Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 12, 2019, 12:17:12 am
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  US House Redistricting: General
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: General  (Read 87583 times)
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,265
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: July 29, 2012, 04:30:19 am »

Incidentally, I think you got the old lines for RI and they moved the northwest corner township to CD2.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,265
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: January 10, 2013, 11:03:03 am »

Image Link

(ducks, runs, hides)

Yellow voted for John McCain by 114 votes. Blue is 30% Hispanic and 28% Black (36% Anglo).
Neither is quite at maxpack - had to introduce some slight compromises to keep the western remnant district contiguous.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2013, 04:33:27 pm »

What are the numbers for the red and purple districts?
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,265
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 02, 2013, 09:09:07 am »

What are the numbers for the red and purple districts?
Haven't saved it, but I recall that green, red and purple are eerily alike, not by design, in electoral figures though green is less white than the others (on account of Waterbury). Slightly more Democratic than the state, all of them.
Logged
Sol
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,739


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 28, 2013, 01:45:26 pm »

Muon2- Please add Georgia to the list in the first post:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130047.0
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,429


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 28, 2013, 03:27:50 pm »


Done, thanks.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,378


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 19, 2013, 05:42:56 pm »

Alaska redistricting upheld. Tack another one onto the 'loser whines, sues, and loses case' pile.

Link






The appropriate remedy should be treble damages.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,843


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: November 21, 2013, 07:50:14 pm »
« Edited: November 21, 2013, 09:09:27 pm by cinyc »

Alaska redistricting upheld. Tack another one onto the 'loser whines, sues, and loses case' pile.

Link






The appropriate remedy should be treble damages.

It was party sues, wins, Redistricting Board draws a new plan, party sues again and this time loses in Alaska.  So they're not total losers.

And this isn't on topic - U.S. House redistricting.  It's state house and senate redistricting.  Alaska only sends 1 U.S. House member to Washington.
Logged
Sol
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,739


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: December 21, 2013, 11:28:00 am »

Here's some more states to add:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147491.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=133877.0
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,429


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: December 21, 2013, 12:09:10 pm »


Done
Logged
Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,581
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: December 06, 2014, 03:53:23 pm »

If I were a Republican consultant, and I was looking at states like Virginia, Florida, and Georgia which are trending toward the Democrats, I would strongly urge the GOP in those states to follow North Carolina's example and remove the governor from the redistricting process when they have full control over both the legislature and the governor's mansion. 

And this advice is especially acute for the Virginia GOP -the 2017 election cycle may be the last time they can win all statewide offices from the governor to the attorney general before shifting demographics make it too difficult for them to win statewide at any level.  A possible scenario could be a deal allowing the governor to run for two consecutive terms in exchange for relinquishing veto power over any redistricting plan issued by the General Assembly.   
Logged
Nat. Sec. Council Member Dwarven Dragon
Wulfric
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,910
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 1.22

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2015, 04:57:50 pm »

North Dakota with 2 districts, gerrymandered for republicans:

Image Link


1. 53-45 McCain
2. 54-44 McCain

Logged
jocallag
Rookie
*
Posts: 23


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: August 03, 2015, 09:27:38 am »

 
I recently wrote the attached article for the Selous Foundation. It makes the often overlooked point that so-called "independent commissions" and the courts generally favor Democrats if you look at the results of the 2012 redistricting. In fact, these appointed officials (who are not directly responsible to voters like legislators) produced more than twice as many US House gains for Democrats as did the states controlled by Democrat legislators.
 
Unfortunately former NRCC Chairman and VA GOP Congressman Tom Davis has just joined with former Democrat Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (story is below) in a major effort to get these appointed commissions passed throughout the nation. So I am sure there will be a major move to get some in the GOP to support an "independent" redistricting commission. The California model commission Tauscher thinks is so wonderful caused the GOP to lose four more US House seats and produce a 38-15 overwhelmingly liberal congressional delegation. It also increased the huge lead the Democrats had in the State Senate and Assembly.    
 
