EG's State Senate Thread

[ElectionsGuy]

I will be putting together districts for each state's state senate. I'm only doing the senate to simplify things (plus, I'm not going to draw 400 districts in New Hampshire ). I will start off with the lowest populated states and increase. Wyoming first, Texas and California last. Feel free to jump in and do some as well.

Wyoming:



4: 65.8% McCain, 32.5% Obama = Safe R
5: 70.0% McCain, 27.9% Obama = Safe R
7: 52.6% McCain, 45.2% Obama = Likely R
11: 71.0% McCain, 27.0% Obama = Safe R
12: 64.1% McCain, 33.7% Obama = Safe R
15: 68.7% McCain, 28.5% Obama = Safe R
16: 77.8% McCain, 19.6% Obama = Safe R
17: 51.6% McCain, 46.2% Obama = Lean R
18: 73.1% McCain, 24.7% Obama = Safe R
19: 64.7% McCain, 33.0% Obama = Safe R
20: 77.6% McCain, 20.5% Obama = Safe R
23: 80.8% McCain, 16.9% Obama = Safe R
25: 75.3% McCain, 22.9% Obama = Safe R
26: 74.1% McCain, 24.0% Obama = Safe R
27: 72.8% McCain, 25.2% Obama = Safe R
28: 73.6% McCain, 24.2% Obama = Safe R
29: 69.4% McCain, 28.6% Obama = Safe R
30: 62.6% Obama, 35.6% McCain = Safe D

Cheyenne Close-Up:



1: 50.9% Obama, 46.6% McCain = Lean D
2: 54.7% McCain, 43.0% Obama = Likely R
3: 61.2% McCain, 37.4% Obama = Safe R

Casper Close-Up:



8: 57.3% McCain, 40.1% Obama = Safe R
9: 68.6% McCain, 29.9% Obama = Safe R
10: 67.9% McCain, 30.1% Obama = Safe R

Gillette Close-Up:



21: 78.4% McCain, 20.1% Obama = Safe R
22: 78.9% McCain, 19.5% Obama = Safe R

Sheridan Close-Up:



24: 66.3% McCain, 31.8% Obama = Safe R

Green River/Rock Springs Close-Up:



13: 59.4% McCain, 37.8% Obama = Safe R
14: 61.1% McCain, 36.1% Obama = Safe R

Laramie Close-Up:



6: 57.6% Obama, 39.8% McCain = Likely D

Overall that's 27/3 republican and the State Senate overall would be Safe R. The current state Senate is 26/4, so that's pretty close. 24 Safe R, 2 Likely R, 1 Lean R, 1 Lean D, 1 Likely D, and 1 Safe D.

[muon2]

As always, my question is what criteria are you applying?

[ElectionsGuy]

As always, my question is what criteria are you applying?

For the numbers (the 27/3, for instance)? The rankings, which, are sometimes hard to judge, but do much better than just '08 numbers.

Otherwise I'm not sure what your talking about. I'm just drawing state senate districts.

[Sol]

As always, my question is what criteria are you applying?

For the numbers (the 27/3, for instance)? The rankings, which, are sometimes hard to judge, but do much better than just '08 numbers.

Otherwise I'm not sure what your talking about. I'm just drawing state senate districts.

I think he's talking about stuff like UCCs, CoI, etc.

[muon2]

As always, my question is what criteria are you applying?

For the numbers (the 27/3, for instance)? The rankings, which, are sometimes hard to judge, but do much better than just '08 numbers.

Otherwise I'm not sure what your talking about. I'm just drawing state senate districts.

By criteria I include compactness, erosity, respect for county and/or municipal boundaries, level of population inequality, competitiveness, partisan skew (or lack thereof), VRA, and lots of others that have been used on maps in the past. Fair maps are based on criteria, but there are lots of options out there. Without criteria there's little to prevent gerrymandering, which can be subtle.

[Flake]

I'm not going to draw 400 districts in New Hampshire

You can if you believe hard enough.

[ElectionsGuy]

As always, my question is what criteria are you applying?

For the numbers (the 27/3, for instance)? The rankings, which, are sometimes hard to judge, but do much better than just '08 numbers.

