538: The Congressional Map Has A Record-Setting Bias Against Democrats

[Virginiá]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-congressional-map-is-historically-biased-toward-the-gop/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Brittain33]

I hate to say it, but I never imagined the Republicans' gerrymanders from 2011-2012 would actually get more effective as the decade progressed.

[UncleSam]

The gerrymanders are not even the main cause - reasonable maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would combined swing MAYBE 6-7 seats, but probably less.

Dems' problem is a simple one: their voters self-pack. The constitution places a large value on geographic diversity and winning individual states, and on both measures Dems fail miserably.

Remarkably lazy analysis by 538 honestly.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The gerrymanders are not even the main cause - reasonable maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would combined swing MAYBE 6-7 seats, but probably less.

Dems' problem is a simple one: their voters self-pack. The constitution places a large value on geographic diversity and winning individual states, and on both measures Dems fail miserably.

Remarkably lazy analysis by 538 honestly.

Wrong.
Non Partisan maps in those states would swing
OH: 4 districts
NC: 2 districts
MI: 3 districts
PA: 3 districts
WI: 2 districts.

That's 14. Not 6 or 7.

[InheritTheWind]

The gerrymanders are not even the main cause - reasonable maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would combined swing MAYBE 6-7 seats, but probably less.

Dems' problem is a simple one: their voters self-pack. The constitution places a large value on geographic diversity and winning individual states, and on both measures Dems fail miserably.

Remarkably lazy analysis by 538 honestly.

Wrong.
Non Partisan maps in those states would swing
OH: 4 districts
NC: 2 districts
MI: 3 districts
PA: 3 districts
WI: 2 districts.

That's 14. Not 6 or 7.

What's your source on this? Not doubting you, just genuinely curious.

[Anna Komnene]

The gerrymanders are not even the main cause - reasonable maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would combined swing MAYBE 6-7 seats, but probably less.

Dems' problem is a simple one: their voters self-pack. The constitution places a large value on geographic diversity and winning individual states, and on both measures Dems fail miserably.

Remarkably lazy analysis by 538 honestly.

I'm curious to see how you apply your theory to the House in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is causing the system to break down. The House is suppose to be the popular counter to the Senate and they are suppose to balance each other. That cannot happen when both are equally tilted in the same direction.

[UncleSam]

The gerrymanders are not even the main cause - reasonable maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would combined swing MAYBE 6-7 seats, but probably less.

Dems' problem is a simple one: their voters self-pack. The constitution places a large value on geographic diversity and winning individual states, and on both measures Dems fail miserably.

Remarkably lazy analysis by 538 honestly.

Wrong.
Non Partisan maps in those states would swing
OH: 4 districts
NC: 2 districts
MI: 3 districts
PA: 3 districts
WI: 2 districts.

That's 14. Not 6 or 7.

The notion that you could find 4 additional districts in Ohio Democrats could win with a non-partisan map is ludicrous, as is the notion you could find 3 in Michigan or 2 in Wisconsin. You could find probably 2 across Ohio and North Carolina, maybe 1 in Michigan, maybe 2 in PA and straight nothing in Wisconsin due to the fact that the Democratic power base is completely isolated in two islands that necessitate non-partisan districts be drawn around them.

Refer to my below link for a much more detailed analysis then whatever these numbers are you've fabricated.

The gerrymanders are not even the main cause - reasonable maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would combined swing MAYBE 6-7 seats, but probably less.

Dems' problem is a simple one: their voters self-pack. The constitution places a large value on geographic diversity and winning individual states, and on both measures Dems fail miserably.

Remarkably lazy analysis by 538 honestly.

Wrong.
Non Partisan maps in those states would swing
OH: 4 districts
NC: 2 districts
MI: 3 districts
PA: 3 districts
WI: 2 districts.

That's 14. Not 6 or 7.

What's your source on this? Not doubting you, just genuinely curious.

