Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 23, 2019, 09:46:31 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: General
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: General  (Read 77246 times)
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,069
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: December 08, 2017, 02:37:40 pm »

so far, are there any states that are forced to change congressional district maps from 2016-2018 based on court orders?

if so, which states?
I think the only state that is being litigated is Texas, and maybe Maryland.

North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida changed for 2016.

Alabama has changed its legislative districts for 2018, and special elections are being held on the new boundaries. North Carolina is finishing up its new districts to be used in 2018. Virginia's are still being litigated, but could change for 2019. Texas is still being litigated.

Isn't Alabama's state house map going to be re-litigated?

Probably not in time for 2018 though.
Not likely.

The oral arguments before the SCOTUS were interesting. One issue was whether the plaintiffs had filed against individual districts, as is required. The justices were arguing about whether they should be rewriting the briefs for the plaintiffs. The opinion actually has a concordance showing mentions of individual districts. Anyhow, the district court had ruled on the basis of the overall plan.

On remand, the district court was told to look at each individual district. So the court let the plaintiffs amend their complaint, and then they issued a very long opinion explaining whether each individual district had been gerrymandered - explaining whether split precincts were done so on a racial basis or not. What the issue in recent cases is whether race has predominated or not. A lot of the black-majority districts were 10-20% underpopulated. They had been deliberately underpopulated in 2000, and in rural areas particularly had lost population. The legislature had tried to maintain the black percentage, which is hard to do. If a district is 60% black, the neighboring areas are likely less than 60% black, so you have to be quite selective.

Eventually the district court ruled that in some districts, race had predominated. While the legislature was getting ready to fix those districts, the SCOTUS issued their decision in Bethune-Hill saying that the district court in that Virginia case had applied the wrong standard in determining racial predominance. Bethune-Hill was issued in March 2017. The Alabama legislature realized that if the district court applied the new standard to Alabama, they would likelu have to redraw all the black majority districts, so they did.

The district court approved the new map, which won't make material changes in the composition of the legislature. The plaintiffs tried to add some new complaints such a political gerrymandering, which the district court rejected. The case was closed about a month ago.
Logged
#KavanaughForPrison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,126


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P
View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: December 21, 2017, 04:25:01 pm »

If there were 5821 seats in the House, and DC + the 5 territories had full representation, the 2010 census gives this
Logged
Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,217
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: December 21, 2017, 04:45:06 pm »


Is it possible to create a D-leaning seat in Wyoming with 10 seats? Pretty sure an R-leaning seat in Hawaii is still impossible with 25 seats (or DC with 11 seats, VT with 12 seats).
Logged
#KavanaughForPrison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,126


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P
View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: December 21, 2017, 05:04:39 pm »


Is it possible to create a D-leaning seat in Wyoming with 10 seats? Pretty sure an R-leaning seat in Hawaii is still impossible with 25 seats (or DC with 11 seats, VT with 12 seats).

Probably not.

I doubt it would even be possible to create an Obama 2008 seat.
Logged
Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,217
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: December 21, 2017, 10:11:14 pm »


Is it possible to create a D-leaning seat in Wyoming with 10 seats? Pretty sure an R-leaning seat in Hawaii is still impossible with 25 seats (or DC with 11 seats, VT with 12 seats).

Probably not.

I doubt it would even be possible to create an Obama 2008 seat.

Answered my own question. On 10 seats, I managed to create an Obama 2008 district consisting of all of Laramie and the southwestern part of Cheyenne, connected via a few rural precincts (along I-80, so it's not a wildly unreasonable district actually), but it's only 51-46 Obama so can't be described as D-leaning. I got within about 50 votes of creating another Obama 2008 district centered on Jackson Hole and taking in Lander and then the least McCain precincts I could find around the area but couldn't quite get it over the hump. Lander is surprisingly competitive for a random rural Wyoming town. Anyone know why? It's near a reservation but seems to have a Native population in the high single-digits, typical for any area in Wyoming not on a reservation.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2017, 10:19:38 pm by Tintrlvr »Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,069
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: December 23, 2017, 05:41:07 am »


Does that algorithm always produce the correct number of seats?
Logged
#KavanaughForPrison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,126


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P
View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: January 06, 2018, 04:34:56 pm »

I just calculated this.