Otherwise I'm not sure what your talking about. I'm just drawing state senate districts.

By criteria I include compactness, erosity, respect for county and/or municipal boundaries, level of population inequality, competitiveness, partisan skew (or lack thereof), VRA, and lots of others that have been used on maps in the past. Fair maps are based on criteria, but there are lots of options out there. Without criteria there's little to prevent gerrymandering, which can be subtle.

OK, by your description, I'll be doing it with pretty loose standards or criteria. I'll try to take municipal and county lines into consideration, but I'm not going to take a long time just to figure out how to perfectly draw districts. I'll try to keep deviation as low as possible (below 1,000 most of the time), and I'll also try to make it fair for the VRA. But I don't really care for compactness, erosity, or anything else. I'll be trying to make the maps as fair and non-partisan as possible.

[muon2]

As always, my question is what criteria are you applying?

For the numbers (the 27/3, for instance)? The rankings, which, are sometimes hard to judge, but do much better than just '08 numbers.

Otherwise I'm not sure what your talking about. I'm just drawing state senate districts.

By criteria I include compactness, erosity, respect for county and/or municipal boundaries, level of population inequality, competitiveness, partisan skew (or lack thereof), VRA, and lots of others that have been used on maps in the past. Fair maps are based on criteria, but there are lots of options out there. Without criteria there's little to prevent gerrymandering, which can be subtle.

OK, by your description, I'll be doing it with pretty loose standards or criteria. I'll try to take municipal and county lines into consideration, but I'm not going to take a long time just to figure out how to perfectly draw districts. I'll try to keep deviation as low as possible (below 1,000 most of the time), and I'll also try to make it fair for the VRA. But I don't really care for compactness, erosity, or anything else. I'll be trying to make the maps as fair and non-partisan as possible.

But without strong criteria to test the proposals, how should we judge if they are fair?

[ElectionsGuy]

Vermont:



Burlington Close-Up



1: 86.6% Obama, 11.7% McCain = Safe D
2: 80.4% Obama, 17.5% McCain = Safe D
3: 71.5% Obama, 27.3% McCain = Safe D
4: 67.7% Obama, 30.9% McCain = Safe D
5: 65.2% Obama, 33.7% McCain = Safe D
6: 69.6% Obama, 29.2% McCain = Safe D

Northern Vermont:



7: 59.3% Obama, 39.0% McCain = Safe D
8: 62.5% Obama, 36.3% McCain = Safe D
9: 62.1% Obama, 36.1% McCain = Safe D
10: 61.4% Obama, 36.8% McCain = Safe D
11: 58.2% Obama, 39.7% McCain = Likely D
12: 64.0% Obama, 34.0% McCain = Safe D
13: 68.7% Obama, 29.9% McCain = Safe D
14: 70.9% Obama, 27.7% McCain = Safe D
15: 76.4% Obama, 22.1% McCain = Safe D
16: 65.9% Obama, 32.1% McCain = Safe D
17: 59.5% Obama, 38.6% McCain = Safe D
18: 66.3% Obama, 31.6% McCain = Safe D
19: 66.2% Obama, 32.3% McCain = Safe D
29: 71.9% Obama, 26.5% McCain = Safe D

Southern Vermont:



20: 77.2% Obama, 21.3% McCain = Safe D
21: 67.8% Obama, 30.1% McCain = Safe D
22: 70.0% Obama, 28.0% McCain = Safe D
23: 64.2% Obama, 34.1% McCain = Safe D
24: 64.4% Obama, 33.8% McCain = Safe D
25: 73.7% Obama, 25.0% McCain = Safe D
26: 59.9% Obama, 38.1% McCain = Safe D
27: 62.3% Obama, 36.3% McCain = Safe D
28: 70.5% Obama, 27.8% McCain = Safe D
30: 62.0% Obama, 36.2% McCain = Safe D

All Obama obviously, McCain didn't even get 40% in any of them. Of course there's obviously a problem, local republicans can win in many of these districts, but for our purposes, this is 100% D, 29 Safe D, 1 Likely.

As always, my question is what criteria are you applying?

