States with most CD's voting the opposite way

[nclib]

All below states voted for Obama while McCain carried most of the districts:

        vote margin      CD's for Obama      CD's for McCain

PA   10.31%                    9         10
CO   8.95%                    3         4
OH   4.53%                    8         10
FL   2.81%                   10         15
IN   1.03%                   3         6
NC   0.32%                   6         7

Does anyone see these as gerrymanders or geographic concentration of party support, or simply coincidence?

At the other end, Obama won 12 of Mich's 15 districts (while winning by 16%), which was originally a GOP gerrymander (Kerry won by 3%, but only carried 5 districts).

[Ronnie]

PA was an absolute fluke, and it's still hard for me to imagine that McCain actually won a majority of CDs there (even though PA-03 is very very borderline and it's not even for sure that McCain won there).  It is not in any way a GOP gerrymader.  Indiana, on the other hand, is, and I find it surprising that Obama only won one more CD than Kerry.

Also, FL is obviously a GOP gerrymander, NC is fairly non-partisan in its redistricting, as is Colorado.  If Colorado was a GOP gerrymander, they wouldn't make CO-07 such a mess.

[nclib]

PA was an absolute fluke, and it's still hard for me to imagine that McCain actually won a majority of CDs there (even though PA-03 is very very borderline and it's not even for sure that McCain won there).  It is not in any way a GOP gerrymader.  Indiana, on the other hand, is, and I find it surprising that Obama only won one more CD than Kerry.

Also, FL is obviously a GOP gerrymander, and CO is sort of one, but NC isn't.

I agree that NC is not a GOP gerrymander (actually it gave NC Dems another seat in 2002)--it only makes the above list barely on each category. CO I think initially was drawn to give another seat to the Dems, though the pattern of Dem gains this decade have resulted in solid Obama districts and marginal McCain districts.

[Ronnie]

PA was an absolute fluke, and it's still hard for me to imagine that McCain actually won a majority of CDs there (even though PA-03 is very very borderline and it's not even for sure that McCain won there).  It is not in any way a GOP gerrymader.  Indiana, on the other hand, is, and I find it surprising that Obama only won one more CD than Kerry.

Also, FL is obviously a GOP gerrymander, and CO is sort of one, but NC isn't.

I agree that NC is not a GOP gerrymander (actually it gave NC Dems another seat in 2002)--it only makes the above list barely on each category. CO I think initially was drawn to give another seat to the Dems, though the pattern of Dem gains this decade have resulted in solid Obama districts and marginal McCain districts.

Ya, I edited my post while you were replying and said: "If Colorado was a GOP gerrymander, they wouldn't make CO-07 such a mess."

In addition, CO-04 will likely become Democratic leaning within a couple of years due to the leftward swing of Fort Collins. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

All below states voted for Obama while McCain carried most of the districts:

        vote margin      CD's for Obama      CD's for McCain

PA   10.31%                    10         11
CO   8.95%                    3         4
OH   4.53%                    8         10
FL   2.81%                   10         15
IN   1.03%                   3         6
NC   0.32%                   6         7

Does anyone see these as gerrymanders or geographic concentration of party support, or simply coincidence?

At the other end, Obama won 12 of Mich's 15 districts (while winning by 16%), which was originally a GOP gerrymander (Kerry won by 3%, but only carried 5 districts).

Oh, god, that's simply disgusting...
I wish democratic state congresses will do the same thing to equilibrate !

[minionofmidas]

PA is not in any way a GOP gerrymader. 

LOL!

Congratulations!
You win the Silliest Lie of the Year Award!

It's perhaps the nation's vilest partisan gerrymander in intent - which has backfired at the congressional level. PA Republicans hoped to 15 seats with half the vote with that thing.

NC and IN are both actually Democratic gerrymanders, though *comparatively* harmless ones. The IN gerrymander gives Dems a fighting chance at five of the nine seats (including two safe ones)... which they do indeed now hold... at the congressional level. That they don't win those at the presidential level would have been seen as a given pre-2008.

CO is indeed coincidence, and a very fair map (that Republicans talked about changing in 2004 when they could have, but unlike Texas didn't go through with it).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I had the same reaction to that comment as Lewis did. Hell it even went in the Comedy Goldmine where it belongs.

[memphis]

Anybody know of any states with reversed results (McCain states where Obama won a majority of CDs)?

[minionofmidas]

Anybody know of any states with reversed results (McCain states where Obama won a majority of CDs)?

There aren't any.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The idea that PA is not a GOP gerrymander is probably the stupidest thing I've read on the forum all year not posted by Stark, Rowan, Duke, Einzige, Naso, benconstine, WalterMitty, officepark, J. J. or South Park Conservative.

[tmthforu94]

If things could be run my way...
Each Congressperson would vote at the beginning of January with how their district voted. So in a state, like Pennyslvania, McCain would get 11 votes, Obama would get 10. Now, the Senators would vote how the state voted as a whole, and their vote would be double. So if you win the state, you automatically get 4 votes. It would make states like Montana more valuable in a close race, since it would be 5 votes. So the vote count in Pennyslvania would be...

McCain:11
Obama: 14

Indiana:
McCain-6
Obama-7
(Which is fair, since Obama bairly won)

Please give feedback on whether this system would be good or bad.

[Kevinstat]

At the other end, Obama won 12 of Mich's 15 districts (while winning by 16%), which was originally a GOP gerrymander (Kerry won by 3%, but only carried 5 districts).

That's what often happens with a partisan gerrymander designed to work as long as the party making the gerrymander has a certain level of support when that party falls below that level of support, although I would have thought it would have taken more than a 16% Obama margin to turn a Republican gerrymander into a Tullymander.  Of course, at the only level which congressional districts are used for in most states not counting delegate apportionment formulae in presidential primaries and caucuses, that is at the US House level, Democrats only have an 8-7 majority in Michigan.

