US House Redistricting: Ohio
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:55:36 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)
  US House Redistricting: Ohio
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 37
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Ohio  (Read 135469 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #650 on: October 21, 2011, 12:09:13 PM »
« edited: October 21, 2011, 11:33:48 PM by jimrtex »



This table shows the contribution to the 16 new districts from the existing 18 districts.  A district with 1/18 of the state population would still need to add 11% to achieve the ideal population of 1/16 of the population.  So 80% carryover is actually a very high overlap.

DistrictSourcePopulationPercentageNotes
1
1
598,699
83%
Retained
1
2
120,362
17%
Hamilton (part)
1
8
2,343
0%
Butler (part)
2
2
478,933
66%
Retained
2
3
85,629
12%
Clinton, Highland
2
6
34,895
5%
Scioto (part)
2
7
59,619
8%
Fayette, Pickaway (part), Ross (part)
2
18
62,414
9%
Ross (part)
3
3
555,270
77%
Retained
3
2
74,578
10%
Warren (part)
3
8
90,722
13%
Montgomery (part)
4
5
495,693
69%
Renumbered from OH-5
4
4
225,641
31%
Allen, Hancock, Hardin, Wyandot (part), from old OH-4
5
18
403,624
56%
Renumbered from OH-18
5
4
225,803
31%
Marion, Morrow, Richland, from old OH-4
5
5
13,236
2%
Ashland (part), from old OH-5
5
12
7
0%
Knox (part)
5
16
78,400
11%
Ashland (part),  Wayne (part)
6
6
582,554
81%
Retained
6
17
12,412
2%
Mahoning (part)
6
18
126,000
17%
Athens (part), Belmont (part), Hocking, Jackson, Morgan, Vinton
7
7
584,035
81%
Retained
7
4
40,097
6%
Champaign, from old OH-4
7
12
0
0%
Franklin (part)
7
15
97,233
13%
Franklin (small part),Marion, Union
8
8
570,579
79%
Retained
8
4
141,230
20%
Auglaize, Logan, Shelby, from old OH-4
8
5
9,485
1%
Mercer (part), from old OH-5
8
1
0
0%
Butler (part)
9
9
611,359
85%
Retained
9
5
109,385
15%
Huron, Lucas (part), Sandusky (part), from old OH-5
10
11
485,137
67%
Renumbered from old OH-11
10
10
236,041
33%
Cuyahoga (part), from old OH-10
11
17
504,391
70%
Renumbered from OH-17
11
6
6,293
1%
Mahoning (part)
11
13
157,309
22%
Summit (part)
11
14
52,651
7%
Summit (part)
12
12
622,141
86%
Retained
12
7
37,358
5%
Perry, Fairfield (small part), Franklin (very small part).
12
18
61,129
8%
Licking (part)
13
13
361,156
50%
Retained
13
9
7,651
1%
Lorain (part)
13
10
352,575
49%
Cuyahoga (part), from old OH-10
14
14
595,477
83%
Retained
14
10
10,589
1%
Cuyahoga (part), from old OH-10
14
11
55,295
8%
Cuyahoga (part), from old OH-11
14
13
19,821
3%
Cuyahoga (part), Summit (part)
14
17
39,490
5%
Trumbull (part)
15
15
584,324
81%
Retained
15
7
2,359
0%
Franklin (part)
15
12
134,155
19%
Franklin (part)
16
16
566,291
79%
Retained
16
13
110,816
15%
Summit (part), Medina (small part)
16
17
43,818
6%
Summit (part), Portage (part)

Districts with relatively low overlap:

OH-2, which transferred 120,000 persons to OH-1, and also had a significant exchange with OH-3.  This could have been avoided, but would have meant that OH-2 would wrap around Clinton and Highland counties.  Instead these counties join others in southern Ohio to form a significant share of the district outside the Cincinnati suburbs.

OH-4 (renumbered OH-5) which had a transfer of 109,000 to OH-9, and was on the small side to begin with.

OH-5 (renumbered OH-18) which had a major shift westward and northward as it was affected by both merged districts, and transfers to other districts.

OH-10 (renumbered OH-11) 2/3 of the merged district comes from OH-11 and 1/3 from old OH-10.