Probably meant to refer to Jalawest but if you're looking for a good source on this look here: http://rrhelections.com/index.php/2017/07/23/no-partisan-gerrymandering-did-not-cost-democrats-seats-in-the-house-of-representatives-a-state-by-state-analysis/

While the above link is obviously underestimating the impact of gerrymandering, the notion that Democrats are losing huge numbers of seats due to redistricting is completely fantasy.

The gerrymanders are not even the main cause - reasonable maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would combined swing MAYBE 6-7 seats, but probably less.

Dems' problem is a simple one: their voters self-pack. The constitution places a large value on geographic diversity and winning individual states, and on both measures Dems fail miserably.

Remarkably lazy analysis by 538 honestly.

I'm curious to see how you apply your theory to the House in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

There's a few reasons this is a poor counter argument:
1. The 2006 and 2008 elections were Democratic wave elections, wherein the Democrats won the house PV by 8 and 10.5 points, respectively. Of course the Democrats won way more seats under the old map with these conditions.
2. Democrats have continually performed better and better in the urban areas and worse and worse in the rural areas. It's been over 8 years since 2008 and Democrats wouldn't have a shadow of a chance in many of the districts they won back in 2008 even under the old map even with a 10.5 point victory in the PV.
3. Polarization is much stronger now than it was. Republican-leaning districts are much more likely to vote for Republicans now just as Democrat-leaning districts are much more likely to vote straight-ticket Democrat at all levels of government. That's not the fault of the maps, but it does make the house more difficult for Democrats to win then in 2006 or 2008 even disregarding all of the above.

But ya, blaming partisan gerrymandering is a lot more comfortable then admitting your base self-packs or your message has zero appeal to rural areas so of course Democrats will do that instead. Hell, it might work in a midterm if enough low-propensity voters show up. But the results will never look at good as they 'ought to' based on PV totals, and that is not (or at least is mostly not) the fault of partisan congressional districts.

[cinyc]

As usual, those who harp on supposed Republican gerrymanders conveniently forget about Democratic gerrymanders in states like Maryland and Illinois.  There is a diary on RRH which claims that after taking Democratic gerrymanders into account, Republicans would actually gain a few seats under non-partisan maps due to self-packing.  I'm not sure I believe it, but it is intellectually dishonest to ignore Maryland and Illinois, plus the Mathismander in Arizona, if you're truly concerned about partisan gerrymandering.

I'm not a proponent of eliminating partisan gerrymandering, though, as it is an American tradition as old as Elbridge Gerry.

[maga2020]

The Crosstab guys have the democrats winning a net gain of 3 seats, lmao, they are screwed.

[Gass3268]

As usual, those who harp on supposed Republican gerrymanders conveniently forget about Democratic gerrymanders in states like Maryland and Illinois.  There is a diary on RRH which claims that after taking Democratic gerrymanders into account, Republicans would actually gain a few seats under non-partisan maps due to self-packing.  I'm not sure I believe it, but it is intellectually dishonest to ignore Maryland and Illinois, plus the Mathismander in Arizona, if you're truly concerned about partisan gerrymandering.

I'm not a proponent of eliminating partisan gerrymandering, though, as it is an American tradition as old as Elbridge Gerry.

Recent non-partisan 3-part test from Princeton concluded that both Illinois and Maryland were not gerrymanders.

Here is the article: Princeton Gerrymandering Projection

[Brittain33]

Look up Stephen Wolf on Daily Kos and Twitter. He's drawn notional non-partisan maps that showed additional toss-up and likely D districts resulting from ungerrymandered maps. Saying only 6-7 Dem wins are possible across those four highly gerrymandered, highly competitive (statewide) states is absolutely ludicrous.

