Dave's Redistricting App
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:57:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Dave's Redistricting App
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 48
Author Topic: Dave's Redistricting App  (Read 307379 times)
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #800 on: August 20, 2010, 08:20:10 PM »

California? It didn't work for me and I tried it with the test data selected and without it.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #801 on: August 20, 2010, 08:24:06 PM »

California? It didn't work for me and I tried it with the test data selected and without it.

You have to have test data selected before you load it. Load Idaho first (it's the fastest-loading state), select new estimates and test data, then change to California.

When did New Mexico get partisan data?
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #802 on: August 20, 2010, 08:45:10 PM »

When did New Mexico get partisan data?

Today.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #803 on: August 20, 2010, 09:50:54 PM »

If the GOP is going to draw the lines in Ohio, they would be well advised to throw in the towel on Columbus, and give the Dems a district there. Otherwise, they risk having two Dem Columbus based seats at some point. Pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered. Did you consider that Muon2?

Well, if they're going to do that, they might as well draw a 2nd Black-Majority district stretching from Cincinnati to Dayton to Columbus.  You can draw a decent finger District that's about 55% black that way, and it will guarantee Republicans safe Districts in all of Central and Southern Ohio.

That kind of district would be illegal under the SCOTUS "Goldilocks" rule. It is too cold to not create a minority majority district in the face of hostile block voting where one can create a nice district that reflects a community of interest, but it is too hot to create some erose monster that appends a bunch of black neighborhoods in several distant metro areas, connected by a snake a mile wide. SCOTUS tossed out just such a district for Mr. Watt in NC, that picked up the black neighborhoods of Charlotte, than snaked over to Raleigh/Durham to do the same, then moved on to Goldsboro (or whatever that town is), and then on to Winston Salem, or some such thing. Getting too hot is a bridge too far, and getting too cold is a missed bridge within convenient commuting distance that must be crossed. Tepidity is the loadstar.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,583
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #804 on: August 20, 2010, 11:37:50 PM »

Uh, this is Mel Watt's current district:

Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #805 on: August 20, 2010, 11:50:15 PM »
« Edited: August 21, 2010, 12:13:13 AM by Torie »

The one I was speaking of, before SCOTUS tossed it out I think in 2001, makes what you put up a perfect circle.

But I take your point. Was this district challenged in court? I ask, because if you had put that puppy up, and asked if it were legal (saying disingenuously that this is a district I made up and used Dave's software to do it, with a screen face that would not tip me off instantly where you got it, so it would be tough for me to know it was a setup), and I said clearly illegal, and then you put up what you just put it, not only would I be "owned," but it would be Comedy Goldmine material.

May you cry over your missed opportunity, to cut a major Torie artery (jk dude, I cannot recall any post where either of us ever tried to put the other down, except maybe gently in jest, something for the forum to think about). Tongue

Maybe the "Goldilocks rule" has a codicil that says snakes are OK, as long as they are reasonably fat. So now if only we knew the formula, which has something to do with length, county lines, maybe topography (I won't get into that now), and some mean regression of square miles with distance, with square mialage towards the "center" given exponential weight. Do you want to take on the project of constructing this formula BRTD?
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #806 on: August 21, 2010, 12:13:21 AM »

The one I was speaking of, before SCOTUS tossed it out I think in 2001, makes what you put up a perfect circle.

But I take your point. Was this district challenged in court? I ask, because if you had put that puppy up, and asked if it were legal (saying disingenuously that this is a district I made up and used Dave's software to do it, with a screen face that would not tip me off instantly where you got it, so it would be tough for me to know it was a setup), and I said clearly illegal, and then you put up what you just put it, not only would I be "owned," but it would be Comedy Goldmine material.

May you cry over your missed opportunity, to cut a major Torie artery. Tongue

Maybe the "Goldilocks rule" has a codicil that says snakes are OK, as long as they are reasonably fat. So now if only we knew the formula, which has something to do with length, county lines, maybe topography (I won't get into that now), and some mean regression of square miles with distance, with square mialage towards the "center" given exponential weight. Do you want to take on the project of constructing this formula BRTD?

