Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 05, 2019, 09:51:22 am
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  US House Redistricting: Kansas
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Kansas  (Read 24494 times)
dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 316
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 11, 2010, 10:06:58 am »
« edited: December 11, 2010, 04:07:23 pm by muon2 »

Kansas:



If the GOP doesn't want to split the KC suburbs between two districts, then this is the best they can get, barring something really ugly.  Only 4 counties are split in my map; 2 of them because of Fort Riley.  

CD 3 (in purple) loses Lawrence, gains part of Leavenworth County.  I'm particularly tickled that you can make it almost an exact square and be within 263 of ideal population.  Anyway, McCain won the district 50.02 - 48.66, compared to Obama 51-48 in the previous district.  

CD 2 (green) gains Lawrence, so to compensate I put Manhattan in the 1st.  I understand that Kansans prefer to keep Ft. Leavenworth and Ft. Riley in the same district, which is why the lines are a bit erose.  I also rejiggered some of the counties in the south: CD4 (red) took Labette (55% McCain) so that CD2 could take even redder counties farther north (eg, Washington).   Couldn't get CD4 to go all the way out to Pittsburg without getting really ugly, though.  CD2 is at 54-44 McCain, slightly down from 55-43.  

CDs 1 and 4 should still be very safe for the GOP.  
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,044
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2010, 08:37:38 pm »

Absent legal restrictions, the GOP will want to make CD-03 a couple of percent more GOP if it can.
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,299
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2010, 09:27:07 pm »

Absent legal restrictions, the GOP will want to make CD-03 a couple of percent more GOP if it can.

I'm not sure it can be done without marginalizing CD-2. McCain's percentage in the whole counties of the proposed CD-2 is 52.17%, compared to 49.51% in Wyandotte and Johnson Counties (a slight plurality). In 2004, Bush received 56.75% in the whole counties of the proposed CD-2, compared to 56.40% in Wyandotte and Johnson Counties. Republicans should be safe in both districts most of the time, but short of putting Topeka and Lawrence in CD-1 I wouldn't try too hard to make CD-3 a Republican stronghold. But then you end up with the very ugly shapes that the OP was trying to avoid.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2010, 09:32:01 pm »

I came up with this a while back for Kansas:



It pretty much makes all the districts about mid-50s McCain districts.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,245
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2010, 11:51:18 am »

Wichita won't like it. Kansas City is, of course, essentially being buttraped; but they vote Democratic anyways. Then again, West Kansas might not like it either.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,672


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2010, 01:32:01 pm »

Wichita won't like it. Kansas City is, of course, essentially being buttraped; but they vote Democratic anyways. Then again, West Kansas might not like it either.

Yeah, I think West Kansas would be annoyed about likely being represented by [a Republican] Congressman from Kansas City.
Logged
dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 316
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2011, 09:30:02 am »

http://www.mcphersonsentinel.com/news/x404073585/County-moves-to-2nd-in-controversial-proposal?photo=0

Unclear whether this is a real proposal or just Dems being preemptive.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,376


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2011, 10:21:51 am »

Pretty sure its a real proposal. The current Kansas map is awful of course; no excuse to have a 2-2 delegation from here.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,961


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2011, 10:30:37 am »

Pretty sure its a real proposal. The current Kansas map is awful of course; no excuse to have a 2-2 delegation from here.

They don't have one, and there were good reasons why they briefly had 2-2 when they did.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,376


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2011, 10:36:51 am »

Pretty sure its a real proposal. The current Kansas map is awful of course; no excuse to have a 2-2 delegation from here.

They don't have one, and there were good reasons why they briefly had 2-2 when they did.

