Soouth Florida to become its own state?

[solarstorm]

I think Hillsborough, Pinellas and Orange County would want to have some say...

By the way it looks like that map is missing two counties.

Holmes and Nassau?

They would be repelled to Alabama and Georgia, respectively.

[Mr. Morden]

"Soouth" Florida?  Is that how they pronounce it there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_IF47rpLLY

[Flake]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet, but apparently the city of Miami passed a resolution that favors the secession of South Florida.

South Miami. Difference of about 407,845 people. That said, I'm in full support of this - anything that both makes the University of South Florida's name actually make sense (it'd be the flagship public university of the State of South Florida) and puts my education under the control of someone other than whoever the hell The Villages sends to the state legislature is alright with me.

I completely agree.

I also find it kind of funny that people think Orlampa is more like North Florida, when culturally and politically I've found it to be closer to Miami than Jacksonville.

Anybody got any data on how each state would vote in the 2012 prezzy/2010 gov elections?

[Dereich]

Orlando has more in common with North Florida than South Florida; that applies to pretty much everywhere in the state, to be fair. I'd just break apart everything in the Miami orbit, so everywhere that supports Miami over any other Florida team. That would mean West Palm Beach and down. No reason to stick Tampa and Orlando in a Miami-based state.

Just Broward, Dade, PB and maybe Monroe? Nah... Orange/Osceola is definitely not part of N. Florida. Though the North Orlando metro definitely is. Even East Orlando even feels like S. Florida. Its a looong story how I got to know the area. You could probably take in Tampa without having to take in Pasco, I think. There's NPR, but that's the only metro feeling place in Pasco.

Orlando is my blind spot; I admit don't know that area very well.  However, I do know the Tampa suburbs, Clearwater and to a lesser degree St. Pete and they are MUCH more culturally similar to North Florida than South Florida. I know it doesn't make a very pretty map, but unless there's some measure I'm missing I don't see the justification for grouping Miami with pretty much anywhere else in the state but West Palm Beach.

Orlando, at this point, certainly isn't the south. Maybe a few decades ago, but not now. As for the Bay area, we are home to the largest rebel flag in the world, admittedly, but the area is a better example of a melting pot of both cultures than probably any other in Florida. I'd be hard-pressed to call the area Southern, especially St. Pete.

Where exactly is NOT a melting pot in Florida? NOWHERE in Florida is like the South as people here seem to see it, at least not east of Leon. Tallahassee, Gainesville, Daytona, and Jacksonville are mostly bland middle class suburbs you'd find anywhere in the country, just with more blacks. If you were dropped in a Jacksonville suburb you'd find zero cultural differences from one in Tampa, Northern Orlando (the only part of the city I know) or St. Pete.

I agree that Central Florida does have its differences, but if you're only splitting the state into 2 parts I cannot see where anyone could possibly put them with the South over the North; from everything I've seen of it Miami is just a completely different creature from anything else in the state.

[RI]

Anybody got any data on how each state would vote in the 2012 prezzy/2010 gov elections?

2012 Pres:
South Florida - Obama 54.1%, Romney 44.9%
North Florida - Romney 57.1%, Obama 41.6%

2010 Gov:
South Florida - Sink 50.7%, Scott 46.2%
North Florida - Scott 53.7%, Sink 42.3%

[muon2]

With a little searching I found that this was an issue in May, 2008 as well. The city of North Lauderdale had a resolution advocating a state of South FL with an accompanying press release. South FL legislators in session in Tallahassee referenced that resolution at the same time. A page on causes.com was set up for the purpose. However, unlike the current discussion, the North Lauderdale resolution only included the counties of Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, and Monroe.

Here are my questions for the Floridian posters. Has there ever been an effort to separate Central FL (esp. Tampa and Orlando) with South FL before this? Is there any clamor in CF for separation like there has been in SF?

[Donerail]

Orlando has more in common with North Florida than South Florida; that applies to pretty much everywhere in the state, to be fair. I'd just break apart everything in the Miami orbit, so everywhere that supports Miami over any other Florida team. That would mean West Palm Beach and down. No reason to stick Tampa and Orlando in a Miami-based state.

Just Broward, Dade, PB and maybe Monroe? Nah... Orange/Osceola is definitely not part of N. Florida. Though the North Orlando metro definitely is. Even East Orlando even feels like S. Florida. Its a looong story how I got to know the area. You could probably take in Tampa without having to take in Pasco, I think. There's NPR, but that's the only metro feeling place in Pasco.

