US House Redistricting: Oregon

[Brittain33]

Who gives a crap about "denouncing" maps. None of is here to bathe in your moral superiority or anyone else's. It's about the maps and the data.

[BigSkyBob]

Who gives a crap about "denouncing" maps. None of is here to bathe in your moral superiority or anyone else's. It's about the maps and the data.

I suggest you reread the reactions to the Minnesota GOP map.

[Brittain33]

Who gives a crap about "denouncing" maps. None of is here to bathe in your moral superiority or anyone else's. It's about the maps and the data.

I suggest you reread the reactions to the Minnesota GOP map.

Are there people complaining about Republican posters for not expressing sufficient outrage?

[BigSkyBob]

Who gives a crap about "denouncing" maps. None of is here to bathe in your moral superiority or anyone else's. It's about the maps and the data.

I suggest you reread the reactions to the Minnesota GOP map.

Are there people complaining about Republican posters for not expressing sufficient outrage?

Well, they are expressing outrage that I will not take their partisan outrage seriously by validating it. Please reread the Minnesota redistricting thread.


When Minnesota Republicans drew a map that favored Republican candidates more than the current map does that was presented as definitive proof that it was a "gerrymander" even if it didn't look like a gerrymander. In Oregon, the Democrats have proposed a map that favors them more than the current line yet the very same posters remain totally silent when asked if that means their standard applied to Oregon means the Democratic proposed map is a "gerrymander?" [The Oregon Democratic map clearly looking like a gerrymander.]

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You outright said that the Minnesota map was not a gerrymander, it was just a map drawn to benefit Republicans (is there a name for some type of reverse No True Scotsman fallacy?) Not a single person here has stated the Democrats' proposed Oregon map is not a gerrymander. I'll say it here in plain words so it finally gets through your skull: "The Democrats' proposed map in Oregon is a gerrymander." Happy now?

Really basically any map not drawn by an independent commission or court is a gerrymander, it's just an issue as to how much. I can't think of any map I've ever seen drawn by a partisan legislature that I wouldn't call a gerrymander that didn't have less than say four districts, not all are necessarily for partisan reasons and some are worse than others, but besides the point.

[Verily]

To get away from stupid conversations, here's a better Republican gerrymander of OR than their dummymander proposal. It's still not great because Democrats are hard to pack in OR--outside of Portland there are a lot of disparate Democratic pockets that cannot neatly be drawn into one district. But I did manage to get most of them into one district and split up Eugene/Springfield enough to create what should be a 3R-2D map (although it could, in good year for the Dems, be 4D-1R).

[Sbane]

I don't see republicans denouncing the maps coming out of republican legislatures. This is how it is. Stop complaining.

It is hypocrisy to demand that Republican denounce all Republican drawn maps, such as in Minnesota, as a "gerrymander" only because they favor Republicans, but, say "pound sand" when they are asked to denounce maps that Democrats draw to favor the Democrats.

There should be one standard that applies to both parties. And, that standards shouldn't be, "If it benefits the Democrats it is 'fair' redistricting, and if benefits the Republicans it is 'gerrymandering.'"

So a few Democrats didn't like the Republican map in MN. So? Aren't you the one who was trying to say the map wasn't a gerrymander when it quite obviously was? Guess what, the Democratic proposal in OR is a gerrymander and so is the Republican proposal in MN. Deal with it.

[Napoleon]

Just put him on ignore. Its not nearly as bad this way.

[BigSkyBob]

I don't see republicans denouncing the maps coming out of republican legislatures. This is how it is. Stop complaining.

It is hypocrisy to demand that Republican denounce all Republican drawn maps, such as in Minnesota, as a "gerrymander" only because they favor Republicans, but, say "pound sand" when they are asked to denounce maps that Democrats draw to favor the Democrats.

There should be one standard that applies to both parties. And, that standards shouldn't be, "If it benefits the Democrats it is 'fair' redistricting, and if benefits the Republicans it is 'gerrymandering.'"

So a few Democrats didn't like the Republican map in MN. So? Aren't you the one who was trying to say the map wasn't a gerrymander when it quite obviously was? Guess what, the Democratic proposal in OR is a gerrymander and so is the Republican proposal in MN. Deal with it.

Reality check. You have offered your opinions of the Minnesota, and Oregon maps as if they were fact. Asserting an opinion in a highhanded and self righteous manner doesn't make your opinion fact. I don't have to "deal with" your opinion. I merely have to read it, evaluate it, and come to a judgment about your opinion.


My judgment of your opinion is this: Your opinion on the Oregon Democrat map is probably correct. Splitting Multnomath county three ways crosses the line between taking reasonable decisions that favor your party and taking egregious decisions that favor your party. My judgment about your opinion of the Minnesota map is that you are probably wrong. Republicans took choices that favored Republicans, but, those choices were not egregious. The outstate districts have been restructured twice. This map would be their third restructuring. This structure is entirely reasonable, and more favorable to Republicans than the previous restructurings. The map is compact. The map respects county lines, etc., etc. The choices are egregious, and, therefore, the map is not properly considered a "gerrymander."

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Just put him on ignore. Its not nearly as bad this way.

[Sbane]

I don't see republicans denouncing the maps coming out of republican legislatures. This is how it is. Stop complaining.

