Dave's Redistricting App
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:03:49 PM
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 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 48
Author Topic: Dave's Redistricting App  (Read 307333 times)
JohnnyLongtorso
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #850 on: September 05, 2010, 06:51:31 PM »

You also put Holden in PA-10, and he'd probably knock off Carney in a primary. Dent might very well run there too.

Interesting. I assumed Holden lived around Harrisburg. But Carney would surely win a Carney-Holden primary in PA-10; Carney represents a lot more of the district than Holden does.

Dent couldn't beat either Holden or Carney in that PA-10. The district doesn't fit his style, and he barely represents any of it right now.

He's a lifelong resident of Schuylkill County, and was the sheriff there before he was elected to Congress. It remains a ridiculously loyal base of support for him.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,582
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #851 on: September 06, 2010, 02:03:45 AM »

Yep, Holden's old seat didn't even include Harrisburg (It was the old 6th district, he moved to the 17th after redistricting.)
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 #852 on: September 06, 2010, 09:48:51 AM »
« Edited: September 06, 2010, 09:50:45 AM by Torie »

Critz probably could win that PA-12 seat, it's hardly a Republican seat so much as an anti-Obama one. Kerry probably got at least around 45% there.

Unfortunately for Critz, he lives in Johnstown, which is split between PA-3 and PA-9. And there's no way he could win PA-12 anyway.


I'm working on a Republican map but have run into difficulty creating only 3 Obama seats in SE PA. It may be impossible.

It is. Don't bother trying. If you have just 3 Dem seats in the Philly area, you will have two more marginal seats, unless this year's snap back to the GOP of middle to upper middle class suburban and exurban voters in big metro areas north of the Mason Dixon line, holds for the future.
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 #853 on: September 06, 2010, 01:42:28 PM »
« Edited: September 06, 2010, 01:45:58 PM by Verily »

Actually, I have now managed to create just three Obama seats in SE PA, plus another Obama seat containing Democratic parts of Bucks County, the most Democratic parts of the Lehigh Valley, and the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area. This allows for PA-6, PA-7, PA-8 and PA-15 to all become McCain seats, albeit not particularly strongly (still much better than the current arrangement for Republicans). PA-17 is more Democratic, but it loses Schuylkill County and should be unwinnable for Democrats not named Tim Holden.

The map's not quite finished, though.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,582
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #854 on: September 06, 2010, 02:54:45 PM »

That equals five Obama seats total I assume since there will be one more in Pittsburgh?
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 #855 on: September 06, 2010, 03:33:09 PM »

That equals five Obama seats total I assume since there will be one more in Pittsburgh?

There are six total. Four in eastern PA and two in western PA.

Eastern PA:
PA-1 (plurality black Philly and SE Delaware County)
PA-2 (majority black Philly and a bit of Delaware County)
PA-11 (Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, central Lehigh Valley, E Bucks County)
PA-13 (snaking through Delaware, Chester and Montgomery Counties as well as parts of Philly)

Western PA:
PA-4 (Erie, Ohio River Valley, N Pittsburgh)
PA-14 (Pittsburgh and Alleghany Valley)

I chose to create two solidly Democratic seats in Western PA to guarantee the defeat of two of Critz, Altmire and Dahlkemper; getting rid of all three risked letting all three hang on.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,582
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #856 on: September 07, 2010, 12:59:45 AM »
« Edited: September 07, 2010, 01:07:00 AM by Tie a Rope to the Back of the Bus »

So where does everyone see the four new seats in Texas? I ended up with one Hispanic majority one in South Texas, one in suburban Houston, and two in the metroplex, one around Ft. Worth and one in suburban Dallas. Republicans btw might have a bit of dilemma in Houston and the metroplex where drawing the new seat safe GOP might force minorities into another one and endanger it. Actually the seat I drew in suburban Dallas was still only 48% white though with Hispanic turnout so low it probably would elect a Republican.