OH-11 (renumbered OH-18) significant growth in Akron area to make up for low initial population.

OH-13 major northward shift, with district now comprised of equal parts of the old OH-10 and existing OH-13.

If we consider current all constituents of OH-4 and OH-10 to be assigned to new districts, then 2,936,841 or 25.5% of Ohioans are assigned to new districts.  If we remove the residents who were moved from those two districts to OH-5 (old OH-18) and OH-13, then 20.4% of Ohioans are assigned to new districts.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #651 on: October 21, 2011, 11:38:48 PM »


The median strip of I-70 is a continuous string of census blocks from Columbus past Springfield into Montgomery County, and there are SW links into Dayton.

I bet they could do Toledo-Cleveland, Akron-Canton-Columbus, and Springfield-Dayton-Cincinnati if they could get LULAC to help out.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #652 on: October 21, 2011, 11:51:37 PM »

Apparently Republicans are proposing to pick off Democratic votes by stretching OH-3 from Columbus to Dayton, making it 42% black and possibly violating court precedents while wrecking one of the few areas of the map that didn't look like Maryland.

Was that the GOP is attempting to pick off Black Democrat legislators?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #653 on: October 22, 2011, 12:54:17 AM »

Apparently Republicans are proposing to pick off Democratic votes by stretching OH-3 from Columbus to Dayton, making it 42% black and possibly violating court precedents while wrecking one of the few areas of the map that didn't look like Maryland.

Was that the GOP is attempting to pick off Black Democrat legislators?

I think the accurate statement is that GOP legislators had discussions with the Ohio Black Legislative Caucus about the map. If a compromise would be reached that garnered the votes of both groups, then that total would be large enough to prevent a referendum. Recent reports have the OBLC staying with the Dems, but discussions continue.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #654 on: October 22, 2011, 02:07:40 AM »

Apparently Republicans are proposing to pick off Democratic votes by stretching OH-3 from Columbus to Dayton, making it 42% black and possibly violating court precedents while wrecking one of the few areas of the map that didn't look like Maryland.

Was that the GOP is attempting to pick off Black Democrat legislators?

I think the accurate statement is that GOP legislators had discussions with the Ohio Black Legislative Caucus about the map. If a compromise would be reached that garnered the votes of both groups, then that total would be large enough to prevent a referendum. Recent reports have the OBLC staying with the Dems, but discussions continue.

I've read similar reports in the Columbus Dispatch.  The current public position of the OLBC seems to be that they would like to get a plan that all Democrats would be satisfied with and would also maximize the opportunity for Ohio to elect a second black representative.

Without drawing these to see how it would work, here's what I view as likely in a compromise plan: Three districts will be drawn entirely within the three largest counties: Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton.  Summit, Montgomery, and Lucas counties will be made almost if not entirely whole.  (At the least there would be no three way splits of those counties and no splits of their most populous cities.)  The Columbus area will still hold major influence over at least 3 districts but the proposed OH-15 will be made less insane.  The old OH-10 and OH-7 are the eliminated districts.  The OH-6 Ohio River district will mostly remain intact.  In the end, Democrats will hold the advantage in at least 6 districts.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #655 on: October 22, 2011, 09:11:40 AM »
« Edited: October 22, 2011, 12:02:31 PM by muon2 »

Apparently Republicans are proposing to pick off Democratic votes by stretching OH-3 from Columbus to Dayton, making it 42% black and possibly violating court precedents while wrecking one of the few areas of the map that didn't look like Maryland.

Was that the GOP is attempting to pick off Black Democrat legislators?

I think the accurate statement is that GOP legislators had discussions with the Ohio Black Legislative Caucus about the map. If a compromise would be reached that garnered the votes of both groups, then that total would be large enough to prevent a referendum. Recent reports have the OBLC staying with the Dems, but discussions continue.

I've read similar reports in the Columbus Dispatch.  The current public position of the OLBC seems to be that they would like to get a plan that all Democrats would be satisfied with and would also maximize the opportunity for Ohio to elect a second black representative.

