Gerrymandering poll

[nclib]

Districts are current districts unless specified otherwise. I am asking specifically which state's gerrymandered map is most unfair to the opposing party.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Penny!

[Vasall des Midas]

I voted Georgia, but Florida is a close second and New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Maryland are all very bad too.
The old Texas plan wasn't perfect, but it was hands-down the best plan of any big state(say, 13 seats and more). That's why it's sad it was now replaced by a blatant gerrymander, even though that too is better than many others.

[Sibboleth]

I've gone for PA... the map in the south west of the state is vile (TWO seats were abolished and a new one was created so that Murphey could have a seat! What's worse is that the seat that should have gone (the 4th) was gerrymandered to keep the GOP incumbent safe... and the 12th (which is in effect the worked coalfield...) really does look like an upside Chinese dragon...)

The gerrymandering around the Atlanta suburbs was pretty awful, as was FL, but the PA map is the only one that got me furious.

The new TX map is the most immoral (ie: adding suburban areas to rural seats to make them vote "the right way"... and deliberatly eliminating a prominant Democrat), and the old map, although far from perfect, actually respected geography...

[nclib]

I voted Georgia, but Florida is a close second and New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Maryland are all very bad too.

Are you saying N.J. and Ill. favored Republicans? Dems hold N.J. 7-6 and the GOP has Ill. 10-9 even though Gore won both states handily. I didn't include them because the maps pretty much look as they did in 2000 and save Phelps in Ill. (for redistricting and a conservative Democrat anyway) no incumbent was targeted.

[Vasall des Midas]

Well, Illinois is a case of bipartisan incumbent protection. That's why the map hardly changed except all the downstate districts grew antlers and fangs.

The New Jersey map looks very strange. Also, the state doesn't have a single really competitive seat but 5 of 6 Republican seats and only one of 7 Democratic ones are borderline competitive using fairvote figures. I'm not sure who was in charge of redistricting in New Jersey in either 1990 or 2000, so I can't say anything on motives. But the result appears to me to be a Republican gerrymander.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Florida, no contest. a 50/50 state where more than 2/3 of the delegation are Republicans.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

as for NJ, I believe the Democrats controlled redistricting. Rush Holt barely won the 12th district in 2000, but easily won in 2002 because his seat was made more safe.

The reason so many Republicans hold on is they're long time incumbents representing districts that were traditionally Republican but have now shifted Democratic, and they only hold on due to being entrenched incumbents. once they start to retire the Democrats will take those seats. the 5th, 11th and 7th are the only truly Republican leaning seats left.

[nclib]

4 of the 6 NJ Republicans represent a district that was won by Gore.

[Vasall des Midas]

All five CT districts were won by Gore and yet the state's Reps knew what they were doing when they redistricted it the way they did. (The general outline is pretty much god-given, but the devil is in the detail). Voting patterns for the House and the Presidency are similar in many states, but highly divergent in others. I guess NJ is pretty similar to CT.
But of course if it was the Dems that's all a lot of nonsense.

[Vasall des Midas]

I've just checked. New Jersey had Republican majorities in both state houses and a Rep governor at the time of redistricting. However, it's actually redistricted by a -well, not nonpartisan- by a bipartisan commission. It's got 13 members, the majority and minority leaders of both houses and the chairmen of the two largest parties all appoint two members each. These twelve appoint the 13th before they start working.
It's strange. All the other parties with commissions have quite competitive, logical districts (apart from the Hopi Corridor in AZ).
What's going wrong in Jersey? Too much party control maybe? Kinda like: "Okay, we let you keep Holt safe, if you don't target any of ours" thing? In that case, if I'd been a Democrat, a democrat, or both, on that commission, I'd have said no.

[nclib]

All the other parties with commissions have quite competitive, logical districts (apart from the Hopi Corridor in AZ). What's going wrong in Jersey?

Certainly ticket splitting is an issue here. In the 3 states of N.J., N.Y., and Conn., the breakdown is as follows:

Dem-Gore: 28 districts
Rep-Gore: 11 districts
Rep-Bush: 8 districts

[DarthKosh]

I've gone for PA... the map in the south west of the state is vile (TWO seats were abolished and a new one was created so that Murphey could have a seat! What's worse is that the seat that should have gone (the 4th) was gerrymandered to keep the GOP incumbent safe... and the 12th (which is in effect the worked coalfield...) really does look like an upside Chinese dragon...)
...

For year the Dems in Pa lived by the gerrymander and now they are crying because of it.  They are a joke.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Welcome back, darth!

[Sibboleth]

I've gone for PA... the map in the south west of the state is vile (TWO seats were abolished and a new one was created so that Murphey could have a seat! What's worse is that the seat that should have gone (the 4th) was gerrymandered to keep the GOP incumbent safe... and the 12th (which is in effect the worked coalfield...) really does look like an upside Chinese dragon...)
...

For year the Dems in Pa lived by the gerrymander and now they are crying because of it.  They are a joke.

The old districts on the whole made sense (except for Scranton et al being in the 10th which I'll accept probably was a gerrymander) from a geographic point of view.
I just don't see how PA-12 can be justified.

