Based on 2012 results only, which state gerrymander flipped the most seats?

[Sol]

If one can draw a compact 50% BVAP CD, that triggers the VRA. But the CD need not by 50% BVAP. It just needs to be a performing district, and the test for that is whether of not the black voters make up enough of a percentage of voters in the Dem primary to nominate a black, which might be as low as 40% BVAP or even lower, depending on how Hispanic a CD is, and how susceptible whites in a Dem primary are to voting for a black. Only 3 black CD's need be drawn in Georgia. The SW corner does not have enough blacks to draw a compact 50% BVAP CD. So it is a two step process, first the 50% test, and if met, then the performing test.

Thus my 3 black districts in the Atlanta area.

[jimrtex]

If one can draw a compact 50% BVAP CD, that triggers the VRA. But the CD need not by 50% BVAP. It just needs to be a performing district, and the test for that is whether of not the black voters make up enough of a percentage of voters in the Dem primary to nominate a black, which might be as low as 40% BVAP or even lower, depending on how Hispanic a CD is, and how susceptible whites in a Dem primary are to voting for a black. Only 3 black CD's need be drawn in Georgia. The SW corner does not have enough blacks to draw a compact 50% BVAP CD. So it is a two step process, first the 50% test, and if met, then the performing test.

What is the logic, if any, behind this?

The 50% BVAP test makes sense, since it demonstrates sufficient population to draw a district for a group that will constitute a majority of the district.

But isn't the effect of creating a performing district with less than 50% MVAP to maximize the number of voters who are wasting their time even bothering to vote?

[muon2]

If one can draw a compact 50% BVAP CD, that triggers the VRA. But the CD need not by 50% BVAP. It just needs to be a performing district, and the test for that is whether of not the black voters make up enough of a percentage of voters in the Dem primary to nominate a black, which might be as low as 40% BVAP or even lower, depending on how Hispanic a CD is, and how susceptible whites in a Dem primary are to voting for a black. Only 3 black CD's need be drawn in Georgia. The SW corner does not have enough blacks to draw a compact 50% BVAP CD. So it is a two step process, first the 50% test, and if met, then the performing test.

What is the logic, if any, behind this?

The 50% BVAP test makes sense, since it demonstrates sufficient population to draw a district for a group that will constitute a majority of the district.

But isn't the effect of creating a performing district with less than 50% MVAP to maximize the number of voters who are wasting their time even bothering to vote?

The effect of a performing, sub-50% MVAP may also be to apply neutral redistricting principles, such as avoiding county splits or improving the shape of the district.

From a rules perspective we discussed keeping clusters of minority performing counties together, an MCC to go with UCC as a CoI. This is a map of BVAP by county in GA, with shades at 25%, 33.3%, 40% and 50%. Applying our analysis from AL, The two darkest shades would be used to determine clusters (40% BVAP).

[Torie]

Yes, what is deemed "compact" is impacted by whether neutral, good government,  line drawing was used, along with what does, or does not, constitute an illegal racial gerrymander, as we well know circa the current Virginia case.

[Adam Griffin]

I was always curious about SW GA / the current GA-2, because as drawn in 2011 it was 49.5% BVAP. I didn't know if it counted or not, but was curious why GAGOP wouldn't just shatter it if it didn't qualify. I could definitely see it making 2 or more otherwise drawn GOP districts down there potentially "competitive" (in so much as John Barrow's 2011 GA-12 was competitive), but I don't think it'd pose much of a problem. I haven't actually tried drawing a map with GA-2 split up because of that.

[Torie]

I was always curious about SW GA / the current GA-2, because as drawn in 2011 it was 49.5% BVAP. I didn't know if it counted or not, but was curious why GAGOP wouldn't just shatter it if it didn't qualify. I could definitely see it making 2 or more otherwise drawn GOP districts down there potentially "competitive" (in so much as John Barrow's 2011 GA-12 was competitive), but I don't think it'd pose much of a problem. I haven't actually tried drawing a map with GA-2 split up because of that.

Because the Pubs wanted to excise the blacks from Birmingham from that CD. Absent such excision, the Birmingham based CD would be marginal, unless Birmingham were chopped to bits as well, and at some point, even partisan hacks get a bit embarrassed. While good government folks love marginal CD's, political partisans hate them, unless their gerrymanders top off with a marginal CD, after making everything else they can grab safe for them.