Well, to do what you're suggesting, you'd have to take the 2nd Moment of Inertia of the 2-D Topographical region along a moving center line (Think REALLY HARD CALCULUS).  Or, you could create a defined ratio of area to perimeter, and say that no district can drop below this value.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #807 on: August 21, 2010, 05:47:45 AM »

I think that a GOP gerrymander would play it safe and keep OH-11 majority Black. The best way to do that is to run it down to Akron. However, that would keep OH-10 on the west side of Cleveland.
In 2000, it was possible to include all of Cleveland in a majority-black district, though the included suburbs had to be very selective.  In 2010, more of the eastern and southeastern suburbs will be majority black, and presumably the black share of Cleveland itself will be greater (based on the 2006-2008 ACS) the district is now 59% black vs. 56% at the time of the 2000 census, this is because whites have been leaving at a greater rate than blacks (the district has lost 80,000 since the census and the loss of 2 seats is going to require a huge pick up of population.

The black population in Akron is concentrated in the SW part of the city, and Akron itself is only 30% black, so you would need a long isthmus running through the northern part of Summit County and into Akron, which also results in eastern and western Summit County being split, or having to wrap around CD-11.

I don't think you need to string cities together to pick up enough black residents if you can create a compact district in Cuyahoga county that is very high plurality black.

The Bartlett decision might imply otherwise. If there has been a pattern of racial bloc voting in NE OH, and there is a potential election district with 50% plus black voting age population, then there could be a valid section 2 claim against a map that did not create a majority-black district. The decision rejected plurality districts that relied on crossover white votes or on a multiple-minority coalition.
According to the ACS 2006-8 CD-11 is now about 59% black, because whites are leaving faster than blacks (its population is now 550,000, down from 630,000)

The majority-black census tracts in Akron have 35,000 blacks in a total population of 50,000 (about 70%),.  Add in enough census tracts to make the area contiguous (most of the black population is in SW Akron, but there are also areas in the SE and near north side), plus provide a connection to Cuyahoga County, and you might be able to get 45,000 black out of 75,000 from Summit County.

Assume 720,000 for a CD.  So a majority black district would need 360,000.  If a Summit portion were 45/75 black, the Cuyahoga portion would be 315/645 black (48.8%).

Let's assume that we instead added in areas in Cuyahoga county that were only 30% black.  That would end up being 46.9% overall.  So your choice is between a totally ungainly district that runs 20 miles along the Cuyahoga River for strictly race reasons to get up to 50%, vs. a compact district in Cuyahoga County that might be 47% black.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #808 on: August 21, 2010, 06:43:56 AM »

The one I was speaking of, before SCOTUS tossed it out I think in 2001, makes what you put up a perfect circle.
North Carolina 1990s redistricting plans.

Maps of CD 6 and CD 12 from the 1992 redistricting are particularly interesting.

Also note that the 1998 plan was used in 1998, and the 1997 plan in 2000.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #809 on: August 21, 2010, 09:52:48 AM »

It seems to me, without knowing for sure, because I have not crunched the numbers, that it is better and safer for the GOP to pack as many Dems as possible into one Franklin County district, and then they will have a much easier time making everything else around reasonably safe for them (as opposed to some pathetic PVI +2 kind of junk - we want PVI +4 at least, with +6 being even better). If it done right, the Dems get two Cleveland area seats (it may have to be three to keep the risk down of having to worry about a couple of marginal seats), one Youngstown seat, and the Toledo seat, the Columbus seat, and that is it. 10 or 11 pretty safe seats out of 16, is not a bad day's work.

Does that make sense?

It does make sense, but I first want to see what the gamble would look like.  I'll assume that a district that would have voted for McCain in 08 is GOP enough to hold an incumbent in a bad year. With that in mind, I took a look at how I might split up Columbus to preserve 12 out of 16 seats for the GOP while keeping the incumbents and takeovers in CD 1 and 15 in separate districts. Stivers lives in the redrawn CD 6.

Neither Dave's App nor the Atlas have sub-county-level election data for 2008, so I could at best make estimates. To my eye, all 12 of the GOP districts may be for McCain. CD-14 is the weakest, but I took Kent out, so it is about as strong as one can get in the NE corner. CD-12 could be strengthened by swapping parts of Perry and Washington with CD-16, and I'll look at that when data becomes available. CD-6 was difficult, since Stivers lives in central Columbus, but it could be made better for the GOP by bringing CD-8 into Columbus as well and moving Ross and Pike to CD-6.