What are these 'good reasons'?
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,245
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2011, 10:39:00 am »

An incumbent who tried very, very hard to lose in what should not have been a losable district, losing in a year when individual incumbents' quality (or lack thereof) mattered unusually much?
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,672


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2011, 10:53:46 am »

There are always some seats that get lost despite being safe. The Democrats briefly had two seats in Kansas for totally legitimate and reasonable reasons--just like the Republicans briefly held the New Orleans seat, or the Democrats briefly had a seat in Idaho. It's not like the map was 2-2; it is very clearly three safe Republican seats and one lean Democratic seat.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2011, 06:23:28 pm »

What did Sweeney say about NY-20 in 2001, "It would take a lot of effort for a Republican to loose that seat". Or something like that. And then in 2006, he proved his own statement. Wink
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,672


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2011, 08:19:37 pm »

What did Sweeney say about NY-20 in 2001, "It would take a lot of effort for a Republican to loose that seat". Or something like that. And then in 2006, he proved his own statement. Wink

Sweeney was just dumb. That seat was easily identifiable as a marginal, as Presidential results made very clear. KS-02 was not, at all.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2011, 06:19:24 pm »

What did Sweeney say about NY-20 in 2001, "It would take a lot of effort for a Republican to loose that seat". Or something like that. And then in 2006, he proved his own statement. Wink

Sweeney was just dumb. That seat was easily identifiable as a marginal, as Presidential results made very clear. KS-02 was not, at all.

He was not denying how marginal it was, he was saying that a Republican should be fine as long as didn't find trouble for himself. Sweeney did find trouble (what was it, domestic abuse or something like that? He also had some lobbying/corruption issues in a year when such wasn't acceptable). NY-23 is of similar partisan leanings and McHugh didn't have even the faintest trouble. The quality of the incubment made the difference.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,044
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2011, 05:28:32 pm »
« Edited: August 19, 2011, 05:31:49 pm by Torie »

It's rather amusing that 60% of the geography of the state is being used to neutralize two thirds of little old Wyandotte County.  But then I used close to half of Ohio to contain not so little Columbus. Smiley

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2011, 07:41:32 pm »

What does that bring KS-01 down to?

Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,360
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2011, 08:25:39 pm »


Skimming through county results and doing a quick estimate, it looks to be about 60-65% McCain.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,044
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2011, 09:36:37 pm »
« Edited: August 19, 2011, 09:47:35 pm by Torie »


Skimming through county results and doing a quick estimate, it looks to be about 60-65% McCain.

That is correct. You are one smart dude BK.  Smiley



The McCain percentage is at least 60%,  and might be as high as 64%.  The new territory KN-01 got exclusive of Wyandotte may be a big less GOP than the territory lost, but it's close. The chart above assumes that the territory lost in exchange for Wyandotte was the same as the old CD percentages. However the territory lost (again exclusive of Wyandotte) has a substantially lower McCain percentage than the territory retained, so the McCain percentage will be higher than that in the chart, offset a bit by about 40,000 net residents being gained, which might be around  57% McCain, and offset a bit more by the turnout in the territory lost probably having a higher turnout rate than Wyandotte. So the chart above should be close to the actual number, but it is more likely higher by a percent or two, and if lower, not by much. My best guess is about 63% McCain, so BK you are just about right on the money!

Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,961


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2011, 11:26:57 pm »

They are not actually going to do that, are they? The western counties would pitch a fit.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,044
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2011, 11:43:42 pm »

They are not actually going to do that, are they? The western counties would pitch a fit.

It's the Pubbie plan. They are tired about having to worry about a Dem being elected in that KC adjacent district due to their little socon/establishment Pubbie wars. It was the only CD that could safely take that big of a Dem dump.
Logged
RBH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,173


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2011, 03:06:00 pm »



http://midwestdemocracyproject.org/blogs/entries/if-you-live-kansas-or-care-about-kansas-you-ought-look-proposed-new-congressional-map/

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,299
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2011, 03:38:58 pm »


That map can be summed up in three letters: WTF?
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2011, 06:05:03 pm »

Well, it makes Stivers' district look a little less ridiculous...
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,443
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2011, 10:39:32 pm »

Well, it makes Stivers' district look a little less ridiculous...

This map is still pretty tame compared to the shredded ribbons streaking across Ohio.
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