Orlando is my blind spot; I admit don't know that area very well.  However, I do know the Tampa suburbs, Clearwater and to a lesser degree St. Pete and they are MUCH more culturally similar to North Florida than South Florida. I know it doesn't make a very pretty map, but unless there's some measure I'm missing I don't see the justification for grouping Miami with pretty much anywhere else in the state but West Palm Beach.

Orlando, at this point, certainly isn't the south. Maybe a few decades ago, but not now. As for the Bay area, we are home to the largest rebel flag in the world, admittedly, but the area is a better example of a melting pot of both cultures than probably any other in Florida. I'd be hard-pressed to call the area Southern, especially St. Pete.

Where exactly is NOT a melting pot in Florida?

Inglis.

NOWHERE in Florida is like the South as people here seem to see it, at least not east of Leon. Tallahassee, Gainesville, Daytona, and Jacksonville are mostly bland middle class suburbs you'd find anywhere in the country, just with more blacks. If you were dropped in a Jacksonville suburb you'd find zero cultural differences from one in Tampa, Northern Orlando (the only part of the city I know) or St. Pete.

I'd agree that Gainesville and (more marginally) Jacksonville aren't Southern. Tally definitely has more of a Southern culture from my visits - think Bradley's Country Store, but also the accents have a more Southern flavor than in Orlampa, and Tally actually had some actual Civil War battles (Natural Bridge).

I agree that Central Florida does have its differences, but if you're only splitting the state into 2 parts I cannot see where anyone could possibly put them with the South over the North; from everything I've seen of it Miami is just a completely different creature from anything else in the state.

South Florida (those three-four counties) certainly have a very distinct feel from the rest of the state, but I interpreted this movement more as an effort to split off the region that is concerned about climate change and which will be most affected by it to secure a government that cares about combating it, and one that aimed in taking in as much of Florida that isn't explicitly Southern as it can, to create a stronger and more influential state that can devote much of its resources to preventing Miami from sinking.

Here are my questions for the Floridian posters. Has there ever been an effort to separate Central FL (esp. Tampa and Orlando) with South FL before this? Is there any clamor in CF for separation like there has been in SF?

Apart from assorted neoconfederates in north Florida and all that the Conch Republic has done, never, not that I can recall at least. The nucleus has always been in the three counties of the South Florida metro; their proposals just vary in how much of the rest of the state they'd take with them.

[RI]

South Florida presidential voting
2012: Obama 54.1%, Romney 44.9%
2008: Obama 54.7%, Romney 44.4%
2004: Kerry 50.3%, Bush 48.9%
2000: Gore 51.8%, Bush 45.9%
1996: Clinton 50.6%, Dole 40.2%
1992: Clinton 40.3%, Bush 39.9%
1988: Bush 59.8%, Dukakis 39.6%
1984: Reagan 64.9%, Mondale 35.1%
1980: Reagan 56.3%, Carter 36.9%
1976: Carter 50.9%, Ford 47.7%
1972: Nixon 70.6%, McGovern 29.1%
1968: Nixon 45.7%, Humphrey 32.7%, Wallace 21.7%
1964: Johnson 53.0%, Goldwater 47.0%

North Florida presidential voting
2012: Romney 57.1%, Obama 41.6%
2008: McCain 55.2%, Obama 43.7%
2004: Bush 58.4%, Kerry 40.7%
2000: Bush 54.9%, Gore 42.6%
1996: Dole 46.7%, Clinton 42.7%
1992: Bush 43.0%, Clinton 36.2%
1988: Bush 63.3%, Dukakis 36.0%
1984: Reagan 66.3%, Mondale 33.7%
1980: Reagan 53.6%, Carter 42.2%
1976: Carter 54.5%, Ford 44.1%
1972: Nixon 75.0%, McGovern 24.7%
1968: Wallace 43.8%, Nixon 29.1%, Humphrey 27.1%
1964: Goldwater 52.8%, Johnson 47.2%

[muon2]

South Florida presidential voting
2012: Obama 54.1%, Romney 44.9%
2008: Obama 54.7%, Romney 44.4%
2004: Kerry 50.3%, Bush 48.9%
2000: Gore 51.8%, Bush 45.9%
1996: Clinton 50.6%, Dole 40.2%
1992: Clinton 40.3%, Bush 39.9%
1988: Bush 59.8%, Dukakis 39.6%
1984: Reagan 64.9%, Mondale 35.1%
1980: Reagan 56.3%, Carter 36.9%
1976: Carter 50.9%, Ford 47.7%
1972: Nixon 70.6%, McGovern 29.1%
1968: Nixon 45.7%, Humphrey 32.7%, Wallace 21.7%
1964: Johnson 53.0%, Goldwater 47.0%

