US House Redistricting: Tennessee

[BigSkyBob]

I don't know what's taking the Tennessee Republicans so long.  Tennessee is an easy draw.

8-1 map clean respectable map is so easy it's ridiculous





Davidson Co. doesn't need to been split 3 or 4 ways.

In my draw I split Davidson exactly in half 360,000 people in each district, and each half is 60.6% Obama.  Both districts as a whole are 54.6% McCain.  Cooper=gone

This is your idea of a "clean" and "respectable" map? Granted, it's not a Maryland-style gerrymander, but it still destroys communities of interest (namely Nashville) for partisan gain.
There is no reason other than partisanship why Davidson County should not remain intact.

If you consider metro Nashville to be a "community of interest," then the posted map actually consolidates Metro into two districts, while most other maps split Nashville suburbanites into several districts stretching as far away as Memphis.

You can go back and forth about capricious concepts such as "communities of interest." In redistricting "communities of interest," generally, means, "An area that would benefit me to consolidate into one district!," and not much more.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I don't know what's taking the Tennessee Republicans so long.  Tennessee is an easy draw.

8-1 map clean respectable map is so easy it's ridiculous





Davidson Co. doesn't need to been split 3 or 4 ways.

In my draw I split Davidson exactly in half 360,000 people in each district, and each half is 60.6% Obama.  Both districts as a whole are 54.6% McCain.  Cooper=gone

This is your idea of a "clean" and "respectable" map? Granted, it's not a Maryland-style gerrymander, but it still destroys communities of interest (namely Nashville) for partisan gain.
There is no reason other than partisanship why Davidson County should not remain intact.

If you consider metro Nashville to be a "community of interest," then the posted map actually consolidates Metro into two districts, while most other maps split Nashville suburbanites into several districts stretching as far away as Memphis.

You can go back and forth about capricious concepts such as "communities of interest." In redistricting "communities of interest," generally, means, "An area that would benefit me to consolidate into one district!," and not much more.

I consider the city of Nashville to be a community of interest, and its completely politically different suburbs to be a separate community of interest. Timothy's map does indeed consolidate Metro Nashville into two districts. The problem is that both districts are dominated by the suburbs and exurbs, which have very different interests from those of the city itself. As a result, a city with over 600,000 residents is effectively left without representation. The same area can and should be drawn in such a way as to create one district dominated by they city, and one dominated by the suburbs and exurbs.

Of course it is a valid choice. The major highways such as I-96 run east-west, and the historical nature of the link sets precedent for it to be maintained. Partisanship is an obvious excuse as the seat has been held by a Democrat in recent years.

The point is that Livingston County has far more in common with points east than with points west, north, or south. To create a Livingston-based district with the best possible community of interest would require the district to pick up portions of Oakland County.

Ingham County also has far more in common with the rest of its Metropolitan area (Eaton, Clinton Counties, possibly Shiawassee) than it does with Livingston County. To create a Lansing-based district with the best possible community of interest would require Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton to be in the same district, and that Livingston County be excluded from that district.

For the billionth time, this is not a matter of partisanship. The discussion is on creating a map that best preserves communities of interest. The only partisanship involved is when your side hails a blatant Republican gerrymander as God's gift to redistricting, and then denounces a map that preserves communities of interest as a Democratic gerrymander.

It is a very natural extension of the Michigan transit corridors. The Stabenow district used to extend into Gennessee County. To protect the integrity of the Flint district, Michigan mappers properly removed the 8th from Gennessee altogether and added Clinton County.

Any natural Michigan mapping scheme will begin in the Detroit Region, and after the Detroit 2 and Oakland 2 districts are drawn, only limited population remained in Oakland County, and Livingston County. The natural extension from here based on television and transit corridors is of course west.

Is your map a legit community of interest as it swoops and swerves across numerous counties to rack up far away GOP voters? Of course not! To drive from Howell to Port Huron along the fastest route you would cross through a whopping 4 other Congressional districts before reaching your destination on the far other side of the district.

The other proposed maps have the same types of choices, such as uncompacting the square shaped 6th district to add Battle Creek. The Judge-written Apol standards were written as such knowing that some would tend to abuse curious 'community of interests' ideas and thus instead adhered to defined geographical boundaries. They were not considered 'unfair' until 1 party started losing.

Geographical boundries are fixed. Notions of "communities of interests" are highly subjective and subject to abuse. Excellent observation!

Apperently, I am being accused of inconsistency between this statement, and, my statement, that in practise, while discussing redistricting a "community of interest" is "an area that would benefit me to consolidate!"