It is hypocrisy to demand that Republican denounce all Republican drawn maps, such as in Minnesota, as a "gerrymander" only because they favor Republicans, but, say "pound sand" when they are asked to denounce maps that Democrats draw to favor the Democrats.

There should be one standard that applies to both parties. And, that standards shouldn't be, "If it benefits the Democrats it is 'fair' redistricting, and if benefits the Republicans it is 'gerrymandering.'"

So a few Democrats didn't like the Republican map in MN. So? Aren't you the one who was trying to say the map wasn't a gerrymander when it quite obviously was? Guess what, the Democratic proposal in OR is a gerrymander and so is the Republican proposal in MN. Deal with it.

Reality check. You have offered your opinions of the Minnesota, and Oregon maps as if they were fact. Asserting an opinion in a highhanded and self righteous manner doesn't make your opinion fact. I don't have to "deal with" your opinion. I merely have to read it, evaluate it, and come to a judgment about your opinion.


My judgment of your opinion is this: Your opinion on the Oregon Democrat map is probably correct. Splitting Multnomath county three ways crosses the line between taking reasonable decisions that favor your party and taking egregious decisions that favor your party. My judgment about your opinion of the Minnesota map is that you are probably wrong. Republicans took choices that favored Republicans, but, those choices were not egregious. The outstate districts have been restructured twice. This map would be their third restructuring. This structure is entirely reasonable, and more favorable to Republicans than the previous restructurings. The map is compact. The map respects county lines, etc., etc. The choices are egregious, and, therefore, the map is not properly considered a "gerrymander."

Republicans are always right. Democrats are always wrong. Got it.

[BigSkyBob]

I don't see republicans denouncing the maps coming out of republican legislatures. This is how it is. Stop complaining.

It is hypocrisy to demand that Republican denounce all Republican drawn maps, such as in Minnesota, as a "gerrymander" only because they favor Republicans, but, say "pound sand" when they are asked to denounce maps that Democrats draw to favor the Democrats.

There should be one standard that applies to both parties. And, that standards shouldn't be, "If it benefits the Democrats it is 'fair' redistricting, and if benefits the Republicans it is 'gerrymandering.'"

So a few Democrats didn't like the Republican map in MN. So? Aren't you the one who was trying to say the map wasn't a gerrymander when it quite obviously was? Guess what, the Democratic proposal in OR is a gerrymander and so is the Republican proposal in MN. Deal with it.

Reality check. You have offered your opinions of the Minnesota, and Oregon maps as if they were fact. Asserting an opinion in a highhanded and self righteous manner doesn't make your opinion fact. I don't have to "deal with" your opinion. I merely have to read it, evaluate it, and come to a judgment about your opinion.


My judgment of your opinion is this: Your opinion on the Oregon Democrat map is probably correct. Splitting Multnomath county three ways crosses the line between taking reasonable decisions that favor your party and taking egregious decisions that favor your party. My judgment about your opinion of the Minnesota map is that you are probably wrong. Republicans took choices that favored Republicans, but, those choices were not egregious. The outstate districts have been restructured twice. This map would be their third restructuring. This structure is entirely reasonable, and more favorable to Republicans than the previous restructurings. The map is compact. The map respects county lines, etc., etc. The choices are egregious, and, therefore, the map is not properly considered a "gerrymander."

Republicans are always right. Democrats are always wrong. Got it.

I see that you are trying to create the false alternative that if I believe that the Minnesota map does not cross the line of being eggregious, then I take the position that no Republican map ever  crosses that line.

That's quite convenient for you, isn't it?

[krazen1211]

Map is a done deal.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2011/06/oregon_legislators_reach_agree.html


Republicans backed off their insistence that all of heavily Democratic Multnomah County be contained in one congressional district.  In exchange Democrats agreed to reduce the Multnomah County footprint of the districts held by Democratic Reps. David Wu and Kurt Schrader.




Great. These people should probably handle the budget.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

It looks like the map will barely change.

[muon2]

It looks like the map will barely change.

I expect that was the key to the agreement. Status quo for 10 years until OR gets its 6th seat.

[minionofmidas]

Approve of the unjigging around Corvallis, approve of keeping the 5th out of Portland (or almost), disapprove of backing down on Hood River though. The times when it belonged with Eastern Oregon are quite clearly past.

[krazen1211]

Is Oregon slated for a 6th district based on current population growth? 767k seemed pretty high compared to most states.

[Seattle]

Is Oregon slated for a 6th district based on current population growth? 767k seemed pretty high compared to most states.

From census estimates, it looked like Oregon was set to gain a 6th seat in the 2010 census, but it went to Washington in the end. I think they were like 2-3 places away from gaining one. Unless Oregon's growth considerably slows down incomparison to the rest of the US, I bet they'll get a 6th seat in the 2020 census.

[muon2]

Is Oregon slated for a 6th district based on current population growth? 767k seemed pretty high compared to most states.

From census estimates, it looked like Oregon was set to gain a 6th seat in the 2010 census, but it went to Washington in the end. I think they were like 2-3 places away from gaining one. Unless Oregon's growth considerably slows down incomparison to the rest of the US, I bet they'll get a 6th seat in the 2020 census.

OR wasn't as close to a 6th seat considering the many estimates that had forecast one in the last few years. There were five states ahead of OR in the 2010 reapportionment: NC, MO, NY, NJ, and MT. If OR maintains a growth rate above the national average, then it is likely that OR will gain in 2020.