Is America A Natural GOP Gerrymander?

[DC Al Fine]

There has been much talk about GOP/Democratic gerrymanders. An example many progressives cite is how the GOP lost the popular vote in the last congressional elections but won 30 more seats than the Democrats. GOP gerrymanders undoubtedly affected the margin, but I think a large portion of this effect can be explained by the tendency of Democratic voters to congregate in large cities.

Thus, you get states like Pennsylvania, where Obama won about 52% of the vote, but only 5/18 congressional districts. Some of this was undoubtedly due to gerrymandering, but even under a fair map, the GOP would probably win a majority of seats simply because of the mass of Philadelphians voting 80%+ Democrat. There's just no way to create an even map and keep communities of interest intact. Natural packs like this are seen in most states with huge cities like New York, Illinois, Michigan, and Georgia.

Suppose there was a fair congressional map in the 2012 election. Would the GOP still have won a majority of seats?

[TJ in Oregon]

It depends on how you define "fair". If you had someone with no political knowledge draw the lines based only on population density and trying to group places with similar demographics together, you'd almost certainly end up with more Republicans than Democrats.

This is true for the House; however, it is not true for the electoral college. The latter is constantly in flux but at the moment seems to favor the Democrats somewhat.

[Miles]

Suppose there was a fair congressional map in the 2012 election. Would the GOP still have won a majority of seats?

I'd recommend this DKE diary.

[Skill and Chance]

It depends on how you define "fair". If you had someone with no political knowledge draw the lines based only on population density and trying to group places with similar demographics together, you'd almost certainly end up with more Republicans than Democrats.

This is true for the House; however, it is not true for the electoral college. The latter is constantly in flux but at the moment seems to favor the Democrats somewhat.

But what if we asked someone to redraw the states naturally?

Natural changes that would benefit Republicans:

1. Compact Chicago State
2. Compact NYC state
3. Compact DC area state
4. Compact Philadelphia state
5. Iowa being extended south or west
6. Colorado being extended in any direction other than south

Natural changes that would benefit Democrats:

1. South Florida state
2. Compact Atlanta state
3. Majority Hispanic South Texas State
4. Majority or plurality Black Mississippi Delta state
5. Eastern VA/Carolina state
6. Splitting up California (could also be neutral, though)

I think the hit to Democrats from Chicago and the Northeast losing rural areas would be too much to overcome.

[muon2]

Suppose there was a fair congressional map in the 2012 election. Would the GOP still have won a majority of seats?

I'd recommend this DKE diary.

I'm not wild about many of the maps. The author seems too willing to chop counties, even through he references the WV SCOTUS decision that would permit greater latitude on population deviation to preserve counties and munis. I'd like to see more effort put into criteria beyond his subjective sense of CoI.

[DC Al Fine]

As an aside, I wish you Americans would name your districts. Do you know how bloody annoying it is to hear TX-3 or whatever and have to look it up on a map every time? Just call it Dallas-East or something

[bedstuy]

Considering I only know like 3 Republicans, probably.

As an aside, I wish you Americans would name your districts. Do you know how bloody annoying it is to hear TX-3 or whatever and have to look it up on a map every time? Just call it Dallas-East or something

But, they would have to rename the districts every ten years and when Tom Delay said so.  I think my district would be, a Brooklyn-sideways horseshoe shape.

[Sbane]

Generally speaking, a neutral year would likely favor the Republicans but even a 2-3point  Democratic win would lead to the Democrats getting a majority of seats. That is not the case with the current map.

[Beet]

You can't answer this question without an objective standard, IMO, and drawing maps are inherently subjective, as muon's reply implies. So unless someone can come up with a mathematically "objective" way of drawing maps, I don't think we'll be able to answer this. What is clear is that the GOP has gained a disproportionate amount of seats from gerrymandering.

[SNJ1985]

Thus, you get states like Pennsylvania, where Obama won about 52% of the vote, but only 5/18 congressional districts. Some of this was undoubtedly due to gerrymandering, but even under a fair map, the GOP would probably win a majority of seats simply because of the mass of Philadelphians voting 80%+ Democrat.

Yep. Just look at a typical election map of the state. You have wide swaths of Republican territory and a handful of Democratic counties.

[jimrtex]

There has been much talk about GOP/Democratic gerrymanders. An example many progressives cite is how the GOP lost the popular vote in the last congressional elections but won 30 more seats than the Democrats.

If representatives were awarded proportionately in each State, Republicans would still have a majority.

[muon2]

You can't answer this question without an objective standard, IMO, and drawing maps are inherently subjective, as muon's reply implies. So unless someone can come up with a mathematically "objective" way of drawing maps, I don't think we'll be able to answer this. What is clear is that the GOP has gained a disproportionate amount of seats from gerrymandering.

This board has put a lot of work into various objective criteria and we have applied them to a scattered few states. Perhaps we should make a dedicated effort to see if we can answer the question better than DKE.