Who's accusing you of inconsistency? It certainly isn't me. If anything, I've accused you of being consistently wrong!

I'm also not the one who dug up a six-month-old post in another thread, apparently as an addendum to the discussion in this thread. If you have a point, I'd like to hear it. It's not as if I have anything better to do on the internet.

[minionofmidas]

Like this?

I consider the city of Nashville to be a community of interest, and its completely politically different suburbs to be a separate community of interest. Timothy's map does indeed consolidate Metro Nashville into two districts. The problem is that both districts are dominated by the suburbs and exurbs, which have very different interests from those of the city itself. As a result, a city with over 600,000 residents is effectively left without representation. The same area can and should be drawn in such a way as to create one district dominated by they city, and one dominated by the suburbs and exurbs.

(Strictly speaking, Metro Nashville as I'd define it is somewhat too large for two districts; you do need to chop some outer edges.)

[muon2]

Here's my whole county version of the map. All districts are within 0.5% of the ideal, and the maximum deviation is 2506. CD 9 is entirely within Shelby and is 56.0% BVAP. At least one county must be split around Nashville to stay within the population range, and Davidson was split since it is the largest.

[Torie]

Here's my whole county version of the map. All districts are within 0.5% of the ideal, and the maximum deviation is 2506. CD 9 is entirely within Shelby and is 56.0% BVAP. At least one county must be split around Nashville to stay within the population range, and Davidson was split since it is the largest.

Hey, Mike, if this were in the Midwest, your TN-05 would have a GOP leaning PVI!  But TN isn't in the Midwest, so it doesn't. Darn!  

[muon2]

Here's my whole county version of the map. All districts are within 0.5% of the ideal, and the maximum deviation is 2506. CD 9 is entirely within Shelby and is 56.0% BVAP. At least one county must be split around Nashville to stay within the population range, and Davidson was split since it is the largest.

Hey, Mike, if this were in the Midwest, your TN-05 would have a GOP leaning PVI!  But TN isn't in the Midwest, so it doesn't. Darn!  

In any case it's pretty easy to change the grouping of CD5 and 6 to create two districts each with about 51% McCain and 53-53% Rep in the DRA. For example, The six counties can be split as below without losing much compactness. CD 5 is 51.6% R, 54.9% McCain; CD 6 is 51.0% R, 53.8% McCain.

[Torie]

Yes, but I like my 55.1% McCain number for TN-05 better.  It needs to get up to about that, for the GOP to have a distinct edge. Marginal CD's are for good government types, not for gerrymanderers! So Davidson gets a tri-chop: tame stuff as compared to some other states we know and love no, like say, inter alia, Illinois, to pick a state at random?

Hey, my TN-05 isn't even particularly erose, and outside Davidson, has but one county chop (albeit cutting into a county seat to grab the Dems who hang out there). That is very restrained for me.

[BigSkyBob]

I don't know what's taking the Tennessee Republicans so long.  Tennessee is an easy draw.

8-1 map clean respectable map is so easy it's ridiculous





Davidson Co. doesn't need to been split 3 or 4 ways.

In my draw I split Davidson exactly in half 360,000 people in each district, and each half is 60.6% Obama.  Both districts as a whole are 54.6% McCain.  Cooper=gone

This is your idea of a "clean" and "respectable" map? Granted, it's not a Maryland-style gerrymander, but it still destroys communities of interest (namely Nashville) for partisan gain.
There is no reason other than partisanship why Davidson County should not remain intact.

If you consider metro Nashville to be a "community of interest," then the posted map actually consolidates Metro into two districts, while most other maps split Nashville suburbanites into several districts stretching as far away as Memphis.

You can go back and forth about capricious concepts such as "communities of interest." In redistricting "communities of interest," generally, means, "An area that would benefit me to consolidate into one district!," and not much more.

I consider the city of Nashville to be a community of interest, and its completely politically different suburbs to be a separate community of interest.

And, I consider you wrong. The Census Bureau defines metro areas the way they do because they are unified wholes, not an arbitrary mixture of suburbs with urban cores. People in the suburbs often work in the cities, shop in the cities, eat in the cities, etc., while people whom live in the cities often work outside the city, and shop outside the city as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In every election there is a winner and a loser. The people whom vote for the loser aren't as happy with the result as those that vote for the winner. No matter how you divvy up the lines, elections will result in large numbers of voters voting for the loser.

For you to specify one group of losers are being particular aggrieved by backing the losing candidate is just another example of using self-serving standards.

