Dave's Redistricting App

[muon2]

Due to current interpretation of the VRA, VA must have at least one majority-minority district. I wanted to see how many majority-minority districts I could create (using newest pop estimates)  without resorting to the level of atrocious gerrymandering of our current 3rd CD.
CD-3: currently black majority, becomes black plurality (46%).
CD-4: currently white majority, becomes black plurality (47%). moves from lean-R to D.
CD-11: currently white majority, becomes white plurality (49%). moves from lean-D to D.

(note: CD 9 is to the West)

I can make two black majority districts in VA and one white-plurality one.

This was my 2 black-majority map from our discussion last month.

Can anyone create two black-majority districts in Virginia?

Definitely not possible. Creating one already requires severe gerrymandering.

Actually I tried it and was successful. Basically what you do is you take the black-majority precincts (and ones with a very large black minority) in Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake.  That gets you one black-majority district. Then you take the black majority precincts in Richmond and Henrico County, and precincts with a very large black minroity in Chesterfield, Nottoway, Dinwiddle, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Halifax, and Charlotte Countries and add the city of Danville. Also, you should stretch this district to Lynchburg or even Roanoke (even though just Lynchburg is fine) and you should get a second black-majority district.

Plurality, or majority? I have no doubt that you could get two 45% black districts that are 43% white. But 50% black seems highly unlikely.

I said majority, as in 50+% African American. I experimented with Dave's Redistricting App and managed to get 2 black majority districts. If you follow my directions you should get two as well.

I played around with it last night, and I also got two districts by separating Richmond from Norfolk/Newport News. CD3 (purple) is just over 50% and CD4 (red) is 53%. CD1 (blue) becomes a long snaky district from Prince William Co almost down to NC.

[muon2]

I noted that there was some discussion of CO a few days ago. I wanted to see how a Hispanic-friendly map might look.





CD 1 was shifted to connect the west side of Denver to Hispanic areas in the primarily northern suburbs. It's just over 50% Hispanic.

CD 3 was shifted to link the counties west of the Divide with the Hispanic areas across the southern part of the state including the most Hispanic parts of Pueblo. It's at 23%, and could be higher if CD 4 bridged the Rockies in the north, allowing more of Pueblo into the district.

I'm sure others will opine as to the political leanings of the districts in the map.

[Bo]

I noted that there was some discussion of CO a few days ago. I wanted to see how a Hispanic-friendly map might look.





CD 1 was shifted to connect the west side of Denver to Hispanic areas in the primarily northern suburbs. It's just over 50% Hispanic.

CD 3 was shifted to link the counties west of the Divide with the Hispanic areas across the southern part of the state including the most Hispanic parts of Pueblo. It's at 23%, and could be higher if CD 4 bridged the Rockies in the north, allowing more of Pueblo into the district.

I'm sure others will opine as to the political leanings of the districts in the map.

I don't think that the political composition of any CD will change much. Your new CO-01 is probably overcrowded with Democrats, but so was the old CO-01, so there is no major difference there. Still, it's kinda cool to know you can make a Latino-majority district in Colorado. However, if I was in charge of redistricting, I would oppose making one unless the Justice Department required it because I would want the Democrats to be able to win more seats in Colorado.

[Vepres]

I noted that there was some discussion of CO a few days ago. I wanted to see how a Hispanic-friendly map might look.





CD 1 was shifted to connect the west side of Denver to Hispanic areas in the primarily northern suburbs. It's just over 50% Hispanic.

CD 3 was shifted to link the counties west of the Divide with the Hispanic areas across the southern part of the state including the most Hispanic parts of Pueblo. It's at 23%, and could be higher if CD 4 bridged the Rockies in the north, allowing more of Pueblo into the district.

I'm sure others will opine as to the political leanings of the districts in the map.

1 and 2 would still be solidly Democratic. 3 would probably remain similar, maybe ever so slightly more GOP (though Salazar would have no trouble holding it). 4 would probably be about as it is now, maybe just slightly more Democratic. 5 and 6 are still strongly Republican. 7 is probably more of a toss-up, though it would probably be closer to lean-Dem.