For the numbers (the 27/3, for instance)? The rankings, which, are sometimes hard to judge, but do much better than just '08 numbers.

Otherwise I'm not sure what your talking about. I'm just drawing state senate districts.

By criteria I include compactness, erosity, respect for county and/or municipal boundaries, level of population inequality, competitiveness, partisan skew (or lack thereof), VRA, and lots of others that have been used on maps in the past. Fair maps are based on criteria, but there are lots of options out there. Without criteria there's little to prevent gerrymandering, which can be subtle.

OK, by your description, I'll be doing it with pretty loose standards or criteria. I'll try to take municipal and county lines into consideration, but I'm not going to take a long time just to figure out how to perfectly draw districts. I'll try to keep deviation as low as possible (below 1,000 most of the time), and I'll also try to make it fair for the VRA. But I don't really care for compactness, erosity, or anything else. I'll be trying to make the maps as fair and non-partisan as possible.

But without strong criteria to test the proposals, how should we judge if they are fair?

I suppose you can judge for yourself or feel free to make recommendations or corrections. I'm sorry, but I just want to do this for fun. You can create your own maps with your own standards to make it more fair if that makes you feel better.

[muon2]

It shows how useless the Obama '08 numbers can be in legislative races. The 2012 election in VT was 22 D, 8 R. That's why I like to look at other criteria.

[Gass3268]

Wisconsin


Milwaukee Area


Dane County


Fox Cities



District 1 (Sturgeon Bay): Obama 51.7%/ Dem 39.7% - Safe Republican
District 2 (Waupaca): Obama 49.4%/ Dem 38.5% - Safe Republican
District 3 (Southern Milwaukee): Obama 63.8%/ Dem 56.4% - Safe Democratic
District 4 (Northern Milwaukee): Obama 82.8%/ Dem 79.6% - Safe Democratic
District 5 (Western Milwaukee): Obama 52.2%/ Dem 45.8% - Toss-Up
District 6 (Central Milwaukee): Obama 87.8%/ Dem 85.8% - Safe Democratic
District 7 (Milwaukee Shoreline): Obama 63.2%/ Dem 59.8% - Safe Democratic
District 8 (Ozaukee): Obama 37.0%/ Dem 29.1% - Safe Republican
District 9 (Sheboygan): Obama 50.9%/ Dem 38.4 – Safe Republican
District 10 (Twin City Exurbs): Obama 49.2%/ Dem 40.2% – Safe Republican
District 11 (Lake Geneva): Obama 47.1%/ Dem 35.5% – Safe Republican
District 12 (Northwoods): Obama 52.2%/ Dem 41.2% - Safe Republican
District 13 (Fond du Lac): Obama 42.9%/ Dem 32.0% - Safe Republican
District 14 (Wisconsin Dells): Obama 57.3%/ Dem 47.5% - Lean Democratic
District 15 (Janesville): Obama 64%/ Dem 54.5% - Safe Democratic
District 16 (East Madison): Obama 69.5%/ Dem 64.7% - Safe Democratic
District 17 (Lower Driftless): Obama 60.6%/ Dem 49.0% - Lean Democratic
District 18 (Oshkosh): Obama 54.4%/ Dem 44.3% - Toss Up
District 19 (Appleton): Obama 55.1%/ Dem 45.3% - Toss Up
District 20 (Washington): Obama 34.4/ Dem 23.0% - Safe Republican
District 21 (Racine): Obama 54.8%/ Dem 45.3% - Toss Up
District 22 (Kenosha): Obama 58.3/ Dem 48.2% - Likely Democratic
District 23 (Chippewa Falls): Obama 52.8%/ Dem 41.6% - Likely Republican
District 24 (Stevens Point): Obama 59.0%/ Dem 48.1% - Likely Democratic
District 25 (Superior): Obama 57.9/ Dem 50.7% - Likely Democratic
District 26 (Madison): Obama 80.8/ Dem 80.4% - Safe Democratic
District 27 (Fitchburg): Obama 66.0%/ Dem 59.9% - Safe Democratic
District 28 (New Berlin): Obama 40.4%/ Dem 32.4% - Safe Republican
District 29 (Wausau): Obama 53.6%/ Dem 42.6% - Likely Republican
District 30 (Green Bay): Obama 56.6/ Dem 461% - Lean Democratic
District 31 (Eau Claire): Obama 59.9%/ Dem 49.9% - Safe Democratic
District 32 (La Crosse): Obama 59.2%/ Dem 48.1% - Likely Democratic
District 33 (Waukesha): Obama 38.5%/ Dem 29.9% - Safe Republican