Here is my latest article for the Selous Foundation which debunks the belief that appointed commissions and the courts are fair and independent in redistricting
I would appreciate your comments and suggestions

Experience Shows that There is no Such Thing as an “Independent Redistricting Commission”


The Democrats six seat edge in 2012 was largely due to its five seat gain in the nine states with appointed commissions (which controlled 99 U.S. House seats) and its seven seat gain in the nine states, where the courts intervened and drew the map for 120 U.S. House seats. This means that in 2012, for maybe the first time in U.S. history, appointed rather than elected officials decided the boundaries of a majority of (219) U.S. House districts.


By Jay O’Callaghan l July 29, 2015

The Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission upholding Arizona’s congressional map as drawn by its appointed redistricting commission has set off a wave of support for this concept in the mainstream media. Unfortunately, experience shows that such commission usually favor Democrats progressive political agenda over Republicans freedom agenda as did the Arizona commission which created a 5-4 Democrat U.S. House plan in 2012, despite a Romney 53-44% victory and a 52-43% 2012 vote for Republican candidates for Congress.

Most of these redistricting commissions are chosen, like the one in Arizona, by left-leaning lawyers (in this case from Arizona’s judicial nominating commission) according to Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  He points out that, “if you are going to have gerrymandering of congressional districts, it might as well be done by a state legislature, which is accountable to the people, rather than a commission like this,” which is accountable to no one.

As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his dissent, “some of the commissioners were motivated in part in some of the line drawing decisions by a desire to improve Democratic prospects in the affected districts,” and that the Commission retained a mapping consultant who “had worked for Democratic, independent, and nonpartisan campaigns, but no Republican campaigns.”

Moreover, in the Arizona decision, SCOTUS strove to redefine the word “legislature” to include unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic bodies like Independent Redistricting Commissions.

The Arizona experience was repeated across the nation according to a study by this author of 2012 U.S. House election results and what method of redistricting was used as reported in the 2014 Almanac of American Politics. Democrats gained five U.S. House seats and won the 99 U.S. House seats created by appointed redistricting commissions in nine states by an overwhelming 66-33 in 2012.

As long time almanac author and political expert Michael Barone points out, the Republican advantage in redistricting is overstated.  “Republicans after 2010 controlled redistricting in Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina (138 House seats). But Democrats controlled redistricting in Illinois and Maryland and, by successfully gaming purportedly nonpartisan redistricting commissions, in California and Arizona (88 House seats)… Remember that despite Republicans’ redistricting advantage after the 2000 Census, Democrats won majorities in the House in 2006 and 2008. If opinion changes, redistricting doesn’t matter.”

In fact, a look at who finally created the 2012 district plans in each state after many courts ended up intervening  in the process shows that Republicans only ended up drawing the map (through their control of the Governor and state legislatures) in 15 states with 149 seats. This is only a little more than one third of the 435 US House seats. The GOP won 110-39 in these states for a gain of seven with the Democrats losing ten.

But overall this GOP gain was wiped out easily in states which used appointed redistricting commissions, had Democrat control of the legislature, adopted bi-partisan compromises or where a court ended up drawing the map.  Democrats actually gained six seats in the 43 states which redistricted their U.S. House seats. They gained five seats in appointed commission states, three seats in Democrat controlled states, one seat in states with bi-partisan compromises, and seven seats in states where the courts finally ended up drawing the districts.

The Democrats six seat edge in 2012 was largely due to its five seat gain in the nine states with appointed commissions (which controlled 99 U.S. House seats) and its seven seat gain in the nine states, where the courts intervened and drew the map for 120 U.S. House seats. This means that in 2012, for maybe the first time in U.S. history, appointed rather than elected officials decided the boundaries of  a majority of (219) U.S. House districts.

This decided edge for Democrats through mainly appointed judges and commissions in deciding district lines is highlighted by the takeover of the process by the Florida Supreme Court in its recent decision ordering the GOP-controlled legislature to redraw the lines in eight districts. The court ordered the legislature to use a map prepared by experts from the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee and another Democrat judge gave the legislature only 75 days to redraw it.

The court’s 5-2 decision was made mainly by the same judges that voted in 2000 for a lengthy recount in key Democrat counties to help elect Al Gore President until it was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The mainly Democrat appointed courts have used the new and confusing Florida “Fair District” constitutional amendment to pressure the GOP-controlled legislature to draw a map that helped the Democrats gain four seats in Florida in 2012. Some experts believe that the court may takeover the entire map and help Democrats win a majority of the state’s once heavily GOP congressional delegation.

As Michael Barone said, “the fact is that supposedly nonpartisan redistricting commissions are not going to get rid of polarization (which results from voter attitudes) or gridlock (which results from the executive’s low negotiating skills).”  But the growing use of these appointed commissions with appointed judges may give the Democrats a reasonable chance to win the U.S. House after 2020.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay O’Callaghan has worked extensively with issues involving the U.S. Census Bureau including serving as a professional staff member for the House Government Reform Census Subcommittee, as a senior legislative analyst for the Florida House of Representatives Redistricting Committee and for two U.S. House members. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis. 





Political Blotter: Tauscher ramps up independent redistricting effort #News      
1 day ago      The Oakland Tribune BY Josh Richman The Oakland Tribune    

 



Former East Bay Rep. Ellen Tauscher announced Tuesday that she's bringing on a former colleague from the other side of the aisle to co-chair her effort to export California's citizen-redistricting model to the rest of the nation.

Tauscher, a Democrat formerly of Alamo who represented part of the East Bay from 1997 to 2009, said former Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., will co-chair YouDrawTheLines2021, an organization she formed to take reapportionment power away from state legislatures and give it to independent commissions. She launched the effort in the wake of last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of Arizona's independent redistricting commission -- and by extension, California's as well.

In a statement issued Tuesday, Tauscher said she's thrilled to share the group's leadership with Davis. "Independent nonpartisan redistricting commissions, like the one we have in California, create the opportunity for more competitive districts and for more moderates of both parties to get elected to Congress," she said.

Davis said the effort is "critical to getting Congress working again."

"Creating independent nonpartisan citizen advisory commissions in even five or six states before the 2020 census could make all the difference to the make-up of Congress in the next decade," Davis said. "Ellen and I will be reaching out to our former colleagues and like-minded state elected officials of both parties in these key states to put the wheels in motion to get this done over the next five years."

The project will focus on passing ballot initiatives in key states over the next three election cycles to approve the formation of independent, nonpartisan citizen redistricting commissions based on California's model, which was passed in 2008.

Tauscher left her House seat in 2009 to become undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, serving under then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. She held that position until February 2012, when she became special envoy for strategic stability and missile defense, remaining in that post until August 2012. She now splits her time between San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,181
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: August 03, 2015, 04:30:57 pm »


I recently wrote the attached article for the Selous Foundation. It makes the often overlooked point that so-called "independent commissions" and the courts generally favor Democrats if you look at the results of the 2012 redistricting. In fact, these appointed officials (who are not directly responsible to voters like legislators) produced more than twice as many US House gains for Democrats as did the states controlled by Democrat legislators.
 
Unfortunately former NRCC Chairman and VA GOP Congressman Tom Davis has just joined with former Democrat Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (story is below) in a major effort to get these appointed commissions passed throughout the nation. So I am sure there will be a major move to get some in the GOP to support an "independent" redistricting commission. The California model commission Tauscher thinks is so wonderful caused the GOP to lose four more US House seats and produce a 38-15 overwhelmingly liberal congressional delegation. It also increased the huge lead the Democrats had in the State Senate and Assembly.    
 
Here is my latest article for the Selous Foundation which debunks the belief that appointed commissions and the courts are fair and independent in redistricting
I would appreciate your comments and suggestions
A bit hackish in style.

A problem with "independent" or "citizen" redistricting commissions is that they can be led by legal or other expert advisors. In California, a specific requirement for members was that they reflect the "diversity" of the state, and also be appreciative of that diversity. Torie was rejected because there were other candidates just as qualified, but not as fair-skinned. The commission was not subject to Proposition 209.

In Arizona, the party leaders in the legislature chose four members, who then chose the chairman from a list of five persons screened by a judicial selection committee who were "independent". One of the "independents" had a framed picture of her with Nancy Pelosi. Another was the head of the Arizona ACLU, who was said to make the Democratic Party seem like Barry Goldwater because they were so far to the right of him. Colleen Mathis was the least worst.

They decided to have a Republican and Democratic counsel. The two Democratic members and Mathis chose the Republican counsel on a 3:2 vote. As you noted, the mapping consultant had only done work for Democratic candidates. Moreover, they had never done redistricting work, but had specialized in targeting voters who would vote Democratic.

Because the redistricting commission was created under the constitution, it was not subject to the open-meeting requirements that other agencies were subject to. Mathis drew one map at her house over a weekend with the help of a mapping consultant.
Logged
jocallag
Rookie
*
Posts: 23


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: August 03, 2015, 05:02:23 pm »

Thanks I think those are all excellent points. What bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of many commission supporters and the plaintiffs in Florida (Common Cause, LWV). They act like they are the only ones with pure motives when in fact they have a political agenda to elect more Democrats. The media coverage has been terribly one sided.
There is actually less transparency in Florida redistricting due to the so called Fair Districts. The plaintiffs have presented countless maps in the congressional case but it is very difficult to find their maps in a kmz or doj file so you can really analyze them. The latest plaintiffs map that the Florida Supreme Court suggested the legislature use was produced by Democrat party consultants. None of the plaintiffs maps supporting a east-west minority congressional district from Tallahassee to Jacksonville are easily available in a kmz or doj format on the internet. They have in fact never been filed in the legislature's two sessions on congressional redistricting. As a result I have not been able to find their maps at the Florida redistricting committee websites so they have not been subjected to the intense public scrutiny that the legislature's maps have received. All the legislature's maps are at this website and can be seen down to the block level. You cant say that the plaintiffs have been as transparent. They dont even show what the political performance for every district is in the map they recently proposed. And I don't believe I or anyone else should have to wade through pages of legal briefs to find it.
If anyone can find a place on the Internet where I can find a doj file or kmz file for all the maps that the plaintiffs have proposed. please reply to my post. I am especially interested in the latest map which the Florida Supreme Court suggested that they use as a guide. I think that this information should be available to everyone not just a few lawyers, consultants and academics.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,181
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: August 03, 2015, 08:44:30 pm »

Thanks I think those are all excellent points. What bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of many commission supporters and the plaintiffs in Florida (Common Cause, LWV). They act like they are the only ones with pure motives when in fact they have a political agenda to elect more Democrats. The media coverage has been terribly one sided.
There is actually less transparency in Florida redistricting due to the so called Fair Districts. The plaintiffs have presented countless maps in the congressional case but it is very difficult to find their maps in a kmz or doj file so you can really analyze them. The latest plaintiffs map that the Florida Supreme Court suggested the legislature use was produced by Democrat party consultants. None of the plaintiffs maps supporting a east-west minority congressional district from Tallahassee to Jacksonville are easily available in a kmz or doj format on the internet. They have in fact never been filed in the legislature's two sessions on congressional redistricting. As a result I have not been able to find their maps at the Florida redistricting committee websites so they have not been subjected to the intense public scrutiny that the legislature's maps have received. All the legislature's maps are at this website and can be seen down to the block level. You cant say that the plaintiffs have been as transparent. They dont even show what the political performance for every district is in the map they recently proposed. And I don't believe I or anyone else should have to wade through pages of legal briefs to find it.
If anyone can find a place on the Internet where I can find a doj file or kmz file for all the maps that the plaintiffs have proposed. please reply to my post. I am especially interested in the latest map which the Florida Supreme Court suggested that they use as a guide. I think that this information should be available to everyone not just a few lawyers, consultants and academics.
I think the LWV has been taken over by the Democrats, or perhaps they are guileless dupes.

In Britain, political parties are expected to make representations to the boundary commission. If they didn't few other persons would, since the average person doesn't really care. But the political parties have to frame their arguments in terms of something other than raw politics.

And even if the Florida litigants were to propose a map, they wouldn't be obligated to turn over all their communication that went into creating the plan.

