What districts would have Dems won back if not for gerrymandering?

[muon2]

http://www.politicspa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/PA-Dems-congressional-map.png
I have just a question: how many seats could the democrats have in Pennsylvania with this map?

I can't understand why the minority Dems in PA would put out such a crazy map. At least the OH Dems filed a neutral proposal as an alternative to the GOP gerrymander.

[pbrower2a]

I am just assuming the GOP controlled legislature states didn't change anything from 2000 maps. Of course NC-2 was very gerrymandered, a fair NC map would probably have a Wake County based district that takes up most if not all of the county. And I have to keep GOP in PA-12 b/c that seat was being eliminated regardless, although the Democrats would have chopped up Pittsburgh.

At the risk of turning this into another NC redistricting thread, this is my fair map of NC:




The Democrats lose CD2 but get another D-leaning seat in the Triad.

Those districts are beautiful.

Districts 7 and 8 are at least vulnerable to Democrats in bad election years for Republicans.

[Mr.Phips]

I am just assuming the GOP controlled legislature states didn't change anything from 2000 maps. Of course NC-2 was very gerrymandered, a fair NC map would probably have a Wake County based district that takes up most if not all of the county. And I have to keep GOP in PA-12 b/c that seat was being eliminated regardless, although the Democrats would have chopped up Pittsburgh.

At the risk of turning this into another NC redistricting thread, this is my fair map of NC:




The Democrats lose CD2 but get another D-leaning seat in the Triad.

Those districts are beautiful.

Districts 7 and 8 are at least vulnerable to Democrats in bad election years for Republicans.

Those two districts are a lot more Dem downballot than the Presidential numbers suggest.

[Sol]

I am just assuming the GOP controlled legislature states didn't change anything from 2000 maps. Of course NC-2 was very gerrymandered, a fair NC map would probably have a Wake County based district that takes up most if not all of the county. And I have to keep GOP in PA-12 b/c that seat was being eliminated regardless, although the Democrats would have chopped up Pittsburgh.

At the risk of turning this into another NC redistricting thread, this is my fair map of NC:




The Democrats lose CD2 but get another D-leaning seat in the Triad.

Those districts are beautiful.

Districts 7 and 8 are at least vulnerable to Democrats in bad election years for Republicans.

It is a fair map.

[politicallefty]

I can't understand why the minority Dems in PA would put out such a crazy map. At least the OH Dems filed a neutral proposal as an alternative to the GOP gerrymander.

I totally agree. That map was hideous. A minority party with no input has absolutely nothing to lose by proposing a neutral redistricting map. This is the fair Pennsylvania map I would've drawn (or at least something like it):



PA-01: 73.9-25.3 Obama
PA-02: 90.2-9.4 Obama
PA-03: 51.0-47.6 Obama
PA-04: 51.7-47.4 McCain
PA-05: 57.2-41.3 McCain
PA-06: 55.5-43.5 Obama
PA-07: 59.0-40.1 Obama
PA-08: 53.9-45.1 Obama
PA-09: 59.9-38.9 McCain
PA-10: 57.4-41.4 McCain
PA-11: 57.6-41.3 Obama
PA-12: 55.9-43.0 McCain
PA-13: 65.8-33.5 Obama
PA-14: 65.2-33.8 Obama
PA-15: 56.0-42.7 Obama
PA-16: 56.8-42.3 McCain
PA-17: 49.4-49.3 Obama
PA-18: 54.7-44.2 McCain

That's an 11-7 split (barely considering PA-17), which isn't at all unreasonable in a year where Obama won the state by double-digits. The old 19th district is renumbered as PA-12, as the old district was basically eliminated due to population loss. Whereas the current map is 13-5 Republican, I think my map would currently be anything from an even 9-9 to 12-7 Democratic. Holden would easily keep PA-17. I highly doubt Republicans could have held PA-07 and PA-11 in 2012. PA-03 and PA-08 would likely have been very competitive, especially if Patrick Murphy ran again. Apart from that, the most troublesome Obama districts would obviously be PA-06 and PA-08 where Dent and Gerlach are particularly strong incumbents. The only real weak McCain district would be PA-04, where I think Altmire would do quite well. I think this would most likely be a 10-8 Democratic map (net D+3 over the current map).