Without drawing these to see how it would work, here's what I view as likely in a compromise plan: Three districts will be drawn entirely within the three largest counties: Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton.  Summit, Montgomery, and Lucas counties will be made almost if not entirely whole.  (At the least there would be no three way splits of those counties and no splits of their most populous cities.)  The Columbus area will still hold major influence over at least 3 districts but the proposed OH-15 will be made less insane.  The old OH-10 and OH-7 are the eliminated districts.  The OH-6 Ohio River district will mostly remain intact.  In the end, Democrats will hold the advantage in at least 6 districts.

I would generally agree, but I see small excursions outside the big three counties. For example, a 50%+1 BVAP district in Cuyahoga requires population from neighboring counties, though it doesn't necessarily need Akron. Similarly the BVAP percentage for a Columbus district can be improved by adding population just east of Franklin. I modified a competition map to demonstrate that.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #656 on: October 22, 2011, 10:42:19 AM »


The median strip of I-70 is a continuous string of census blocks from Columbus past Springfield into Montgomery County, and there are SW links into Dayton.

I bet they could do Toledo-Cleveland, Akron-Canton-Columbus, and Springfield-Dayton-Cincinnati if they could get LULAC to help out.

Do you think Ohio's Republicans need any help with shenanigans like that?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #657 on: October 22, 2011, 11:53:57 AM »

Democrats are standing solid and united like a stone wall.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2011/10/22/2-Ohio-primary-dates-OK-d-district-maps-still-disputed.html
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #658 on: October 22, 2011, 06:37:46 PM »



This table shows the distribution of the existing 18 districts.  From this perspective, most districts retain a large share of their current constituents.

DistrictDestinationPopulationPercentageNotes
1
1
598,699
100%
Retained
1
8
0
0%
Butler (part)
2
2
478,933
71%
Retained
2
1
120,362
18%
Hamilton (part)
2
3
74,578
11%
Warren (part)
3
3
555,270
87%
Retained
3
2
85,629
13%
Clinton, Highland
4
5
225,803
36%
Marion, Morrow, Richland, to old OH-18
4
4
225,641
36%
Allen, Hancock, Hardin, Wyandot (part), to old OH-5
4
8
141,230
22%
Auglaize, Logan, Shelby
4
7
40,097
6%
Champaign
5
4
495,693
79%
Renumbered to OH-4
5
9
109,385
17%
Huron, Lucas (part), Sandusky (part)
5
5
13,236
2%
Ashland (part), to old OH-18
5
8
9,485
2%
Mercer (part)
6
6
582,554
93%
Retained
6
2
34,895
6%
Scioto (part)
6
11
6,293
1%
Mahoning (part), to old OH-17
7
7
584,035
85%
Retained
7
2
59,619
9%
Fayette, Pickaway (part), Ross (part)
7
12
37,358
5%
Perry, Fairfield (small part), Franklin (very small part).
7
15
2,359
0%
Franklin (part)
8
8
570,579
86%
Retained
8
3
90,722
14%
Montgomery (part)
8
1
2,343
0%
Butler (part)
9
9
611,359
99%
Retained
9
13
7,651
1%
Lorain (part)
10
13
352,575
59%
Cuyahoga (part)
10
10
236,041
39%
Cuyahoga (part), to old OH-11
10
14
10,589
2%
Cuyahoga (part)
11
10
485,137
90%
Renumbered to OH-10
11
14
55,295
10%
Cuyahoga (part)
12
12
622,141
82%
Retained
12
15
134,155
18%
Franklin (part)
12
5
7
0%
Knox (part), to old OH-18
12
7
0
0%
Franklin (part)
13
13
361,156
56%
Retained
13
11
157,309
24%
Summit (part), to old OH-17
13
16
110,816
17%
Summit (part), Medina (small part)
13
14
19,821
3%
Cuyahoga (part), Summit (part)
14
14
595,477
92%
Retained
14
11
52,651
8%
Summit (part), to old OH-17
15
15
584,324
86%
Retained
15
7
97,233
14%
Franklin (small part), Marion, Union
16
16
566,291
88%
Retained
16
5
78,400
12%
Ashland (part), Wayne (part), to old OH-18
17
11
504,391
84%
Renumbered to OH-11
17
16
43,818
7%
Summit (part), Portage (part)
17
14
39,490
7%
Trumbull (part)
17
6
12,412
2%
Mahoning (part)
18
5
403,624
62%
Renumbered to OH-5
18
6
126,000
19%
Athens (part), Belmont (part), Hocking, Jackson, Morgan, Vinton
18
2
62,414
10%
Ross (part)
18
12
61,129
9%
Licking (part)