[Indy Texas]

As an aside, I wish you Americans would name your districts. Do you know how bloody annoying it is to hear TX-3 or whatever and have to look it up on a map every time? Just call it Dallas-East or something

I tend to agree. Saying someone is the representative for Tennessee's 3rd district tells you absolutely nothing about where they're actually from unless you're a Forum junkie who knows all districts by heart.

[muon2]

As an aside, I wish you Americans would name your districts. Do you know how bloody annoying it is to hear TX-3 or whatever and have to look it up on a map every time? Just call it Dallas-East or something

I tend to agree. Saying someone is the representative for Tennessee's 3rd district tells you absolutely nothing about where they're actually from unless you're a Forum junkie who knows all districts by heart.

As long as states can gerrymander it won't help much to provide names. I have no idea what names to use with some of the CDs in MD or OH.

[angus]

As an aside, I wish you Americans would name your districts. Do you know how bloody annoying it is to hear TX-3 or whatever and have to look it up on a map every time? Just call it Dallas-East or something

Why in the world would anyone do that?  That's just silly, and it certainly isn't an improvement.

A two-letter abbreviation with a hyphen and a number is perfectly sensible, and it's so little to type in the search engine when you want to look it up. 

[TJ in Oregon]

Maybe we should try and start a trend of calling them by names? If we somehow get enough people to, the names might catch on. It really is an easier way to identify districts even if their formal name would still be a number.

[Indy Texas]

As an aside, I wish you Americans would name your districts. Do you know how bloody annoying it is to hear TX-3 or whatever and have to look it up on a map every time? Just call it Dallas-East or something

Why in the world would anyone do that?  That's just silly, and it certainly isn't an improvement.

A two-letter abbreviation with a hyphen and a number is perfectly sensible, and it's so little to type in the search engine when you want to look it up. 

It sounds very Soviet/Chinese. As in, "I yield the floor to the Democratic Party representative from District 18" versus "The chamber recognizes the Labour member for Exeter." The latter sounds so much more civilized.

As for the gerrymandering issue, this is why we should just adopt boundary commissions for every state and keep the politicians out of it.

[DC Al Fine]

As an aside, I wish you Americans would name your districts. Do you know how bloody annoying it is to hear TX-3 or whatever and have to look it up on a map every time? Just call it Dallas-East or something

Why in the world would anyone do that?  That's just silly, and it certainly isn't an improvement.

A two-letter abbreviation with a hyphen and a number is perfectly sensible, and it's so little to type in the search engine when you want to look it up. 

Angus that's precisely the problem. I have to look up a district every time it's referenced and it does take time. I just don't have to do that when discussing Canadian or British districts. So long as you have a bit of geographical knowledge someone can refer to the district and you'll instantly know what they're talking about.

Quick what area does FL-27 cover? Quick what area does Miami South cover? Same place, one is quicker to understand.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There do seem to be a lot of 80+% D core urban areas surrounded by 55% R suburbs, which definitely favor Republicans. And then VRA requirements tend to hurt in Democrats in maps that aren't being drawn as a Republican gerrymander.

It turns out that the median Illinois Congressional district is about the same or possibly slightly more Republican than the state as a whole. And I believe their median state legislative districts are more Republican. If even Illinois has a map that favors Republicans, ouch.

The median Massachusetts Congressional district is D+6 in a D+8 state. That's almost a Republican gerrymander.

[Mr. Morden]

Discussed in this thread:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/its-the-geography-stupid.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Miles]

Suppose there was a fair congressional map in the 2012 election. Would the GOP still have won a majority of seats?

I'd recommend this DKE diary.

I'm not wild about many of the maps. The author seems too willing to chop counties, even through he references the WV SCOTUS decision that would permit greater latitude on population deviation to preserve counties and munis. I'd like to see more effort put into criteria beyond his subjective sense of CoI.

Yeah, I agree; I'd definitely do some of the maps differently, but I give the author a lot of credit for putting something like that together. 

[Skill and Chance]

Yes, but it's not as bad as it looks.  Dems just need to expand one ring of towns/counties out from the generic city center and they can have a 230ish majority without having to rely on any rural split-ticket voting.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

To counteract all the Republican gerrymanders, we need real Democratic gerrymanders.

This is what a real Democratic gerrymander looks like.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6166/contest-entry-ny-280-with-58-obama-or-more-finding-limits

[Slander and/or Libel]

It's not that America is per se a natural GOP gerrymander; rather, an America composed of single-member congressional districts, where political opinion in areas of high population density tends to be more homogeneous, is a natural GOP gerrymander. One way to obliterate a lot of this problem would be through multi-member congressional districts.

[muon2]

It's not that America is per se a natural GOP gerrymander; rather, an America composed of single-member congressional districts, where political opinion in areas of high population density tends to be more homogeneous, is a natural GOP gerrymander. One way to obliterate a lot of this problem would be through multi-member congressional districts.

How many members would there be per district, and what does one do about single-district states? What about large states with multiple major urban areas that have distinct issues (eg. CA). There once were a number of reps elected from statewide at-large districts, but Congress abolished the practice in 1967 out of fear that states would use at large multi-member districts to dilute minority voting strength. A cumulative voting system might address that, but Congress would have to create an act that would be applicable to all states equally.