Busting the "both sides do it" myth

[traininthedistance]

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

An analysis of the asymmetrical impacts of gerrymandering from the inimitable Sam Wang.  The conclusion, obviously, is that the Republicans got a pretty massive unfair advantage this time around.

Worth noting: the state most badly gerrymandered in the Dems' direction was not Maryland or Illinois, but Arizona, since it was the one and only state which had a higher R vote but elected a D delegation.  Maryland, in particular, was within one seat of a fair outcome: the state is so solidly Democratic, but is arranged in such a way as to favor the Republicans, that a Democratic gerrymander is required for the state to fairly represent its partisan lean.  It's at least as fair as, say, Alabama's 6-1 delegation, for instance.

Ilinois was a wee bit Dem-skewed, sure, but that doesn't make up for PA, MI, NC, WI, etc. etc. etc.

[krazen1211]

What a batch of liars. They forgot Massachusetts.

[traininthedistance]

What a batch of liars. They forgot Massachusetts.

Sam Wang is one person.

And nice to see you resort to name-calling when you can't refute the central argument.

As for Massachusetts, Obama won every county both times.  You could probably gerrymander one single Republican seat snaking across Plymouth and the Worcester suburbs if you really wanted to, but an all-Democratic delegation is entirely fair.

[krazen1211]

Maryland, in particular, was within one seat of a fair outcome: the state is so solidly Democratic, but is arranged in such a way as to favor the Republicans, that a Democratic gerrymander is required for the state to fairly represent its partisan lean. 

As for Massachusetts, Obama won every county both times.  You could probably gerrymander one single Republican seat snaking across Plymouth and the Worcester suburbs if you really wanted to, but an all-Democratic delegation is entirely fair.

Lol. This type of mathematics is, well, interesting. I wonder if the same mathematics dictates that Republicans get 0 seats in Connecticut.

[traininthedistance]

Maryland, in particular, was within one seat of a fair outcome: the state is so solidly Democratic, but is arranged in such a way as to favor the Republicans, that a Democratic gerrymander is required for the state to fairly represent its partisan lean.  

As for Massachusetts, Obama won every county both times.  You could probably gerrymander one single Republican seat snaking across Plymouth and the Worcester suburbs if you really wanted to, but an all-Democratic delegation is entirely fair.

Lol. This type of mathematics is, well, interesting. I wonder if the same mathematics dictates that Republicans get 0 seats in Connecticut.

It is also the same math that dictates the Dems get 0 seats in Oklahoma.  

And, once again, if you have an actual argument with the points raised in the article, make it.  No, "lol" isn't an argument.

[krazen1211]

Maryland, in particular, was within one seat of a fair outcome: the state is so solidly Democratic, but is arranged in such a way as to favor the Republicans, that a Democratic gerrymander is required for the state to fairly represent its partisan lean.  

As for Massachusetts, Obama won every county both times.  You could probably gerrymander one single Republican seat snaking across Plymouth and the Worcester suburbs if you really wanted to, but an all-Democratic delegation is entirely fair.

Lol. This type of mathematics is, well, interesting. I wonder if the same mathematics dictates that Republicans get 0 seats in Connecticut.

It is also the same math that dictates the Dems get 0 seats in Oklahoma.  

And, once again, if you have an actual argument with the points raised in the article, make it.  No, "lol" isn't an argument.

What is the purpose of arguing with someone who pretends that large swaths of the country do not exist?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Maryland, in particular, was within one seat of a fair outcome: the state is so solidly Democratic, but is arranged in such a way as to favor the Republicans, that a Democratic gerrymander is required for the state to fairly represent its partisan lean.  

As for Massachusetts, Obama won every county both times.  You could probably gerrymander one single Republican seat snaking across Plymouth and the Worcester suburbs if you really wanted to, but an all-Democratic delegation is entirely fair.

Lol. This type of mathematics is, well, interesting. I wonder if the same mathematics dictates that Republicans get 0 seats in Connecticut.

It is also the same math that dictates the Dems get 0 seats in Oklahoma.  

And, once again, if you have an actual argument with the points raised in the article, make it.  No, "lol" isn't an argument.

What is the purpose of arguing with someone who pretends that large swaths of the country do not exist?

Yes, arguing with you is a waste of time. But enough talk of the obvious.

[traininthedistance]

Maryland, in particular, was within one seat of a fair outcome: the state is so solidly Democratic, but is arranged in such a way as to favor the Republicans, that a Democratic gerrymander is required for the state to fairly represent its partisan lean.  

As for Massachusetts, Obama won every county both times.  You could probably gerrymander one single Republican seat snaking across Plymouth and the Worcester suburbs if you really wanted to, but an all-Democratic delegation is entirely fair.

Lol. This type of mathematics is, well, interesting. I wonder if the same mathematics dictates that Republicans get 0 seats in Connecticut.

