NC redistricting revisited

[BigSkyBob]

This has nothing to do with Md, but I opposed extreme gerrymandering consistently such as NC, OH and PA.. and crafted alternates that would be fairer.. example:

Less ugly? Yes. Fairer. Not by a long shot.

Fairer because Wake and Mecklenberg each have their own CD, and the dems would have a slight edge in the Wake seat

I'll give you that, perhaps, but:

1. Buncombe County is needlessly split for partisan gain, and

Some county in Western North Carolina had to be split to acheive OMOV. Buncombe simply does not have a right to an exemption. Splitting Buncombe is inherently no more, or no less, "unfair" than splitting any other county in Western North Carolina to acheive OMOV.

[BigSkyBob]

This has nothing to do with Md, but I opposed extreme gerrymandering consistently such as NC, OH and PA.. and crafted alternates that would be fairer.. example:

Less ugly? Yes. Fairer. Not by a long shot.

Fairer because Wake and Mecklenberg each have their own CD, and the dems would have a slight edge in the Wake seat

I'll give you that, perhaps, but:

1. Buncombe County is needlessly split for partisan gain, and

Some county in Western North Carolina had to be split to achieve OMOV. Buncombe simply does not have a right to an exemption. Splitting Buncombe is inherently no more, or no less, "unfair" than splitting any other county in Western North Carolina to achieve OMOV.

Asheville is the largest city in Western North Carolina. It belongs in a district in Western North Carolina, not in a district anchored by Gastonia and Hickory.

Every county might very well have its own special pleading. The more rural counties in Western North Carolina would probably prefer a district not anchored in an urban county. Not all such pleadings can be honored.  Posting the special pleading that futher your position and ignoring those special pleadings that don't further your position belies a certain partisan intent, eh?

[BigSkyBob]

Every county might very well have its own special pleading. The more rural counties in Western North Carolina would probably prefer a district not anchored in an urban county. Not all such pleadings can be honored.  Posting the special pleading that futher your position and ignoring those special pleadings that don't further your position belies a certain partisan intent, eh?

I really don't think that that claim holds water in this case. I'm almost certain that Asheville has anchored the Western North Carolina district since the founding of the state.

A statement that is utterly irrelevant to whether, or not, the folks in the rural counties would prefer an all rural district [something you would consider a "community of interest," whatever that means.] Just because they were stuck with Asheville in the past doesn't mean they have to like it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, that is merely a repetition of your special pleading. If the special pleading of the folks from Asheville were the only consideration, then you just might have a case. But, the folks around Asheville have a right to their special pleadings, and, a right to have their special pleading being  debated as seriously as the pleadings from the folks in Asheville. Frankly, I don't think the rural folks around Asheville want Asheville in their district for the entire 360 degree perimeter. For them, the issue is whom is stuck with Buncombe. The legislature found a solution. You might not like that solution, but, for you to claim that there is only one way to look at it--your way--is pure bravo sierra.   

[BigSkyBob]

In the NC map I drew, the 1st district is 48.5% VAP black if I remember correctly-- more than enough to elect a black representative

Well, it would still retrogress out of 6 VRA-covered counties. Thats why the the Assembly had to redraw their original CD1 so that it complied with Section 5.

You are revising history here. The stated motivation for the revision is that the legislature thought that the Black Congressman in the first district had expressed his preference to gain  additional urban Black residents in Wake county rather than in Durham  county. When that Congressman publicly stated the opposite, he was accommodated in the second map.

[BigSkyBob]

Every county might very well have its own special pleading. The more rural counties in Western North Carolina would probably prefer a district not anchored in an urban county. Not all such pleadings can be honored.  Posting the special pleading that futher your position and ignoring those special pleadings that don't further your position belies a certain partisan intent, eh?

I really don't think that that claim holds water in this case. I'm almost certain that Asheville has anchored the Western North Carolina district since the founding of the state.

A statement that is utterly irrelevant to whether, or not, the folks in the rural counties would prefer an all rural district [something you would consider a "community of interest," whatever that means.] Just because they were stuck with Asheville in the past doesn't mean they have to like it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, that is merely a repetition of your special pleading. If the special pleading of the folks from Asheville were the only consideration, then you just might have a case. But, the folks around Asheville have a right to their special pleadings, and, a right to have their special pleading being  debated as seriously as the pleadings from the folks in Asheville. Frankly, I don't think the rural folks around Asheville want Asheville in their district for the entire 360 degree perimeter. For them, the issue is whom is stuck with Buncombe. The legislature found a solution. You might not like that solution, but, for you to claim that there is only one way to look at it--your way--is pure bravo sierra.  