The Bartlett decision might imply otherwise. If there has been a pattern of racial bloc voting in NE OH, and there is a potential election district with 50% plus black voting age population, then there could be a valid section 2 claim against a map that did not create a majority-black district. The decision rejected plurality districts that relied on crossover white votes or on a multiple-minority coalition.
According to the ACS 2006-8 CD-11 is now about 59% black, because whites are leaving faster than blacks (its population is now 550,000, down from 630,000)

The majority-black census tracts in Akron have 35,000 blacks in a total population of 50,000 (about 70%),.  Add in enough census tracts to make the area contiguous (most of the black population is in SW Akron, but there are also areas in the SE and near north side), plus provide a connection to Cuyahoga County, and you might be able to get 45,000 black out of 75,000 from Summit County.

Assume 720,000 for a CD.  So a majority black district would need 360,000.  If a Summit portion were 45/75 black, the Cuyahoga portion would be 315/645 black (48.8%).

Let's assume that we instead added in areas in Cuyahoga county that were only 30% black.  That would end up being 46.9% overall.  So your choice is between a totally ungainly district that runs 20 miles along the Cuyahoga River for strictly race reasons to get up to 50%, vs. a compact district in Cuyahoga County that might be 47% black.

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

 
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #810 on: August 21, 2010, 12:05:00 PM »
« Edited: August 21, 2010, 12:13:57 PM by Torie »

The one I was speaking of, before SCOTUS tossed it out I think in 2001, makes what you put up a perfect circle.
North Carolina 1990s redistricting plans.

Maps of CD 6 and CD 12 from the 1992 redistricting are particularly interesting.

Also note that the 1998 plan was used in 1998, and the 1997 plan in 2000.

Yes, most interesting, and I think it would be hard to argue that SCOTUS law on all of this is anything other than a total mess.  To predict what they will do next would be rather foolish. It may depend on what planet in the universe Kennedy is exploring at the moment in his never ending journey of self exploration.

However Kennedy voted to strike down the 1997 plan; it was Justice O'Connor who flipped her vote from striking down the 1992 plan, to upholding the 1997 plan.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #811 on: August 21, 2010, 05:12:10 PM »

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

 

How is the population projected?

Haven't you split Akron among 4 districts?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #812 on: August 21, 2010, 07:14:41 PM »

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

 

How is the population projected?

Haven't you split Akron among 4 districts?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.

I find that it provides a only rough estimate of location in populous counties, but at least enough to sense where trends may take redistricting efforts. If I am trying to strictly follow municipal lines, I would use my own projection data from the Census at the level of minor civil divisions. That wasn't my goal here, since I was looking at the questions raised by JLT's suggested GOP plan. For this exercise I forced each district to be within 100 of the ideal based on the App's population assignment.

As for Akron, the city is only divided between three districts, since my CD-14 only goes into the Akron suburbs much as the current CD-14 does today. I didn't mind the division, since Akron is heavily gerrymandered in the current map which was drawn by the GOP. I saw no reason to assume that they wouldn't want to consider a split to concentrate heavily Dem areas in one district and divide the remainder in a 2010 map.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #813 on: August 21, 2010, 07:35:30 PM »

What are the PVI's of CD 13 and 15, Muon2, do you think?  I am particularly interested in the Bush 2004 percentages. In this part of the country, I am not sure Obama reflects a normalized political balance. They look a bit tepid to me, and more like marginal seats. We don't like marginal seats for this little partisan endeavor. (This is not meant to be some kind of good government exercise; it is meant to be a contact sport with the Dems the losers, and the only rule is that it needs to pass SCOTUS muster. Other than that, we cheat like hell.)

In short, we need more of a firewall.  I suspect both may need some selected Columbus burb stuff (sub and ex) put into them so the Dems are not tempted to seriously contest them, even if they have something of a tailwind going for them. Do you see where I am going here?

Yes, I understand we just have to live with the NE corner thing. Pity there are not more Chagrin Fallses to put in there (nice and rich and WASP and reliably Republican).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #814 on: August 21, 2010, 09:13:27 PM »

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

 

How is the population projected?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.
I think that is where it is going to be tough.  Places like Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, and East Cleveland are losing population even faster than the county as a whole.

The areas of greatest growth, or at least slowest decline, are the outer tier of townships on the south, west, and east.  North Royallton and Olmsted Falls are the big winners with about 2.5% growth each.  While you might find blacks moving into areas like Solon, you might be picking up cities that are 20% black.

In Summit County, you actually have growth areas like Richland, but Akron is declining.  And I'm sure you are going to find the black population more dispersed.