It is also the same math that dictates the Dems get 0 seats in Oklahoma.  

And, once again, if you have an actual argument with the points raised in the article, make it.  No, "lol" isn't an argument.

What is the purpose of arguing with someone who pretends that large swaths of the country do not exist?

Neither I nor Mr. Wang have done any such thing.  Now, if you're trying to obliquely admit that your worldview ignores the existence of millions of Americans, and that therefore I shouldn't take you seriously, then very well.  I'll keep that in mind for next time.  Otherwise, explain yourself.

[krazen1211]

Neither I nor Mr. Wang have done any such thing.  Now, if you're trying to obliquely admit that your worldview ignore the existence of millions of Americans, and that therefore I shouldn't take you seriously, then very well.  I'll keep that in mind for next time.  Otherwise, explain yourself.

Obviously, his chart and graph ignores numerous states in the United States. So are you.

A more honest batch of non-liars would present the data for all the states.

[traininthedistance]

Neither I nor Mr. Wang have done any such thing.  Now, if you're trying to obliquely admit that your worldview ignore the existence of millions of Americans, and that therefore I shouldn't take you seriously, then very well.  I'll keep that in mind for next time.  Otherwise, explain yourself.

Obviously, his chart and graph ignores numerous states in the United States. So are you.

A more honest batch of non-liars would present the data for all the states.

He explicitly says that he's only picking out the states which either a) fail the minimum fairness test (elect a majority of reps from the wrong party), or b) are more than 1 representative off the expected result.  The states not mentioned were analyzed, but did not fit either of those criteria.  I's sure that if you were curious, you could ask and he'd provide the data.  And, of course, the big point that the United States of America as a whole fails the minimum fairness test is valid no matter what states are highlighted.

This does not make him a liar, it simply makes you utterly devoid of reading comprehension. 

Or a liar.  Either way.

[traininthedistance]

In any case, I'd be interested to get beyond krazen's threads***ing and hear what sort of response Republicans of intelligence and integrity have to Wang's work.  (Muon, I'm looking at you.  No pressure. )

[muon2]

The approach used was interesting and seems plausible for some states. For example, WI is probably accurate. I think his analysis misses the impact of VRA districts. Unless the VRA district is made by joining the minority voters to an overwhelming population of R white voters, the state is left with a net deficit of D voters compared to the state that does not create a VRA district.

For example, I know from the OH competition that one needed to push a mild Dem gerrymander to get the desired partisan outcome for the state. One of the measures was how closely the delegation matched the overall state percentage which was quite close to 50%. The black-majority district took up 4 times as many Dems as Pubs and with only 16 CDs that left way too many Pubs to naturally spread into 8 of the remaining CDs. So one had to make 2 or 3 strong R districts that were 2 to 1 to compensate. That meant the rest of the state had to divide 7 to 6 D to get it back to an even delegation. The best competition strategy made 4 strong R districts and just 1 strong D district, then built 7 lean D districts from the rest.

IL is one state where Wang finds a clear D tilt of 1.7 seats. But that assumes no VRA districts in the analysis. Based on the OH experience, and the fact that IL has 4 VRA districts out of 18, the map is more gerrymandered D than Wang's analysis would suggest.

[traininthedistance]

The approach used was interesting and seems plausible for some states. For example, WI is probably accurate. I think his analysis misses the impact of VRA districts. Unless the VRA district is made by joining the minority voters to an overwhelming population of R white voters, the state is left with a net deficit of D voters compared to the state that does not create a VRA district.

For example, I know from the OH competition that one needed to push a mild Dem gerrymander to get the desired partisan outcome for the state. One of the measures was how closely the delegation matched the overall state percentage which was quite close to 50%. The black-majority district took up 4 times as many Dems as Pubs and with only 16 CDs that left way too many Pubs to naturally spread into 8 of the remaining CDs. So one had to make 2 or 3 strong R districts that were 2 to 1 to compensate. That meant the rest of the state had to divide 7 to 6 D to get it back to an even delegation. The best competition strategy made 4 strong R districts and just 1 strong D district, then built 7 lean D districts from the rest.

IL is one state where Wang finds a clear D tilt of 1.7 seats. But that assumes no VRA districts in the analysis. Based on the OH experience, and the fact that IL has 4 VRA districts out of 18, the map is more gerrymandered D than Wang's analysis would suggest.

Thanks, that mostly makes sense.  The one thing I would say in response is that I'm not entirely sure how easy it is to disentangle the issue of VRA districts from the "natural" packing of Democrats in urban areas, since most VRA districts outside of the "black belt" in the Deep South are, in fact, just compact urban areas.  While he asserts that the vast majority of the Republicans' margin is due to gerrymandering, if you look closely it appears that under "fair" maps the Republicans would still have a margin of up to 5 seats.  So there's still room for those factors to tip the balance of individual states, and the nation as a whole.  (And it appears that, say, for a state like Pennsylvania they might in fact flip it to a bare majority-R delegation, but it can't get you to 5-13 all by itself.)