How bout central Wilmington's "special pleading" to be with the rest of New Hanover county?

One of a myriad of special pleadings that wasn't honored. Again, there are a series of special pleading that are contradictory to one another. Honoring some special pleading means ignoring others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blame Butterfield for that one. You can also say the previous redistricting that paired urban Greensboro with suburban Raleigh. Who chaired the redistricting committee that just happened to draw an open seat for that chairman?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1)  I don't dispute that the legislature chose which county in Western North Carolina to split based on considerations of what was best for the legislators that passed the bill. I never have. What I have objected to is special pleadings to the effect that the county lines of Buncombe were sancrosant. They simply are not. Every decade, redistricting splits counties that were previously intact. In some cases, and, in the vast majority of times in smaller counties, the folks in those counties don't like it. Historical arguments about county splits are piles of sophistry.

The legislature drew two districts in Western North Carolina with just two splits. There was no possible option to do it with one. Unlike South Central North Carolina, the lines in the Western two districts were clean. Arguing against the plan using country integrity arguments requires smuggling in a premise that larger counties have a greater right not to be split than smaller counties. It is that premise  that, rightly or wrongly, I reject.

2) Don't tell me what I know, and don't know. The last paragraph above is what I actually believe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of your business. None of your business. Yes, I do.

[BigSkyBob]

In the NC map I drew, the 1st district is 48.5% VAP black if I remember correctly-- more than enough to elect a black representative

Well, it would still retrogress out of 6 VRA-covered counties. Thats why the the Assembly had to redraw their original CD1 so that it complied with Section 5.

You are revising history here. The stated motivation for the revision is that the legislature thought that the Black Congressman in the first district had expressed his preference to gain  additional urban Black residents in Wake county rather than in Durham  county. When that Congressman publicly stated the opposite, he was accommodated in the second map.

As laid out here in this diary, there was still a good chance that the original CD01 would have been thrown out on Section 5 grounds anyway.

I remember reading a diary to that effect just after the plan was passed.  Frankly, I wasn't impressed with its legal reasoning. Nor, is it really backed by any case law.

I am fairly confident any such challenge would have gone nowhere, and, I am fairly confident the legislature felt exactly the same way. However, the Congressman's objections allowed them to draw a map that was at least just as good as the first one, while striving to respect the wishes and desire of North Carolina's minority representatives. Some of North Carolina's White Democratic Congressmen didn't receive the same consideration. The revision was good politics, not a legal necessity. The diarist's objections to the Western district has gotten nowhere in court.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

You are not disputing that the Republicans stated they thought Butterfield preferred expanding into Wake did you? Nor, are you disputing that they stated their reason for the revision was to accommodate him, are you?

You can speculate about what their real motivations were at length. I am citing their stated motivations. Fact tends to beat speculation every time.

[BigSkyBob]

One of a myriad of special pleadings that wasn't honored. Again, there are a series of special pleading that are contradictory to one another. Honoring some special pleading means ignoring others.

And honoring the special pleadings of Republican Party hacks in smoke-filled back rooms means ignoring the pleadings that actually make geographic and cultural sense.

Again, you are showing a willful blindness to any special pleading but your own. Culturally, Asheville isn't like most of the rest of Western North Carolina. Culturally, it more to the left, and populated with a greater number of transplants. You actually go on to claim that it is economic considerations that you believe should drive redistricting algorithms. So, it isn't even a claim consistent with your own stated position.

I understand that you believe that redistricting ought to start in urban areas, and radiate out into rural areas to meet population requirements. I disagree. I find your urbancentric approach discriminatory to folks who`in live in rural areas. I find it just as valid to start building districts in the rural areas, and then reach into the urban areas as necessary for population equality. Such an approach is used in New York where Senate districts divide larger cities, but, avoid splitting smaller cities.

Your entire rhetorical approach is to create a special pleading and then present it as though it is the ace of trump. It simply isn't. Again, some county in Western North Carolina had to be split to achieve OMOV. The legislature chose the most populous county to be split. There is nothing inherently wrong, or sinister in preferring to split the largest county as opposed to some smaller county.