9 Safe Democratic, 4 Likely Democratic, 3 Lean Democratic, 4 Toss Up, 0 Lean Republican, 2 Likely Republican, 11 Safe Republican

[windjammer]

I thought that Wisconsin was a gerrymander

[Gass3268]

I thought that Wisconsin was a gerrymander

That is actually much fairer then the current maps.

EG, what's your thoughts on my Wisconsin map. I've actually been working on this for almost a year. Being a fellow Wisconsinite and on the opposite political spectrum, I'd love to know what you think.

[windjammer]

Hello Electionsguy, are your maps the current maps of the legislature, or you draw yourself your maps?

[ElectionsGuy]

I thought that Wisconsin was a gerrymander

That is actually much fairer then the current maps.

EG, what's your thoughts on my Wisconsin map. I've actually been working on this for almost a year. Being a fellow Wisconsinite and on the opposite political spectrum, I'd love to know what you think.

I think they're very fair. I actually think the ratings are a bit more D than you say sometimes. (Example: 23 I would consider Lean R instead of Likely R).

I thought that Wisconsin was a gerrymander

Here's the real map:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/ltsb/redistricting/PDFs/Senate_2013_poster.pdf

Hello Electionsguy, are your maps the current maps of the legislature, or you draw yourself your maps?

I'm just drawing new ones.

[windjammer]

And how do you draw a map please? It would interest me (because I would like to make the PVI of the state legislatures)

[Sol]

And how do you draw a map please? It would interest me (because I would like to make the PVI of the state legislatures)

Dave's redistricting app.

Warning- it'll slow down your computer for a bit, depending on the state's size.

[ElectionsGuy]

North Dakota:



10: 51.8% Obama, 46.4% McCain = Toss-Up
15: 51.0% McCain, 46.5% Obama = Likely R
16: 51.8% McCain, 45.7% Obama = Likely R
17: 49.6% McCain, 47.6% Obama = Lean R
18: 51.7% McCain, 46.3% Obama = Likely R
19: 53.0% Obama, 44.9% McCain = Lean D
20: 50.3% Obama, 48.0% McCain = Lean R
21: 49.5% Obama, 48.3% McCain = Lean R
23: 62.4% McCain, 34.9% Obama = Safe R
28: 63.1% McCain, 33.9% Obama = Safe R
29: 57.3% McCain, 39.9% Obama = Safe R
30: 55.7% Obama, 42.5% McCain = Likely D
31: 68.1% Obama, 30.0% McCain = Safe D
35: 60.8% McCain, 37.3% Obama = Safe R
36: 57.7% McCain, 40.1% Obama = Safe R
37: 57.9% McCain, 40.1% Obama = Safe R
38: 55.5% McCain, 41.7% Obama = Safe R
39: 67.0% McCain, 31.6% Obama = Safe R
40: 60.0% McCain, 38.0% Obama = Safe R
41: 56.3% McCain, 41.0% Obama = Safe R
44: 67.3% McCain, 30.6% Obama = Safe R
45: 67.6% McCain, 29.9% Obama = Safe R
46: 62.2% McCain, 35.5% Obama = Safe R
47: 60.3% McCain, 37.2% Obama = Safe R

Fargo Close-Up:



1: 63.5% Obama, 33.8% McCain = Safe D
2: 56.6% Obama, 41.5% McCain = Likely D
3: 59.1% Obama, 39.0% McCain = Likely D
4: 52.2% Obama, 46.2% McCain = Toss-Up
5: 49.9% Obama, 48.5% McCain = Lean R
6: 52.1% McCain, 46.6% Obama = Likely R
7: 50.6% McCain, 48.1% Obama = Likely R
8: 58.8% Obama, 39.6% McCain = Likely D
9: 52.4% McCain, 46.2% Obama = Likely R