For the difference between the most populated district and the least populated district to go below a factor of 1.5, there would need to be at least 843 seats (843rd seat is DE-03).

It falls again at 930 seats (SD-03).

Another low at 1394 seats (MT-05).

Another low at 1588 seats (ND-04).

Finally goes below a factor of 1.25 at 1608 seats (RI-06).

Another new low at 1705 seats (VT-04).

Another new low at 1741 seats (ME-08).

Another new low at 1753 seats (NH-08).

Finally goes below a factor of 1.2 at 1941 seats (AK-05).

Another new low at 2075 seats (SD-06).

Another new low at 2226 seats (DE-07).

Another new low at 2260 seats (ID-12).

I do not feel like calculating any more.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 05:39:44 pm by Solid4096 »Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,069
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: January 06, 2018, 09:25:00 pm »

I just calculated this.

For the difference between the most populated district and the least populated district to go below a factor of 1.5, there would need to be at least 843 seats (843rd seat is DE-03).

It falls again at 930 seats (SD-03).

Another low at 1394 seats (MT-05).

Another low at 1588 seats (ND-04).

Finally goes below a factor of 1.25 at 1608 seats (RI-06).

Another new low at 1705 seats (VT-04).

Another new low at 1741 seats (ME-08).

Another new low at 1753 seats (NH-08).

Finally goes below a factor of 1.2 at 1941 seats (AK-05).

Another new low at 2075 seats (SD-06).

Another new low at 2226 seats (DE-07).

Another new low at 2260 seats (ID-12).

I do not feel like calculating any more.

The population of a state's districts is a stair step which steps down every time a state gains an additional district. The average population per district for the USA is a reciprocal function

POPUSA / n

If you combine the two to get a state's districts relative to the USA average you get a sawtooth within a decaying envelope. Just before a state gains a seat, the ratio of the state's districts to the USA average reaches a maximum, before plunging to a minimum when the extra seat is awarded, and then gradually increasing as the USA average declines.

The sawtooth is quasi-periodic. The period varies because of the ranking method results in a state gaining a district a bit too soon, or a bit late; and in addition the divisors for Huntington-Hill are not precisely evenly spaced.

Combining the sawtooth for all 50 states, you get a url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics)]beating[/url] effect. Sometimes most states are near the USA average, and sometine, there might be one state near a maximum, and another near a minimum.

If one were interested in reducing the interstate variation in district size, a "best" size of the House might be chosen. To avoid too much variation, the search window could be limited to perhaps 95% to 110% of the previous apportionment. You don't want to reduce too much, since this would mean too many states losing representation, and you don't want to expand the size of the House too much.

If the metric were to maximize the number of districts within 5% of the USA average, the apportionment for 2020 might be 450 districts, with 404 (89.8%) within 5% variation. If we were interested in interstate equality, we would use Dean's method (harmonic mean) rather than Huntington-Hill (geometric mean).

All of these are extremely data dependent, since the period for each state is POPUSA / POPSTATE, and these ratios change over time.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,069
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: January 08, 2018, 08:44:53 am »

Instead of apportioning representatives one could apportion presidential electors, with each state guaranteed three electors. And then the electors could be divided into 2 senators and the rest representatives. This would tend to increase the representation of larger states, and compensate for the underrepresentation of larger states in the senate.

These estimates  of representative are based on using Huntington-Hill and projected 2020 populations that are based on the last two years of change in the estimated population.

California would be apportioned 63 of 535 electors, giving them 61 representatives and two senators. 61 is 8 greater than the projected 53 of 435 representatives for the 2020 Census.

CA 61(53, +8)
TX 44(38, +6)
FL 32(29, +3)
NY 29(26, +3)
PA 18(17, +1)
IL 18(17, +1)
OH 16(15, +1)
GA 15(14, +1)
NC 14
MI 14(13, +1)
NJ 12
VA 11
WA 10
AZ 9(10, -1)
MA 9
TN 9
IN 9
MO 8
MD 8
WI 7(8, -1)
MN 7
SC 6((7, -1)
AL 6
LA (5, -1)
KY (5, -1)
OR(5, -1)
OK(4, -1)
CT(4, -1)
UT(3, -1)
IA(3, -1)
NV(3, -1)
AR(3, -1)
MS(3, -1)
KS(3, -1)
NM(1, -2)
NE(1, -2)
ID(1, -1)
WV(1, -1)
HI(1, -1)
NH(1, -1)
ME(1, -1)
MT(1, -1)
RI 1
DE 1
SD 1
ND 1
AK 1
VT 1
WY 1