[DarthKosh]

I've gone for PA... the map in the south west of the state is vile (TWO seats were abolished and a new one was created so that Murphey could have a seat! What's worse is that the seat that should have gone (the 4th) was gerrymandered to keep the GOP incumbent safe... and the 12th (which is in effect the worked coalfield...) really does look like an upside Chinese dragon...)
...

For year the Dems in Pa lived by the gerrymander and now they are crying because of it.  They are a joke.

The old districts on the whole made sense (except for Scranton et al being in the 10th which I'll accept probably was a gerrymander) from a geographic point of view.
I just don't see how PA-12 can be justified.

Politics.  It has always been that way.  I hope it stays that way.  It makes things interesting.

[DarthKosh]

Welcome back, darth!

Glad to be back.

[Kevinstat]

Maine has only two congressional districts, and while the boundary line is fairly jagged, it is not nearly along the lines of being a gerrymander.  I'll show you a few legislative beauties, however.

new Senate District 30: http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/apport/Senate/s30.pdf

new House District 91: http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/apport/House/h091.pdf

new House District 65 (this one is really bad): http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/apport/House/h065.pdf

[muon2]

Maine has only two congressional districts, and while the boundary line is fairly jagged, it is not nearly along the lines of being a gerrymander.  I'll show you a few legislative beauties, however.

new Senate District 30: http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/apport/Senate/s30.pdf

new House District 91: http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/apport/House/h091.pdf

new House District 65 (this one is really bad): http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/apport/House/h065.pdf

At least they aren't routinely splitting towns.

[Vasall des Midas]

Maine has only two congressional districts, and while the boundary line is fairly jagged, it is not nearly along the lines of being a gerrymander.  

Did they keep Kennebec the only split county?

[Kevinstat]

Maine has only two congressional districts, and while the boundary line is fairly jagged, it is not nearly along the lines of being a gerrymander.  

Did they keep Kennebec the only split county?

Yes they did, but the split makes the first district portion of the county look like a beast's head.  To view a map of the districts, go to http://www.courts.state.me.us/news/Congress%20-%20Map%20(E).pdf or http://www.mainesenate.org/court/congress.html .

[nclib]

Districts are current districts unless specified otherwise. I am asking specifically which state's gerrymandered map is most unfair to the opposing party.

I voted for Florida. In a state we all know to be evenly divided, Republicans held a 15-8 advantage BEFORE redistricting. Then they created two GOP open seats, knocked off a Dem incumbent, AND shored up the districts of Ric Keller, Mark Foley, and Clay Shaw. Giving them an 18-7 advantage and Bush carried 17 out of the 25 districts in 2000.

[MarkDel]

NC LIB,

That's a little confusing. If the Democrats were in charge of the previous redistricting, which they were, then how in the hell did it get unfairly gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans?

No...the answer here is not nearly that simple. It's mostly two key factors:

1. The population changes so rapidly in Florida that a district cut in 1990 may look completely different by the end of the decade.

2. The Democrats are their own worse enemy in Congressional races here. While voter registration is fairly even, or even slightly in favor of the Democrats, many of the registered Dems are more conservative than the statewide Democratic Party which is dominated by the Miami area left wingers and the Tallahassee area center/left crowd. The party gives money to, and otherwise supports, candidates who are wayyyy to the left of their mainstream Democratic voters within that district, so the Republicans win in areas where they have disadvantages in terms of enrollment.

If you take districts like Florida-5, 7 and 8, they should be seats won by the Democrats, but they consistently put up candidates in those areas that are NOT representative of the moderate to conservative Democrats who live there.

[Vasall des Midas]

If the Democrats were in charge of the previous redistricting, which they were, then how in the hell did it get unfairly gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans?

The Democrats are their own worse enemy in Congressional races here. While voter registration is fairly even, or even slightly in favor of the Democrats, many of the registered Dems are more conservative than the statewide Democratic Party which is dominated by the Miami area left wingers and the Tallahassee area center/left crowd. The party gives money to, and otherwise supports, candidates who are wayyyy to the left of their mainstream Democratic voters within that district, so the Republicans win in areas where they have disadvantages in terms of enrollment.

If you take districts like Florida-5, 7 and 8, they should be seats won by the Democrats, but they consistently put up candidates in those areas that are NOT representative of the moderate to conservative Democrats who live there.

The Florida Dems do seem more than a little disorganized...quite often they don't put up anybody at all.
Areas where Dems have the edge in registration but where the Reps are clear favorites to win exist all over the South.
And Florida isn't the only state where a Democratic redistricting in 1992 ended up working like a Rep. gerrymander. Georgia is the prime example. There are two reasons to how this happened:
1) They idealistically created a number of gerrymandered Black majority districts and made these Black majorities larger than seems necessary because until 1992 the number of Black Reps had been abysmal, and they wanted to make sure some were elected this time. These districts, logically, had very large Democratic majorities (and were preserved when the Republicans got their hands on redistricting in 2000), making the neighboring districts more Republican.
2) When you redistrict for partisan advantage, you creat a number of districts where you have only a narrow majority. When there is a permanent shift in voting patterns towards the opposition (as there was in the South in 94 and 96), the result is that all these pro-Dem marginals become pro-Rep marginals. It might happen again, you know;)

[MarkDel]

Lewis,

Yes, that's a pretty good analysis, in fact, your #2 reason is probably the most important one, and along the same lines of what I was trying to say about Florida's constantly changing population.