Grand Forks Close-Up:



11: 59.9% Obama, 38.3% McCain = Safe D
12: 55.3% Obama, 42.9% McCain = Lean D
13: 50.8% McCain, 47.9% Obama = Likely R
14: 49.3% McCain, 49.0% Obama = Lean R

Jamestown Close-Up:



22: 54.4% McCain, 43.5% Obama = Likely R

Bismark Close-Up:



24: 51.6% McCain, 46.2% Obama = Likely R
25: 61.0% McCain, 37.4% Obama = Safe R
26: 59.3% McCain, 38.8% Obama = Safe R
27: 63.7% McCain, 34.9% Obama = Safe R

Minot Close-Up:



32: 53.6% McCain, 44.2% Obama = Likely R
33: 60.8% McCain, 37.9% Obama = Safe R
34: 58.2% McCain, 40.6% Obama = Safe R

Williston Close-Up:



42: 66.5% McCain, 31.9% Obama = Safe R

Dickinson Close-Up:



43: 60.9% McCain, 36.9% Obama = Safe R

Overall, thats 36 R, 9 D, and 2 Toss-Ups. The current senate is 33-14 R. Splitting the toss-ups, that would be 37/47 which would be 78.7%. I'll usually just split the number of toss-ups in half. And how would you guys judge my ratings? Are they fair given the Obama over performance of 2008?

[JerryArkansas]

Telling you this now before you get to Arkansas, it can be hard on judging the ratings of each district.  If you wish, can you send them to me and I could tell you what I think the rating would be.

[Sol]

You have some VRA issues for your ND map. Firstly, you have to draw a Rolette County district. You also need to put Fort Berthold back together.

[ElectionsGuy]

You have some VRA issues for your ND map. Firstly, you have to draw a Rolette County district. You also need to put Fort Berthold back together.

31 is mostly Rolette County and over 50% Native American. And for the second thing, isn't most of that it 46? Either way, not changing it. Sorry.

[Sol]

There's no good reason to not keep Fort Berthold in one district.

[ElectionsGuy]

South Dakota:



8: 54.5% McCain, 43.5% Obama = Safe R
10: 51.6% Obama, 46.4% McCain = Toss-Up
12: 50.0% McCain, 47.9% Obama = Likely R
13: 49.6% McCain, 48.0% Obama = Likely R
14: 58.5% McCain, 38.5% Obama = Safe R
15: 57.7% McCain, 40.2% Obama = Safe R
16: 57.0% McCain, 40.9% Obama = Safe R
17: 52.0% McCain, 45.5% Obama = Likely R
18: 54.1% McCain, 43.8% Obama = Safe R
20: 53.0% McCain, 44.4% Obama = Likely R
21: 56.8% Obama, 41.5% McCain = Likely D
23: 50.3% McCain, 47.6% Obama = Likely R
24: 63.8% McCain, 34.6% Obama = Safe R
25: 51.5% McCain, 46.4% Obama = Likely R
26: 80.0% Obama, 18.2% McCain = Safe D
27: 55.6% McCain, 42.0% Obama = Safe R
31: 59.7% McCain, 38.1% Obama = Safe R
32: 64.6% McCain, 32.9% Obama = Safe R
33: 56.2% McCain, 41.0% Obama = Safe R
34: 63.3% McCain, 34.2% Obama = Safe R
35: 68.6% McCain, 27.9% Obama = Safe R

Souix Falls Close-Up:



1: 61.2% Obama, 36.3% McCain = Safe D
2: 56.5% Obama, 41.5% McCain = Likely D
3: 49.8% McCain, 48.6% Obama = Lean R
4: 52.8% Obama, 45.3% McCain = Toss-Up
5: 53.3% McCain, 45.4% Obama = Likely R
6: 55.5% McCain, 42.7% Obama = Safe R
7: 58.6% McCain, 40.3% Obama = Safe R
9: 51.1% McCain, 46.7% Obama = Likely R

Brookings/Watertown Close-Up:



11: 55.1% Obama, 42.7% McCain = Lean D
19: 52.9% McCain, 45.3% Obama = Likely R

Aberdeen Close-Up:



22: 51.8% Obama, 46.4% McCain = Toss-Up

Rapid City Close-Up:



28: 52.7% McCain, 45.0% Obama = Likely R
29: 60.8% McCain, 37.3% Obama = Safe R
30: 61.0% McCain, 37.6% Obama = Safe R

Thats 27 R, 5 D, and 3 Toss-Up. 28.5/35 = 81.4% The current state senate is 28/7, so very close.

