Most deceptive gerrymander? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 22, 2024, 11:48:49 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, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Most deceptive gerrymander? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Most deceptive gerrymander?  (Read 8083 times)
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« on: September 12, 2010, 03:53:23 AM »

Ohio is sort of like Michigan, though not quite as bad. GA (GOP version) and IN (a Dem map) are really quite mild gerrymanders of the type I cannot care about as long as far worse outrages exist.

VA is not really deceptive at all. It's hideous at first glance.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2010, 02:33:08 PM »

Well, no. It's more that concentrated strength makes it easier to gerrymander effectively.
Well, specifically in the case of Michigan, community of interest considerations would certainly create the two Black seats and probably Sander Levin's too - though very little else of the state would look anything like it does now.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2010, 03:05:44 PM »

Well, no. It's more that concentrated strength makes it easier to gerrymander effectively.
Well, specifically in the case of Michigan, community of interest considerations would certainly create the two Black seats and probably Sander Levin's too - though very little else of the state would look anything like it does now.

Community of interest maps would create only 1 black seat--Detroit.  They way it's split now is designed to split the 80% Black Detroit into 2 Districts to comply with VRA regulations for the state, but you can fit a district entirely inside the city easily (though the central enclaves would make such a map messy)
But you can't fit all the areas that really "ought" to be in a purely urban district into a single district.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2010, 04:07:39 PM »

- putting the UP district down the more blue-collar eastern half of the LP rather than the summer playgrounds around Traverse City
It extends all the way into the Saginaw suburbs, leaving out a lot of areas further northeast that fit in much better.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
It only looks that way on the map, it's mostly a Detroit suburban district. With another bit of the Bay City area thrown in if I remember correctly.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
It's not all of Saginaw.

All of these are related of course - the result of trying hard to eliminate the safe-but-not-overwhelming-D Saginaw-based district that existed until 2000. And to create a seat tailored for Miller - who, with McCotter, essentially drew the map.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Ann Arbor/Dingell is merely hilarious. (Though might have happened even with a commission.) Lansing is plain disgusting.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Yes - they'd still be winning half the seats if down a fair few points. But never two thirds.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2010, 04:10:20 PM »

Nah, sorry, it's the safe R 4th district that includes a bizarre spike into Saginaw.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2010, 04:14:10 PM »

But can you really call it a gerrymander if the Districts are reasonable and just happen to favor one party?
But they aren't. Unless you 're talking about Colorado again, that would be something of an example of that. (Though not a perfect one... try Oregon for that.)
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2010, 03:52:41 AM »

OK here goes. I guess JLT had a bit of a point about Grand Rapids though the seat isn't that winnable regardless. And I know it's far from perfect for a lot of reasons but anyway here is Michigan redrawn with 2002 Census data:



Too lazy to try right now - or even to dig up my old attempts from years ago - but since Flint and Saginaw/Bay City (metros) are too large to fit into one district together, wouldn't you "fairly" draw a seat based on each, including the actually thumb parts of what looks like a thumb-based district? That ought shift the red and grey seats south, also eliminate that orange rurban thing, transfer Detroit Suburban areas clockwise.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2010, 12:17:38 PM »

Just because it votes Democratic doesn't mean it's not a leafy, affluent suburban quasi-city. Tongue
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2010, 01:17:19 PM »

That seat would be a tossup though. No Ann Arbor seat should be. BTW it appears that Ypsilanti is actually even more Dem than Ann Arbor.
Go figure.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2010, 04:04:19 AM »

No. Don't get yourself confused by the 2008 map, take a look at 1996 or 2000 instead. Noone was going to consider Boise the Dems' strongest area in 2000.
Boise also happens to be slap bang in the middle of the state and it's difficult to get from the one end to the other except via Boise - there isn't actually a sensible alternative to splitting it (though the exact split might have been done better.)
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.024 seconds with 11 queries.