Era of the New Majority

[Heisenberg]

I might be able to do some DRA work; we'll see though.

I've already done:
Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, and West Virginia.
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, and Iowa are next on my list.

I wont do anything larger than WI/MN, though.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

An opportunity to help out the author of the TL that inspired me to use DRA for TLs and repay my gratitude? Sign me up!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I would like to do CO, GA, NC, and AZ, please.

[This account no longer in use.]

I'd be willing to do New England.

[Gass3268]

The fact that other folks can still use DRA is heartbreaking to me.

[KingSweden]

I would like to do CO, GA, NC, and AZ, please.

Go for it!

I'd be willing to do New England.

Sounds great!

I might be able to do some DRA work; we'll see though.

I've already done:
Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, and West Virginia.
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, and Iowa are next on my list.

I wont do anything larger than WI/MN, though.

Heisenberg's xompleted maps are excellent. Consider the Midwestern states he just rattled off reserved.

Thanks everyone!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

KingSweden, are all states I have reserved Dem gerrymanders? (excluding AZ of course, they have a commission)

[KingSweden]

Pretty sure I got this right, but y'all are welcome to spot-check my work.

This looks correct to me.

Per my math, we have 679 electoral votes, a Senate with 102 members and House with 577 members

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also I'd like to reserve FL.

[KingSweden]

Also I'd like to reserve FL.

It's yours.

KingSweden, are all states henceforth named Dem gerrymanders? (excluding AZ of course, they have a commission)

Nah, something closer to the Iowa rule. Communities of interest/whole counties/cities when possible. I don't think mandated Dem gerrymanders could survive court scrutiny. A Dem Congress anticipating a potentially rough 2030 would likely make sure future districts are drawn as "neutrally" as possible. The plan might involve mandated commissions?

(I haven't totally decided yet)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I guess we might see something of a patchwork approach? I.e. some states, like OR (all Dem strongholds of course), might get away with minor pro-Democratic gerrymanders, but otherwise, they'd try and clamp down harder?

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I'll try my hand at Delaware, Idaho, and maybe Oregon once I get my computer plugged in.

[KingSweden]

I guess we might see something of a patchwork approach? I.e. some states, like OR (all Dem strongholds of course), might get away with minor pro-Democratic gerrymanders, but otherwise, they'd try and clamp down harder?

Yeah, exactly. Plus, more districts (in theory) makes gerrymanders harder/less sustainable

[Kamala]

May I take my home state?
EDIT: Never mind, I see that Heisenberg already has it completed.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I guess we might see something of a patchwork approach? I.e. some states, like OR (all Dem strongholds of course), might get away with minor pro-Democratic gerrymanders, but otherwise, they'd try and clamp down harder?

Yeah, exactly. Plus, more districts (in theory) makes gerrymanders harder/less sustainable

So CO, I have to assume it's a dem trifecta, they do a very minor Dem gerry/non-partisan-ish, nice-looking map that just happens to benefit Democrats (like putting the East Plains all in one seat, voila, instant GOP vote sink!)

[Heisenberg]

Also I'd like to reserve FL.

It's yours.

KingSweden, are all states henceforth named Dem gerrymanders? (excluding AZ of course, they have a commission)

Nah, something closer to the Iowa rule. Communities of interest/whole counties/cities when possible. I don't think mandated Dem gerrymanders could survive court scrutiny. A Dem Congress anticipating a potentially rough 2030 would likely make sure future districts are drawn as "neutrally" as possible. The plan might involve mandated commissions?

(I haven't totally decided yet)

My idea: Drawn by legislatures, Iowa rules. Commissions can be pretty biased (AZ, WA). A tiebreaking "Independent" member, like those in Arizona, are still likely to favor one side. If legislatures draw with Iowa rules, partisan gerrymanders are super, super tough. There's not only a rule on minimizing county splits, but also one that outlaws "thin strips". I like whole counties, communities of interest respected (something AZ really doesn't do). The Iowa rules are great. In my map, only Nebraska splits counties (which was necessary). The Iowa map is far more fair than the ones in AZ and WA, where (especially in the former), I wouldn't describe the maps as community of interest. Given how they are called "representatives," community of interest makes most sense. Of course, your decision in the end, just my thoughts.

[KingSweden]

Also I'd like to reserve FL.

It's yours.

KingSweden, are all states henceforth named Dem gerrymanders? (excluding AZ of course, they have a commission)

Nah, something closer to the Iowa rule. Communities of interest/whole counties/cities when possible. I don't think mandated Dem gerrymanders could survive court scrutiny. A Dem Congress anticipating a potentially rough 2030 would likely make sure future districts are drawn as "neutrally" as possible. The plan might involve mandated commissions?