[traininthedistance]

http://election.princeton.edu/2013/01/02/gerrymanders-part-2-how-many-voters-were-disenfranchised/

Part 2 is up.  And it includes a chart with deviations for all 50 states.

The largest pro-Democratic deviation is actually Texas, and interestingly enough it is the one state where the VRA actually really does skew things in favor of the Democrats. VRA seats in most urban areas tend to be Democratic seats surrounded by other Democratic areas, so they reflect the "natural packing" of Dems in urban areas rather than force the most egregious Republican gerrymanders.  (Though they do tend to bias otherwise fair maps, and once in a while they do in fact force R gerrymanders, such as in NE Ohio.)  VRA seats in the Deep South tend to ensure those states get fair representation, rather than cracking the AA population for partisan gain in either direction.  But Texas... Texas has the fajita strips.  And in that area you could very easily pack a Brownsville-McAllen district and get 2 R-leaning districts to the north, and defend it on CoI grounds.  Which is basically the entire margin by which Texas' map is D-skewed.

[BigSkyBob]

What a batch of liars. They forgot Massachusetts.

Sam Wang is one person.

And nice to see you resort to name-calling when you can't refute the central argument.

Your statement presupposes that claims that justice requires partisan gerrymandering ["{Maryland} is arranged in such a way as to favor the Republicans, that a Democratic gerrymander is required for the state to fairly represent its partisan lean."] deserves to be taken seriously. Most folks intuitively consider partisan gerrymander something that they denounce when they are on the receiving side, and, justify when their own side does it. People whom are acting morally in their own mind tend strongly to merely explain their actions. Of course, you are perfectly free to go ahead any make a moral case for partisan gerrymandering, but, you ought to reasonably expect people to reply with answers such as, "How stupid to you think I am?," and, "You're on crack!"

It is quite bizarre to claim that 7-1 "fairly represents [Maryland's] partisan lean." Certainly, Republican candidates receive more that 25% of the total vote, or they would if it meant anything to contest every seat.

I would also add that the people elected to serve in Congress do not represent Maryland, but, rather the people in their individual districts. The partisan outcome of seats fully outside of Baltimore ought to reflect the partisan breakdown of those seats, and, not the voting tendencies of Baltimore residents.

[BigSkyBob]

Maryland, in particular, was within one seat of a fair outcome: the state is so solidly Democratic, but is arranged in such a way as to favor the Republicans, that a Democratic gerrymander is required for the state to fairly represent its partisan lean.  

As for Massachusetts, Obama won every county both times.  You could probably gerrymander one single Republican seat snaking across Plymouth and the Worcester suburbs if you really wanted to, but an all-Democratic delegation is entirely fair.

Lol. This type of mathematics is, well, interesting. I wonder if the same mathematics dictates that Republicans get 0 seats in Connecticut.

He is claiming that the partisan majority is morally entitled to a supermajority of the seats. Most people think that is one of the inherent flaws of district systems. To each his own, I suppose.

Where he is being hypocritical is in claiming Maryland districting ought to reflect that partisan nature of the state as a whole, whereas in Massachusetts he is claiming that the outcome is consistent with the partisan nature of each county. It so happens that the distribution of Republicans in Maryland is highly efficient for Republicans [concentrated] and the distribution of Democrats in Massachusetts is reasonable efficient for Democrats [sufficiently defused.] His basic claim is that justice demands such happenstance must be undone. He has to justify why 9-0 accurately reflects the partisan balance in Massachusetts.

[BigSkyBob]

The approach used was interesting and seems plausible for some states. For example, WI is probably accurate.

Had the Republicans not picked up the NW/Central district in 2010, the likely outcome would have been 4-4 in 2012, which mirrored closely the statewide vote.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Massachusetts map is problematic for many reasons, but the idea that the Republicans would ever at any time stand more than a roughly even chance of winning a House seat in Massachusetts under a fair map is ludicrous as long as the United States continues to use single-member constituencies. The nature of the partisan distribution here is such that the only type of map that could possibly mirror the statewide vote would have to be among the most egregious Republican gerrymanders in the country.

[BigSkyBob]

Maryland, in particular, was within one seat of a fair outcome: the state is so solidly Democratic, but is arranged in such a way as to favor the Republicans, that a Democratic gerrymander is required for the state to fairly represent its partisan lean.  

As for Massachusetts, Obama won every county both times.  You could probably gerrymander one single Republican seat snaking across Plymouth and the Worcester suburbs if you really wanted to, but an all-Democratic delegation is entirely fair.

Lol. This type of mathematics is, well, interesting. I wonder if the same mathematics dictates that Republicans get 0 seats in Connecticut.