Btw, I really like the NC map that has been posted in this topic. In a strong Republican year, it could be 9-4 Republican. However, a strong Democratic year could turn that into an 8-5 advantage. Most likely, with McIntyre in NC-07 and Kissell in NC-08, it looks like a 7-6 Democratic map in 2012, which is definitely a reasonable result given the partisan leanings of the state (particularly if one were to consider the presidential results, giving perhaps a one or two seat margin of error). That map is also evidence that Section 2 of the VRA hurts Democrats in the South. Otherwise, Durham would be in NC-04 and NC-01 would be cleaned up (and both would be safe Democratic districts).

[Sol]

Just for clarification, that NC map, if it had been drawn in 2010 (I assume that's the premise!) would have almost certainly been 8-5 D.

[Miles]

Districts 7 and 8 are at least vulnerable to Democrats in bad election years for Republicans.

These are the numbers from the 2012 Lt. Governor race (which was 50/50); this provides a better picture of the non-Presidential fundamentals of the state.



CD7 is a perfect bellwether for the state, as Forest carried it by 351 votes out of 314K cast. Coleman would have also flipped CD8.

Coleman vs Obama:



With  the exception of the Raleigh district, Coleman did noticeably better in the eastern half of the state while running a point or two behind Obama in the urban districts.

[Torie]

Returning to Illinois, I wonder how much the favorite son effect was.  Is 5% about right (Illinois trended 5 points to the Dems in 2008, and about 5 points back to the Pubs again in 2012)?  

I ask, because per my "good government" non partisan map below using the rules that I like to use (minimizing chops, with a laser beam like focus on minimizing erosity, and ignoring just about everything else other than the VRA (and in this instance making some effort to create a second Hispanic influence CD, even though there is no second Hispanic CD to draw required by the VRA that hits 50% Hispanic VAP), I count nine potentially competitive CD's (yes nine), if one uses a 5 point PVI adjustment towards the Pubs.  Pity the map was not enacted into law, because if it had, Illinois could have had its economy revived just by all the campaign cash pouring into it given the jury sized number of CD's in play.  

I must say, that the Pub strength in the collar counties has just collapsed since my college days - just a massive implosion. Wow, just wow.

[publicunofficial]

Returning to Illinois, I wonder how much the favorite son effect was.  Is 5% about right (Illinois trended 5 points to the Dems in 2008, and about 5 points back to the Pubs again in 2012)?  

I ask, because per my "good government" non partisan map below using the rules that I like to use (minimizing chops, with a laser beam like focus on minimizing erosity, and ignoring just about everything else other than the VRA (and in this instance making some effort to create a second Hispanic influence CD, even though there is no second Hispanic CD to draw required by the VRA that hits 50% Hispanic VAP), I count nine potentially competitive CD's (yes nine), if one uses a 5 point PVI adjustment towards the Pubs.  Pity the map was not enacted into law, because if it had, Illinois could have had its economy revived just by all the campaign cash pouring into it given the jury sized number of CD's in play.  

I must say, that the Pub strength in the collar counties has just collapsed since my college days - just a massive implosion. Wow, just wow.

That looks like a decent map, but I can't tell whether or not it has a majority Latino district.

[publicunofficial]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):
Florida 10 (Webster)
Indiana 9 (Young)
Michigan 7 (Walberg)
Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)
Pennsylvania 7 (Meehan)
Pennsylvania 8 (Fitzpatrick)
Wisconsin 7 (Duffy)

Would have held on to:
Indiana 2 (Donnelly)
North Carolina 11 (Shuler)
North Carolina 13 (Miller)
Pennsylvania 12 (Critz)

Would have lost:
Arizona 1 (Open)
Maryland 6 (Bartlett)
Illinois 10 (Dold)
Illinois 11 (Biggert)
Illinois 17 (Schilling)

[muon2]

Returning to Illinois, I wonder how much the favorite son effect was.  Is 5% about right (Illinois trended 5 points to the Dems in 2008, and about 5 points back to the Pubs again in 2012)?  

I ask, because per my "good government" non partisan map below using the rules that I like to use (minimizing chops, with a laser beam like focus on minimizing erosity, and ignoring just about everything else other than the VRA (and in this instance making some effort to create a second Hispanic influence CD, even though there is no second Hispanic CD to draw required by the VRA that hits 50% Hispanic VAP), I count nine potentially competitive CD's (yes nine), if one uses a 5 point PVI adjustment towards the Pubs.  Pity the map was not enacted into law, because if it had, Illinois could have had its economy revived just by all the campaign cash pouring into it given the jury sized number of CD's in play.  

