NC Congressional Map Thrown Out

[Oryxslayer]

Here is a definitely and completely fair map that I made as a replacement for the current map.

Is this a D or R gerrymander, I mean I get NC geography to some degree but I can't really tell.

Extreme R gerry. 11 Trump-3 Clinton with no Trump-voting seat below Trump+18.3.

I assume you mean 10 Trump 3 Clinton? This is 2020, not 2021, we're  still using the 9 year old data for this remap.

[nerd73]

Here is a definitely and completely fair map that I made as a replacement for the current map.

Is this a D or R gerrymander, I mean I get NC geography to some degree but I can't really tell.

Extreme R gerry. 11 Trump-3 Clinton with no Trump-voting seat below Trump+18.3.

I assume you mean 10 Trump 3 Clinton? This is 2020, not 2021, we're  still using the 9 year old data for this remap.

Yeah 10 Trump-3 Clinton.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wonderful news!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It was only a matter of time. I am glad that this day has come.

[Vern]

Oh boy, I guess I will be getting a new congressperson

[senyor_brownbear]

If Democrats ever control Texas and/or Georgia supreme courts, could GOP maps there also be overturned? Or does North Carolina just have a unique constitution that allows this to happen?

[windjammer]

If Democrats ever control Texas and/or Georgia supreme courts, could GOP maps there also be overturned? Or does North Carolina just have a unique constitution that allows this to happen?

Texas Supreme court justices are elected, so that could happen to them.

[IceSpear]

Here is a definitely and completely fair map that I made as a replacement for the current map.

Is this a D or R gerrymander, I mean I get NC geography to some degree but I can't really tell.

Extreme R gerry. 11 Trump-3 Clinton with no Trump-voting seat below Trump+18.3.

LOL, I couldn't tell either. I thought it was a parody of the posters that post blatant D gerrymanders as "fair maps" to replace R gerrymanders.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Here is a definitely and completely fair map that I made as a replacement for the current map.

Is this a D or R gerrymander, I mean I get NC geography to some degree but I can't really tell.

Extreme R gerry. 11 Trump-3 Clinton with no Trump-voting seat below Trump+18.3.

LOL, I couldn't tell either. I thought it was a parody of the posters that post blatant D gerrymanders as "fair maps" to replace R gerrymanders.

I like how the yellow and green districts look kinda like an alligator eating a chicken. 

[Vern]

When do you think we will get new maps?

[Jamison5]

Now they need to fix Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Illinois

[Brittain33]

Now they need to fix Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Illinois

I'm sure the Supreme Court of North Carolina will get right on that.

[Jamison5]

Now they need to fix Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Illinois

I'm sure the Supreme Court of North Carolina will get right on that.

Of course North Carolina won't take care of other states like that. You completely misrepresented what I said. I hate Gerrymandering on both sides. The new map in NC will cost my side a few seats and rightfully so. My point is that the state legislatures in other states should make better maps for their states, and that the Democrats have selective outrage on this issue. For example, Massachusetts was 60-33 in the 2016 election. I think a 7-2 delegation would be fair for that. Instead, Massachusetts has 9 safe blue districts. Tennessee also has 9 districts and went by about the same margin for Trump, it's delegation is 7-2.

[lfromnj]

Now they need to fix Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Illinois

I'm sure the Supreme Court of North Carolina will get right on that.

Of course North Carolina won't take care of other states like that. You completely misrepresented what I said. I hate Gerrymandering on both sides. The new map in NC will cost my side a few seats and rightfully so. My point is that the state legislatures in other states should make better maps for their states, and that the Democrats have selective outrage on this issue. For example, Massachusetts was 60-33 in the 2016 election. I think a 7-2 delegation would be fair for that. Instead, Massachusetts has 9 safe blue districts. Tennessee also has 9 districts and went by about the same margin for Trump, it's delegation is 7-2.