It is also the same math that dictates the Dems get 0 seats in Oklahoma.  

And, once again, if you have an actual argument with the points raised in the article, make it.  No, "lol" isn't an argument.

What is the purpose of arguing with someone who pretends that large swaths of the country do not exist?

Neither I nor Mr. Wang have done any such thing.  

In fact, Mr Wang has engaged in what amounts to intellectual hand-waiving. To accurately test his theory he would have to find a method to randomly redistrict the state to model expected partisan outcomes. Basically, he said, "Screw it, I'm not going to do that!," and proceded to model states as politically homogenous. That was counter-factual.

If the country were politically homogenous then in 2006, and 2008, and 2012 the Democrats would have taken every seat, and in 2010 the Republicans would have done the same. Instead of embracing that absurdity, he it did it for each individual state. There simply is no reason to believe that each state ought to mirror the partisan outcome of the country as a whole. Nor, is there any reason to believe that each region within a state ought to mirror the partisan outcome of that state.

[BigSkyBob]

The Massachusetts map is problematic for many reasons, but the idea that the Republicans would ever at any time stand more than a roughly even chance of winning a House seat in Massachusetts under a fair map is ludicrous as long as the United States continues to use single-member constituencies. The nature of the partisan distribution here is such that the only type of map that could possibly mirror the statewide vote would have to be among the most egregious Republican gerrymanders in the country.

His claim is that such a map wouldn't be an "egregious" partisan gerrymander, but, rather, a "just" gerrymander. His claim is that Maryland ought to be 7-1, and, if it takes spaghetti lines to achieve 7-1, then justice demands that it be done. Presumably, if he believes 8-1 is the just outcome in Massachusetts, then that would justify spaghetti lines to achieve.

That isn't my position. That is merely taking what he claimed seriously.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Massachusetts map is problematic for many reasons, but the idea that the Republicans would ever at any time stand more than a roughly even chance of winning a House seat in Massachusetts under a fair map is ludicrous as long as the United States continues to use single-member constituencies. The nature of the partisan distribution here is such that the only type of map that could possibly mirror the statewide vote would have to be among the most egregious Republican gerrymanders in the country.

His claim is that such a map wouldn't be an "egregious" partisan gerrymander, but, rather, a "just" gerrymander. His claim is that Maryland ought to be 7-1, and, if it takes spaghetti lines to achieve 7-1, then justice demands that it be done. Presumably, if he believes 8-1 is the just outcome in Massachusetts, then that would justify spaghetti lines to achieve.

That isn't my position. That is merely taking what he claimed seriously.

I just tried to make a McCain district on a map of Massachusetts. Any McCain district. I couldn't even get to six hundred thousand people.

I imagine a Romney district would be slightly easier. Slightly. A district that's winnable for the right kind of Republican could probably be done in one or two different areas, but there are districts in Massachusetts that are under far-flung but conceivable circumstances winnable for the right kind of Republican as it is.

The 'just' outcome in Massachusetts would probably be something like 7-2 or even 6-3, which isn't going to happen by any means. Even if we were to accept Wang's logic about Maryland and apply it to Massachusetts, this state's geography self-gerrymanders much more successfully than Maryland's does.

[Antonio the Sixth]

SHOCKER

[minionofmidas]

Both sides play the game. The rules are slanted in the Republicans' favor, but both sides play by them.

[traininthedistance]

It is quite bizarre to claim that 7-1 "fairly represents [Maryland's] partisan lean." Certainly, Republican candidates receive more that 25% of the total vote, or they would if it meant anything to contest every seat.

It's not a linear scale.  Democrats receive 40 percent of the total vote in Texas, but it would be an egregious Democratic gerrymander if they were to receive 40 percent of the seats there.  A state that is 50/50 should have an evenly divided delegation; if you're at say 52 or 53 percent you should have an extra seat; but by the time you get to 60 percent vote share than you should be taking way more than 60 percent of the seats.  In either direction.

Mind you, 7-1 is still skewed a little bit- a perfectly fair Maryland map would probably give you 6-2 most years.  It's just not skewed by more than one seat.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I hate to say it, but BSB has a point. You can't say that Maryland "deserves" a 7-1 map that it would be denied under a fairly drawn map because of how it's laid out, but Massachusetts is OK with a 9-0 map because how it's laid out. The article's points are pretty good otherwise though.

In regards to Texas and especially Arizona, the main factor there is "rotten boroughs", the turnout in Democratic Hispanic areas is FAR below in Republican areas. Especially in Arizona, where Ed Pastor's district has some of the worst turnout in the country, and is both the most Democratic district in Arizona (in percentage) and least Democratic (in raw votes). But it elects just as many representatives as a high turnout Republican district does. I haven't looked at the numbers for the Hispanic districts in Texas, but similar ones wouldn't surprise me.