North Florida presidential voting
2012: Romney 57.1%, Obama 41.6%
2008: McCain 55.2%, Obama 43.7%
2004: Bush 58.4%, Kerry 40.7%
2000: Bush 54.9%, Gore 42.6%
1996: Dole 46.7%, Clinton 42.7%
1992: Bush 43.0%, Clinton 36.2%
1988: Bush 63.3%, Dukakis 36.0%
1984: Reagan 66.3%, Mondale 33.7%
1980: Reagan 53.6%, Carter 42.2%
1976: Carter 54.5%, Ford 44.1%
1972: Nixon 75.0%, McGovern 24.7%
1968: Wallace 43.8%, Nixon 29.1%, Humphrey 27.1%
1964: Goldwater 52.8%, Johnson 47.2%

That tends to confirm that the split described in the resolution has little to do with water resources or taxes or common interests and is primarily drafted to maximize the Dem share with the largest possible population without bizarre boundaries. Hence an E-W line that just includes Orange and Hillsborough, but nothing to the north which become more Pub. The resolution should be honest about its real intent.

Does no one appreciate swing states with competitive statewide elections or should all be locked into one party or the other?

[Boston Bread]

Does no one appreciate swing states with competitive statewide elections or should all be locked into one party or the other?

Clearly not the Florida GOP, considering their use of gerrymandering to lock up their hold on the legislature.

[muon2]

Does no one appreciate swing states with competitive statewide elections or should all be locked into one party or the other?

Clearly not the Florida GOP, considering their use of gerrymandering to lock up their hold on the legislature.

As did the IL Dems, but I don't support the resolution that would split Cook from the rest of IL. Anyway, my comment was about the statewide elections, not control of the legislature. I recognize that internal demographics can skew a legislative body compared to statewide results, and sometimes even neutral redistricting will not create a legislature that reflects the overall state vote.

[traininthedistance]

Does no one appreciate swing states with competitive statewide elections or should all be locked into one party or the other?

Clearly not the Florida GOP, considering their use of gerrymandering to lock up their hold on the legislature.

As did the IL Dems, but I don't support the resolution that would split Cook from the rest of IL. Anyway, my comment was about the statewide elections, not control of the legislature. I recognize that internal demographics can skew a legislative body compared to statewide results, and sometimes even neutral redistricting will not create a legislature that reflects the overall state vote.

I would argue that a redistricting process that spits out a legislature whose composition is unreflective of the overall state vote cannot truly be called "neutral". 

I do agree that this proposal seems to be taking partisan advantage into account when drawing the lines; I don't know that it's much worse than 6 Californias on that front, but 6 Californias was pretty bad so that's not much of a compliment.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Not a bad idea, since South Florida is different than the rest of the state.

Are we going to start dividing every big city from the rest of its state?  Horrible idea.  The people of FL can work out their differences.

[muon2]

Does no one appreciate swing states with competitive statewide elections or should all be locked into one party or the other?

Clearly not the Florida GOP, considering their use of gerrymandering to lock up their hold on the legislature.

As did the IL Dems, but I don't support the resolution that would split Cook from the rest of IL. Anyway, my comment was about the statewide elections, not control of the legislature. I recognize that internal demographics can skew a legislative body compared to statewide results, and sometimes even neutral redistricting will not create a legislature that reflects the overall state vote.

I would argue that a redistricting process that spits out a legislature whose composition is unreflective of the overall state vote cannot truly be called "neutral".  

I do agree that this proposal seems to be taking partisan advantage into account when drawing the lines; I don't know that it's much worse than 6 Californias on that front, but 6 Californias was pretty bad so that's not much of a compliment.

I was thinking of the 6 CAs myself, which is also a blatant political move under the guise of better representation. As laudable as a fair legislature is in redistricting, the demographics really can prevent it. If a minority population is uniformly spread in every precinct, they will hold a majority in no district.

Consider MA. It voted 61% in 2012 for Obama or 62% of the two-party vote. Mathematical analysis of districts predicts that the Dems should hold 74% of the seats based on their 2012 results (2% advantage for every 1% above 50%). The legislative boundaries largely follow town lines, yet the legislature is divided 36-4 in the Senate and 128-32 in the House. That is 82% Dem. Likewise all 9 CDs went to Dems, and there is some gerrymandering, but generally the best a Pub map can do is one CD that merely leans Dem, with hope in strong GOP years. That is not consistent with their voting share in the state. The demographic problem for the Pubs is that they are too dispersed in MA to form a majority in a CD, and then in only a fraction of the smaller legislative seats.