Also Chet Edwards might be able to breathe a sigh of relief, the new district should push the Dallas suburbs out of his.
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #857 on: September 07, 2010, 04:50:17 AM »

So where does everyone see the four new seats in Texas? I ended up with one Hispanic majority one in South Texas, one in suburban Houston, and two in the metroplex, one around Ft. Worth and one in suburban Dallas. Republicans btw might have a bit of dilemma in Houston and the metroplex where drawing the new seat safe GOP might force minorities into another one and endanger it. Actually the seat I drew in suburban Dallas was still only 48% white though with Hispanic turnout so low it probably would elect a Republican.

Also Chet Edwards might be able to breathe a sigh of relief, the new district should push the Dallas suburbs out of his.

Well, When I do a Republican gerrymander of Texas, I usually create one in between Austin and San Antonio, a minority-majority one in Dallas, one in Suburban Houston, and one in the rural areas between Houston and San Antonio.  It gives me about a 27-9 spread, and is fully VRA complaint.

The trick is you have to draw Hispanic-majority but Republican-leaning districts, which is much easier than it sounds if you know where to try.  If you take the current 29th, draw a line between the two "Claws" (you'll see what I mean) and extend it sweeping outwards through Pasadena and Baytown, you can get a district that's 60% Hispanic and 55% McCain with some fine tuning.  The trick is just to draw a Black-majority district that looks like a reverse question mark around it, which winds up like 60% Black and 91% Obama.

You can get another through gerrymandering South Texas and Corpus Christi, but it's usually only like 52% McCain, but probably still winnable for Republicans.

And Finally you can draw one from Odessa/Midland to Laredo and wind up with a district that's 60% McCain and 60% Hispanic.

I'd give you maps, but I'm currently trying to upload my 10-3 Republican gerrymander of North Carolina.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #858 on: September 07, 2010, 05:25:35 AM »

Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.





Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #859 on: September 07, 2010, 05:26:20 AM »

CD-1: Obama 65%, Mccain 33%
CD-2: Obama 42%, Mccain 56%
CD-3: Obama 51%, Mccain 48%
CD-4: Obama 44%, Mccain 54%
CD-5: Obama 69%, Mccain 29%
CD-6: Obama 75%, Mccain 23%
CD-7: Obama 72%, Mccain 27%
CD-8: Obama 85%, Mccain 13%
CD-9: Obama 87%, Mccain 11%
CD-10: Obama 64%, Mccain 34%
CD-11: Obama 57%, Mccain 41%
CD-12: Obama 74%, Mccain 24%
CD-13- Obama 72%, Mccain 26%
CD-14: Obama 71%, Mccain 27%
CD-15: Obama 68%, Mccain 30%
CD-16: Obama 70%, Mccain 28%
CD-17: Obama 64%, Mccain 34%
CD-18: Obama 58%, Mccain 42%
CD-19: Obama 45%, Mccain 53%
CD-20: Obama 56%, Mccain 43%
CD-21: Obama 44%, Mccain 55%
CD-22: Obama 38%, Mccain 60%
CD-23: Obama 62%, Mccain 36%
CD-24: Obama 49%, Mccain 50%
CD-25: Obama 49%, Mccain 49%
CD-26: Obama 53%, Mccain 45%
CD-27: Obama 66%, Mccain 32%
CD-28: Obama 72%, Mccain 26%
CD-29: Obama 66%, Mccain 32%
CD-30: Obama 73%, Mccain 25%
CD-31: Obama 80%, Mccain 17%
CD-32: Obama 72%, Mccain 26%
CD-33: Obama 88%, Mccain 10%
CD-34: Obama 86%, Mccain 12%
CD-35: Obama 85%, Mccain 14%
CD-36: Obama 61%, Mccain 37%
CD-37: Obama 62%, Mccain 36%
CD-38: Obama 65%, Mccain 33%
CD-39: Obama 62%, Mccain 36%
CD-40: Obama 51%, Mccain 47%
CD-41: Obama 43%, Mccain 55%
CD-42: Obama 46%, Mccain 52%
CD-43: Obama 67%, Mccain 31%
CD-44: Obama 58%, Mccain 40%
CD-45: Obama 54, Mccain 44%
CD-46: Obama 46%, Mccain 52%
CD-47: Obama 60%, Mccain 38%
CD-48: Obama 46%, Mccain 53%
CD-49: Obama 43%, Mccain 55%
CD-50: Obama 53%, Mccain 46%
CD-51: Obama 63%, Mccain 35%
CD-52: Obama 43%, Mccain 55%
CD-53: Obama 65%, Mccain 33%
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #860 on: September 07, 2010, 08:16:25 AM »

Also Chet Edwards might be able to breathe a sigh of relief, the new district should push the Dallas suburbs out of his.

I think this election is going to claim the ninth of his lives.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #861 on: September 07, 2010, 08:18:12 AM »
« Edited: September 07, 2010, 08:20:47 AM by brittain33 »

The trick is you have to draw Hispanic-majority but Republican-leaning districts, which is much easier than it sounds if you know where to try.

I'm curious how you define that as "fully VRA compliant." A district where there is a Hispanic majority, but your intent is for them to be outvoted by the Anglo minority in a polarized election with low Hispanic turnout, is not VRA compliant because the community does not get to elect "the candidate of their choice."
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #862 on: September 07, 2010, 08:24:04 AM »
« Edited: September 07, 2010, 08:28:33 AM by muon2 »

Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.







It looks nice. How many minority majority districts did you get? In particular how many Hispanic seats are there? Since CA will be over 1/3 Hispanic I would think that the VRA will require a number of seats roughly proportional to that as long as contiguous areas that are somewhat compact can be identified. Based on age profiles, I estimate that a district would have to be 55-60% Hispanic in total population to break 50% in voting age population.

I assume you know that you have a number of discontinuous pieces in your map. For instance there appears to be a piece of purple float in the brown area in Kern, and a number of fragments in the Bay area. I'm guessing that they wouldn't change the makeup of the districts much.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #863 on: September 07, 2010, 11:30:48 AM »

Yes, the discontinous parts were weird. Sometimes when I clicked on a certain block group, other ones away (not next to each other) from it also got highlighted and I couldn't always work around it. I didn't have this problem when I was working with the non-partisan data. But yes, they didn't make too much of a difference and usually didn't even contain a 1,000 people.

CD 15, 20, 28, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47 and 51 are all Hispanic majority. With the exception of CD-39, they all have at least a 55% Hispanic population.

CD 18, 33, 35 and 44 have more than a 40% Hispanic population. I also have two black districts, both in LA, that have a 35% black population. There are also a bunch of other districts with more than a 30% Hispanic population, so Hispanic interest groups could complain that their votes are being "wasted". I made this map pretty quickly so I didn't try too hard to draw Hispanic districts. I certainly should have been able to make another one in the central valley. It was easier to draw Hispanic majorities around LA since the population is more compact and I have a better understanding of where the Hispanic population lives, thus I could quickly make the Hispanic districts. So do you think this map would be acceptable or do I need more Hispanic 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 #864 on: September 07, 2010, 01:01:50 PM »

My perception Sbane is that it is VAP driven, not who votes driven. I think the SCOTUS decision written by Kennedy, bouncing the Bonilla district in and around San Antonio (because the district was only over 50% Hispanic based on total population, not VAP population), is the germaine one here. So if the Hispanic VAP percentage is over 50%, you should be OK from a federal voting rights law standpoint.

However, from a political standpoint, etc., the commission drawing the lines will be aware of what it takes to elect Hispanics, and will draw districts that way, at least to the extent it is reasonable to do so, does not step on the toes of others too much, and they comport with the compactness, community of interest, municipal and county lines, etc., aspects of the law.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #865 on: September 07, 2010, 04:43:41 PM »
« Edited: September 07, 2010, 04:54:33 PM by muon2 »

Yes, the discontinous parts were weird. Sometimes when I clicked on a certain block group, other ones away (not next to each other) from it also got highlighted and I couldn't always work around it. I didn't have this problem when I was working with the non-partisan data. But yes, they didn't make too much of a difference and usually didn't even contain a 1,000 people.

CD 15, 20, 28, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47 and 51 are all Hispanic majority. With the exception of CD-39, they all have at least a 55% Hispanic population.

CD 18, 33, 35 and 44 have more than a 40% Hispanic population. I also have two black districts, both in LA, that have a 35% black population. There are also a bunch of other districts with more than a 30% Hispanic population, so Hispanic interest groups could complain that their votes are being "wasted". I made this map pretty quickly so I didn't try too hard to draw Hispanic districts. I certainly should have been able to make another one in the central valley. It was easier to draw Hispanic majorities around LA since the population is more compact and I have a better understanding of where the Hispanic population lives, thus I could quickly make the Hispanic districts. So do you think this map would be acceptable or do I need more Hispanic districts?

There's no exact number that would guide how many majority VAP districts need to be made when there is a large fraction of the population such as in CA. The best direction comes from Johnson v. DeGrandy (1994) in ruling on FL legislative redistricting.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

In that case the court determined that FL did not have to maximize the districts in the Miami area, but only provide a number of districts that were roughly proportional to the VAP. Flipping this around would indicate that if the number of districts with a majority VAP is substantially less than the overall number then a section 2 VRA violation would be present. However, the court went to point out that merely meeting proportionality would not guarantee a valid map if other factors were used to deny minority voting strength.

DeGrandy was cited in LULAC v. Perry (2006) and used to give the following specific example.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

From this I would conclude that a statewide analysis of CA Hispanic voting age population would be required to determine an appropriate number of Hispanic districts. Estimates from 2008 put the Hispanic VAP at 32.8% of the population which would suggest that 17 districts would avoid a section 2 challenge on those grounds. Since the population fraction of 36.1% is 10% higher than the 32.8% of the VAP, I conclude that in general a district would need to be over 55% Hispanic to meet a 50% VAP threshold.

My earlier effort had 18 seats, with 17 in excess of 56% Hispanic. The intent was to meet the tests I would expect under the VRA.
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #866 on: September 07, 2010, 05:17:56 PM »

The trick is you have to draw Hispanic-majority but Republican-leaning districts, which is much easier than it sounds if you know where to try.

I'm curious how you define that as "fully VRA compliant." A district where there is a Hispanic majority, but your intent is for them to be outvoted by the Anglo minority in a polarized election with low Hispanic turnout, is not VRA compliant because the community does not get to elect "the candidate of their choice."

Well then, if The Democrats lose TX-23 to a candidate that won more of the white vote than the Hispanic vote, does that mean it no longer counts as a VRA district because a majority of Hispanics didn't vote for their current representative even if he himself is Hispanic?  What about my TX-29, where a White Democrat representing a Hispanic-majority district would be replaced (presumably) by a Hispanic Republican?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #867 on: September 07, 2010, 05:55:54 PM »

The trick is you have to draw Hispanic-majority but Republican-leaning districts, which is much easier than it sounds if you know where to try.

I'm curious how you define that as "fully VRA compliant." A district where there is a Hispanic majority, but your intent is for them to be outvoted by the Anglo minority in a polarized election with low Hispanic turnout, is not VRA compliant because the community does not get to elect "the candidate of their choice."

Well then, if The Democrats lose TX-23 to a candidate that won more of the white vote than the Hispanic vote, does that mean it no longer counts as a VRA district because a majority of Hispanics didn't vote for their current representative even if he himself is Hispanic?  What about my TX-29, where a White Democrat representing a Hispanic-majority district would be replaced (presumably) by a Hispanic Republican?

The LULAC opinion cited De Grandy on this issue.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that brittain33's statements reflect the courts opinions on this. One reason that the SCOTUS has refused to define a safe harbor for redistricting is that they believe that states are clever and will find ways to work around hard rules to dilute minority voting strength. The "totality of the circumstances" phrase is critical to their analyses of the last two cycles.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #868 on: September 07, 2010, 07:21:32 PM »

Well then, if The Democrats lose TX-23 to a candidate that won more of the white vote than the Hispanic vote, does that mean it no longer counts as a VRA district because a majority of Hispanics didn't vote for their current representative even if he himself is Hispanic?