Frankly, the political interests of most Americans are safe streets, safety from foreign threats, good schools, decent roads, etc.  Crossing the county line outside of Davidson doesn't particularly alter those priorities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, no matter how you slice the lines hundreds of thousands of voters in the metro area will back the losing candidates. According to you, they will be, "effectively without representation."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is a perfectly valid split, as was the proposed map. It is simply a political question as to which of the two to implement.


I said,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your comments only re-enforce my belief in the correctness of my observation.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are not aggrieved by backing the losing candidate. They are aggrieved because the mapmakers decided that those people in particular should be the ones who back the losing candidate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Political differences arise from how each person thinks those ends should be achieved. Crossing the county line may not alter those fundamental priorities, but by affecting who gets elected, it can substantially alter how those priorities are addressed in Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the issue is not that people back losing candidates, it's that the mapmakers effectively determine who the losing candidates are, and by extension, deny representation to the voters who back those candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Therein lies the problem. It shouldn't be a political question at all. A neutral map would give one district to the city and one to the suburbs. Only a partisan map would split both.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your comments only re-enforce my belief in the correctness of my observation.

That's as may be, but where have you been accused of inconsistency, as you so claim? It is obvious that you care nothing for communities of interest. You don't have to reinforce that point.

[muon2]

In every election there is a winner and a loser. The people whom vote for the loser aren't as happy with the result as those that vote for the winner. No matter how you divvy up the lines, elections will result in large numbers of voters voting for the loser.

For you to specify one group of losers are being particular aggrieved by backing the losing candidate is just another example of using self-serving standards.

They are not aggrieved by backing the losing candidate. They are aggrieved because the mapmakers decided that those people in particular should be the ones who back the losing candidate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the issue is not that people back losing candidates, it's that the mapmakers effectively determine who the losing candidates are, and by extension, deny representation to the voters who back those candidates.

This was the core of an argument made by the IL League of Women Voters in their attack on the legislative and congressional maps drawn by the Dems this year. It's an argument that has lost in the past at SCOTUS, but not without sympathetic words from the justices. This year they took the novel step of attaching that argument to the recent Citizens United and Freedom Club PAC rulings. Unfortunately, the federal district court panel had their case consolidated with the GOP state case and then their claims were dismissed. There may yet be further legal action along this line.

[BigSkyBob]

In every election there is a winner and a loser. The people whom vote for the loser aren't as happy with the result as those that vote for the winner. No matter how you divvy up the lines, elections will result in large numbers of voters voting for the loser.

For you to specify one group of losers are being particular aggrieved by backing the losing candidate is just another example of using self-serving standards.

They are not aggrieved by backing the losing candidate. They are aggrieved because the mapmakers decided that those people in particular should be the ones who back the losing candidate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the issue is not that people back losing candidates, it's that the mapmakers effectively determine who the losing candidates are, and by extension, deny representation to the voters who back those candidates.

This was the core of an argument made by the IL League of Women Voters in their attack on the legislative and congressional maps drawn by the Dems this year. It's an argument that has lost in the past at SCOTUS, but not without sympathetic words from the justices. This year they took the novel step of attaching that argument to the recent Citizens United and Freedom Club PAC rulings. Unfortunately, the federal district court panel had their case consolidated with the GOP state case and then their claims were dismissed. There may yet be further legal action along this line.

The argument might fly for classes of people, and, seems to have been legislated for minorities in the VRA. Arguments that protect zip codes, not classes of people, are going to go nowhere.

And, as I noted before, the notion of members of political party being deemed a protected class is outrageous and dangerous. I'd rather lose in Illinois that throw in with the notion that the government, and the courts, should decide the partisan composition of legislatures rather than the voters.

[muon2]

In every election there is a winner and a loser. The people whom vote for the loser aren't as happy with the result as those that vote for the winner. No matter how you divvy up the lines, elections will result in large numbers of voters voting for the loser.

For you to specify one group of losers are being particular aggrieved by backing the losing candidate is just another example of using self-serving standards.

They are not aggrieved by backing the losing candidate. They are aggrieved because the mapmakers decided that those people in particular should be the ones who back the losing candidate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the issue is not that people back losing candidates, it's that the mapmakers effectively determine who the losing candidates are, and by extension, deny representation to the voters who back those candidates.

This was the core of an argument made by the IL League of Women Voters in their attack on the legislative and congressional maps drawn by the Dems this year. It's an argument that has lost in the past at SCOTUS, but not without sympathetic words from the justices. This year they took the novel step of attaching that argument to the recent Citizens United and Freedom Club PAC rulings. Unfortunately, the federal district court panel had their case consolidated with the GOP state case and then their claims were dismissed. There may yet be further legal action along this line.