(I haven't totally decided yet)

My idea: Drawn by legislatures, Iowa rules. Commissions can be pretty biased (AZ, WA). A tiebreaking "Independent" member, like those in Arizona, are still likely to favor one side. If legislatures draw with Iowa rules, partisan gerrymanders are super, super tough. There's not only a rule on minimizing county splits, but also one that outlaws "thin strips". I like whole counties, communities of interest respected (something AZ really doesn't do). The Iowa rules are great. In my map, only Nebraska splits counties (which was necessary). The Iowa map is far more fair than the ones in AZ and WA, where (especially in the former), I wouldn't describe the maps as community of interest. Given how they are called "representatives," community of interest makes most sense. Of course, your decision in the end, just my thoughts.

No, these mirror my own thoughts pretty strongly too. Outside of something like Elections Canada, I think regulated Iowa rules redistricting by legislatures is best

[KingSweden]

I'll try my hand at Delaware, Idaho, and maybe Oregon once I get my computer plugged in.

Please do!

I guess we might see something of a patchwork approach? I.e. some states, like OR (all Dem strongholds of course), might get away with minor pro-Democratic gerrymanders, but otherwise, they'd try and clamp down harder?

Yeah, exactly. Plus, more districts (in theory) makes gerrymanders harder/less sustainable

So CO, I have to assume it's a dem trifecta, they do a very minor Dem gerry/non-partisan-ish, nice-looking map that just happens to benefit Democrats (like putting the East Plains all in one seat, voila, instant GOP vote sink!)

You can reference who does and does not have a trifecta on the previous page

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also I'd like to reserve FL.

It's yours.

KingSweden, are all states henceforth named Dem gerrymanders? (excluding AZ of course, they have a commission)

Nah, something closer to the Iowa rule. Communities of interest/whole counties/cities when possible. I don't think mandated Dem gerrymanders could survive court scrutiny. A Dem Congress anticipating a potentially rough 2030 would likely make sure future districts are drawn as "neutrally" as possible. The plan might involve mandated commissions?

(I haven't totally decided yet)

My idea: Drawn by legislatures, Iowa rules. Commissions can be pretty biased (AZ, WA). A tiebreaking "Independent" member, like those in Arizona, are still likely to favor one side. If legislatures draw with Iowa rules, partisan gerrymanders are super, super tough. There's not only a rule on minimizing county splits, but also one that outlaws "thin strips". I like whole counties, communities of interest respected (something AZ really doesn't do). The Iowa rules are great. In my map, only Nebraska splits counties (which was necessary). The Iowa map is far more fair than the ones in AZ and WA, where (especially in the former), I wouldn't describe the maps as community of interest. Given how they are called "representatives," community of interest makes most sense. Of course, your decision in the end, just my thoughts.

Democrats are in charge. What you and (possibly) me see as making the most sense might not take effect in every state (particularly TX)
More specifically anyway, post-2010 and post-2020, Democrats were largely out of the 'drawing districts' card game. This time they have most of the cards. I don't see them giving up all their leverage.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'll try my hand at Delaware, Idaho, and maybe Oregon once I get my computer plugged in.

Please do!

I guess we might see something of a patchwork approach? I.e. some states, like OR (all Dem strongholds of course), might get away with minor pro-Democratic gerrymanders, but otherwise, they'd try and clamp down harder?

Yeah, exactly. Plus, more districts (in theory) makes gerrymanders harder/less sustainable

So CO, I have to assume it's a dem trifecta, they do a very minor Dem gerry/non-partisan-ish, nice-looking map that just happens to benefit Democrats (like putting the East Plains all in one seat, voila, instant GOP vote sink!)

You can reference who does and does not have a trifecta on the previous page

Ok, so I'd like to relinquish my claim on FL for now if you think I am claiming too many states and/or if Heisenburg complains. Doing TX instead.
Also, is this confirmation that no legislatures and/or statehouses switch hands post-2028, pre-2031?
Lastly, am I posting too much in your thread?

[KingSweden]

Also I'd like to reserve FL.

It's yours.

KingSweden, are all states henceforth named Dem gerrymanders? (excluding AZ of course, they have a commission)

Nah, something closer to the Iowa rule. Communities of interest/whole counties/cities when possible. I don't think mandated Dem gerrymanders could survive court scrutiny. A Dem Congress anticipating a potentially rough 2030 would likely make sure future districts are drawn as "neutrally" as possible. The plan might involve mandated commissions?

(I haven't totally decided yet)

My idea: Drawn by legislatures, Iowa rules. Commissions can be pretty biased (AZ, WA). A tiebreaking "Independent" member, like those in Arizona, are still likely to favor one side. If legislatures draw with Iowa rules, partisan gerrymanders are super, super tough. There's not only a rule on minimizing county splits, but also one that outlaws "thin strips". I like whole counties, communities of interest respected (something AZ really doesn't do). The Iowa rules are great. In my map, only Nebraska splits counties (which was necessary). The Iowa map is far more fair than the ones in AZ and WA, where (especially in the former), I wouldn't describe the maps as community of interest. Given how they are called "representatives," community of interest makes most sense. Of course, your decision in the end, just my thoughts.