I must say, that the Pub strength in the collar counties has just collapsed since my college days - just a massive implosion. Wow, just wow.

Nice map. The GOP lost their challenge in large part because they couldn't present a plan with two majority Latino districts. I posted this in Mar 2011 right after DRA updated the data. It preserved three black CDs over 50% VAP. CD 3 is 59.4% HVAP and CD 4 is 50.1% HVAP.



The 7th Circuit in 2011 used 59.2% HVAP as the benchmark to elect a candidate of choice since that was the 1991 map percent that successfully elected and maintained Gutierrez. Using block-level mapping the following plan in Chicagoland has both Latino districts over that mark, CD 3 at 59.9% and CD 4 at 59.4% HVAP. The black CDs have 52.5%, 51.6% and 51.0% BVAP for 1, 2, and 7 respectively.



That can be nested in a statewide plan that has exact equality and minimizes county splits while preserving the cores of the previous districts. The PVIs (2004-08) work out to 10D - 8R, but 10 of the 18 CDs have PVIs at 5 or less.



Here's the full list of PVIs and who was resident in 2012.

CD-01   D+28   Rush
CD-02   D+26   Jackson
CD-03   D+21   
CD-04   D+23   Gutierrez
CD-05   D+17   Quigley
CD-06   R+1   Hultgren, Roskam
CD-07   D+37   Davis
CD-08   R+1   Walsh
CD-09   D+19   Dold, Schakowsky
CD-10   D+0   
CD-11   R+9   Shimkus
CD-12   D+2   Costello
CD-13   D+1   Biggert, Lipinsky
CD-14   R+3   
CD-15   R+5   Johnson, Kinzinger
CD-16   R+2   Manzullo
CD-17   R+0   Schilling
CD-18   R+4   Schock

[TJ in Oregon]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

[Torie]

In other news, my IL-02 is 59.3% Hispanic VAP. I sweated that number, because I did not want to violate any of my other rules, unless the VRA risk was too high. I decided not, and would believe that even if the CD were below 59.2% Hispanic VAP, because I don't think the VRA requires grotesque CD's to hit a number, violating every other good districting rule in the book. There simply is no community of interest there, above and beyond that.

Anyway, it was a balancing test, and I sort of used 59% HVAP as the threshold, and if the number fell below that, the edges of the CD would have been more ragged. As it was, if all things were relatively, even if not absolutely equal, I sought out the higher percentage Hispanic precincts at the margin.

Hearing no objection, I am going to assume that the 5 point favorite son effect is in the ballpark,, which is what makes the map just so much fun.

[publicunofficial]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

I meant to say Johnson instead of Turner. Turner's seat is probably the least gerrymandered in Ohio. Also I think Chabot's record is too hard right, and could easily be defeated in 2012 by Mark Mallory or Steve Driehaus if he stopped his Peace Corps mission in Africa.

Under a fair map, LaTourette's seat would be much more Dem-friendly but Joyce would have still won because of how terrible the Dem candidate was. Latta's seat could also be made much friendlier to Democrats by dismantling the Toldeo-to-Cleveland gerrymander.

[muon2]

In other news, my IL-02 is 59.3% Hispanic VAP. I sweated that number, because I did not want to violate any of my other rules, unless the VRA risk was too high. I decided not, and would believe that even if the CD were below 59.2% Hispanic VAP, because I don't think the VRA requires grotesque CD's to hit a number, violating every other good districting rule in the book. There simply is no community of interest there, above and beyond that.

Anyway, it was a balancing test, and I sort of used 59% HVAP as the threshold, and if the number fell below that, the edges of the CD would have been more ragged. As it was, if all things were relatively, even if not absolutely equal, I sought out the higher percentage Hispanic precincts at the margin.

Hearing no objection, I am going to assume that the 5 point favorite son effect is in the ballpark,, which is what makes the map just so much fun.

As I said, I think yours is a good map. The maps I posted were initially drawn prior to the opinion of the 2011 case over the actual map. They were drawn presuming certain reactions from the judicial panel, which generally held to be true. The court was clear that no map would be overturned on VRA grounds without showing an alternative with a second Latino CD that exceeded 59.2% HVAP. As long as the alternative district was all in the same media market, the shape was defensible since there is little else that binds the existing lobes of the historic IL-04. I agree that either of the extra CDs are ugly, but beauty is not a factor for VRA districts when no compact alternative exists.