[Verily]

7 is definitely Safe D on that map. I'm not sure what you're thinking, Vepres. It contains about half of Denver, and its part of Arapahoe is marginally more Democratic than the whole county. White Denver is not much less Democratic than Hispanic Denver. It's at least 60% Obama.

[Vepres]

7 is definitely Safe D on that map. I'm not sure what you're thinking, Vepres. It contains about half of Denver, and its part of Arapahoe is marginally more Democratic than the whole county. White Denver is not much less Democratic than Hispanic Denver. It's at least 60% Obama.

Oh, I didn't look at it as closely as I should have, I thought it was only southern Denver suburbs, my bad.

[Vepres]

*Note to self: Don't post when very tired*

[12th Doctor]

Here's my new Pennsylvania:



PA-1: Basically the same, expands a bit into Delaware county. Currently has a slight black plurality, but that shouldn't be an issue until Brady retires. Come to think of it I probably should've traded some population with PA-7 to make the latter more black...
PA-2: Also basically the same. Majority black and safe D.
PA-3: Much better for Dahlkemper, as I've cleaned out the Butler county portion.
PA-4: Also most of Butler county is gone. Should be safe for Altmire, and strong for any white pro-life Democrat.
PA-5: Now has Butler county. Obviously safe Republican, Thompson would likely win though don't count out a Butler county Republican challenging him.
PA-6: District now has a sane shape. Gerlach would probably finally be toppled in this seat, as it contains all of Reading yet less of rural Berks, but contains a bit more of Chester, so not a sure thing.
PA-7: Largely the same, a bit outward expanded. Slightly more Republican but could still be won by a Democrat especially if there's an incumbent or Sestak opted to return. Could be made more Dem as noted by putting more blacks in, I should tweak that.
PA-8: Probably gets a bit more Republican, but Murphy should have no problem surviving.
PA-9: Population-wise is probably closer to the old PA-19 than the current PA-9. Shuster might be able to defeat Platts in the primary if he gets the teabaggers on his side through.
PA-10: Becomes slightly more Dem. If Carney survived so far, he'll win here.
PA-11: A bit more Republican, but if Kanjorski retires, should stay Dem.
PA-12: Shuster might have a better chance here than in PA-9 running against whoever takes Murtha's seat. Against a Dem he might be favored. Against a Republican in the primary it'd come down to areas' turnout.
PA-13: Ah, this old classic. Is now more Montco based, so Schwartz is fine.
PA-14: Little change, safe Dem.
PA-15: Now contains Stroudsburg, but Charlie Dent likely still wins.
PA-16: Safe GOP, Pitts wins easily.
PA-17: Condensed a bit more but loses the bit of Reading, Holden should win easily but not so safe if he leaves.
PA-18: Now finally has a sane shape. I don't know the exact partisan breakdown, but Murphy is much more likely to lose, as the current PA-12 was designed to take in all the Dem areas to keep him safe.

First of all, that map is inane.  Secondly, if that is supposed to be a Democrat gerrymander, then epic fail.... shows that you know almost nothing about PA politics.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

First of all, that map is inane.

Elaborate.

Secondly, if that is supposed to be a Democrat gerrymander, then epic fail.... shows that you know almost nothing about PA politics.

It's not supposed to be a Democratic gerrymander. More of a sane drawing of the districts. Any such doing so will benefit the Democrats by dissolving a horrendous Republican gerrymander. If it was supposed to be a gerrymander there are some rather obvious things passed up, such as adding more blacks to PA-7 or State College to a non-safe GOP seat.

[12th Doctor]

First of all, that map is inane.

Elaborate.

Secondly, if that is supposed to be a Democrat gerrymander, then epic fail.... shows that you know almost nothing about PA politics.

It's not supposed to be a Democratic gerrymander. More of a sane drawing of the districts. Any such doing so will benefit the Democrats by dissolving a horrendous Republican gerrymander. If it was supposed to be a gerrymander there are some rather obvious things passed up, such as adding more blacks to PA-7 or State College to a non-safe GOP seat.