Districts with relatively low retention:

OH-2 transferred 120,000 persons to OH-1, and also had a significant exchange with OH-3. This could have been avoided, but would have meant that OH-2 would wrap around Clinton and Highland counties.

OH-4 is decimated with the largest share, by a tiny fraction shifted to OH-18, which is renumbered to OH-5.  In reality, the merger of OH-4 and OH-5 was an elimination of OH-4, and the old OH-5 taking over the district number.

59% of OH-10 is shifted into OH-13 and 56% of the current OH-13 is retained, meaning that the new OH-13 could meaningfully be considered a merger of the two districts.

OH-18 shifts westward, losing the southern tail it gained in 2002.  It also renumbered to OH-5 to reflect the reduction to 16 districts.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #659 on: October 23, 2011, 12:19:33 AM »


I think this reaffirms that a map similar to muon's above is what the Democrats are going to demand.  They aren't going to accept any of the urban core cracking that Republicans are trying to pull off.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #660 on: October 23, 2011, 07:25:16 AM »

My attempt at a court-drawn map a compromise map with court criteria on everyone's minds.



Inserts:

Northeast



Columbus



Cincinnati



Incumbents thrown under a bus: Betty Sutton, Bob Gibbs

Incumbents thrown under a bus, but outfitted with kevlar vests: Bill Johnson, Steve Chabot

Incumbent doused with napalm, thrown under a burning bus, and any remains used for medical experiments: Steve Stivers

CD1 Cincinnati (Chabot)
54.5% Obama, 51.5% average (I do not know how telling the DRA's "average" figure is, exactly, but I do think it's valuable as a corrective additional info. Obama's vote distribution in the state was far from typical.) 27.8% Black.
This is actually a mild Republican gerrymander (one of three such that I did on purpose.) If you concede that the district will lose its share of Butler and will take in all of Cincinnati proper and of the Black-dominated suburbs, and you're not drawing the remainder precinct-by-precinct but rather attempt to keep townships whole (and I don't believe that any of this is negotiable if a map is to require any sort of non-Republican buy-in), then this is as good as it gets for Chabot. My first attempt before looking at vote shares was 55.6% Obama... and that was a fair bit away from the most Dem-friendly arrangement.

CD2 East Cincinnati suburbs / Southern part of state (Schmidt)
60.0% McCain, 55.9% average
Picks up remainder of Scioto and southerly parts of the abolished 18th. Warren County split disentangled somewhat.

CD3 Dayton and points southeast (Turner)
50.9% McCain, 52.5% average
Fairly minor changes all told, mostly picking up suburbs northeast of Dayton. Still perfectly safe for Turner, still likely Republican without him.

CD4 Central Ohio (Jordan, Gibbs)
55.6% McCain, 52.0% average
Includes far more of Jordan's than Gibbs' district.

CD5 North West Central (Latta)
55.2% McCain, 56.1% average
Loses its bit of Toledo suburbia, gains Ashland, Findlay, Lima.

CD6 Ohio River Valley (Johnson)
49.8% McCain, 63.3% Dem average
My first draft of this was Obama by 47 votes. I then rejigged Mahoning County under strictly partisan considerations, and drew the district into Portage in the process. Still, it's fundamentally the same district as before (picking up some bits of the 18th, of course) - and thus a district that was originally drawn to be safe D. How it will perform in congressional elections in the future, we can only wait and see.

CD7 South of Columbus (Austria)
56.2% McCain, 55.3% average
Gains Madison County. Also, see CD15.

CD8 Butler County, rural southwest (Boehner)
63.6% McCain, 62.4% average
Needed to pick up 2 2/2 counties to the north after I dropped the Dayton suburbs.

CD9 Toledo and points east (Kaptur)
60.3% Obama, 64.3% average
Gains marginal parts just outside Toledo. Eastern boundary is virtually unchanged, see below.

CD10 West Cleveland, Lorain (Kucinich?)
55.7% Obama, 61.2% average
The six current northeastern districts, minus Ashland which really doesn't belong, have exactly the population needed for five districts. Fudge's district is protected, and the others hold corners, so Sutton's is the one to go. That's a logic that's hard to avoid. There's also not much room for variation in which areas Fudge picks up, once you decide on the Akron thingy (and my views on that are pretty clearcut). I did give her Twinsburg so that Kucinich can hold onto a bit of Cleveland proper, no idea if he actually lives in it. And he picks up the whole of the Lorain and Cuyahoga parts of Sutton's district.

CD11 Cleveland (Fudge)
82.1% Obama, 82.7% average, 50.1% Black
47.5% VAP in DRA figures, which presumably translates to a little over 48.0 once you use Black alone or in combination of any origin. 48% was that NAACP benchmark figure, and anyways you can't get it much higher without going to Akron.

CD12 North of Columbus (Tiberi)
55.2% McCain, 57.3% average
Picks up the remainder of Licking and most of Union Counties. Also, see below, CD15.

CD13 Youngstown / Warren & Akron (Ryan, Sutton)
65.1% Obama, 73.0% average
The old 17th picks up all of Akron and the suburbs to the immediate west (which is where Sutton lives). Renumbered the 13th. Also, see under 6th and 14th.

CD14 Northeast corner (LaTourette)
50.0% McCain, 51.4% Dem average
Care had to be taken in deciding which areas to add to the district. Still safe for LaTourette, still wide-open without him, but slightly more Republican now than it used to be (McCain carried the old version, but ever so barely).

CD15 Columbus (Stivers)
69.5% Obama, 67.3% average. 29.9% Black
Once it's decided that the district is to be conceded, there was no reason not to positively pack it with Democrats. As I did. Townships have pretty much been paid attention to only if they had remotely reasonable boundaries, as all too many of them don't in Franklin County. None of the Republicans' map's ridiculous putting-Stivers-former-home-in-another-district crap.

CD16 Canton (Renacci)
49.8% McCain, 52.5% Dem average
Loses Ashland, gains remainder of Medina and some suburbs in southern Summit County from Sutton's district. Doesn't change the partisan figures much and remains a marginal district. Renacci certainly hasn't been targetted, he merely hasn't been propped up.

So bottom line 8-5-3. 9-7 if I break the ties (Renacci to hold, Chabot and Johnson to lose).
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #661 on: October 23, 2011, 09:14:12 PM »

I'm generally against the Austria protection maps just because I don't like how they all link South Columbus with the Dayton suburbs.  I'd much rather see his district dismantled completely and have the southern Columbus metro counties become part of an appalachain district.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,706
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #662 on: October 23, 2011, 09:38:50 PM »

Austria's current seat is already kind of a leftovers district so eliminating it is pretty fair. But of course doing that would be OMG RACIST!!11!!
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #663 on: October 23, 2011, 10:44:21 PM »

I'm generally against the Austria protection maps just because I don't like how they all link South Columbus with the Dayton suburbs.  I'd much rather see his district dismantled completely and have the southern Columbus metro counties become part of an appalachain district.

Greene and Clark counties have 300,000 vs. 100,000 in the Franklin part of the district.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #664 on: October 23, 2011, 10:46:22 PM »

Austria's current seat is already kind of a leftovers district so eliminating it is pretty fair. But of course doing that would be OMG RACIST!!11!!

OH-7 has existed in the same general area since the 1970s and is one of the three most populous districts in the state.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #665 on: October 24, 2011, 05:19:03 AM »
« Edited: October 24, 2011, 05:23:16 AM by Democrats watch better porn than Republicans »

Obviously the current setup around the 3rd and 7th districts is anything but rational. But it works, and abolishing the 5th 4th or 18th is far less "disruptive". And you need to give Republicans some reason to accept the map, obviously. It's not as if Democrats had a chance at gaining complete control over the process.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #666 on: October 24, 2011, 11:57:07 AM »

Jim, you argument is that it's more likely that a federal court would allow Ohio to forego representation rather than draw an interim map?