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, but thats all fine and good for Bob as long as its the Republicans who are doing it.

'Drawing Asheville with suburban Charlotte? 'Nothing wrong with that!

'Pairing Johnston county with the southern coast? No problem there!

'Snaking CD-04 down from Chapel Hill to Fayetteville? Makes perfect sense!

But when you pair urban Greensboro with central Raleigh or keep Asheville in its century-old community of interest, Bob suddenly has a big problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even with the Durham hand of CD01, there wasn't a need to crack it 4 ways.

Here, you have exited reality in favor of your own fantasy world. I have commented on the lines in Western North Carolina, which I find well within the legitimate range of redistricting choices. I simply have not commented on any of the other issues, other than Durham, for which you have assigned to me a position.

In the case of Durham, you agreed that it was Butterfield's objections that lead to one split. As I eluded too before, the remedy to Butterfield's objection bisected an existing district that linked Raleigh to Greensboro [don't remember you pillioring that choice!] required a new bridge through Durham county.

[BigSkyBob]

Well, this thread started in Maryland, it became NC thread and now I'm taking it to TX.

One situation that I thought was comparable to that of NC-11 is TX-01. The difference here is that, for the sake of partisan advantage, Republicans moved an urban area into a rural district, rather than excising an urban area as they did with NC-11.



Before the DeLaymander, TX-01 was almost entirely rural; its largest city was Texarkana, with a population of 37,000.
 Like NC-11, which included the same basic set of counties since at least the 1920's, TX-01 was anchored in the state's northeastern corner since the 1880's.

 However, to defeat Max Sandlin, the Republicans moved the cities of Longview and Tyler into the district while splitting the rural counties between CD1 and CD4. Tyler and Longview were noticeably more Republican than the surrounding, less-populated counties along the LA/AR border (LBJ couldn't even win them in 1964).

Now, by Bob's logic, since Asheville is urban, it should be paired with the Charlotte exurbs, rather than the more culturally similar rural western counties.

No, that's not my logic. That is your strawman interpretation of my logic. My logic notes that redistricting involving a series of choices that balance a number of competing considerations. Attempts to claim redistricting "should" be done based solely on "cultural" considerations is a form of sophistry in which the various competing considerations are ignored in favor of a simplified standard that just happens to derive the conclusion towards which the sophist was aiming.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since you are nominally asking me to apply my logic to the situation, I will note that if the redistricting had been down in reverse by the Democrats I would argue that while they made redistricting choices that favored the Democratic party and harmed the Republican party those decisions were well within the acceptable range of redistricting choices that could be made.

What you are really doing is projecting your failings onto me. A couple of posters here took a highly dogmatic stance about their particular special pleadings. I noted the existence of competing special pleadings that were just as valid, but, lead to the opposite conclusions. In response, without any basis in fact, or logic, I was told that I was just a dogmatic my in arguing my special pleading as they were in arguing theirs.  I never argued that Buncombe had to be split, but, merely that it was legitimate to split Buncombe. I never disputed the idea that there are legitimate candidate maps that didn't split Buncombe.

If I hadn't happened to follow politics for most of life, with its familiarities with what places vote what way, and, if I were asked to redistrict Texas, I would try to draw as many completely rural districts as practical, possibly like the example above.

[BigSkyBob]

No comments?

In terms of "neutral redistricting principles" it seems to make at least as much sense for pairing Wilmington with the coast to the North rather than extending inland towards Fayetteville.

A three-way swap of territories between the 8th, 10th and 12th would result in more compact districts. Just enter Mecklenburg from the North, and give up territories to the East.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the meantime I've calculated the PVIs for the districts. For whole county CDs I used the actual 04 and 08 votes. I've approximated the other CDs using 08 and a weighting factor based on the 08 votes in the CDs that I can directly determine. It shifts the PVI between 0.5 to 1.0 in favor of the GOP compared to the 08 numbers alone. Of course there's a history of Dems holding seats a few PVI to the GOP.

CD 1: D+16
CD 2: D+0
CD 3: R+6
CD 4: R+6
CD 5: R+11
CD 6: R+0
CD 7: R+10
CD 8: R+15
CD 9: R+16
CD 10: R+16
CD 11: R+6
CD 12: D+13
CD 13: D+5
[/quote]