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #815 on: August 21, 2010, 11:17:15 PM »

What are the PVI's of CD 13 and 15, Muon2, do you think?  I am particularly interested in the Bush 2004 percentages. In this part of the country, I am not sure Obama reflects a normalized political balance. They look a bit tepid to me, and more like marginal seats. We don't like marginal seats for this little partisan endeavor. (This is not meant to be some kind of good government exercise; it is meant to be a contact sport with the Dems the losers, and the only rule is that it needs to pass SCOTUS muster. Other than that, we cheat like hell.)

In short, we need more of a firewall.  I suspect both may need some selected Columbus burb stuff (sub and ex) put into them so the Dems are not tempted to seriously contest them, even if they have something of a tailwind going for them. Do you see where I am going here?

Yes, I understand we just have to live with the NE corner thing. Pity there are not more Chagrin Fallses to put in there (nice and rich and WASP and reliably Republican).

I took a look at 2004 at the town level. As drawn CD-13 is something like R+3 or 4, but CD-15 is a more marginal seat at R+1 or 2. I would need precinct level votes and block controls to move it up. Given the starting point, that should be very reasonable to achieve.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #816 on: August 21, 2010, 11:19:02 PM »

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

 

How is the population projected?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.
I think that is where it is going to be tough.  Places like Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, and East Cleveland are losing population even faster than the county as a whole.

The areas of greatest growth, or at least slowest decline, are the outer tier of townships on the south, west, and east.  North Royallton and Olmsted Falls are the big winners with about 2.5% growth each.  While you might find blacks moving into areas like Solon, you might be picking up cities that are 20% black.

In Summit County, you actually have growth areas like Richland, but Akron is declining.  And I'm sure you are going to find the black population more dispersed.



At 56% I think the district I drew will hold up even with accurate numbers. I'm anticipating better tools soon. That should give us all a better look at the possibilities.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #817 on: August 22, 2010, 01:00:04 PM »

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

 

How is the population projected?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.
I think that is where it is going to be tough.  Places like Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, and East Cleveland are losing population even faster than the county as a whole.

The areas of greatest growth, or at least slowest decline, are the outer tier of townships on the south, west, and east.  North Royallton and Olmsted Falls are the big winners with about 2.5% growth each.  While you might find blacks moving into areas like Solon, you might be picking up cities that are 20% black.

In Summit County, you actually have growth areas like Richland, but Akron is declining.  And I'm sure you are going to find the black population more dispersed.



At 56% I think the district I drew will hold up even with accurate numbers. I'm anticipating better tools soon. That should give us all a better look at the possibilities.
If you can get 56% you are capturing 90% of blacks in the two-county area, and your proposed district will be short of 720,000 because it is based on countywide estimates.  To get it back up, you are going to have to include adjacent areas that have a substantial black population, but nowhere near a majority.

In Summit County, the countywide estimate is for no-change, but Akron is declining.  In Cuyahoga County, the 2008 estimate is for an 8.7% decline, but there are heavier declines in Cleveland, East Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, etc.

So you are going to end up closer to 50% than 60% and you are connecting two cities 20 miles apart with a national park and splitting both cities.

In 2000, a district with 720.000 persons and a bare majority black population could be drawn in Cuyahoga County using whole cities, including Cleveland.  It will have lost 10% of its population, but will be a bit blacker.  Adding in 70,000 in the eastern part of the county may drop the percentage just below 50%.

So can you rationalize a non-compact district that may end up just a couple of percentage points blacker, than a single-county district made up of whole towns?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #818 on: August 22, 2010, 01:37:24 PM »

The map below uses the Cleveland-Akron connection to make a new CD-11 that is 56% black (402 K / 718 K). I don't think the shape is any worse than many acceptable VRA districts.

 

How is the population projected?

As I understand it, Dave's Red. App uses the 2008 estimates for the county, including the estimates for each racial and language group tracked by the Census. The population changes for the county in the estimate are applied within each group uniformly throughout the county. Variations in population growth within a county are not part of his app. Similarly, new communities in transition this decade between racial groups are not captured by his approach.
I think that is where it is going to be tough.  Places like Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, and East Cleveland are losing population even faster than the county as a whole.

The areas of greatest growth, or at least slowest decline, are the outer tier of townships on the south, west, and east.  North Royallton and Olmsted Falls are the big winners with about 2.5% growth each.  While you might find blacks moving into areas like Solon, you might be picking up cities that are 20% black.

In Summit County, you actually have growth areas like Richland, but Akron is declining.  And I'm sure you are going to find the black population more dispersed.