Setting aside whether you can construct an argument where you think it should be that way... Is there any precedent where the federal courts would arrive at that solution rather than draw a map?
In January 1982, the California Supreme Court in Assembly v Deukmejian that the legislative and congressional primaries in June should be conducted using the maps passed by the legislature, even though they were subject to a referendum.

The redistricting commission has argued that even if the referendum petition is successful that elections should be conducted using the maps enacted by the commission based on that precedent.

Why are you presuming that the Ohio case would end up in federal court?  The Ohio Supreme Court has already taken jurisdiction in matters related to referendum petition?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #667 on: October 24, 2011, 12:51:22 PM »

My attempt at a court-drawn map a compromise map with court criteria on everyone's minds.



So bottom line 8-5-3. 9-7 if I break the ties (Renacci to hold, Chabot and Johnson to lose).

If this is an intended compromise, then I think it should look more carefully at pairings first.

For instance, it seemed pretty clear that the GOP was willing to pair Turner and Austria, so I don't see a compromise map that has any other pairing in the SW. There has to be a pairing to compensate for the new Columbus district. You have Tiberi and Stivers together and I don't see the GOP signing off on that.

The rest of the map also needs two other pairs and you have Jordan with Gibbs and Ryan with Sutton. Each party would have to agree to those if a deal is reached. Again, I'm not sure they are the preferred choice of the respective parties.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #668 on: October 25, 2011, 09:53:25 AM »
« Edited: October 25, 2011, 10:04:53 AM by all the truth in the world adds up to one big lie »

For instance, it seemed pretty clear that the GOP was willing to pair Turner and Austria, so I don't see a compromise map that has any other pairing in the SW.
More like, was hell-bent on keeping a seat available to Stivers.
I wonder why. Maybe he knows something that could get Kasich jailed. Grin

(looks up Stivers' new residence in the thread) Upper Arlington. Ah. Where I desisted from optimizing the Dem pack because a couple of precincts at the southeast corner wasn't worth splitting a compactly shaped municipality. One could, of course, very easily pair him with Austria. Or even go back to pairing Austria with Turner without changing any but those three constituencies... that would actually be better from the POV of Dem chances should Turner retire. Grin

Well yeah, I would assume Dems would prefer to be shot of Kucinich. Simplest way to achieve that: Put all of Cleveland into Fudge's district. Have the 10th angle down to Copley (or even into Akron).
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #669 on: October 25, 2011, 09:58:23 AM »

For instance, it seemed pretty clear that the GOP was willing to pair Turner and Austria, so I don't see a compromise map that has any other pairing in the SW.
More like, was hell-bent on keeping a seat available to Stivers.
I wonder why. Maybe he knows something that could get Kasich jailed. Grin

Former member of the legislature.

The obvious district to dissolve was always Jordan/Gibbs and of course Kucinich/Sutton. Both could be done without much disruption to the other districts.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #670 on: October 25, 2011, 10:02:04 AM »

For instance, it seemed pretty clear that the GOP was willing to pair Turner and Austria, so I don't see a compromise map that has any other pairing in the SW.
More like, was hell-bent on keeping a seat available to Stivers.
I wonder why. Maybe he knows something that could get Kasich jailed. Grin

Former member of the legislature.
I choose to prefer my theory. Cheesy
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #671 on: October 25, 2011, 12:16:16 PM »

Okay... if you just move Beavercreek into Turner's district and cut out the rural part (and I did change the Warren split again, too, and gave Highland County to Schmidt) that increases the R percentage there. So that's fine.
Then you rotate the two seats around Columbus clockwise, and hey presto. That part isn't hard at all.
Tweaking my 10th to include Sutton's home... or rather covering my tracks re numbers of split towns, relative compactness etc... invoked fairly massive changes all over Northern Ohio in Republicans' favor. Kaptur and Ryan are even more packed than before, Sutton's district is secure-but-not-safe, and Johnson is thankful. Even Renacci's performance is marginally improved.