[Ronnie]

PA is not in any way a GOP gerrymader. 

LOL!

Congratulations!
You win the Silliest Lie of the Year Award!

I guess I was sort of thinking of PA-12 by itself.

Sorry for the inconvenience. 

[Padfoot]

Ohio is a GOP gerrymander.  Obama just barely missed winning in OH-3, OH-14, and OH-16.

[danny]

If things could be run my way...
Each Congressperson would vote at the beginning of January with how their district voted. So in a state, like Pennyslvania, McCain would get 11 votes, Obama would get 10. Now, the Senators would vote how the state voted as a whole, and their vote would be double. So if you win the state, you automatically get 4 votes. It would make states like Montana more valuable in a close race, since it would be 5 votes. So the vote count in Pennyslvania would be...

McCain:11
Obama: 14

Indiana:
McCain-6
Obama-7
(Which is fair, since Obama bairly won)

Please give feedback on whether this system would be good or bad.

But if your goal is to base result on the votes for each candidate, you could do just that and have the winner be the guy who won the most votes rather than your more complicated plan that doesn't necessarily achieve its goal (look at Florida Obama where won more votes but under your plan Mccain would win more votes from the state).

[minionofmidas]

At the other end, Obama won 12 of Mich's 15 districts (while winning by 16%), which was originally a GOP gerrymander (Kerry won by 3%, but only carried 5 districts).

That's what often happens with a partisan gerrymander designed to work as long as the party making the gerrymander has a certain level of support when that party falls below that level of support, although I would have thought it would have taken more than a 16% Obama margin to turn a Republican gerrymander into a Tullymander.  Of course, at the only level which congressional districts are used for in most states not counting delegate apportionment formulae in presidential primaries and caucuses, that is at the US House level, Democrats only have an 8-7 majority in Michigan.

Michigan's gerrymander is effective (or was until 2008) but is not as horribly complex/hilarious as many other states'. I suppose that plays a role here. The state is also not quite as regionally polarized as some others, Detroit, Flint and Ottawa County notwithstanding.

[nclib]

It does seem that Dems got screwed in the 2000 redistricting. Hopefully the 2010 redistricting will correct that. For the record, here are 2004 and 2000 (post-redistricting) cases of one party carrying the state with most of its CD's voting the opposite way:

2004

Minnesota (Kerry wins state, Bush wins CD's 5-3)
Michigan (Kerry wins state, Bush wins CD's 10-5)

New Mexico (Bush wins state, Kerry wins CD's 2-1)

2000

Oregon (Gore wins state, Bush wins CD's 3-2)
Minnesota (Gore wins state, Bush wins CD's 5-3)
Michigan (Gore wins state, Bush wins CD's 10-5)

Nevada (Bush wins state, Gore wins CD's 2-1)

[Nym90]

I assume Bush must've won a majority of Pennsylvania CD's in 2004 also?

Interesting that he didn't in 2000. Helps show that Pennsylvania is much more GOP gerrymandered now.

[Nym90]

Under the map in existence at the time, Gore won 9 districts to Bush's 7 in Michigan. Again showing how much of a gerrymander the new map was when comparing the 2004 results.

[Badger]

Forgive me if this has been discussed on another thread, but has anyone broken down what the final 08 electoral vote results would've been under a congressional district apportionment system (i.e. 438 votes distributed by popular vote winner in each individual congressional district, plus two additional votes for each state won)?

If so, has anyone also worked out how much (or little) of a shift in the national popular vote would have been necessary for McCain to win the electoral vote (or for Obama to win if McCain would've won under the 08 results)?

*Partisan rant on* I have yet to hear any proponent of such a system make a remotely plausable public policy or historical/consititutional argument in its favor; the unstated but obvious goal of such a scheme is clearly to give Republicans the ability to win the presidency even while substantially losing the national popular vote by several percentage points. *Partisan rant off*

[Antonio the Sixth]

*Partisan rant on* I have yet to hear any proponent of such a system make a remotely plausable public policy or historical/consititutional argument in its favor; the unstated but obvious goal of such a scheme is clearly to give Republicans the ability to win the presidency even while substantially losing the national popular vote by several percentage points. *Partisan rant off*

[nclib]

I assume Bush must've won a majority of Pennsylvania CD's in 2004 also?

Interesting that he didn't in 2000. Helps show that Pennsylvania is much more GOP gerrymandered now.

Actually, Dems won a majority of PA's CD's in 2004 and 2000 (10 Dem, 9 GOP); the only district to switch was PA-12 (Murtha) which was the only Kerry -> McCain CD in the nation.

BTW, 2000 refers to how each state's CD's would have voted under the lines adopted after the 2000 census.

[Nym90]

I assume Bush must've won a majority of Pennsylvania CD's in 2004 also?

Interesting that he didn't in 2000. Helps show that Pennsylvania is much more GOP gerrymandered now.

Actually, Dems won a majority of PA's CD's in 2004 and 2000 (10 Dem, 9 GOP); the only district to switch was PA-12 (Murtha) which was the only Kerry -> McCain CD in the nation.

BTW, 2000 refers to how each state's CD's would have voted under the lines adopted after the 2000 census.

Oh, wow, I had assumed that was a typo. Thanks. I knew about Murtha's district flipping, but I assumed there must have been at least one Bush to Obama district in Pennsylvania. It's actually a bit amazing that there wasn't.

And yeah, I gathered that second part later, which why I edited my original post. The MI gerrymander is very well illustrated by the fact that even though Gore won the state by over 5 percent he still lost 10 of 15 districts under the new map, while having won 9 out of 16 with the old map.