Well Tn is two things. Two compact districts give ds a clear seat in Nashville and Memphis. I expect the GOp to take away the Nashville seat as it isnt very blue and the surrounding area is very red. In massachussets its impossible to draw red leaning districts without getting ugly.  Use Maryland. IMO compact districts in maryland should obviously give 2 seats to the GOP with an outside shot at in the South.
Illinois would probably help with one district(the 17th) to the GOp by making it much more Trumpy although every other incumbent gets shored up basically as Il is one of the least effective gerrymanders.
I dont really know about Ct too much.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Now they need to fix Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Illinois

I'm sure the Supreme Court of North Carolina will get right on that.

Of course North Carolina won't take care of other states like that. You completely misrepresented what I said. I hate Gerrymandering on both sides. The new map in NC will cost my side a few seats and rightfully so. My point is that the state legislatures in other states should make better maps for their states, and that the Democrats have selective outrage on this issue. For example, Massachusetts was 60-33 in the 2016 election. I think a 7-2 delegation would be fair for that. Instead, Massachusetts has 9 safe blue districts. Tennessee also has 9 districts and went by about the same margin for Trump, it's delegation is 7-2.

Show me a fair Massachusetts map that would elect a 7-2 delegation.

If the Democrats in Tennessee were all in isolated pockets strewn across the state all swamped by hardcore Republican territory then the Republicans would have a 9-0 map. And if the Republicans in Massachusetts were all packed into two urban centers that each dominated their districts, Massachusetts would probably have 7-2 map. But that's not the case in either state.

[Nyvin]

Now they need to fix Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Illinois

I'm sure the Supreme Court of North Carolina will get right on that.

Of course North Carolina won't take care of other states like that. You completely misrepresented what I said. I hate Gerrymandering on both sides. The new map in NC will cost my side a few seats and rightfully so. My point is that the state legislatures in other states should make better maps for their states, and that the Democrats have selective outrage on this issue. For example, Massachusetts was 60-33 in the 2016 election. I think a 7-2 delegation would be fair for that. Instead, Massachusetts has 9 safe blue districts. Tennessee also has 9 districts and went by about the same margin for Trump, it's delegation is 7-2.

You would have to deliberately draw two swing seats (not safe R seats, that's impossible) in Massachusetts.   

In other words,  you'd be asking for a Republican gerrymander in Mass.

Fair maps in Maryland and Illinois would probably net the Republicans 1 seat each,  but those are really the only legit cases of partisan gerrymandering by Democrats in the country, while there are countless examples done by Republicans all over the nation.

[slothdem]

Now they need to fix Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Illinois

I'm sure the Supreme Court of North Carolina will get right on that.

Of course North Carolina won't take care of other states like that. You completely misrepresented what I said. I hate Gerrymandering on both sides. The new map in NC will cost my side a few seats and rightfully so. My point is that the state legislatures in other states should make better maps for their states, and that the Democrats have selective outrage on this issue. For example, Massachusetts was 60-33 in the 2016 election. I think a 7-2 delegation would be fair for that. Instead, Massachusetts has 9 safe blue districts. Tennessee also has 9 districts and went by about the same margin for Trump, it's delegation is 7-2.

You would have to deliberately draw two swing seats (not safe R seats, that's impossible) in Massachusetts.   

In other words,  you'd be asking for a Republican gerrymander in Mass.

Fair maps in Maryland and Illinois would probably net the Republicans 1 seat each,  but those are really the only legit cases of partisan gerrymandering by Democrats in the country, while there are countless examples done by Republicans all over the nation.

I've seen the R gerry's of Massachusettes with the two R swing states (usually one Obama Trump and one Romney/Clinton) but I'm skeptical that a republican candidate could actually win them. Local dem strength in mass is just too strong. Republicans probably would have won a fairly drawn Trump-voting NW Connecticut seat in 2016, but would have coughed it up in the 2018 wave which hit New England especially hard. On our current map I would say gerrymandering favors the following:

Maryland: Dems +1
Illinois: Dems +1
North Carolina: GOP +2 or 3 (so GOP advantage in NC equals the entire Dem advantage nationwide)
Texas: GOP +1-3
Ohio: GOP +1-3
Alabama: GOP +1
Louisiana: GOP +1

So on the low end GOP gerrymandering has cost Democrats an absolute minimum of 6 seats, and possibly as many as 11 (vs 2-3 Dem seats). Additionally, we currently hold gerrymander'd seats in Charleston, SLC, and OKC that would be significantly more Democratic under a fair map.