Trump won the electoral vote 306:232, under the projected 2020 apportionment he would gain seven electors in 5 states (AZ, FL(2), NC, MT, TX(2)), while losing five electors in five states (AL, MI, OH, PA, WV) for a net gain of two. Clinton wold gain in two states (CO and OR), while losing in four states (IL, MN, NY, and RI) for a net loss of two.

This would produce a 308:230 in a 2024 match-up of Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton.

Under the presidential elector apportionment, Trump would gain 13 electors in six states (TX(6), FL(3), PA, OH, GA, and MI) and lose 16 electors in 15 states (AZ, WI, SC, LA, KY, OK, UT, IA, AR, MS, KS, NE(2), ID, WV, and MT) for a net loss of three. Clinton would gain 12 electors in three states (CA(Cool, NY(3), and IL) and lose nine electors in eight states (CO, OR, CT, NV, NM(2), HI, NH, and ME) for a net gain of three.

This would produce a 305:233 elector college result in a Trump:Clinton match-up.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 02:08:21 am by jimrtex »Logged
megameow
Megameow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,017
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: January 08, 2018, 08:28:31 pm »

Instead of apportioning representatives one could apportion presidential electors, with each state guaranteed three electors. And then the electors could be divided into 2 senators and the rest representatives. This would tend to increase the representation of larger states, and compensate for the underrepresentation of larger states in the senate.

That's actually bloody brilliant; a fantastic idea. I support that reform! It's modest, even Republicans could get behind it (it benefits Trump in the EC after all).
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,069
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: January 09, 2018, 02:09:24 am »

Instead of apportioning representatives one could apportion presidential electors, with each state guaranteed three electors. And then the electors could be divided into 2 senators and the rest representatives. This would tend to increase the representation of larger states, and compensate for the underrepresentation of larger states in the senate.

That's actually bloody brilliant; a fantastic idea. I support that reform! It's modest, even Republicans could get behind it (it benefits Trump in the EC after all).
I'm waiting for someone to draw the 44-district Texas map. I've already done fifteen states.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,875
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: July 22, 2018, 10:44:11 am »

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/opinion/redistricting-gerrymandering-citizens-michigan.html

If the Supreme Court ruled commissions unconstitutional, Democrats benefit. They could draw CA, NJ, WA and possibly NY IL CO MN VA NV after 2020. States like MI WI FL OH PA AZ could possibly have a Democratic Governor with a veto pen as well.
Logged
#KavanaughForPrison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,126


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P
View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: September 03, 2018, 02:33:26 pm »

Something of note, is that if NY-11 connected Staten Island to Queens instead of to Brooklyn, it could have a PVI at about D+04 or D+05 (tested this months ago, just posted it now so memory not perfect).
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,069
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: September 04, 2018, 03:30:14 am »

Something of note, is that if NY-11 connected Staten Island to Queens instead of to Brooklyn, it could have a PVI at about D+04 or D+05 (tested this months ago, just posted it now so memory not perfect).
Richmond, Kings, and Rockland were in a district at one time.
Logged
Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,217
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: September 04, 2018, 06:15:38 am »

Something of note, is that if NY-11 connected Staten Island to Queens instead of to Brooklyn, it could have a PVI at about D+04 or D+05 (tested this months ago, just posted it now so memory not perfect).

