US House Redistricting: Oregon

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Couldn't find a thread for this state. Weird. Anyway, here are the proposed maps:

[Verily]

As usual, legislatures engage in amateur-hour gerrymandering. Here's a neater and much more effective gerrymander for the OR Democrats:



(The majority of OR-03 is still in Multnomah County, so it's still safe D and probably the most Democratic district on the map--the area outside of Multnomah is probably about 51% McCain, the area within Multnomah easily 75% Obama.)

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Oregon has some pretty strict laws regarding redistricting, so I doubt a map like that wold fly.

[Verily]

Whatever the criteria are, they can't possibly be met by the Democrats' proposal (which splits more counties [presuming that they have another split in SW Oregon, which they must] and is in general messy) and not met by my map.

[krazen1211]

Looks like a 3 way split of Portland?

[Verily]

Looks like a 3 way split of Portland?

As now, yeah. (Yes, Portland is split three ways at the moment, too, although the portions in districts other than OR-03 are small--as they would be on the D map.)

[BigSkyBob]

As usual, legislatures engage in amateur-hour gerrymandering. Here's a neater and much more effective gerrymander for the OR Democrats:



(The majority of OR-03 is still in Multnomah County, so it's still safe D and probably the most Democratic district on the map--the area outside of Multnomah is probably about 51% McCain, the area within Multnomah easily 75% Obama.)

I will simply note that the areas East of the Cascade Mountains are a "community of interest." I strongly suspect that all the posturing I read about how breaking "communities of interest" is "gerrymandering" in Minnesota simply won't be applied to the Democratic plan in Oregon.

[Brittain33]

all the posturing

You don't need to come into every discussion with guns blazing.

[Verily]

As usual, legislatures engage in amateur-hour gerrymandering. Here's a neater and much more effective gerrymander for the OR Democrats:



(The majority of OR-03 is still in Multnomah County, so it's still safe D and probably the most Democratic district on the map--the area outside of Multnomah is probably about 51% McCain, the area within Multnomah easily 75% Obama.)

I will simply note that the areas East of the Cascade Mountains are a "community of interest." I strongly suspect that all the posturing I read about how breaking "communities of interest" is "gerrymandering" in Minnesota simply won't be applied to the Democratic plan in Oregon.

No one is contesting that this would be a gerrymander; that was the whole point of my post. (Although it isn't really true that all of Eastern Oregon is a community of interest necessarily; Bend doesn't have a ton in common with Hermiston or Ontario.)

It is you who were arguing on the other thread that a map like this in MN would not be a gerrymander.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

all the posturing

You don't need to come into every discussion with guns blazing.

I'm honestly surprised he hasn't gotten ignored by everyone at this point.

[BigSkyBob]

As usual, legislatures engage in amateur-hour gerrymandering. Here's a neater and much more effective gerrymander for the OR Democrats:



(The majority of OR-03 is still in Multnomah County, so it's still safe D and probably the most Democratic district on the map--the area outside of Multnomah is probably about 51% McCain, the area within Multnomah easily 75% Obama.)

I will simply note that the areas East of the Cascade Mountains are a "community of interest." I strongly suspect that all the posturing I read about how breaking "communities of interest" is "gerrymandering" in Minnesota simply won't be applied to the Democratic plan in Oregon.

No one is contesting that this would be a gerrymander; that was the whole point of my post. (Although it isn't really true that all of Eastern Oregon is a community of interest necessarily; Bend doesn't have a ton in common with Umatilla or Ontario--though I did just notice that there might not be a road open in winter between Klamath Falls and Ontario without going through Bend.) It is you who were arguing on the other thread that a map like this in MN would not be a gerrymander.

My point is that  certain posters here are quick to yell "gerrymander" if Republicans pass a map, but, are absolutely silent when Democrats pass maps that favor themselves. Even when the Democratic maps violate principles of fair redistrcting such as compactness, respect for county lines, etc. much more eggregiously than the Republican maps they keep their silence. There is a completely doublestandard asserted, and that doublestand deserved to be noted loudly, clearly, and often.

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

As usual, legislatures engage in amateur-hour gerrymandering. Here's a neater and much more effective gerrymander for the OR Democrats:



(The majority of OR-03 is still in Multnomah County, so it's still safe D and probably the most Democratic district on the map--the area outside of Multnomah is probably about 51% McCain, the area within Multnomah easily 75% Obama.)

I will simply note that the areas East of the Cascade Mountains are a "community of interest." I strongly suspect that all the posturing I read about how breaking "communities of interest" is "gerrymandering" in Minnesota simply won't be applied to the Democratic plan in Oregon.

No one is contesting that this would be a gerrymander; that was the whole point of my post. (Although it isn't really true that all of Eastern Oregon is a community of interest necessarily; Bend doesn't have a ton in common with Umatilla or Ontario--though I did just notice that there might not be a road open in winter between Klamath Falls and Ontario without going through Bend.) It is you who were arguing on the other thread that a map like this in MN would not be a gerrymander.