The argument might fly for classes of people, and, seems to have been legislated for minorities in the VRA. Arguments that protect zip codes, not classes of people, are going to go nowhere.

And, as I noted before, the notion of members of political party being deemed a protected class is outrageous and dangerous. I'd rather lose in Illinois that throw in with the notion that the government, and the courts, should decide the partisan composition of legislatures rather than the voters.

I would largely agree if it were the case that the voters were choosing the partisan composition of the IL legislature. In this case the government in power chose the partisan composition for the next decade by their map. There were no checks by the people on that use of government power. Even in OH and MI there are some checks imposed on the government's power to lock in a specific partisan result. In IL there are none.

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless the legislature passes maps in which every district is a swing district, or as many as possible in states like California or Texas, the final maps will have districts that favor certain parties, and/or certain incumbents. That outcome is completely unavoidable.

You are selectively objecting to that fact when it doesn't favor you in one area. That's ridiculous.

Second, this simply wasn't your initial claim. Your initial claim was that Davidson County is entitled to at least one Representative in Congress. Davidson simply does not have the necessary 705 thousand voters to warrent a full district. It is a mathematical fact that not every block of 626 thousand people are entitled to at least one representative because the average district must be larger than that!

Somehow, you are claiming that the residents of Davidson has an absolute right that every other block of 626 voters in the country doesn't have.

Baker vs Carr guarantees that every individual has an equal level of representation. I'm not going to take seriously arguments that some people should be made to have more equal representation than others.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless the legislature passes maps in which every district is a swing district, or as many as possible in states like California or Texas, the final maps will have districts that favor certain parties, and/or certain incumbents. That outcome is completely unavoidable.

Of course it is. It doesn't become an issue, though, until communities are split for obvious partisan reasons. The split of the second-largest city in Tennessee, and the state capital to boot, constitutes such partisan intent. To deny so would be naive at best and ignorant at worst.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is simply untrue. I am against any sort of partisan gerrymandering, and have made that position known on this forum multiple times. Maybe I haven't been as vocal about that fact in discussions of Illinois and Maryland because of some deep-seated belief that those maps are some sort of karmic justice for maps like Ohio and North Carolina, but I oppose the gerrymanders in those states nonetheless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My initial claim was that Davidson County should not be split. A district centered in Davidson County would probably elect someone from Davidson County.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're splitting hairs. A district that contains Davidson County in its entirety would be dominated, electorally speaking, by Davidson County. Obviously some suburban areas would have to be included in such a district to meet equal population criteria. That fact does not detract from the crux of my argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The premise behind this statement is so absurd that I am not even going to bother rebutting it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some people, such as residents of suburban Nashville, perhaps? A map that splits Davidson County creates two districts dominated by the suburbs. The suburbs do not have the population for two districts.

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, Davidson County doesn't have the population for one. Downtown Nashville could "dominate" one district, and the suburbs could "dominate" two districts.

The Davidson County line defines a County/city, not a "community of interest." Currently, the legislative delegation from Davidson is heavily Democratic because they baconmandered the inner city areas with the surrounds residential areas. Republican mappers have been able to redraw the county to "pack" the inner city areas into inner city districts, and the residential areas into Republican leaning districts. I'm sure if you asked the Republican folks on the periphery of Davidson whom they feel more a shared sense of "community" with, the residential folks on the other side of the county line, or the folks in the inner city, I'm pretty sure they would side with their fellow Republican suburbanites.

That said, we are talking about a million Republican-leaning suburbanites, be they inside, or outside Davidson County, and four-hundred thousand heavily-Democratic leanings inner city residents. Somehow, I'm suppose to believe that the only fair distribution of two seats between 400,000 and 1,000,000. is 1-1!

Metro Nashville has the population for two districts, plus. None of the Counties have the population for one district. Some county has to be split. Davidson is a natural choice. The failure to split  it would result in a huge ring district that isn't nearly as compact as simply splitting Davidson.

There seems to be an unstated premise on your part that when splitting counties it is the larger county that should be the last one to be split. I don't see why Wilson doesn't have as much as right to be kept whole in redistricting as Davidson county.

There are two reasonable enough options for dividing the Nashville metro area. One is dividing Davidson resulting in two compact districts. Another is creating suburban-ring district with a donut-hole district in the middle. Democrats have an obvious partisan interest in the latter, while Republican would see their self-interest in the former.