Courts end up being the least transparent. The congressional plan drawn by the court in Texas, put the boundary of the central San Antonio district, TX-20, one block outside Joaquin Castro's house.  Immediately, Charlie Gonzales, the 7-term representative from TX-20 announced he was retiring (his father Henry Gonzales had served 19 terms before that). And Castro announced he was running in TX-20, rather than TX-35 that he had been running for.
Logged
jocallag
Rookie
*
Posts: 23


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: August 04, 2015, 06:49:54 pm »

Appointed commissions and courts controlled the drawing of 219 out of 435 US House districts in the last redistricting cycle. Elected Republican officials controlled less than one third with Democrat elected officials the rest. The fact that these appointed officials and courts generally favored Democrats in this cycle was the main reason for the eight seat gain Democrats had in 2012.

As for transparency I have still received no word from Common Cause or the League as to where I can find on the Internet a kmz file of the map that they proposed for Florida congressional districts that the Florida Supreme Court endorsed in its recent decision.

Today, these two organizations demanded more oversight of the Florida legislative staff while they prepare a base map for next week's special session. The lack of transparency has really been on their side as I wonder what oversight there was of their map which was prepared by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Logged
GMantis
Dessie Potter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,744
Bulgaria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: January 08, 2017, 09:26:50 am »

Appointed commissions and courts controlled the drawing of 219 out of 435 US House districts in the last redistricting cycle. Elected Republican officials controlled less than one third with Democrat elected officials the rest. The fact that these appointed officials and courts generally favored Democrats in this cycle was the main reason for the eight seat gain Democrats had in 2012.
Where exactly did you get these figures? In reality, the redistricting of 218 districts was held by the Republicans, 46 by the Democrats and the other 164 by independent commissions and courts. And the actual reason the Democrats gained eight seats was because they did much better in the 2012 election, actually winning the popular vote instead of losing by 7% as in 2010. In fact, Republican Gerrymandering cost the Democrats at least six seats.

Logged
megameow
Megameow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,030
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: February 19, 2017, 03:08:56 am »

Made my own redistricted United States. Didn't pay attention to VRA (but coincidentally it probably is respected by my lines). I focused mostly on aesthetic (whether the lines looked nice, ik subjective but Cheesy) and compactness (avoided gerrymandering). I used Dave's Redistricting App, so only 2008 results are available. But I guesstimated 2012 and 2016, and unlike how Obama lost CDs in 2012, he wins them in mine. My districts appear to be more proportional to the national popular vote than current CDs.

Here are the CDs by 2008 presidential election results:
Image Link
Logged
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: May 12, 2017, 03:58:52 pm »

Is there a plausible way that New Mexico Democrats can draw Steve Pearce out of office in 2020 and have 3 Democratic seats?
Logged
Gass3268
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,266
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2017, 04:20:10 pm »

Is there a plausible way that New Mexico Democrats can draw Steve Pearce out of office in 2020 and have 3 Democratic seats?

Maybe 3 vertical seats?
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,378


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: May 12, 2017, 04:27:38 pm »

Cut Albuquerque in half and attach to rural areas.
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,237
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: May 12, 2017, 04:52:21 pm »

Image Link


A map I came up with quickly.

1st 59.7-39.0 Obama
2nd 54.6-44.0 Obama
3rd 56.2-42.6 Obama

All three also have a Democratic average vote in DRA as well.  Could unpack the 1st to make the second more safe if you wanted.
Logged
Gass3268
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,266
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: May 12, 2017, 06:16:16 pm »

Image Link


A map I came up with quickly.

1st 59.7-39.0 Obama
2nd 54.6-44.0 Obama
3rd 56.2-42.6 Obama

All three also have a Democratic average vote in DRA as well.  Could unpack the 1st to make the second more safe if you wanted.

About what would this have looked like with 2016 numbers?
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,237
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: May 12, 2017, 06:51:07 pm »

Image Link


A map I came up with quickly.

1st 59.7-39.0 Obama
2nd 54.6-44.0 Obama
3rd 56.2-42.6 Obama

All three also have a Democratic average vote in DRA as well.  Could unpack the 1st to make the second more safe if you wanted.

About what would this have looked like with 2016 numbers?
Because of the split it is hard to tell, but all three would vote for her, but the 2nd is cutting it really close, only by 5 thousand votes.  But because of turnout, that still is almost a good 3 point margin of victory.  The first had about a 20 thousand vote margin, while the third was won by 14 thousand. 

Not too bad of a map (in voting Democratic on the Presidental level), considering I was using 8-year-old numbers to draw the districts.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC