House breakdown if...

[Moooooo]

All CD districts were drawn up by a non-partisan panel?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Definitely a few more Democratic districts. The problem is that if you draw districts normally, there's still a lot of wasted votes in overkill Democratic areas like the west Bronx.

[No more McShame]

This was drawn by a non-partisan panel; obviously not a guarantee against gerrymandering.

[Alcon]

This was drawn by a non-partisan panel; obviously not a guarantee against gerrymandering.

I was unaware that Citizens for Small, Squiggly Congressional Districts that Make No Sense was such a major force in Arizona.

[minionofmidas]

Part one - that NE extension was heavily lobbied for. By Hopis who didn't want to be in the same district with Navajos. Even though Hopis don't even as a rule vote, so I wonder what they need that for. Maybe they don't want Navajo volunteers coming to their Pueblos canvassing for votes.

Apart from that:
Looking at this map, you'll notice that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th district are all entirely in the Phoenix metro, the 1st is entirely nonmetropolitan, the 8th is in the Tucson metro (plus Cochise County), the 7th is in both metros plus the Yuma area and what's in between, and that leaves an unavoidable district combining parts of the Phoenix metro with very rural areas.
I've tried it. You can't create eight sensible districts in Arizona on the 2004 figures.

[muon2]

Definitely a few more Democratic districts. The problem is that if you draw districts normally, there's still a lot of wasted votes in overkill Democratic areas like the west Bronx.

I've highlighted the critical part of your post. It's absolutely correct, and in general will weigh against the first part of your quote. For instance, I went through a straight population exercise for IL a few months ago in this thread. If anything it reduces the number of secure Democrat districts by eliminating the gerrymander along the Mississippi (IL-17) and compacting the Chicago districts.

It does increase the competitiveness of many of the districts. Results like Bean's win in IL-8 would be more common. But Republicans would have an equal shot at some lean Democrat districts as well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Definitely a few more Democratic districts. The problem is that if you draw districts normally, there's still a lot of wasted votes in overkill Democratic areas like the west Bronx.

I've highlighted the critical part of your post. It's absolutely correct, and in general will weigh against the first part of your quote. For instance, I went through a straight population exercise for IL a few months ago in this thread. If anything it reduces the number of secure Democrat districts by eliminating the gerrymander along the Mississippi (IL-17) and compacting the Chicago districts.

It does increase the competitiveness of many of the districts. Results like Bean's win in IL-8 would be more common. But Republicans would have an equal shot at some lean Democrat districts as well.

Democrats would still be better off, as more states have pro-Republican gerrymandering (like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas).

[minionofmidas]

One very important result would be that the no. of seats changing hands at every election would be a lot higher, rather like  in the early 20th century. This would seriously reduce the effects of incumbency, and likely reduce the no. of split districts. It might also lead to greater ideological unity within the caucuses.

[jravnsbo]

what would the House looked like it if Districts went as they voted in a the same manner they voted for President?

Kind of like a parliamentary method in reverse.

Anyone?

[muon2]

Definitely a few more Democratic districts. The problem is that if you draw districts normally, there's still a lot of wasted votes in overkill Democratic areas like the west Bronx.

I've highlighted the critical part of your post. It's absolutely correct, and in general will weigh against the first part of your quote. For instance, I went through a straight population exercise for IL a few months ago in this thread. If anything it reduces the number of secure Democrat districts by eliminating the gerrymander along the Mississippi (IL-17) and compacting the Chicago districts.

It does increase the competitiveness of many of the districts. Results like Bean's win in IL-8 would be more common. But Republicans would have an equal shot at some lean Democrat districts as well.

Democrats would still be better off, as more states have pro-Republican gerrymandering (like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas).

It's an interesting hypothesis that's worth testing. I'm working on a set of rules that a presumably independent commission would follow to create a map. I would start with jimrtex's rules, then modify them accordingly.

I find there are two types of states for which one can set up rules. One set, like TX, have no county subdivisions recognized federally other than census tracts. Other states in the north and east have towns or townships as county subdivisions. It's easier to create and apply nonpartisan rules to those states with county subdivisions, so let's start there.

In the jimrtex rules, there are three primary classes of division to avoid. there are other rules, but these seem to dominate the map creation when I've look at a few example states.

1) Splits of the units (county or town) which are less than the population of a district.

2) Keeping at least one whole district in units larger than population of a district.

3) Creating multiple partial districts in any split unit.

I'd like to invite thoughts on what priority order to apply these rules.

[Jake]

I'd think it would be best to avoid splitting counties unless absolutely necessary. Also, keeping like areas in the same district should be a priority. I'm working on an ungerrymandered PA map right now using that criteria.

Population variations will be allowed by up to 1% of the ideal district size of 646370.

[muon2]

Ok, I have my first pass at some states using purely geographic rules to create CDs. I defined rules for states with well defined county subdivisions.

Definitions
D-1: A town is defined here to include town, township, village, and city subdivisions as recognized by the Census Bureau as county subdivisions.

D-2: Discontinuous parts of towns shall be treated as separate towns for each contiguous section.

D-3: Areas may refer to towns or counties and their boundaries are as defined by the Census.

D-4: A partial district is a portion of an area less than the whole, containing all the population of that area in a particular district, and contains less popluation than needed for a whole district.

Fixed Rules
F-1: The size of each district shall be within 0.5% of the average size for the state.

F-2: Each district shall be contiguous.
F-2-1: Contiguous shall not include contact at one corner only.
F-2-2: Contiguous shall not include a district with two areas on the same land mass that are contiguous only by means of crossing a body of water, except when those two areas share a common boundary in that body of water.

F-3: Each plan for a state will be judged based on a set of priority rules. The highest priority (lowest numbered) rule takes precedence in determining the composition of the districts for a state.

Priority Rules
P-1: The fewest towns are split that have less population than the state average.

P-2: The fewest towns split that have a population greater than the state average such that there is no district wholly within the town.

P-3: The fewest total partial town districts.

P-4: The fewest counties are split that have less population than the state average.

P-5: The fewest counties split that have a population greater than the state average such that there is no district wholly within the county.

P-6: The fewest total partial county districts.

P-7: The fewest partial county districts in any one county.

[muon2]

I found that the rules force one to start by creating districts that can include the largest counties less than the population of one district. The last districts created are those in counties with more than enough population for one district, because they will have the partial districts needed to bring other districts within the population guidelines.

For my first application of the above rules, I have redivided MN, WI, and MI.


Some comments on the above map.

MN has zero for each of the three town rules. Rule 4 has one split in Ramsey, due to the fact that keeping it intact requires a split of Minneapolis which is worse for rule 1. Rule 5 has zero, rule 6 has four partials, and no more than two partials under rule 7.

WI also has zero for each of the three town rules. The City of Milwaukee isolates the north shore suburbs in its county from the rest of the towns. Those suburbs can't be grouped with the district north of Milwaukee to make its population work out, so I had to split Washington County (I separated West Bend as one of many options).  The result is one split under rule 4, five total spilts under rule 6, and three splits maximum for rule 7.

MI has three counties bigger than the district minimum, and one town larger. This allows rules 1, 2, 4, and 5 to be at zero. Detroit requires that rule 3 have one town split. The shape of Detroit isolates groups of towns in Wayne County on the East, and the border towns in Macomb have too much population, so Oakland is stuck with four partial districts.  Overall MI has six partials.

[muon2]

Now let me address the question of competiveness and partisan leanings in those three states compared to this "non-partisan" map. To do this I will use the percentage of the 2004 presidential vote given to the major party candidates. This clearly won't account for incumbency and other local factors, but can be used to judge the district.

A competitive district has less than 52% to the leading party.
A leaning district has 52% to 55% to the leading party.
A strong district has more than 55% to the leading party.

Currently in MN there are 5 Republican (2 strong, 1 leaning, 2 competitive) and 3 Democrat (2 strong, 1 leaning) districts. With the remap, there would be 4 Republican (3 strong, 1 competitive) and  4 Democrat (2 strong, 1 leaning, 1 competitive). The competitive district that switches is in suburban Hennepin and goes from 51.45% Republican  to 50.27% Democrat.

Currently in WI there are 4 Republican (2 strong, 2 leaning) and 4 Democrat (2 strong, 2 competitive) districts. The remap keeps 4 Republican (3 strong, 1 competitive) and 4 Democrat (2 strong, 2 competitive). Not much change happens here, perhaps one additional competitive district in the SE at the expense of a stronger one in the NE.

Currently in MI there are 10 Republican (3 strong, 5 leaning, 2 competitive) and 5 Democrat (all 5 strong) in a state that was questioned as being overly partisan in its gerrymander. The remap gives 8 Republican (4 strong, 3 leaning, 1 competitive) and 7 Democrat (4 strong, 2 leaning, 1 competitive). The density of Democrats in Detroit still leaves a majority of districts on the Republican side. However, the strong district 12 in southern Oakland and Macomb and the strong district 15 in Ann Arbor transfer enough votes to flip suburban Oakland and Macomb districts to strong D and competitive D respectively, leaving a leaning D district in suburban Wayne.

[zorkpolitics]

what would the House looked like it if Districts went as they voted in a the same manner they voted for President?

Kind of like a parliamentary method in reverse.

Anyone?

If the House make-up was defined by the Presidential winner in each district,  2004 would have produced a Landslide victory for the Republicans.

Bush won 255 Congressional districts, Kerry only 180
see: http://www.polidata.org/prcd/default.htm

[jravnsbo]

thanks, interesting stuff

what would the House looked like it if Districts went as they voted in a the same manner they voted for President?

Kind of like a parliamentary method in reverse.

Anyone?

If the House make-up was defined by the Presidential winner in each district,  2004 would have produced a Landslide victory for the Republicans.

Bush won 255 Congressional districts, Kerry only 180
see: http://www.polidata.org/prcd/default.htm

[muon2]

My next set of states are IL, IN, and KY (yes I'm recycling the maps used by jimrtex in his Senate project.
 


Here are my comments on the above map.

IN used exactly the rules I listed earlier. Priority rules 1 through 5 all come up zero. Only Marion is split and exactly two whole townships each add to other districts, thus rule 6 and 7 have two partials.

KY has no county subdivisions, so rules 1 through 3 don't apply. Rules 4 and 5 have zero splits, and only Jefferson is split with one partial district for rules 6 and 7.

IL is tough around Chicago. Chicago is a county subdivision, but large enough for more than 4 CDs. Fortunately there are well established Census subdivisions within Chicago, so I treated these "community areas" as towns within their county.  With this new definition, I needed no split towns for rules 1 through 3.  I did need to split three "collar" counties (McHenry, Kane, and Will each split into two partials) around Cook for rule 4 and gave DuPage no fully contained district for rule 5 (it has 4 partials). Cook is also left with 4 partials, so rule 6 has a total of 14 partials, and rule 7 has a maximum of 4 partials in any one county.

[muon2]

And here is the political analysis of those districts, using the 2004 vote in each county or town. I approximated where the voting data was not a perfect match to the town boundaries.

As expected heavily GOP IN and KY show up that way in these districts as well. IN has seven strong Rep districts, one strong Dem district in NW IN, and a competitive Dem district (51.9%) in Indianapolis. KY has five strong Rep districts, and one competitive Dem district (50.8%) in Louisville.

IL is one of the most heavily gerrymandered states, designed to have 10 Rep and 9 Dem districts. In this rule-driven plan each side has seven strong districts (well actually two Rep districts are at 54.6 and 54.8%, which only round to 55%.) An interesting battle would be in Chicago's new CDs 4 and 7, which are gerrymandered to separate the Black areas from the Hispanics. The new split could easily produce two Black or two Hispanic members in some nasty primary fights.

The other five are very competitive and three would have voted Dem in 2004. They are:

New 8 (50.4% Dem): Now entirely in north and northwest Cook it is centered around Schaumburg, Arlington Heights and Palatine, but goes all the way to the lake.

New 10 (50.9% Rep): All of Lake and a corner of McHenry. The real IL 10 is probably one of the most potentially competitive districts, but Kirk has done well there.

New 11 (50.9% Dem): This moved into the suburbs of south Cook and SE DuPage. Joliet and Cook is balance by the rsst of Will and Downers Grove.

New 12 (50.9% Dem): This reliable Dem seat centered on East St. Louis suddenly turns competitive as it picks up most all the St Louis suburbs and a lot of GOP rural area.

New 16 (50.1% Rep): This area now combines Rockford and Rock Island, and gone is the bizarre shape of real IL-17. Peoria moved from 18 into the new 17, and Springfield is centered in the new 18 without a slice right through its middle.

[minionofmidas]

And here is the political analysis of those districts, using the 2004 vote in each county or town. I approximated where the voting data was not a perfect match to the town boundaries.

As expected heavily GOP IN and KY show up that way in these districts as well. IN has seven strong Rep districts, one strong Dem district in NW IN, and a competitive Dem district (51.9%) in Indianapolis. KY has five strong Rep districts, and one competitive Dem district (50.8%) in Louisville.

In your plan, or currently? Or both?

[muon2]

And here is the political analysis of those districts, using the 2004 vote in each county or town. I approximated where the voting data was not a perfect match to the town boundaries.

As expected heavily GOP IN and KY show up that way in these districts as well. IN has seven strong Rep districts, one strong Dem district in NW IN, and a competitive Dem district (51.9%) in Indianapolis. KY has five strong Rep districts, and one competitive Dem district (50.8%) in Louisville.

In your plan, or currently? Or both?

My plan was based solely on the rules and I checked the political data only after completing the map. What I expected was that since both IN and KY voted about 60% for Bush, and that vote was widely spread across those staes, the mock CDs would show similar strength for the GOP.

The real IN delegation matches the mock CD expectations exactly. The KY delegation matches the number but not the distribution, since Northrup (R) holds the Louisville seat, and Chandler (D) holds the Lexington seat.

[minionofmidas]

So basically you meant "in your plan", but "both" is also correct.

[ilikeverin]

The competitive district that switches is in suburban Hennepin and goes from 51.45% Republican to 50.27% Democrat.

*falls off chair with happiness*

[muon2]

The competitive district that switches is in suburban Hennepin and goes from 51.45% Republican to 50.27% Democrat.

*falls off chair with happiness*

And Rice ended up in BRTD's as well. Double bonus.

I'm working on the other northern states that have defined county subdivision.

[minionofmidas]

Waiting...

[muon2]

Waiting...

... not for very much longer.

I should have a new set up this weekend. This has been a very busy week between teaching, official meetings, parades, and fundraisers.