One reason I quoted 04-08 PVI's was to blunt the home field advantage of Obama in IL. It averages the 2004 numbers which lack the effect.

I must say, that the Pub strength in the collar counties has just collapsed since my college days - just a massive implosion. Wow, just wow.

Pub strength in the Chicago suburbs has been declining since the 1994 election. 2010 provided no relief in legislative races in that region though it did downstate. Like around the other old industrial cities of the north, the nationalization of the party messages though cable TV deters local campaigns from getting traction with a message of their own tailored to suburban issues. The media market is just too expensive, and Dems just link suburban Pubs to national stories to win (think Akin). Other state's GOP have fared better with a strong state organization, but that has been lacking in IL since 2000.

[Torie]

Muon2, you are not contending that the VRA requires that second Hispanic octopus that sends out one tentacle from inner city Chicago to somewhere in the vicinity of beautiful downtown West Chicago are you? I guess maybe I missed that case. Next thing you know, someone will have the quite insane idea of hooking up black neighborhoods in Cleveland to those in Akron.

[krazen1211]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

The Democrats naturally envision Chabot's seat to be, err, conveniently drawn in a manner of their choosing. The same people who complain about Cincinnati being split into 2 districts will split Cleveland into 2 districts without hesitation. There are plenty of maps as proof.

[publicunofficial]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

The Democrats naturally envision Chabot's seat to be, err, conveniently drawn in a manner of their choosing. The same people who complain about Cincinnati being split into 2 districts will split Cleveland into 2 districts without hesitation. There are plenty of maps as proof.

I believe all cities shouldn't be split unless it is to large to fit in a single district. Cincinnati can easily be put in a single district, as can Dayton, Columbus, Toledo, and Akron. Cleveland is too large for a single district, plus there are VRA concerns.

[traininthedistance]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

The Democrats naturally envision Chabot's seat to be, err, conveniently drawn in a manner of their choosing. The same people who complain about Cincinnati being split into 2 districts will split Cleveland into 2 districts without hesitation. There are plenty of maps as proof.

I believe all cities shouldn't be split unless it is to large to fit in a single district. Cincinnati can easily be put in a single district, as can Dayton, Columbus, Toledo, and Akron. Cleveland is too large for a single district, plus there are VRA concerns.

Eh, Cleveland can fit in one district, actually.  Columbus, OTOH, not so much anymore (especially not with its insane boundaries).  And at this point I'd probably prefer a district that took in all of Cleveland to one which snaked down to Akron as a way of disguising a Republican gerrymander in VRA's clothing.

[krazen1211]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

The Democrats naturally envision Chabot's seat to be, err, conveniently drawn in a manner of their choosing. The same people who complain about Cincinnati being split into 2 districts will split Cleveland into 2 districts without hesitation. There are plenty of maps as proof.

I believe all cities shouldn't be split unless it is to large to fit in a single district. Cincinnati can easily be put in a single district, as can Dayton, Columbus, Toledo, and Akron. Cleveland is too large for a single district, plus there are VRA concerns.

Err, the population of Cleveland is barely half a Congressional district, under 400k.

[krazen1211]

Also, to answer the thread's question:


Would have won back (In some cases, I assume better candidates would have run with more favorable maps):

Ohio 1 (Chabot)
Ohio 6 (Turner)
Ohio 7 (Gibbs)

There's no way the Dems could have unseated Turner without a grotesque gerrymander. He is uniquely popular in the Dayton area for his term as mayor and actually gets a non-negligible amount of votes in inner-city black neighborhoods that vote around 99-0 on the presidential level. He typically performs about 10 points better than the generic Republican in the Dayton area. With a better opponent, he might not overperform quite as much, but there's no way the Dems could take out Turner. You might be able to take the seat after he retires though. That's true of the current map too. Obama won Turner's current seat in 2008.

Chabot would be the easiest target for the Dems in redistricting, but he'd even still have a chance in non-presidential years.

Gibbs would be gone if his seat is turned into an Akron seat (or maybe it would be Renacci's ?), so I'll agree with that one. Gibbs had an awful opponent last fall, but could be in danger with a reasonable opponent. The same can be said for David Joyce.

In a neutral year with a neutral map, I'd say Ohio should probably be expected to have a 10-6 Republican delegation simply from the urban Democratic packing and VRA seat. So I think two seats would be a fair estimate.

The Democrats naturally envision Chabot's seat to be, err, conveniently drawn in a manner of their choosing. The same people who complain about Cincinnati being split into 2 districts will split Cleveland into 2 districts without hesitation. There are plenty of maps as proof.

I believe all cities shouldn't be split unless it is to large to fit in a single district. Cincinnati can easily be put in a single district, as can Dayton, Columbus, Toledo, and Akron. Cleveland is too large for a single district, plus there are VRA concerns.

Eh, Cleveland can fit in one district, actually.  Columbus, OTOH, not so much anymore (especially not with its insane boundaries).  And at this point I'd probably prefer a district that took in all of Cleveland to one which snaked down to Akron as a way of disguising a Republican gerrymander in VRA's clothing.

The black representatives of the Ohio legislature wanted to ensure they they protected the then lone black member of the delegation. Indeed, such is part of the rationale for the shape of the new 3rd as well.

[krazen1211]

Eh, Cleveland can fit in one district, actually.  Columbus, OTOH, not so much anymore (especially not with its insane boundaries).  And at this point I'd probably prefer a district that took in all of Cleveland to one which snaked down to Akron as a way of disguising a Republican gerrymander in VRA's clothing.

Interesting. Your own map made the, err, convenient choice of splitting Cleveland, Columbus, and Akron, and not Cincinnati and replicates that so called gerrymandering tactic.


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=124180.msg3385020#msg3385020

[muon2]

Muon2, you are not contending that the VRA requires that second Hispanic octopus that sends out one tentacle from inner city Chicago to somewhere in the vicinity of beautiful downtown West Chicago are you? I guess maybe I missed that case. Next thing you know, someone will have the quite insane idea of hooking up black neighborhoods in Cleveland to those in Akron.

I did not contend that a second one is required, for if it was the court would have compelled it. What I contend is that the court required that a map with a district of sufficient HVAP needed to be offered by the plaintiffs in order to show that the approved map suffered under the VRA. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet the first prong of Gingles. That doesn't mean the plaintiffs would have prevailed with the map I posted, but I believe that something like it would have been necessary to prevail on a VRA claim.

[traininthedistance]

Eh, Cleveland can fit in one district, actually.  Columbus, OTOH, not so much anymore (especially not with its insane boundaries).  And at this point I'd probably prefer a district that took in all of Cleveland to one which snaked down to Akron as a way of disguising a Republican gerrymander in VRA's clothing.

Interesting. Your own map made the, err, convenient choice of splitting Cleveland, Columbus, and Akron, and not Cincinnati and replicates that so called gerrymandering tactic.


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=124180.msg3385020#msg3385020

That's not the most recent map I've posted w/r/t Ohio, this is:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=173216.msg3723134#msg3723134

You will note that I have changed my mind since, and now would prefer a whole Cleveland.

And, you do realize that: a) splitting Cleveland and Akron like I did is a pro-Republican move, and if it is to be justified, would be justified via the VRA anyway (not an issue in Cincy) and b) Columbus is too large for a district, so you have to split it no matter what (and the municipal boundaries are such that an all-Columbus district is basically impossible). 

I await your retraction. Patiently. 

[RedSLC]

Eh, Cleveland can fit in one district, actually.  Columbus, OTOH, not so much anymore (especially not with its insane boundaries).  And at this point I'd probably prefer a district that took in all of Cleveland to one which snaked down to Akron as a way of disguising a Republican gerrymander in VRA's clothing.

Interesting. Your own map made the, err, convenient choice of splitting Cleveland, Columbus, and Akron, and not Cincinnati and replicates that so called gerrymandering tactic.


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=124180.msg3385020#msg3385020

That's not the most recent map I've posted w/r/t Ohio, this is:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=173216.msg3723134#msg3723134

You will note that I have changed my mind since, and now would prefer a whole Cleveland.

And, you do realize that: a) splitting Cleveland and Akron like I did is a pro-Republican move, and if it is to be justified, would be justified via the VRA anyway (not an issue in Cincy) and b) Columbus is too large for a district, so you have to split it no matter what (and the municipal boundaries are such that an all-Columbus district is basically impossible). 

I await your retraction. Patiently. 

Yeah. I tried my own hand at drawing a Columbus district. The city's population means that it's impossible to fit the entire city entirely in one district, and even with a compact Columbus district, it can't be all Columbus, as there are too many enclave communities within the cities to be able to do so.