[cinyc]

As usual, those who harp on supposed Republican gerrymanders conveniently forget about Democratic gerrymanders in states like Maryland and Illinois.  There is a diary on RRH which claims that after taking Democratic gerrymanders into account, Republicans would actually gain a few seats under non-partisan maps due to self-packing.  I'm not sure I believe it, but it is intellectually dishonest to ignore Maryland and Illinois, plus the Mathismander in Arizona, if you're truly concerned about partisan gerrymandering.

I'm not a proponent of eliminating partisan gerrymandering, though, as it is an American tradition as old as Elbridge Gerry.

Recent non-partisan 3-part test from Princeton concluded that both Illinois and Maryland were not gerrymanders.

Here is the article: Princeton Gerrymandering Projection

According to their website, two of the three MD tests were skipped for some reason, and the Monte Carlo test showed that in most scenarios, Republicans would end up with another seat in MD.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

In my experience, Ohio seems to have a democratic bias in neutral maps I've drawn.

[Brittain33]

Recent non-partisan 3-part test from Princeton concluded that both Illinois and Maryland were not gerrymanders.

Huh? How is Illinois not a gerrymander, when it strung together cities downstate for marginal Dem districts and put suburbs around Chicago into hyper-Republican districts? I'm guessing the issue is that downstate voting patterns changed a LOT since 2010 while upstate R districts had an Obama bias.

[Virginiá]

I'm not a proponent of eliminating partisan gerrymandering, though, as it is an American tradition as old as Elbridge Gerry.

You're for politicians basically stealing seats for their party just because it is a ...tradition?

...seriously?

[Gass3268]

Recent non-partisan 3-part test from Princeton concluded that both Illinois and Maryland were not gerrymanders.

Huh? How is Illinois not a gerrymander, when it strung together cities downstate for marginal Dem districts and put suburbs around Chicago into hyper-Republican districts? I'm guessing the issue is that downstate voting patterns changed a LOT since 2010 while upstate R districts had an Obama bias.

Read the report, it explains the 3 tests better than I would.

[Anna Komnene]

Another thing to keep in mind is that hostile maps also discourage credible candidates from running, which in turn decreases the willingness of the opposition party to spend resources in those districts. Kind of a double whammy that makes things even more difficult for the people who do have the courage to run. Just a little meaningless anecdote, but I got the chance to have dinner with a retired congressperson from New York a while ago, and they basically told me that everyone is constantly paranoid about being drawn out of their districts and are willing to do all sorts of things ranging from innocent to extremely shady in order to prevent that from happening. Lovely thing, politics is.

[Mr. Morden]

Out of curiosity, how far back does the historical data go for the "national popular vote" in House of Reps elections, and what's the biggest margin by which the losing party won the national popular vote?  E.g., in 2012, the GOP held their majority in the House, despite losing the national popular House vote by about 1%.  But are the examples from decades ago when that number was much larger?

EDIT: Looks like in 1942, The Dems held the House despite losing the popular vote by 4 points:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1942

Not sure if that's the record though.

[Virginiá]

EDIT: Looks like in 1942, The Dems held the House despite losing the popular vote by 4 points:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1942

Not sure if that's the record though.

Interestingly enough, 10 years later, Republicans actually lose the House PV by a tiny <1% margin but still take the House with a slim majority (link). Although, that was a presidential election year whereas 1942 was a midterm.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Another thing to keep in mind is that hostile maps also discourage credible candidates from running, which in turn decreases the willingness of the opposition party to spend resources in those districts. Kind of a double whammy that makes things even more difficult for the people who do have the courage to run. Just a little meaningless anecdote, but I got the chance to have dinner with a retired congressperson from New York a while ago, and they basically told me that everyone is constantly paranoid about being drawn out of their districts and are willing to do all sorts of things ranging from innocent to extremely shady in order to prevent that from happening. Lovely thing, politics is.

I'm thinking that states would do better to scrap congressional districts altogether and adopt a proportion-based system like they have in the Netherlands.  I've said before that New Hampshire - the legislature, at least - never has problems with gerrymandering because the districts are too small to draw in a way that favors one party, but New Hampshire's system would be impossible to implement nationally because then we would have literally thousands of congresspeople.  But I think people care far more about which party controls Congress than the person that represents their district, which are literally arbitrary lines on a map that get redrawn every ten years (or earlier, whether a court redraws a map or someone pulls a DeLaymander).

[Brittain33]

Out of curiosity, how far back does the historical data go for the "national popular vote" in House of Reps elections, and what's the biggest margin by which the losing party won the national popular vote?  E.g., in 2012, the GOP held their majority in the House, despite losing the national popular House vote by about 1%.  But are the examples from decades ago when that number was much larger?

EDIT: Looks like in 1942, The Dems held the House despite losing the popular vote by 4 points:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1942

Not sure if that's the record though.

I wonder how much that was thrown off by extremely low eligibility for the vote in some southern states.

[cinyc]

I'm not a proponent of eliminating partisan gerrymandering, though, as it is an American tradition as old as Elbridge Gerry.

You're for politicians basically stealing seats for their party just because it is a ...tradition?

...seriously?

Sorry. I don't find something that has been going on since the founding of the republic as offensive as most here seem to do. Quite frankly, a lot of the supposedly neutral redistricting criteria proposed by others are just as likely to lead to partisan Gerrymandering. Forcing "competitive" districts on states where one party's population is concentrated in a particular city or region is a dumb idea that destroys communities of interest, overrepresents the minority party and overrepresents that city or region. Supposedly "neutral" commissions almost always aren't. And court-drawn maps often take on the biases of the appointed special master.

So, no, there is no such thing as "neutral" redistricting. And I don't view partisan redistricting as "stealing" seats for any one party - what Republicans do in Ohio or Michigan can easily be offset by what Democrats do in Illinois or California, anyway.

[Badger]

I'm not a proponent of eliminating partisan gerrymandering, though, as it is an American tradition as old as Elbridge Gerry.

You're for politicians basically stealing seats for their party just because it is a ...tradition?

...seriously?

Sorry. I don't find something that has been going on since the founding of the republic as offensive as most here seem to do. Quite frankly, a lot of the supposedly neutral redistricting criteria proposed by others are just as likely to lead to partisan Gerrymandering. Forcing "competitive" districts on states where one party's population is concentrated in a particular city or region is a dumb idea that destroys communities of interest, overrepresents the minority party and overrepresents that city or region. Supposedly "neutral" commissions almost always aren't. And court-drawn maps often take on the biases of the appointed special master.

So, no, there is no such thing as "neutral" redistricting. And I don't view partisan redistricting as "stealing" seats for any one party - what Republicans do in Ohio or Michigan can easily be offset by what Democrats do in Illinois or California, anyway.

So screwing people over and diluting the effect of popular vote is still cool cuz it's always been done. What a lame post.

[DC Al Fine]

As usual, those who harp on supposed Republican gerrymanders conveniently forget about Democratic gerrymanders in states like Maryland and Illinois.  There is a diary on RRH which claims that after taking Democratic gerrymanders into account, Republicans would actually gain a few seats under non-partisan maps due to self-packing.  I'm not sure I believe it, but it is intellectually dishonest to ignore Maryland and Illinois, plus the Mathismander in Arizona, if you're truly concerned about partisan gerrymandering.

I'm not a proponent of eliminating partisan gerrymandering, though, as it is an American tradition as old as Elbridge Gerry.

Recent non-partisan 3-part test from Princeton concluded that both Illinois and Maryland were not gerrymanders.

Here is the article: Princeton Gerrymandering Projection

According to their website, two of the three MD tests were skipped for some reason, and the Monte Carlo test showed that in most scenarios, Republicans would end up with another seat in MD.

Ironically they needed two GOP wins to run one of their tests (comparing each parties' average margin of victory), so the Maryland "PASS" is because its gerrymandered so effectively