Gerrymandering" is taking egregious political decisions. Neither option is "gerrymandering." It is simply a political choice that has to be taken one way or the other.   

[krazen1211]

It's also not clear that 54.6% McCain will do the trick of removing Cooper. Having two districts like that, then, runs the risk (not a large risk by any means, but it's there) of losing both districts. They won't want to take that.

The other reason why it takes so long is of course that Memphis Republicans really want to have their own district (or rather congressperson) - Blackburn has had primary challenges based on the issue.
Which also means that neither Fincher nor Blackburn are going to be overjoyed with taking all of the Republican parts of Shelby.

This gets you 57% McCain at the minimum (and 54% generic GOP) in all districts besides the 9th. Didn't pay huge attention to residences.

The other issue with suburban Memphis is that they probably want to keep heavy GOP donor areas out of the black district. A decade ago its likely inconceivable that the 9th would snake like this, but the area lost too much population.




Yellow district is Cooper's and combined with East Shelby with Nashville blacks.
Grey district is for Marsha Blackburn and contains almost all of Williamson County. Safer for a primary.
Teal district is for Diane Black and drops a bunch of rural counties.



This moves both Fincher and Blackburn away from the Memphis area and gives Memphis Republicans their own district.

[minionofmidas]

Heh, clever.
Of course, one issue may be that trends in such a Cooper district are not too friendly for the GOP, so the window of opportunity of getting a Republican in there may be short. But yeah, I could see them come up with that.

[krazen1211]

Heh, clever.
Of course, one issue may be that trends in such a Cooper district are not too friendly for the GOP, so the window of opportunity of getting a Republican in there may be short. But yeah, I could see them come up with that.

I would think actually that the slate green district for Black is the weakest of the 3. East Shelby never ever votes for Democrats, and deep inner city areas typically don't have much population growth. The district is actually 20% black due to it taking the most black areas of Nashville.

[minionofmidas]

deep inner city areas typically don't have much population growth

but neither do these rural counties, and inner suburbs can go Dem (and, in Memphis, go Black) hard. The district doesn't seem to have that much of hard R outer suburbia.

[krazen1211]

deep inner city areas typically don't have much population growth

but neither do these rural counties, and inner suburbs can go Dem (and, in Memphis, go Black) hard. The district doesn't seem to have that much of hard R outer suburbia.

Well, it has about 325k population in Shelby (voted 69% McCain, 67% R), and 200k in Davidson (69% Obama, 69% D). It actually includes almost the entirety of hard R memphis metro areas (Lakeland, Germantown, Bartlett, etc, the 80% McCain areas). And of course Walnut Grove (70% McCain) in Memphis itself just east of the University. All the blacks in Shelby live immediately to the west; its a very racially split area it seems.

[krazen1211]

Cooper asks for the Republican parts of Davidson back.

http://wpln.org/?p=32652

[minionofmidas]

Cooper asks for the Republican parts of Davidson back.

http://wpln.org/?p=32652

That would be the common sense map. I doubt they actually do that; it's not as if it's enough to put Cooper into any sort of trouble.

[Torie]

Cooper asks for the Republican parts of Davidson back.

http://wpln.org/?p=32652

And the repost from the Pub legislator was that keeping Davidson whole was not high on the Dem's agenda with their little gerry a decade ago, when Pub areas of Davidson were removed, and she appreciates their little epiphany towards a good government map now that they are the ones left out in the cold. No, the Pubs are going to gut Cooper it seems. Why wouldn't they? AZ must be avenged! 

[Sbane]

Cooper asks for the Republican parts of Davidson back.

http://wpln.org/?p=32652

And the repost from the Pub legislator was that keeping Davidson whole was not high on the Dem's agenda with their little gerry a decade ago, when Pub areas of Davidson were removed, and she appreciates their little epiphany towards a good government map now that they are the ones left out in the cold. No, the Pubs are going to gut Cooper it seems. Why wouldn't they? AZ must be avenged! 

WA was revenge for AZ wasn't it?

[Torie]

Cooper asks for the Republican parts of Davidson back.

http://wpln.org/?p=32652

And the repost from the Pub legislator was that keeping Davidson whole was not high on the Dem's agenda with their little gerry a decade ago, when Pub areas of Davidson were removed, and she appreciates their little epiphany towards a good government map now that they are the ones left out in the cold. No, the Pubs are going to gut Cooper it seems. Why wouldn't they? AZ must be avenged! 

WA was revenge for AZ wasn't it?

You think WA was as egregious as that lawless (yes lawless) thing that McNulty drew in AZ with Mathis in her pocket? Really?