First off all, your claims about many of your redrawn districts are quite wrong.  "Removing the gerrymander" actually is not certain to help the Democrats.  The Democrats now hold a number of the districts designed to be safe for Republicans, and to complete the paradox Republicans in this state hold some of the districts that are marginally GOP at best.  The gerrymander that the Republicans put on after the 2000 census was based largely around personalities, not party registrations.  They built these districts to be tailor made to the strengths of the people they had, and to make it difficult for sitting Democrats to maintain their seats.  When the Republican reps holding those seats became weak, and the attitude became "anyone but" that elevated their Democrat challengers.  The Democrats holding those seats now were the first serious challengers most of those representatives had faced.  In PA 3,4 and 8 what you basically have are three white knight candidates who overcame incumbents who had become massively unpopular.  Once that wears off, what you have left are three districts that have a natural tendency to vote Republican.  By reshuffling the map, you only enhance that tendency.

In terms of Altmire, you didn't change his district alot, but that doesn't make him "safe".  You sure as Hell didn't help Dalhkemper out, and the reason you think you did only shows why you don't get the way this state works (in terms of Altmire, Dahlkemper, or Carney).  I assume you think you threw her a bone because you put Elk County in her district, and Elk voted against Santorum, and against McCain, and most of its voters are Democrats so... there you go.  Well, in the state assembly, Elk used to be represented by an anti-establishment Democrat.  But after several terms, he became one with the establishment, and they voted against him (in his home county) in favor of a young Republican challenger (who is from the small slice of Clearfield County that only make up 1/3 of the districts population); the same year Obama won the county with 51 percent of the vote.  Elk County is like alot of Western, PA in that it is heavily populated with registered Democrats who have not voted that way since the 1980's.  They have also been suffering under terrible unemployment, which is why they voted Democrat for national offices the last two times.  The problem has not resolved, which is why they won't be voting Democrat in the next two.  They don't like national Democrats in Elk County, they only vote for them when its to send a message to the Republicans.

The future is very, very murky for all three of those people.  The first decent challenge they face, or the first major national Republican wave (which could be next year) and all three of them could be knocked off... though in the alignment, Dahlkemper has the best chance of hanging on... at least until the next alignment.

Also, by sucking alot of Venango, Warren and McKean into Dahlkempers district, you basically gave her one of the biggest teabagger constituencies imaginable.  Those are the most conservative areas of that part of the state.  CD-3 was actually fashioned the way it was, not to make the district more conservative for English, but to make it more moderate for English.  He would have faced constant primary challenges from the right has they given him an east-west oriented district.  That's God's Country up there.

The next person to hold Murtha's seat will be a Republican, even though that seat was created to contain Democratic votes, and so, again, we see the opposite of the intent of the gerrymander occurring.

Okay, finally, on to the point of what is wrong with the map (as opposed to your analysis of what happens with this map), should I start with CD-5, or the fact that even without the zoomed in views I can tell that you cut a bunch of municipalities in half... and not just in the urban areas, you split the town of Indiana literally down the middle?  Your district encompassing Pittsburgh also makes very little socio-political sense, even though you probably think it doesn't look much different from the current model.

[12th Doctor]

A good example of what I was talking about above is PA-18, where Democrats have a 70,000 registered voter advantage on the Republicans, but the Cook PVI for the district is R+6, and the Murphy is not seriously under threat.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In terms of Altmire, you didn't change his district alot, but that doesn't make him "safe".

Not a huge change, but I got rid of most of Butler county. Not safe, but better for him.  

You sure as Hell didn't help Dalhkemper out, and the reason you think you did only shows why you don't get the way this state works (in terms of Altmire, Dahlkemper, or Carney).  I assume you think you threw her a bone because you put Elk County in her district, and Elk voted against Santorum, and against McCain, and most of its voters are Democrats so... there you go.  Well, in the state assembly, Elk used to be represented by an anti-establishment Democrat.  But after several terms, he became one with the establishment, and they voted against him (in his home county) in favor of a young Republican challenger (who is from the small slice of Clearfield County that only make up 1/3 of the districts population); the same year Obama won the county with 51 percent of the vote.  Elk County is like alot of Western, PA in that it is heavily populated with registered Democrats who have not voted that way since the 1980's.  They have also been suffering under terrible unemployment, which is why they voted Democrat for national offices the last two times.  The problem has not resolved, which is why they won't be voting Democrat in the next two.  They don't like national Democrats in Elk County, they only vote for them when its to send a message to the Republicans.

The future is very, very murky for all three of those people.  The first decent challenge they face, or the first major national Republican wave (which could be next year) and all three of them could be knocked off... though in the alignment, Dahlkemper has the best chance of hanging on... at least until the next alignment.

Also, by sucking alot of Venango, Warren and McKean into Dahlkempers district, you basically gave her one of the biggest teabagger constituencies imaginable.  Those are the most conservative areas of that part of the state.  CD-3 was actually fashioned the way it was, not to make the district more conservative for English, but to make it more moderate for English.  He would have faced constant primary challenges from the right has they given him an east-west oriented district.  That's God's Country up there.

The goal was to remove Butler county. Those other counties are small, and Warren barely voted for McCain anyway. They are not as much of a problem as Butler is.

Okay, finally, on to the point of what is wrong with the map (as opposed to your analysis of what happens with this map), should I start with CD-5

A bit of a gerrymander perhaps, but note I didn't even try to remove State College. Really I just had to put Butler somewhere, and it doesn't fit anywhere in that area (the ideal place would be a seat running from south of Pittsburgh around the eastern edge)

or the fact that even without the zoomed in views I can tell that you cut a bunch of municipalities in half... and not just in the urban areas, you split the town of Indiana literally down the middle?

I made it kind of quickly. At least I united Reading*.

Your district encompassing Pittsburgh also makes very little socio-political sense, even though you probably think it doesn't look much different from the current model.

It's not much different from the current district, I just expanded it a bit. Any maps I've tried have shown that MN-05 will have to take in some areas after 2010 that don't have much socio-economic similarity and probably won't like being a part of it. Doesn't matter because they'll still be outvoted.

*Did I ever mention that I love Reading and consider it fucking AWESOME? It's fucking CHEAP as hell and is yet full of strip clubs and scene kids and venues. Plus also close to the venues in the Lehigh valley and Philadelphia. The place is perfect and if I was born in PA I'd move there in a heartbeat.

[12th Doctor]

In terms of Altmire, you didn't change his district alot, but that doesn't make him "safe".

Not a huge change, but I got rid of most of Butler county. Not safe, but better for him.  

You sure as Hell didn't help Dalhkemper out, and the reason you think you did only shows why you don't get the way this state works (in terms of Altmire, Dahlkemper, or Carney).  I assume you think you threw her a bone because you put Elk County in her district, and Elk voted against Santorum, and against McCain, and most of its voters are Democrats so... there you go.  Well, in the state assembly, Elk used to be represented by an anti-establishment Democrat.  But after several terms, he became one with the establishment, and they voted against him (in his home county) in favor of a young Republican challenger (who is from the small slice of Clearfield County that only make up 1/3 of the districts population); the same year Obama won the county with 51 percent of the vote.  Elk County is like alot of Western, PA in that it is heavily populated with registered Democrats who have not voted that way since the 1980's.  They have also been suffering under terrible unemployment, which is why they voted Democrat for national offices the last two times.  The problem has not resolved, which is why they won't be voting Democrat in the next two.  They don't like national Democrats in Elk County, they only vote for them when its to send a message to the Republicans.

The future is very, very murky for all three of those people.  The first decent challenge they face, or the first major national Republican wave (which could be next year) and all three of them could be knocked off... though in the alignment, Dahlkemper has the best chance of hanging on... at least until the next alignment.