My point is that  certain posters here are quick to yell "gerrymander" if Republicans pass a map, but, are absolutely silent when Democrats pass maps that favor themselves. Even when the Democratic maps violate principles of fair redistrcting such as compactness, respect for county lines, etc. much more eggregiously than the Republican maps they keep their silence. There is a completely doublestandard asserted, and that doublestand deserved to be noted loudly, clearly, and often.

Uh, wrong actually. Verily's map is a blatant gerrymander, and the Republican plan is more compact and keeps Portland intact, thus is a more sensible plan. The Democratic plan is a gerrymander in that it splits Portland, combining each part with suburbs, exurbs, and even rural areas, and it does so for purely partisan reasons.

[BigSkyBob]

As usual, legislatures engage in amateur-hour gerrymandering. Here's a neater and much more effective gerrymander for the OR Democrats:



(The majority of OR-03 is still in Multnomah County, so it's still safe D and probably the most Democratic district on the map--the area outside of Multnomah is probably about 51% McCain, the area within Multnomah easily 75% Obama.)

I will simply note that the areas East of the Cascade Mountains are a "community of interest." I strongly suspect that all the posturing I read about how breaking "communities of interest" is "gerrymandering" in Minnesota simply won't be applied to the Democratic plan in Oregon.

No one is contesting that this would be a gerrymander; that was the whole point of my post. (Although it isn't really true that all of Eastern Oregon is a community of interest necessarily; Bend doesn't have a ton in common with Hermiston or Ontario.)

It is you who were arguing on the other thread that a map like this in MN would not be a gerrymander.

Apperently, you read what you wish to read, rather than what was written. The Minnesota  map creates districts that are compact, respect county and city lines, and favor the party that wrote the map. The above districts are not compact, don't respect county lines, and favor the party that wrote the map. It is an apples and oranges comparison.


As to "communities of interest" I will make the following comparisons of Minnesota and Oregon. I will compare the Iron Range and the rest of Northern Minnesota with Eugene, and the rest of Southern and Eastern Oregon. Both are natural communities of interest, and both are significantly less than a complete district. The rest of Southern Oregon and Eastern Oregon have more in common with each other than Eugene, and the rest of upstate Minnesota has more in common with each other than the Iron Range. In both cases, some counties in the larger groups have to be paired with the smaller group.


Had the Democrats decided to pair Roseburg with Eastern Oregon, rather than Medford, I would not yell about breaking "communities of interest," even if the breaking Medford from Eastern Oregon  did break up one such community of interest because adding Roseburg  united different such community that had been split previously. [Previously, Roseburg was screwed by being paired with Eugene, and afterwards Medford would be the one screwed.]

1) So I reject your premise that I have advocated splitting communities of interests in Minnesota as a false premise, just as you have rejected the premise concerning Eastern Oregon.

2) I have consistently noted that neither county lines, compactness, nor communities are the end all and be all, just the principles that should be maximized. Inevitably, these principles will conflict. I will not allow myself to claim that the perfection of any particular one is the enemy of the greater good of maximizing all three.

[Verily]

1) But you did argue for splitting communities of interest. McLeod County is 100% not a part of any community of interest also containing any part of Hennepin County, but it does share much with the nearby rural counties that you advocate putting in a different district.

Also, you have a choice: Only one of Roseburg and Bend can go with the rest of Eastern and Southern Oregon due to population constraints. I chose Roseburg on my gerrymander; the current map chooses Bend. Choosing Roseburg is advantageous for the Democrats, but only one can be placed with its community of interest (if you are defining communities of interest so broadly, which is IMO a little silly).

And I fail to see how my districts are any less compact than the ones drawn for Minnesota, some of which snake dramatically across the state. And they actually do respect county lines quite a bit--five splits for five districts is very low. Still a gerrymander, of course; one can draw a gerrymander that complies with such piddling criteria. But it meets your standards at least as well as the MN map does.

2) I agree.

[timothyinMD]

Absolutely no reason to split up Multnomah county when it contains less people than 1 cong. district.  Especially no reason to split the city of Portland

[BigSkyBob]

Absolutely no reason to split up Multnomah county when it contains less people than 1 cong. district.  Especially no reason to split the city of Portland

Every county is less than one district in Oregon. Agreed with that proviso.

[BigSkyBob]

1) But you did argue for splitting communities of interest. McLeod County is 100% not a part of any community of interest also containing any part of Hennepin County, but it does share much with the nearby rural counties that you advocate putting in a different district.