2nd 59.7 / 55.3 R
3rd 51.3 / 53.2 R
4th 55.9 / 52.6 R
5th 54.2 / 55.4 R
6th 50.5 R / 62.3 D
7th 55.0 / 55.4 R (though I guess that should now be the 15th...)
9th 62.3 / 66.6 D
10th 53.4 / 58.7 D (though I guess that should now be the 13th...)
11th 82.3 / 82.9 D. Down to 49.6 Black
12th 56.4 / 57.2 R
13th 65.7 / 74.0 D
14th 49.9 R / 51.8 D
15th 69.5 / 67.4 D. Somehow I my very minor changes also upped it to 30.0 Black.
16th 50.1 R / 52.5 D

Though I notice you also cast doubts on the Jordan / Gibbs pairing. It could be avoided - both men's home counties are on the edges of the district.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,933
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #672 on: October 25, 2011, 01:53:11 PM »
« Edited: October 25, 2011, 02:11:04 PM by DrScholl »

I think a court map may be more likely, because the Republicans aren't going to budge much, because there is little incentive for them to do so.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #673 on: October 25, 2011, 06:25:44 PM »

I think a court map may be more likely, because the Republicans aren't going to budge much, because there is little incentive for them to do so.
The last time a court was confronted with this problem (legislatively enacted plan, suspended by a pending referendum), the court ordered the elections be conducted using the plan enacted by the legislature, saying that otherwise they would be taking sides in a political conflict.

In that instance, the voters overturned both plans (legislative and congressional) in the referendum, and the legislature turned around and re-enacted both plans with an urgency clause that made a referendum impossible.

Surely the Ohio Supreme Court is the best body to interpret what happens when a provision of the Ohio Constitution prevents a required action of the State from occurring.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #674 on: October 31, 2011, 11:09:53 PM »



Political Subdivisions Split

The current map splits 22 counties, including 1 4-way split (Cuyahoga), and 2 3-way splits (Franklin and Summit).  There are 11 minors splits, likely related to population balancing (Ashland, Athens, Belmont, Knox, Lucas, Mercer, Portage, Ross, Scioto, Trumbull, and Wyandot).  The other counties have rather significant populations on either side of a split, and moving the line would be a fairly significant change in a district.  There are 46 county fragments (areas that are both part of a county and part of a congressional district).  There are two congressional districts (OH-10 and OH-11) which are entirely in one county (Cuyahoga).

The proposed map splits 15 counties, including 4 3-way splits (Cuyahoga, Franklin, Portage, and Summit).  There are 6 minor splits (Fairfield, Pickaway, Portage, Sandusky, Wayne and Trumbull).  In addition the significant splits of Licking and Montgomery counties were eliminated.  There are 32 county fragments, and two districts which are entirely in a single county (OH-10 in Cuyahoga, and OH-15 in Franklin).  

The reduction in minor splits is related to the process which I used.  I first eliminated the minor splits, placing the entire county in the district with the largest share.  Then when moving boundaries by whole counties, I took account of where I could make finer adjustments with more urban counties.  So for example, when I was moving the OH-8 boundary north, I recognized that the additional population would be transferred to both OH-8 and OH-3, and that fine tuning could be done in Warren and Butler counties.  So while the current map splits Mercer County, there is no similar split in that area in the proposed plan.

The proposed plan gets a small bonus due to the districts not being strictly equipopulous.  If they were made equipopulous, an additional county split would be needed.  In the proposed plan, the 7 districts in central and southwestern Ohio (OH-1, OH-2, OH-3, OH-7, OH-8, OH-12, and OH-15) have a cumulative surplus of 368.5, which would require a small area of 368 persons to be split from a currently county and shifted north.  Other adjustments can be made entirely within already split counties.

In addition, the reduction of districts from 18 to 16 reduces the need to make as many splits.  So overall, the proposed plan makes a modest improvement in reduction of split counties, though this was not a design goal.

The proposed plan eliminates splits of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Akron.  This was a deliberate object of the plan.  If districts can be said to have a core area, it is necessary to include the whole of major cities if at all possible.  There is a minor split of Hamilton city for reasons of population balance and irregular city limits, and minor splits of Akron because of irregular city limits.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 37  
« 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 0.312 seconds with 12 queries.