid putting Pinal with Pima and instead put it with Cochise we will have a good GOP map there too.

1. Obama 49+. McCain 49
2. Obama 50 McCain 49
3. McCain 59, Obama 40
4. McCain 59, Obama 40
5. McCain 59, Obama 40
6. McCain 57, Obama 42
7. Obama 61, McCain 37
8. McCain 56, Obama 43
9. McCain 53, Obama 46.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: August 19, 2011, 10:41:46 AM »

Ok, so in Maricopa we have:

3 = Yuma and Hispanic parts of Maricopa drowned out (easily, since few voters) by Chandler and Gilbert
5 = Scottsdale and other Republican territory
6 = Tempe drowned out by Mesa
7 = Pastor
8 = Republican parts of current AZ-1 and AZ-2
9 = Republican north Phoenix, not sure why it has such a high Obama number, maybe I'm missing something
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: August 19, 2011, 10:58:53 AM »

I figure that CD-9 is bordered by I-17 and a horizontal line just north of I-10 (just north of the Pinal/Maricopa  horizontal border to the east). If so it would have a lot of 60-65% Obama precincts along its southern edge, although no 70%+ precincts.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: August 19, 2011, 11:13:59 AM »

Add 4 Flagstaff and parts of the Navajo drowned by Yavapai and Mojave, 5 parts of the Navajo, the Apache and some further rural territory with dem traditions still tappable in congressional races (and some very safe R rural territory too) drowned by exurbs.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: August 19, 2011, 12:03:16 PM »

My conclusion from reading how the process works, is that these maps are close to meaningless.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: August 19, 2011, 12:10:09 PM »

My conclusion from reading how the process works, is that these maps are close to meaningless.

Ok, so the idea is "let's do 5 outstate districts, three of them along the border, and then see where the chips fall."?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: August 19, 2011, 12:29:36 PM »

My conclusion from reading how the process works, is that these maps are close to meaningless.

Ok, so the idea is "let's do 5 outstate districts, three of them along the border, and then see where the chips fall."?

For purposes of the partisan complexion of the CD's, these  template grids can essentially disappear once the other four criteria are plugged in. So for purposes of the doing the Dem and Pubbie congressperson body count, these grids are essentially worthless.
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: August 19, 2011, 01:02:42 PM »

My conclusion from reading how the process works, is that these maps are close to meaningless.

Ok, so the idea is "let's do 5 outstate districts, three of them along the border, and then see where the chips fall."?

According to law, the commission must start with a map based only on two of their six criteria: population equality and compactness. Then the later stages incorporate the other four criteria (VRA, municipal boundaries, competitiveness, and a vague "communities of interest" requirement). The goal is to ensure that they're not just drawing the maps based on the existing incumbents' districts. Whether they actually meet this goal at the later stages is, of course, another question.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: August 20, 2011, 11:28:42 AM »
« Edited: August 20, 2011, 11:30:22 AM by krazen1211 »


For purposes of the partisan complexion of the CD's, these  template grids can essentially disappear once the other four criteria are plugged in. So for purposes of the doing the Dem and Pubbie congressperson body count, these grids are essentially worthless.

Not necessarily worthless. As long as the Pastor district stays at 63% or so Obama, and they really have no reason to tweak that one much at all even based on all 6 criteria, the GOP is in great shape in Maricopa County.

Any adherence to municipal boundaries will not cleave the more Dem western parts of Mesa from the heavy GOP eastern parts.

Here is my 7-2 map that tries to adhere to those municipal boundaries; although I did cheat once.

http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/918/a-clean-arizona-72-map
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: August 20, 2011, 11:37:04 AM »
« Edited: August 20, 2011, 11:39:19 AM by Torie »

Grid map



Krazen's map

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: August 20, 2011, 12:06:32 PM »

What are the racial stats on your two southern districts there?
Otherwise very well done. Gosar is probably less than *entirely* safe, but then that'd be asking for a lot. And some districts *could* change too fast to remain safe for the entire decade, but are certainly safe for now.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: August 20, 2011, 12:25:58 PM »

What are the racial stats on your two southern districts there?
Otherwise very well done. Gosar is probably less than *entirely* safe, but then that'd be asking for a lot. And some districts *could* change too fast to remain safe for the entire decade, but are certainly safe for now.

Both are about  35% VAP Hispanic, which is less than the current CD-7, but about what the Grid Map is showing.

It's a blatant GOP map of course; given the way I cracked Tempe between 2 districts. But I did do other things such as moving CD-4 out of Glendale (which also favors the GOP).
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: August 20, 2011, 12:31:15 PM »

I don't think it's absolutely unpermissible to crack Tempe, though. Not if you have a good excuse. (Though of course, the final map will be a mild bipartisan gerry in practice, so probably not happening.)
I kind of wonder why you have Grijalva running in the large southern district.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: August 20, 2011, 01:23:57 PM »
« Edited: August 20, 2011, 01:33:25 PM by Torie »

AZ-07 was majority VAP Hispanic before, and was drawn in 2001 by the Commission that way overriding all other criteria to conform to the VRA, or what they thought was the VRA.  That is going to happen again. So AZ-07 will need to look like this; in fact it is less grotesque than its current boundaries.  So I think it is close to a done deal. There is next to no room for maneuverability here. So it is going to look like this - period. That is my point of view anyway.

So my suggestion is to just draw AZ-07 the way I did, and move on from there.



Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: August 20, 2011, 01:51:35 PM »

Actually, AZ-07 might as well take the rest of Santa Cruz County (only 5,000 folks there to suck up), so this version looks even better.

Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: August 20, 2011, 02:27:48 PM »

Actually, AZ-07 might as well take the rest of Santa Cruz County (only 5,000 folks there to suck up), so this version looks even better.



Incidentally, that's a bigger pack than my map. The issue I had with that was that it makes the lines in Maricopa more challenging to hit 55-57% McCain across the board. I am not a fan of that CD-3 hooking around Glendale, but if you are not careful, one of your Maricopa districts (currently its CD-5) will end up marginal.

The preference in the south of course is to pack Giffords and not Grijalva. Might be unavoidable, however.





Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: August 20, 2011, 02:30:24 PM »

I don't think it's absolutely unpermissible to crack Tempe, though. Not if you have a good excuse. (Though of course, the final map will be a mild bipartisan gerry in practice, so probably not happening.)
I kind of wonder why you have Grijalva running in the large southern district.

It is certainly possible that he would take a full Tucson district and force Giffords elsewhere. I just assigned by numbers there.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: August 20, 2011, 02:47:43 PM »
« Edited: August 21, 2011, 11:43:33 AM by Torie »

By the way, the only CD I drew is AZ-07. The rest are just the old CD's, erased in places.

Anyway, as you no doubt know, per the law,  you need to follow county lines and so forth unless there is a good non-partisan reason not to do so.  So Santa Cruz and Yuma Counties should be kept together, and Maricopa and any other county not named "Pima" not impinged.

Finally, all other things being equal, making more competitive districts rather than less is also in the law, after all the other criteria are met as best they can. So bear that in mind, when you are tempted to "cheat."  The Dems will catch you and point it out to the commission, and tank you.  Yes they will. In other words, only cheat if you are pretty confident you won't get caught because you have a quite plausible cover story, about some communities of interest beyond municipal lines or cross municipal lines BS or something.

If you want to pack AZ-07, try the below, which shoves some white heavily Obama precincts in to AZ-07 (presumably around the U of Arizona), and drops considerably more heavily Hispanic precincts to the east, next to an air force base I think, that are barely Obama. So the Hispanic percentage drops to a bare minimum (50.0-50.1% Hispanic VAP), but the Obama percentage goes up 1%.  But if that hurts the competitiveness of the next door CD, and bearing in mind it drops the Hispanic percentage a tad, you might not get away with it. It does make the CD slightly more compact, as it sheds some of its prong to the east, while reducing the size of that one little jut in from the north south towards downtown. That's your cover.

Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: August 20, 2011, 04:09:09 PM »

By the way, the only CD I drew as AZ-07. The rest are just the old CD's, erased in places.

Anyway, as you no doubt know, per the law,  you need to follow county lines and so forth unless there is a good non-partisan reason not to do so.  So Santa Cruz and Yuma Counties should be kept together, and Maricopa and any other county not named "Pima" not impinged.

Finally, all other things being equal, making more competitive districts rather than less is also in the law, after all the other criteria are met as best they can. So bear that in mind, when you are tempted to "cheat."  The Dems will catch you and point it out to the commission, and tank you.  Yes they will. In other words, only cheat if you are pretty confident you won't get caught because you have a quite plausible cover story, about some communities of interest beyond municipal lines or cross municipal lines BS or something.


Yes, of course. Certainly it is valid to stick CD-7 into those 2 precincts in Pinal/Maricopa to keep the native population together (not that such changes the district by any margin). The splitting of Yuma/Santa Cruz there is also fairly marginal but done for partisan reasons; it likely makes sense to undo those and sacrifice the 10k or so Republicans.

Tempe of course can only be split to ensure that Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert are not. Unfortunately the Democrats retain the equally valid choice to split Mesa rather than Tempe; pairing Tempe/Chandler/part of Mesa to form a swing/slightly Dem district and a heavily GOP Gilbert/part of Mesa/Fountain Hills district. Surely they will argue for that.

2 parameters set most of the map; the first being that CD-1 takes the northern portion of the state, and the second being that CD-7 exits Maricopa county to the extend possible. It is possible that neither parameter is valid, but historically they have tried to ensure that, as you said, Maricopa does not dominate all the districts.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: August 20, 2011, 04:24:15 PM »
« Edited: August 20, 2011, 06:02:04 PM by Torie »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, those two native american precincts in Maricopa have a grand total of about 800 residents and less than 200 voters between them.  Smiley

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does the grid do to these two cities? Does it split one or both of them, or neither?  Does one of them have to be split? I know nothing about Phoenix really.  I have never worked on it before.

Meanwhile, with the VRA having drawn AZ-07, AZ-08 then draws itself as well, going up in its McCain percentage from 53.0% of the two party vote to 55.0% (it will be 54% if you don't get away with the modest little gerry in Tuscon). And yes, I get the native American bit now, and thus the bite out of Graham along with the bite out of Maricopa which you mentioned. Smiley

Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: August 20, 2011, 05:53:39 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, those two native american precincts in Maricopa have a grand total of about 800 residents and less than 200 voters between them.  Smiley

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does the grid do to these two cities? Does it split one or both of them, or neither?  Does one of them have to be split? I know nothing about Phoenix really.  I have never worked on it before.

The grid map doesn't take into account municipal boundaries, so it splits a bunch of stuff.

The existing map splits:

Phoenix (inevitable)
Glendale (the Hispanic portions are extracted out)
Tucson (ditto)
Chandler (chopped sort of down the middle)
Mesa (ditto)


My map will remove at least 2 splits, in addition to removing 2 districts from Phoenix entirely (the 2nd and the 7th, although to be fair the 9th is added). The municipalities are very tricky here.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 21  
« 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 0.042 seconds with 12 queries.