Before the 90s redistricting, Staten Island was connected directly to Manhattan (via the ferry link). That gets you to D+10-ish.
Logged
TX more competitive than OH
Mizzouian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,875
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: November 02, 2018, 12:13:45 pm »

Does anyone have a lite D gerrymander of Nevada? Iím assuming. The rural parts of NV-04 will all be ceded to CD-02 come 2022 since Clark County is growing so rapidly. Should allow a potential D trifecta enough wiggle roo. To make NV-03 like D+5 or so. I can possibly make a map sometime next week that takes into account population. Estimates, but I was wondering if anyone had a map that has 3 safe-ish D seats in Clark County
Logged
Chairman YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,933


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.74

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: November 02, 2018, 12:20:27 pm »

Does anyone have a lite D gerrymander of Nevada? Iím assuming. The rural parts of NV-04 will all be ceded to CD-02 come 2022 since Clark County is growing so rapidly. Should allow a potential D trifecta enough wiggle roo. To make NV-03 like D+5 or so. I can possibly make a map sometime next week that takes into account population. Estimates, but I was wondering if anyone had a map that has 3 safe-ish D seats in Clark County

I have a few on my computer that I'll post here when I get home. Basically you need to carve up Henderson or attach urban Las Vegas with rural areas. You can get something like 2 D+3 seats and a D+5 seat.
Logged
#KavanaughForPrison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,126


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P
View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: November 02, 2018, 02:07:52 pm »

I think one could uber pack Nevada Republicans if they were to take a narrow strip along the California border to connect Democratic areas of Washoe County and Carson City to Clark County, and allow a large chuck of Republican areas in Clark County to be pushed in with other Republican areas.
Logged
Singletxguyforfun
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,256
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: November 02, 2018, 02:35:42 pm »

I think one could uber pack Nevada Republicans if they were to take a narrow strip along the California border to connect Democratic areas of Washoe County and Carson City to Clark County, and allow a large chuck of Republican areas in Clark County to be pushed in with other Republican areas.

That would probably be too hard given the obscenely large precinct sizes in Esmeralda, Mineral, and Nye. Those precincts are bigger than some states
Logged
#KavanaughForPrison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,126


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P
View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: November 02, 2018, 03:17:25 pm »

I think one could uber pack Nevada Republicans if they were to take a narrow strip along the California border to connect Democratic areas of Washoe County and Carson City to Clark County, and allow a large chuck of Republican areas in Clark County to be pushed in with other Republican areas.

That would probably be too hard given the obscenely large precinct sizes in Esmeralda, Mineral, and Nye. Those precincts are bigger than some states

There are no laws preventing the splitting of precincts, even if DRA cannot do such a thing. They could literally make an extremely small strip right along the border that takes 0 people.
Logged
Chairman YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,933


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.74

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: November 02, 2018, 11:32:11 pm »

I think one could uber pack Nevada Republicans if they were to take a narrow strip along the California border to connect Democratic areas of Washoe County and Carson City to Clark County, and allow a large chuck of Republican areas in Clark County to be pushed in with other Republican areas.

In theory doable but the NV Dems would never do such a thing (and it'd probably cause Dems to tank upstate).
Logged
Chairman YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,933


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.74

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: November 02, 2018, 11:36:11 pm »

Does anyone have a lite D gerrymander of Nevada? Iím assuming. The rural parts of NV-04 will all be ceded to CD-02 come 2022 since Clark County is growing so rapidly. Should allow a potential D trifecta enough wiggle roo. To make NV-03 like D+5 or so. I can possibly make a map sometime next week that takes into account population. Estimates, but I was wondering if anyone had a map that has 3 safe-ish D seats in Clark County

Img


This doesn't even look too bad. Green is northern part of the state and is R+8. Purple is D+3 and blue and red are D+5.
Logged
TX more competitive than OH
Mizzouian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,875
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: November 03, 2018, 12:23:22 am »

No that looks good. NV Dems should just do that. Chances are Republicans will never win any seat D+3 or higher
Logged
VirginiŠ
Virginia C
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,783
Ukraine


P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: November 17, 2018, 12:20:09 am »

Just curious, but how likely is it a newly unified Democratic govt somewhere out there tries to change the maps before 2020?

I looked up Illinois and New Mexico, and http://redistricting.lls.edu says both of them appear to allow Congressional redraws but not legislative. These are both states where Democrats would have an incentive to shore up certain districts (or in IL's case, try to soften others up as well).

Not sure if any of them have ever tried doing this within the past few decades, but Illinois is the easiest to picture trying if it is in fact possible.
Logged
Economically Anxious Bush, Romney, Trump, Bernie Voter
jdb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,700
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: February 28, 2019, 12:29:07 pm »

Is it realistically possible to pack Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes into the same district of California loses a seat?  What about to eliminate one of their seats without endangering any Democrats via ripple effect?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines