Fun with Gerrymandering: Dakota edition

[RBH]

Say that there was only a state of Dakota. Here's the map of the gerrymander:



District 1 (light blue): 698696 people, 10% Native American
District 2 (red): 698348 people, 3% Native American

The 2004 Presidential results

North and South Dakota: 61/37 Bush

District 1: 57/41 Bush
District 2: 65/33 Bush

This map produces a similar split with a population split of around 66 more people living in the first district.

[Democratic Hawk]

Congressionally, the Dakota's are doing fine . No need to bung'em together and gerrymander

Dave

[RBH]

Other notes on this map.

Herseth is in CD1
Pomeroy is in CD2

South Dakota pop split
CD1: 377645
CD2: 377199

North Dakota pop split
CD1: 321051
CD2: 321149

Presidential Results
ND, CD01: 59/39 Bush
ND, CD02: 67/32 Bush
SD, CD01: 55/43 Bush
SD, CD02: 65/34 Bush

American Indian population
ND, CD01: 7%
ND, CD02: 2%
SD, CD01: 13%
SD, CD02: 3%

[Stranger in a strange land]

just out of curisoity, why is there a North Dakota and a South Dakota? Why not just one Dakota? That one never really made sense to me....

[jimrtex]

just out of curisoity, why is there a North Dakota and a South Dakota? Why not just one Dakota? That one never really made sense to me....

They didn't know that farming was going to be mechanized and then decline, or that there wasn't enough precipitation.   North Dakota had fewer people in 2000, than it did in 1920.

When the 6 NW states were added in 1890 (#39-#44), South Dakota had about the same population as Washington, and had increased from 100,000 to 350,000 the previous decade.  North Dakota had about the same population as Montana and Wyoming combined.

[RBH]

just out of curisoity, why is there a North Dakota and a South Dakota? Why not just one Dakota? That one never really made sense to me....

So Benjamin Harrison could get more electoral votes in 1892.

Actually, adding Republican power was one reason.

Another reason was due to the population centers being too far from each other.

[memphis]

just out of curisoity, why is there a North Dakota and a South Dakota? Why not just one Dakota? That one never really made sense to me....

So Benjamin Harrison could get more electoral votes in 1892.

Actually, adding Republican power was one reason.

Another reason was due to the population centers being too far from each other.

The Dakotas have population centers?

[Hatman 🍁]

just out of curisoity, why is there a North Dakota and a South Dakota? Why not just one Dakota? That one never really made sense to me....

So Benjamin Harrison could get more electoral votes in 1892.

Actually, adding Republican power was one reason.

Another reason was due to the population centers being too far from each other.

The Dakotas have population centers?

At the time I believe, the main settlements were far a part from eachother along the Red River.

[minionofmidas]

just out of curisoity, why is there a North Dakota and a South Dakota? Why not just one Dakota? That one never really made sense to me....

So Benjamin Harrison could get more electoral votes in 1892.

Actually, adding Republican power was one reason.

Another reason was due to the population centers being too far from each other.

The Dakotas have population centers?

Sure. Both Fargo and SIoux Falls are real cities, though not that very large ones.

But given that they formed one Dakota Territory right to the date of statehood, the question of why they were split is a good one. All the reasons I've heard of have already been mentioned, but even taken together they're not that compelling, really.

[jimrtex]

But given that they formed one Dakota Territory right to the date of statehood, the question of why they were split is a good one. All the reasons I've heard of have already been mentioned, but even taken together they're not that compelling, really.

At the time of admission to the Union, South Dakota was the 5th most populous state (OK, HI, WV, WA, SD), and one of few states with an initial apportionment greater than 1.   Nebraska had just doubled its population in the previous decade and doubled its representation from 3 to 6.   Since the rain followed the plow (once the soil was cultivated there would be sufficient rain for crops) it was quite reasonable that there be two additional states the width of Kansas and Nebraska.  Dakota would have been the 3rd largest state after Texas and California - both of which have been subject of later proposals for division.