Also, by sucking alot of Venango, Warren and McKean into Dahlkempers district, you basically gave her one of the biggest teabagger constituencies imaginable.  Those are the most conservative areas of that part of the state.  CD-3 was actually fashioned the way it was, not to make the district more conservative for English, but to make it more moderate for English.  He would have faced constant primary challenges from the right has they given him an east-west oriented district.  That's God's Country up there.

The goal was to remove Butler county. Those other counties are small, and Warren barely voted for McCain anyway. They are not as much of a problem as Butler is.

Okay, finally, on to the point of what is wrong with the map (as opposed to your analysis of what happens with this map), should I start with CD-5

A bit of a gerrymander perhaps, but note I didn't even try to remove State College. Really I just had to put Butler somewhere, and it doesn't fit anywhere in that area (the ideal place would be a seat running from south of Pittsburgh around the eastern edge)

or the fact that even without the zoomed in views I can tell that you cut a bunch of municipalities in half... and not just in the urban areas, you split the town of Indiana literally down the middle?

I made it kind of quickly. At least I united Reading*.

Your district encompassing Pittsburgh also makes very little socio-political sense, even though you probably think it doesn't look much different from the current model.

It's not much different from the current district, I just expanded it a bit. Any maps I've tried have shown that MN-05 will have to take in some areas after 2010 that don't have much socio-economic similarity and probably won't like being a part of it. Doesn't matter because they'll still be outvoted.

*Did I ever mention that I love Reading and consider it fucking AWESOME? It's fucking CHEAP as hell and is yet full of strip clubs and scene kids and venues. Plus also close to the venues in the Lehigh valley and Philadelphia. The place is perfect and if I was born in PA I'd move there in a heartbeat.

Okay... here is the problem.  The reason Butler County consistently goes over 60 percent Republican in national elections is not because of that Northern portion, that is in PA-3.  It's because of that Southern part that boarders Allegheny County.  The Northern and Southern suburbs of Pittsburgh (the areas known as the North Hills and the South Hills) are hugely Republican.  Tons of wealth, or at least, projected wealth in those areas.  The southern tier townships of Butler County are basically a spillover from the lawyers, doctors, and accountants residential areas of northern Allegheny County.  It's kinda like the Philly outer suburbs (not quite the exurbs), by way more socially conservative... Desperate Housewives territory... social Darwinism with a crucifix.  

The Northern part of Butler County is far less affluent, which is why that section was given to English in the first place; he used to have a good relationship with Labor, and was not a huge social issues politician.  Northern Butler County, including the City of Butler, is comprised of alot of declining coal, and small factory towns.  There is more populism up there, than genuine conservatism... and they are also pretty pissed off that the Democrats want to toll I-80.  Butler has no history of going Democrat, but its recent hyper-Republicanism comes from the expansion of the suburbs into the south, not from rural conservatism.  

Contrast that with Warren, McKean, Elk and Venango.  Of those, Elk is the only one that really has any history with the Democratic Party, and that's been very limited since 1980.  Warren has been more favorable to the Democrats in the last three national elections (04,06,08) than at any other time in the past.  However, in both cases, the reasons for this are clear... historically high unemployment rates in both.  Like I said, there is no affection for the national Democrats in either place, these four counties (and Forrest is a non-factor) comprise one of the most conservative areas of the country.  Bar none.  Populist leaning conservatism, yes, but they have no love for the National Democrats.  

The unemployment has little to do with the current economic downturn; that exacerbated the situation, but is not the root cause.  The root cause is the decline of the last of the "invulnerable industries" in those areas.  

In Elk County, it is the powdered metals industry, which people had said for years was too technical for "Chinks" and "Dot Heads" to do... well, guess what, they caught up pretty fast.  Many of these people think they are being hurt by free trade, and are voting against the Republicans to "make a point".  They aren't any happier with Obama.

In Warren, it was the shutting down of the mental hospital, which happened under a Democrat governor, with two Republican Senators, one gone, one now a Democrat, promising to keep it open.  Well, its still very much shut down, and there are no Republicans left to blame.