[Non Swing Voter]

Now they need to fix Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Illinois

Connecticut isn't really gerrymandered though.  Connecticut has 4 or 5 big (relative to size of the state) cities that are democrat leaning and spaced well apart and in different counties.

Bridgeport makes Fairfield County safe Dem.
New Haven makes New Haven County and surrounding area safe Dem.
Hartford makes that area safe Dem.
New London and UCONN area makes that area lean Dem.

I suppose the western part of the state could be more swingy but it isn't particularly gerrymandered. 

Not every state that has an out of balance delegation is gerrymandered.  Nobody really complains about Arkansas even though it was 4 GOP Congressmen and 0 Dem Congressmen.

Maryland definitely is gerrymandered though.  But it would be hard for a fair map to net Republicans more than 1 additional district.

[socaldem]

Now they need to fix Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Illinois

I'm sure the Supreme Court of North Carolina will get right on that.

Of course North Carolina won't take care of other states like that. You completely misrepresented what I said. I hate Gerrymandering on both sides. The new map in NC will cost my side a few seats and rightfully so. My point is that the state legislatures in other states should make better maps for their states, and that the Democrats have selective outrage on this issue. For example, Massachusetts was 60-33 in the 2016 election. I think a 7-2 delegation would be fair for that. Instead, Massachusetts has 9 safe blue districts. Tennessee also has 9 districts and went by about the same margin for Trump, it's delegation is 7-2.

You would have to deliberately draw two swing seats (not safe R seats, that's impossible) in Massachusetts.   

In other words,  you'd be asking for a Republican gerrymander in Mass.

Fair maps in Maryland and Illinois would probably net the Republicans 1 seat each,  but those are really the only legit cases of partisan gerrymandering by Democrats in the country, while there are countless examples done by Republicans all over the nation.

I've seen the R gerry's of Massachusettes with the two R swing states (usually one Obama Trump and one Romney/Clinton) but I'm skeptical that a republican candidate could actually win them. Local dem strength in mass is just too strong. Republicans probably would have won a fairly drawn Trump-voting NW Connecticut seat in 2016, but would have coughed it up in the 2018 wave which hit New England especially hard. On our current map I would say gerrymandering favors the following:

Maryland: Dems +1
Illinois: Dems +1
North Carolina: GOP +2 or 3 (so GOP advantage in NC equals the entire Dem advantage nationwide)
Texas: GOP +1-3
Ohio: GOP +1-3
Alabama: GOP +1
Louisiana: GOP +1

So on the low end GOP gerrymandering has cost Democrats an absolute minimum of 6 seats, and possibly as many as 11 (vs 2-3 Dem seats). Additionally, we currently hold gerrymander'd seats in Charleston, SLC, and OKC that would be significantly more Democratic under a fair map.

I would add that in FL, Diaz-Balart's district is kind of odd, which helps Republicans.

NE-02 is a slight gerrymander against Dems.

In Utah, the toss-up seat would become solidly Democratic.

In Georgia, the 6th and/or 7th would be bluer if the 11th weren't gerrymandered into Cobb County.

The Dem gerrymander in Arkansas backfired but a fair map could produce either the 4-0 situation or a Dem-leaning/toss-up seat.

Mississippi and SC could have additional Dem-leaning/toss-up seats with clean lines.

In Michigan, the Grand Rapids seat (CD3) is slightly gerrymandered to favor Republicans, but the Flint seat (CD5) which was originally a Dem vote sink would have voted heavily for Trump absent a gerrymander.

[Brittain33]

Reminder of our forum policy on redistricting:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=332675.0

This is a great thread for discussing the impact of NC redistricting on incumbents and new candidates, but if we’re rehashing a discussion about other states that’s been held many times there are other places for that.

[Vern]

I wonder if Mark Walker is put in a heavy Democratic district if he will jump in the Senate or Governors race.