It would depend on how polarized the vote is. In TX-23, it's pretty polarized, 1992 notwithstanding. One specific outcome doesn't matter as much as the potential for the minority community not to be consistently outvoted by the Anglo community. This is determined by numbers.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is too unlikely a Hispanic would win the Republican primary--but if he wins the election almost entirely on white votes, with Gene Green taking the lion's share of the Hispanic vote and still losing, yes, that would be a failure according to VRA. The ethnicity of the representative doesn't matter, only the ethnicity of his voters does. The same way that TN-9 is stll a VRA district despite electing Steve Cohen. He has been elected only with substantial African-American support in the Democratic primary.
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #869 on: September 07, 2010, 08:21:24 PM »

Wow.  You're telling me, it would violate the VRA to create a theoretical district that consists solely of Bexar county, Because despite being a Hispanic-majority district, a Republican might win it without winning the Hispanic vote?  That doesn't make any sense.  TX-15, TX-23, TX-27, and TX-28 all voted for Bush despite being Hispanic-majority because Bush won the small white populations in each district by more than Kerry won the Hispanic.  By the rules you give, none of those districts would be eligible for VRA certification, as in each a small white population can out-vote the Majority Hispanic population to flip the districts.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #870 on: September 07, 2010, 09:20:48 PM »

Wow.  You're telling me, it would violate the VRA to create a theoretical district that consists solely of Bexar county, Because despite being a Hispanic-majority district, a Republican might win it without winning the Hispanic vote?  That doesn't make any sense.  TX-15, TX-23, TX-27, and TX-28 all voted for Bush despite being Hispanic-majority because Bush won the small white populations in each district by more than Kerry won the Hispanic.  By the rules you give, none of those districts would be eligible for VRA certification, as in each a small white population can out-vote the Majority Hispanic population to flip the districts.

The presidential vote is not so relevant here, since it does not go towards electing a representative of that minority group. Also, there may specific elections where the majority minority does not succeed with a specific candidate (for instance during a "wave" election), but that does not affect the district for compliance with section 2 of the VRA. If 50% VAP is insufficient for a minority group to elect candidates of their choice, then there would have to be sufficient evidence to support a different percentage in that district.

Each case is considered uniquely under the VRA. That's one factor that adds to the challenge. A person drawing the district lines must consider the past history and current voting behavior of the particular group to ascertain compliance. So to your assertion about Bexar (which is actually larger than 2 CDs) it might or might not be valid depending on the totality of TX districts.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,582
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #871 on: September 07, 2010, 09:32:46 PM »

Tom DeLay already tried that loophole with heavily Republican districts with non-voting Hispanics, and it got shot down by a federal court, hence why Ciro Rodriguez is back in Congress. Safe to say the Obama DOJ won't be more lenient.

Really it would take a rather vile gerrymander not to draw at least one new district in South Texas that is supermajority Hispanic.
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 #872 on: September 07, 2010, 09:35:14 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is there a SCOTUS case that clearly says that Muon2?  Just asking.

And what does candidate of their choice mean - the chap whom at least 50% + 1 of Hispanics vote for?  That seems kind of hard to effect. How does one know? Is there any case law on what the definition of "candidate of their choice" means?
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 #873 on: September 07, 2010, 09:36:57 PM »

Tom DeLay already tried that loophole with heavily Republican districts with non-voting Hispanics, and it got shot down by a federal court, hence why Ciro Rodriguez is back in Congress. Safe to say the Obama DOJ won't be more lenient.

Really it would take a rather vile gerrymander not to draw at least one new district in South Texas that is supermajority Hispanic.

I know the Bonilla case turned on VAP versus population. The Bonilla district was based on population (barely over 50% Hispanic) and not VAP, and Kennedy said it had to be VAP. 
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #874 on: September 07, 2010, 10:11:51 PM »

Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.






Will more respect for county lines be required?  You have 4 districts crossing the Los Angeles San Bernadino county line.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 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 0.078 seconds with 13 queries.