At 56% I think the district I drew will hold up even with accurate numbers. I'm anticipating better tools soon. That should give us all a better look at the possibilities.
If you can get 56% you are capturing 90% of blacks in the two-county area, and your proposed district will be short of 720,000 because it is based on countywide estimates.  To get it back up, you are going to have to include adjacent areas that have a substantial black population, but nowhere near a majority.

In Summit County, the countywide estimate is for no-change, but Akron is declining.  In Cuyahoga County, the 2008 estimate is for an 8.7% decline, but there are heavier declines in Cleveland, East Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, etc.

So you are going to end up closer to 50% than 60% and you are connecting two cities 20 miles apart with a national park and splitting both cities.

In 2000, a district with 720.000 persons and a bare majority black population could be drawn in Cuyahoga County using whole cities, including Cleveland.  It will have lost 10% of its population, but will be a bit blacker.  Adding in 70,000 in the eastern part of the county may drop the percentage just below 50%.

So can you rationalize a non-compact district that may end up just a couple of percentage points blacker, than a single-county district made up of whole towns?


The rationalization would be based on avoiding a potential VRA challenge. The premise of the map is that the GOP is in charge of the pen and wants to maximize seats. Presumably the Dems would want to challenge the map, and a successful VRA challenge could throw their entire map away. Based on the Bartlett decision, I think that this map survives, but a GOP map that has only a plurality black district when a majority is possible would lose.

I agree that the population is probably less than indicated, but the map only needs 50% VAP to meet the goal I set for the map. I think that with 56% in this estimate, it is likely that 50% will be achievable. Actually, being able to expand into additional D areas of Akron to add population to CD-11 would help the GOP improve the PVIs of neighboring districts.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #819 on: August 23, 2010, 06:40:02 AM »

The rationalization would be based on avoiding a potential VRA challenge. The premise of the map is that the GOP is in charge of the pen and wants to maximize seats. Presumably the Dems would want to challenge the map, and a successful VRA challenge could throw their entire map away. Based on the Bartlett decision, I think that this map survives, but a GOP map that has only a plurality black district when a majority is possible would lose.

I agree that the population is probably less than indicated, but the map only needs 50% VAP to meet the goal I set for the map. I think that with 56% in this estimate, it is likely that 50% will be achievable. Actually, being able to expand into additional D areas of Akron to add population to CD-11 would help the GOP improve the PVIs of neighboring districts.
If the GOP is in charge of the pen, they will want to get rid of Kucinich.  They can put all of Cleveland in the black district, and put the western suburbs in a district extending into Lorain county, and the southern suburbs in a district extending into Medina, and the far eastern suburbs into a district extending into Geuga.

They argue that the Cleveland-Akron connection traverses a near wilderness, and effectively creates a Shaw I district solely in the pursuit of isolating blacks in a racially gerrymandered district, as traditional redistricting criteria such as counties and towns are ignored.
Logged
enlightened despot
Rookie
**
Posts: 55


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #820 on: August 27, 2010, 07:44:58 PM »

I can't get the app to load any states and may have lost the states directories. Does anyone know how to recreate those? I'm using a mac running osx.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #821 on: August 30, 2010, 07:24:29 PM »

Hey guys, Dave's added partisan data for Pennsylvania.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #822 on: August 30, 2010, 07:44:26 PM »

And now to check and see how I did here...

Here's a Republican map of Pennsylvania, losing a district from the current map. Tried not to overreach too much; concentrated on protecting incumbents and watering down a couple of districts, rather than trying to maximize Republican seats.



Click for bigger.