[ElectionsGuy]

Delaware:



12: 59.5% Obama, 39.2% McCain = Safe D
13: 61.2% Obama, 37.5% McCain = Safe D
14: 62.0% Obama, 37.1% McCain = Safe D
15: 57.9% Obama, 41.2% McCain = Likely D
16: 55.1% McCain, 43.7% Obama = Safe R
17: 51.3% Obama, 47.9% McCain = Toss-Up
18: 51.7% McCain, 47.3% Obama = Likely R
19: 55.7% McCain, 43.4% Obama = Safe R
20: 56.7% McCain, 42.3% Obama = Safe R
21: 56.1% McCain, 42.8% Obama = Safe R

Wilmington Area Close-Up:



1: 68.7% Obama, 29.9% McCain = Safe D
2: 95.1% Obama, 4.5% McCain = Safe D
3: 77.6% Obama, 21.1% McCain = Safe D
4: 58.0% Obama, 40.8% McCain = Likely D
5: 57.7% Obama, 41.1% McCain = Likely D
6: 65.1% Obama, 32.9% McCain = Safe D
7: 68.4% Obama, 30.0% McCain = Safe D
8: 81.0% Obama, 17.9% McCain = Safe D
9: 71.1% Obama, 27.5% McCain = Safe D
10: 73.6% Obama, 25.2% McCain = Safe D
11: 77.1% Obama, 21.9% McCain = Safe D

That's 15 D, 5 R, and 1 toss-up. Overall that would be 73.8% D. The current one is 13-8 D.

[ElectionsGuy]

New Hampshire:



13: 51.8% McCain, 47.3% Obama = Likely R
14: 58.1% Obama, 40.8% McCain = Likely D
15: 58.2% Obama, 40.7% McCain = Likely D
16: 68.9% Obama, 30.4% McCain = Safe D
17: 53.4% Obama, 45.8% McCain = Toss-Up
18: 66.6% Obama, 32.4% McCain = Safe D
19: 57.6% Obama, 41.5% McCain = Likely D
20: 53.3% Obama, 45.6% McCain = Toss-Up

Southern Zoom-In:



1: 56.7% Obama, 42.4% McCain = Lean D
2: 53.5% Obama, 45.6% McCain = Toss-Up
3: 67.6% Obama, 31.7% McCain = Safe D
4: 61.1% Obama, 38.3% McCain = Safe D
5: 53.8% Obama, 45.5% McCain = Toss-Up
6: 54.9% Obama, 44.4% McCain = Lean D
7: 53.5% McCain, 45.5% Obama = Likely R
8: 58.4% Obama, 40.6% McCain = Likely D
9: 54.4% McCain, 44.7% Obama = Safe R
10: 53.9% McCain, 45.4% McCain = Likely R
11: 63.8% Obama, 35.4% McCain = Safe D
12: 50.3% McCain, 49.0% Obama = Lean R
21: 55.4% McCain, 44.0% Obama = Safe R
22: 51.6% Obama, 47.5% McCain = Lean R
23: 50.6% McCain, 48.5% Obama = Likely R
24: 53.5% McCain, 45.6% Obama = Likely R

Overall that's 14 D, 8 R, and 2 Toss-Up. Making it 62.5% D. I had huge problems with NH, including the two districts (23 and 24) are around 10,000 away from the correct deviation. That's obviously huge for these districts, and I tried fixing it, but its very hard to get around it without making precincts with less people in them! So oh well, there it is. I added a boost to republicans on the ratings just to emphasize their local over performance compared to national republicans. Republicans actually have the senate currently at 13-11.