[traininthedistance]

Does no one appreciate swing states with competitive statewide elections or should all be locked into one party or the other?

Clearly not the Florida GOP, considering their use of gerrymandering to lock up their hold on the legislature.

As did the IL Dems, but I don't support the resolution that would split Cook from the rest of IL. Anyway, my comment was about the statewide elections, not control of the legislature. I recognize that internal demographics can skew a legislative body compared to statewide results, and sometimes even neutral redistricting will not create a legislature that reflects the overall state vote.

I would argue that a redistricting process that spits out a legislature whose composition is unreflective of the overall state vote cannot truly be called "neutral".  

I do agree that this proposal seems to be taking partisan advantage into account when drawing the lines; I don't know that it's much worse than 6 Californias on that front, but 6 Californias was pretty bad so that's not much of a compliment.

I was thinking of the 6 CAs myself, which is also a blatant political move under the guise of better representation. As laudable as a fair legislature is in redistricting, the demographics really can prevent it. If a minority population is uniformly spread in every precinct, they will hold a majority in no district.

Consider MA. It voted 61% in 2012 for Obama or 62% of the two-party vote. Mathematical analysis of districts predicts that the Dems should hold 74% of the seats based on their 2012 results (2% advantage for every 1% above 50%). The legislative boundaries largely follow town lines, yet the legislature is divided 36-4 in the Senate and 128-32 in the House. That is 82% Dem. Likewise all 9 CDs went to Dems, and there is some gerrymandering, but generally the best a Pub map can do is one CD that merely leans Dem, with hope in strong GOP years. That is not consistent with their voting share in the state. The demographic problem for the Pubs is that they are too dispersed in MA to form a majority in a CD, and then in only a fraction of the smaller legislative seats.

Well, what I'd actually like to see is a move away from strict FPTP districts and towards MMP- our current system is liable to be unfair one way or another and Massachusetts is, yes, an extreme case where you can't really even get to fair even when you put your thumb on the scale.  In the meantime (because, let's be honest, MMP is a pipe dream) I'll support efforts to sand down the worst rough edges of geographic screwage, and yes that would include having a Republican-leaning district in MA.

[muon2]

I decided to test FL to see how much the geography skews the opportunity for a fair map. To test this I drew a 40 seat Senate map starting with the UCCs for FL and putting no more than the minimum number of SDs in each UCC (ie no UCC chops). I avoided county chops except within UCCs, and tried to minimize the number of excess chops. Within chopped counties muni chops were avoided.

All the districts are within 5% of the quota, and they were drawn with an eye towards minimizing erosity, though no specific measure was used. In Miami-Dade there is one BVAP majority SD and 5 HVAP majority SDs (2R, 3D), and two additional BVAP opportunity SDs (37-38%).



I use 5 categories for assessing the political tendency of a district. Uppercase (R, D) are uncompetitive PVI 6 or greater. Lower case (r, d) are competitive PVI 2 to 5. Even (e) is PVI 0 or 1. This map rates as 16R, 7r, 1e, 3d, 13D. That puts 11 of 40 SDs in the competitive range.

The state overall is R+2 so there should be a structural advantage of 3 seats. The seven SD R-D advantage means a skew number of 4 for the map. Presumably some concentrated effort could reduce that at the cost of some chops.

My curiosity centered on the split proposal, and the political ramifications are pretty clear. NF would have all or most of 13 of the SDs, with a split of 8R, 3r, 1d, 1D. That leaves SF with 8R, 4r, 1e, 2d, 12D or a D-R advantage of 2. My proposed version that only involves the water resources in the resolution is 4R, 1r, 1d, 9D. I still wonder why they didn't just go that direction?

[justfollowingtheelections]

Since the purpose of this proposal is to create a state that would be in the best position to deal with global warming, rising sea levels and hurricanes, I think this would be the best way to divide the state:

[muon2]

Since the purpose of this proposal is to create a state that would be in the best position to deal with global warming, rising sea levels and hurricanes, I think this would be the best way to divide the state:

I think we are in agreement as to what the resolution calls for in content, though not in map. My preceding post gives an idea of the political breakdown of the area you suggest.

Given all that, I can only find justification in the resolution for a much reduced version of South Florida. That would include only 11 counties including Lee, Glades, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, and those to the south. That amounts to only 38% of the current population of FL, compared to 67% in the resolution.

nb, if a mod wants to move this thread to Political Geography, I have no objections.