PA-01 (blue Philly district, Bob Brady - D) - Expands to take in more of Delaware County, uber-safe for the Dems.
PA-02 (green Philly district, Chaka Fattah - D) - Mostly unchanged; still majority-black. Obviously uber-safe.
PA-03 (purple NW corner district, Kathy Dahlkemper - D) - Pushes east instead of south, taking in some heavily-Republican counties. Should make the district more Republican.
PA-04 (red SW district, Jason Altmire - D) - Takes in all of the Dem-leaning areas outside of Pittsburgh. Should be safe for Altmire.
PA-05 (orange central district, Glenn Thompson - R) - Takes in a bunch of the Philly suburbs in Westmoreland County instead of the NW counties, which shouldn't change the partisan balance much.
PA-06 (teal SE PA district, Jim Gerlach - R) - Tried to make this district as safe as possible, so it takes in all the Republican parts of Montgomery and Bucks now. Should be a Republican-leaning district now.
PA-07 (grey SE PA district, open) - Pushed west in order to make it less Democratic. Still a swing district, but should be more favorable to the Republicans.
PA-08 (purple SE PA district, Patrick Murphy - D) - Takes in all the Dem parts of Bucks, and parts of Montgomery and Philadelphia. Safe Dem seat.
PA-09 (light blue SW PA district, Bud Shuster - R and Mark Critz - D) - Swallows parts of Critz's district, which tilts the district from "overwhelmingly Republican" to just "very Republican". Shuster would prevail in a matchup with Critz.
PA-10 (magenta NE PA district, Chris Carney - D) - Carney's district is completely reconfigured as a safe Dem district, taking in all of Lackawanna along with Bethlehem, Scranton, and part of Allentown.
PA-11 (green NE PA district, Paul Kanjorski - D) - Turns Kanjo's district (since he's probably going to lose to Barletta) into a pretty Republican one. Shouldn't be hard for Barletta to hold in 2012.
PA-12 (light purple SE PA district, Todd Platts - R) - Takes in Harrisburg, which makes the district a little less Republican, but it shouldn't be hard for Republicans to hold.
PA-13 (pink SE PA district, Alyson Schwartz - D) - Heavily-Democratic MontCo-based district.
PA-14 (brown SW PA district, Mike Doyle - D) - Heavily-Democratic Pittsburgh district.
PA-15 (orange NE PA district, Charlie Dent - R) - With Bethlehem and most of Allentown gone, the district picks up some Republican-leaning counties that should make it easier for Dent to hold.
PA-16 (green SE PA district, Joe Pitts - R) - Mostly Lancaster County, takes in some Dem parts of Berks and Chester, but should remain Republican-leaning.
PA-17 (dark purple SE PA district, Tim Holden - D) - Getting rid of Tim Holden requires chopping up Schuylkill County, and also removes Harrisburg. Should be even more Republican now.
PA-18 (yellow SW PA district, Tim Murphy - R) - Takes in a bunch of Republican-leaning parts of SW PA. Maybe a little less Republican, but still Republican. Republican!

PA-01 - 85-14 Obama (from 88-12 Obama)
PA-02 - 87-13 Obama (from 90-10 Obama)
PA-03 - 50-49 Obama (from 49-49 McCain)
PA-04 - 51-48 Obama (from 55-45 McCain)
PA-05 - 54-45 McCain (from 55-44 McCain)
PA-06 - 49-49 Obama (from 58-41 Obama) - Obama won this district by 343 votes.
PA-07 - 52-47 Obama (from 56-43 Obama)
PA-08 - 57-42 Obama (from 54-45 Obama)
PA-09 - 60-38 McCain (from 63-35 McCain)
PA-10 - 63-36 Obama (from 54-45 McCain)
PA-11 - 55-43 McCain (from 57-42 Obama)
PA-12 - 53-46 McCain (from PA-19's 56-43 McCain)
PA-13 - 63-36 Obama (from 59-41 Obama)
PA-14 - 66-33 Obama (from 70-29 Obama)
PA-15 - 50-48 Obama (from 56-43 Obama)
PA-16 - 50-49 McCain (from 51-48 McCain)
PA-17 - 58-41 McCain (from 51-48 McCain)
PA-18 - 58-41 McCain (from 55-44 McCain)

Overall, not bad, although I didn't help Republicans enough in PA-03.
Logged
homelycooking
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,302
Belize


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #823 on: August 30, 2010, 07:53:48 PM »

Is it possible to draw an Asian-majority CD in the lower 48?
How small would that CD have to be to have and Asian majority?

It is possible, btw, to draw a majority-minority CD in Wisconsin. It looks hideous, though, because the Milwaukee ghettos have to be connected via very thin strips with high-minority areas of Racine and Kenosha.

Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #824 on: August 30, 2010, 09:06:04 PM »

Is it possible to draw an Asian-majority CD in the lower 48?
How small would that CD have to be to have and Asian majority?

It is possible, btw, to draw a majority-minority CD in Wisconsin. It looks hideous, though, because the Milwaukee ghettos have to be connected via very thin strips with high-minority areas of Racine and Kenosha.

There are several examples of Asian-majority districts in Northern and Southern California on previous pages. They're not pretty, but they're not that terrible.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 48  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 11 queries.