Competitiveness

[Sol]

One major redistricting issue I've been struggling with is this: Is it better to have a district that is very competitive but is somewhat bad on other criteria, such as erosity, whole counties, UCCs, etc. if the alternative would do better on those criteria but be non-competitive(Obviously if the competitive district was really erose or chopped counties and UCCs like crazy, it would be wholly avoided).

One thing I've been thinking is that competitiveness should be promoted in inelastic states, while not being considered in highly elastic states. The thinking behind this is that political minorities are likely to be trapped in districts where they have little say if the districts are homogeneous politically, while competitiveness gives them more input.

Do y'all think this is the best way? Or is it better for competitiveness to have no input?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One major redistricting issue I've been struggling with is this: Is it better to have a district that is very competitive but is somewhat bad on other criteria, such as erosity, whole counties, UCCs, etc. if the alternative would do better on those criteria but be non-competitive(Obviously if the competitive district was really erose or chopped counties and UCCs like crazy, it would be wholly avoided).

One thing I've been thinking is that competitiveness should be promoted in inelastic states, while not being considered in highly elastic states. The thinking behind this is that political minorities are likely to be trapped in districts where they have little say if the districts are homogeneous politically, while competitiveness gives them more input.

Do y'all think this is the best way? Or is it better for competitiveness to have no input?

What does the United Church of Christ have to do with electoral districts?

[Sol]

One major redistricting issue I've been struggling with is this: Is it better to have a district that is very competitive but is somewhat bad on other criteria, such as erosity, whole counties, UCCs, etc. if the alternative would do better on those criteria but be non-competitive(Obviously if the competitive district was really erose or chopped counties and UCCs like crazy, it would be wholly avoided).

One thing I've been thinking is that competitiveness should be promoted in inelastic states, while not being considered in highly elastic states. The thinking behind this is that political minorities are likely to be trapped in districts where they have little say if the districts are homogeneous politically, while competitiveness gives them more input.

Do y'all think this is the best way? Or is it better for competitiveness to have no input?

What does the United Church of Christ have to do with electoral districts?

LOL.

[jimrtex]

One major redistricting issue I've been struggling with is this: Is it better to have a district that is very competitive but is somewhat bad on other criteria, such as erosity, whole counties, UCCs, etc. if the alternative would do better on those criteria but be non-competitive(Obviously if the competitive district was really erose or chopped counties and UCCs like crazy, it would be wholly avoided).

One thing I've been thinking is that competitiveness should be promoted in inelastic states, while not being considered in highly elastic states. The thinking behind this is that political minorities are likely to be trapped in districts where they have little say if the districts are homogeneous politically, while competitiveness gives them more input.

Do y'all think this is the best way? Or is it better for competitiveness to have no input?

What does the United Church of Christ have to do with electoral districts?

In Texas, it has sometimes been suggested that the UIL be put in charge of redistricting, since they already perform the biennial realignment of districts for Football.  Barring that, it has been suggest that legislators consider 'What Would UIL Do?' or "WWUD".

Maybe it has something to do with that in states where Football is not the focus of weekend devotional activities.

[PolitiJunkie]

One thing I've been thinking is that competitiveness should be promoted in inelastic states, while not being considered in highly elastic states.

I like this a lot

[barfbag]

We should allow the states to determine how to allocate their electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine do. If states have other ideas then it's up to them.

[Sol]

We should allow the states to determine how to allocate their electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine do. If states have other ideas then it's up to them.

I think allocating votes by congressional districts is sub-optimal, because:
-Gerrymandering
-Frequently, states have population patterns that over-represent one party due to geographic distribution- think about MD, which, with a fair map, would probably have 2-3 Romney districts despite a huge Obama advantage. Or NC, which probably would have given, with fair districts, 7 electoral votes to O.

[Sol]

I guess my 1st example of this approach is Alabama. If we accept that chopping UCCs is worth it for added competitiveness in inelastic states, Alabama is a natural place to look. There are multiple ways to achieve a competitive district (CmD) in AL, without any substantial decrease in black population. However, it should be noted that creating a competitive district here requires splitting 2 UCCs- Mobile* and one of either Birmingham or Montgomery.