Of course, now that we are talking about it, no map we create now using those the current estimates is going to matter in 2010.  The depopulation problem in Northwestern, PA is going to be way worse than the estimates indicate.

[12th Doctor]

This is the best way to sum up voting patterns in South West Pennsylvania:

The closer you live to a river, whether you are white, black, or purple, the more likely you are to vote Democrat.  If you live on the high ground, then chances are you are a Republican, and the shift tends to be very abrupt, and there are but a few exceptions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you want to make Altmire safe, get rid of as much of northern Allegheny county as you can.

[12th Doctor]

If you want to make Altmire safe, get rid of as much of northern Allegheny county as you can.

Problem with that... Altmire live there.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you want to make Altmire safe, get rid of as much of northern Allegheny county as you can.

Problem with that... Altmire live there.

Yes, but part of the art of gerrymandering is finding ways round such vexing problems.

[12th Doctor]

If you want to make Altmire safe, get rid of as much of northern Allegheny county as you can.

Problem with that... Altmire live there.

Yes, but part of the art of gerrymandering is finding ways round such vexing problems.

Good luck finding the map that would pull that off.  It would have to look at least as bad as the existing one.

[12th Doctor]

And by that, I mean it would have to look like on of the VRA districts in the South.  If you go North you take him into Butler County.  If you go South or East, then you are endangering Doyle.  And you can't go West.

[Brittain33]

And by that, I mean it would have to look like on of the VRA districts in the South.  If you go North you take him into Butler County.  If you go South or East, then you are endangering Doyle.  And you can't go West.

Can't you go south and take in parts of Mascara's old district? I drew a map that did that, linking a smaller part of north Allegheny and riverside towns to a district from Lawrence down to Greene, using only part of Washington County, while wrapping much of the rest of north Allegheny in the 18th. It didn't look pretty, but it didn't look awful. Admittedly I don't know the individual towns like a local would and probably made mistakes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It would have to look at least as bad as the existing one.

But of course. This is an exercise in mental gerrymandering, not sane electoral maps.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Of course Altmire also could just as easily "move" to Beaver or Lawrence County anyway.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And actually looking up 2006's results, Hart won the Allegheny part of the district, but barely, 51-49. Her strongholds were the portions of Butler and Westmoreland counties, where she got over 60%. Obviously she was clobbered in the remaining parts, in Mercer Altmire won 74-26 (very small portion of course.)

[12th Doctor]

And actually looking up 2006's results, Hart won the Allegheny part of the district, but barely, 51-49. Her strongholds were the portions of Butler and Westmoreland counties, where she got over 60%. Obviously she was clobbered in the remaining parts, in Mercer Altmire won 74-26 (very small portion of course.)

Like I said, that was all anti-Hart vote.

[12th Doctor]

And by that, I mean it would have to look like on of the VRA districts in the South.  If you go North you take him into Butler County.  If you go South or East, then you are endangering Doyle.  And you can't go West.

Can't you go south and take in parts of Mascara's old district? I drew a map that did that, linking a smaller part of north Allegheny and riverside towns to a district from Lawrence down to Greene, using only part of Washington County, while wrapping much of the rest of north Allegheny in the 18th. It didn't look pretty, but it didn't look awful. Admittedly I don't know the individual towns like a local would and probably made mistakes.

The South Hills are not much more friendly to the Democrats than the North Hills... less so, in fact.  Murphy is already there, and already has a presence on the ground and a relationship with the people.

In the meantime, if you do that, you open up either one or two more Republican friendly districts because doing that disallows you from creating a district that puts southern Allegheny County together with the far Southwest to isolate Republican votes.  It also means the inclusion of Northern Allegheny and Butler into whatever district you fashion out of the north and east of Pittsburgh, creating a huge gimme for a Republican candidate there.

I've drawn up quite a few maps, I'm increasingly convinced that Western, PA is going to become a no win situation for the Democrats regardless of who controls the gerrymander.  The best they could hope for would be to create two districts that split Pittsburgh at least 66-34, and I am not convinced the Republicans don't take one of those.