To rehash, failing to extend the Third to McLeod would necessitate the loss of compactness and respect for county lines in other districts. The real alternative is taking Stern out of the Sixth, wrapping the sixth into Dakota county, shifting the Second farther South, and moving the First farther North in Western Minnesota.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the question is what goes with Eastern Oregon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The proposed maps in Minnesota are very compact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As usual, legislatures engage in amateur-hour gerrymandering. Here's a neater and much more effective gerrymander for the OR Democrats:



(The majority of OR-03 is still in Multnomah County, so it's still safe D and probably the most Democratic district on the map--the area outside of Multnomah is probably about 51% McCain, the area within Multnomah easily 75% Obama.)

I will simply note that the areas East of the Cascade Mountains are a "community of interest." I strongly suspect that all the posturing I read about how breaking "communities of interest" is "gerrymandering" in Minnesota simply won't be applied to the Democratic plan in Oregon.

Uh, that very post explicitly called it a gerrymander.

[BigSkyBob]

As usual, legislatures engage in amateur-hour gerrymandering. Here's a neater and much more effective gerrymander for the OR Democrats:



(The majority of OR-03 is still in Multnomah County, so it's still safe D and probably the most Democratic district on the map--the area outside of Multnomah is probably about 51% McCain, the area within Multnomah easily 75% Obama.)

I will simply note that the areas East of the Cascade Mountains are a "community of interest." I strongly suspect that all the posturing I read about how breaking "communities of interest" is "gerrymandering" in Minnesota simply won't be applied to the Democratic plan in Oregon.

Uh, that very post explicitly called it a gerrymander.

Umm, what are you writing about? The map above is a self-admitted gerrymander by a poster here. I was refering to the Democratic maps submitted "the Democratic plan in Oregon."

[minionofmidas]

Which is preserving that community of interest... or rather, restoring it by putting Hood River where it belongs nowadays. (What it does in Portland is of course ugly and disgusting, though).

[Sbane]

As usual, legislatures engage in amateur-hour gerrymandering. Here's a neater and much more effective gerrymander for the OR Democrats:



(The majority of OR-03 is still in Multnomah County, so it's still safe D and probably the most Democratic district on the map--the area outside of Multnomah is probably about 51% McCain, the area within Multnomah easily 75% Obama.)

I will simply note that the areas East of the Cascade Mountains are a "community of interest." I strongly suspect that all the posturing I read about how breaking "communities of interest" is "gerrymandering" in Minnesota simply won't be applied to the Democratic plan in Oregon.

Did you notice how he said his map was a gerrymander? Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills and stop spending so much time being a hack.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The registration totals for the proposed plans:

Current map:

CD   Dem   Rep   NAV
1   45.44%   32.57%   21.99%
2   35.46%   44.16%   20.38%
3   56.29%   22.27%   21.43%
4   44.14%   36.02%   19.84%
5   42.76%   37.68%   19.56%

Democratic plan:

CD   Dem   Rep   NAV
1   45.39%   32.55%   22.07%
2   35.20%   44.45%   20.35%
3   55.28%   23.21%   21.51%
4   44.58%   35.56%   19.85%
5   43.71%   36.76%   19.53%

Republican plan:

CD   Dem   Rep   NAV
1   42.71%   35.10%   22.18%
2   35.48%   44.13%   20.39%
3   59.90%   18.95%   21.15%
4   44.91%   35.11%   19.98%
5   40.84%   39.58%   19.59%

[BigSkyBob]

As usual, legislatures engage in amateur-hour gerrymandering. Here's a neater and much more effective gerrymander for the OR Democrats:



(The majority of OR-03 is still in Multnomah County, so it's still safe D and probably the most Democratic district on the map--the area outside of Multnomah is probably about 51% McCain, the area within Multnomah easily 75% Obama.)

I will simply note that the areas East of the Cascade Mountains are a "community of interest." I strongly suspect that all the posturing I read about how breaking "communities of interest" is "gerrymandering" in Minnesota simply won't be applied to the Democratic plan in Oregon.

Did you notice how he said his map was a gerrymander? Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills and stop spending so much time being a hack.

No, you simply don't know what you are talking about. I specified the Democrats plan. So far, I am correct on that count. Only one self-described "I" here has characterized the map as a "gerrymander." No poster here who describes himself as "D" has denounced the Democratic map as a "gerrymander."

[Sbane]

I don't see republicans denouncing the maps coming out of republican legislatures. This is how it is. Stop complaining.

[BigSkyBob]

I don't see republicans denouncing the maps coming out of republican legislatures. This is how it is. Stop complaining.

It is hypocrisy to demand that Republican denounce all Republican drawn maps, such as in Minnesota, as a "gerrymander" only because they favor Republicans, but, say "pound sand" when they are asked to denounce maps that Democrats draw to favor the Democrats.

There should be one standard that applies to both parties. And, that standards shouldn't be, "If it benefits the Democrats it is 'fair' redistricting, and if benefits the Republicans it is 'gerrymandering.'"