A Birmingham CmD has two major advantages: it avoids a cut through Tuscaloosa and means that Montgomery is divided, which seems more natural from a CoI standpoint. The disadvantages are that it screws up Northern AL to a certain extent, and makes the Southeast district more erose.

A Montgomery CmD, naturally, has the opposite pluses and minuses. It also has the advantage of precedent- I believe Bobby Bright's district was similar before redistricting.

Maps coming as soon as I can figure out how to upload them.

* It seems to be very difficult to make a Mobile district competitive.

[muon2]

I fund the Mobile split was more effective at freeing up competitiveness elsewhere. For example, as a byproduct of using Mobile to create a 52% BVAP district, the Birmingham-Tuscaloosa district becomes D+1.

[hopper]

There should just be a computer program you load it into the computer and it does the redistricting for you and districts are arranged for compactness. The competitiveness takes care of itself that way. This way there is no need for Mark Sanford's and Jim Clyburn's district to look the way the way do and no need for VRA.

[Sol]

The VRA is certainly needed, IMO, particularly for Latinos, who can be easily diluted by non-hispanic whites due to their low voting rates.

I agree with you that Clyburn's district kind of screws SC up.

[barfbag]

I guess my 1st example of this approach is Alabama. If we accept that chopping UCCs is worth it for added competitiveness in inelastic states, Alabama is a natural place to look. There are multiple ways to achieve a competitive district (CmD) in AL, without any substantial decrease in black population. However, it should be noted that creating a competitive district here requires splitting 2 UCCs- Mobile* and one of either Birmingham or Montgomery.

A Birmingham CmD has two major advantages: it avoids a cut through Tuscaloosa and means that Montgomery is divided, which seems more natural from a CoI standpoint. The disadvantages are that it screws up Northern AL to a certain extent, and makes the Southeast district more erose.

A Montgomery CmD, naturally, has the opposite pluses and minuses. It also has the advantage of precedent- I believe Bobby Bright's district was similar before redistricting.

Maps coming as soon as I can figure out how to upload them.

* It seems to be very difficult to make a Mobile district competitive.

It's always going to come down to gerrymandering though.

[hopper]

The VRA is certainly needed, IMO, particularly for Latinos, who can be easily diluted by non-hispanic whites due to their low voting rates.

I agree with you that Clyburn's district kind of screws SC up.

I disagree why should districts be made for a certain race or ethnicity because they don't turn out to vote?

[Sol]

The VRA is certainly needed, IMO, particularly for Latinos, who can be easily diluted by non-hispanic whites due to their low voting rates.

I agree with you that Clyburn's district kind of screws SC up.

I disagree why should districts be made for a certain race or ethnicity because they don't turn out to vote?

They do turn out to vote, just in lower percentages, such that the rights of those who do vote can be infringed by unfair practices.

[jimrtex]

The VRA is certainly needed, IMO, particularly for Latinos, who can be easily diluted by non-hispanic whites due to their low voting rates.

I agree with you that Clyburn's district kind of screws SC up.

I disagree why should districts be made for a certain race or ethnicity because they don't turn out to vote?

They do turn out to vote, just in lower percentages, such that the rights of those who do vote can be infringed by unfair practices.

It is only in the North that blacks turn out in lower percentages than whites.

[Sol]

The VRA is certainly needed, IMO, particularly for Latinos, who can be easily diluted by non-hispanic whites due to their low voting rates.

I agree with you that Clyburn's district kind of screws SC up.

I disagree why should districts be made for a certain race or ethnicity because they don't turn out to vote?

They do turn out to vote, just in lower percentages, such that the rights of those who do vote can be infringed by unfair practices.

It is only in the North that blacks turn out in lower percentages than whites.

I know, which is why I said Latinos needed the most VRA protection.

[krazen1211]

Competitive seats = Arizona where 1 party wins all the competitive seats.

The Michigan Republican party also drew many competitive seats. Only 2 of them were won by McCain. Yet there is plenty of complaining. Curious.

[Brittain33]

Competitive seats = Arizona where 1 party wins all the competitive seats.

The Michigan Republican party also drew many competitive seats. Only 2 of them were won by McCain. Yet there is plenty of complaining. Curious.

McCain utterly collapsed in Michigan in 2008, presidential numbers from that year are unrepresentative of congressional voting.

[muon2]

Competitive seats = Arizona where 1 party wins all the competitive seats.

AZ is an example of the care one needs to take when selecting the data to measure competitiveness. The AZ commission used an average of statewide races from 2008 and 2010 to measure likely political outcome. In most states the heavy-D result of 2008 would balance the R-landslide of 2010. But in AZ McCain was on the top of the ticket in both years and skewed the result to the GOP. The result was that their apparently competitive districts had a D lean when normalized to national averages.

[Torie]

As Muon2 has pointed out, in the current political climate any CD with a PVI higher than about 3% just isn't very competitive over 90% of the time, or something like that. Thus gerrymanderers in both parties try to get CD's up to at least 4% PVI, and that is just about what the nation did in 2008 when it comes to Obama's margin, so particularly in CD's with incumbents, that means a fair number of CD's were drawn with Pub incumbents that Obama carried that are really reasonably safe Pub CD's.

[krazen1211]

Competitive seats = Arizona where 1 party wins all the competitive seats.

The Michigan Republican party also drew many competitive seats. Only 2 of them were won by McCain. Yet there is plenty of complaining. Curious.

McCain utterly collapsed in Michigan in 2008, presidential numbers from that year are unrepresentative of congressional voting.

Of course, that is the entire point. It would be folly to draw districts based on some arbitrary 'competitive' metric. As we have seen, when that 'competitive' metric does not provide the outcomes desired by a political party, that political party simply discards that metric (but only when it suits them).

Another example is, of course, New Jersey, where competitive seats were drawn and 1 party won all the competitive seats.

Another example is, of course, PA-06 (R+1), PA-07 (EVEN), PA-08 (D+1) PVIs based on the 2004 and 2008 elections.  I suspect these competitive seats are not what the original poster had in mind when he talked about creating competitive seats!

[krazen1211]

The VRA is certainly needed, IMO, particularly for Latinos, who can be easily diluted by non-hispanic whites due to their low voting rates.

I agree with you that Clyburn's district kind of screws SC up.

In the case of Thornburg v Gingles, it was North Carolina white Democrats who shattered various black communities.

[Miles]

The VRA is certainly needed, IMO, particularly for Latinos, who can be easily diluted by non-hispanic whites due to their low voting rates.

I agree with you that Clyburn's district kind of screws SC up.

In the case of Thornburg v Gingles, it was North Carolina white Democrats who shattered various black communities.

Which is why black voters are such fans of the Republican maps, where they'll be in minority for the foreseeable future...

[krazen1211]

The VRA is certainly needed, IMO, particularly for Latinos, who can be easily diluted by non-hispanic whites due to their low voting rates.

I agree with you that Clyburn's district kind of screws SC up.

In the case of Thornburg v Gingles, it was North Carolina white Democrats who shattered various black communities.

Which is why black voters are such fans of the Republican maps, where they'll be in minority for the foreseeable future...

I am grossly confused as to what you mean by 'fans'. But, in any case, the Court in Gingles noted that White Democrats had limited blacks to 2-4% of the seats in the 1970s redistricting.  Quite a small minority.

[Miles]

The VRA is certainly needed, IMO, particularly for Latinos, who can be easily diluted by non-hispanic whites due to their low voting rates.

I agree with you that Clyburn's district kind of screws SC up.

In the case of Thornburg v Gingles, it was North Carolina white Democrats who shattered various black communities.

Which is why black voters are such fans of the Republican maps, where they'll be in minority for the foreseeable future...

I am grossly confused as to what you mean by 'fans'. But, in any case, the Court in Gingles noted that White Democrats had limited blacks to 2-4% of the seats in the 1970s redistricting.  Quite a small minority.

So you're not smart enough to detect sarcasm?