Democrats are in charge. What you and (possibly) me see as making the most sense might not take effect in every state (particularly TX)

I'll answer both questions here Tim (rather than quote you twice).

You can do whichever maps you want, Heisenberg expressed a preference for doing smaller states. I didn't interpret his response to you as a complaint

2030 will see some different results, but Democrats are 2030-proofing by implementing mandatory redistricting guidelines nationwide (and with a friendly Supreme Court and judiciary I think they'd succeed). Iowa rules for everyone! (I've decided that's what I'll go with). For example I doubt they'll keep the TX State House in 2030, returning the trifecta to Republicans, but with these rules they can prevent a really egregious gerrymander.

As for NJ/VA... that'll be forthcoming (only statehouses potentially subject to change).

[Gass3268]

Also I'd like to reserve FL.

It's yours.

KingSweden, are all states henceforth named Dem gerrymanders? (excluding AZ of course, they have a commission)

Nah, something closer to the Iowa rule. Communities of interest/whole counties/cities when possible. I don't think mandated Dem gerrymanders could survive court scrutiny. A Dem Congress anticipating a potentially rough 2030 would likely make sure future districts are drawn as "neutrally" as possible. The plan might involve mandated commissions?

(I haven't totally decided yet)

My idea: Drawn by legislatures, Iowa rules. Commissions can be pretty biased (AZ, WA). A tiebreaking "Independent" member, like those in Arizona, are still likely to favor one side. If legislatures draw with Iowa rules, partisan gerrymanders are super, super tough. There's not only a rule on minimizing county splits, but also one that outlaws "thin strips". I like whole counties, communities of interest respected (something AZ really doesn't do). The Iowa rules are great. In my map, only Nebraska splits counties (which was necessary). The Iowa map is far more fair than the ones in AZ and WA, where (especially in the former), I wouldn't describe the maps as community of interest. Given how they are called "representatives," community of interest makes most sense. Of course, your decision in the end, just my thoughts.

Personally I am a fan of California's system, but Iowa's is a good second.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

More questions (I hope I'm not needling you too much).
1) Just how quick is Travis County growing?
2) Do we see a coalition district in West Texas north of El Paso, given how Latino it's becoming?
3) How much is South Texas lagging? Is there massive migration from there to San Antonio?
4) I take it there's some immigration to places like Collin, Williamson, Waller, Denton and the other outskirts of metro Counties?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also I'd like to reserve FL.

It's yours.

KingSweden, are all states henceforth named Dem gerrymanders? (excluding AZ of course, they have a commission)

Nah, something closer to the Iowa rule. Communities of interest/whole counties/cities when possible. I don't think mandated Dem gerrymanders could survive court scrutiny. A Dem Congress anticipating a potentially rough 2030 would likely make sure future districts are drawn as "neutrally" as possible. The plan might involve mandated commissions?

(I haven't totally decided yet)

My idea: Drawn by legislatures, Iowa rules. Commissions can be pretty biased (AZ, WA). A tiebreaking "Independent" member, like those in Arizona, are still likely to favor one side. If legislatures draw with Iowa rules, partisan gerrymanders are super, super tough. There's not only a rule on minimizing county splits, but also one that outlaws "thin strips". I like whole counties, communities of interest respected (something AZ really doesn't do). The Iowa rules are great. In my map, only Nebraska splits counties (which was necessary). The Iowa map is far more fair than the ones in AZ and WA, where (especially in the former), I wouldn't describe the maps as community of interest. Given how they are called "representatives," community of interest makes most sense. Of course, your decision in the end, just my thoughts.

Personally I am a fan of California's system, but Iowa's is a good second.

Since IA's system would not really work in some places (like, say, you can't have all of Dallas County in one CD ) I'm assuming that you have some mix of the FL system for good measure.

[KingSweden]

More questions (I hope I'm not needling you too much).
1) Just how quick is Travis County growing?
2) Do we see a coalition district in West Texas north of El Paso, given how Latino it's becoming?
3) How much is South Texas lagging? Is there massive migration from there to San Antonio?
4) I take it there's some immigration to places like Collin, Williamson, Waller, Denton and the other outskirts of metro Counties?

I'll answer your second note first. You would naturally need to come up with some kind of community of interest solution for larger counties, so you're right.

Texas as a whole grew at a slower pace between 2020-2030 than it did in the 2010s despite adding just shy of the same # of people. The urban areas I imagine are fastest booming. You know much more about Texas geography/politics than I do - I will trust your judgement in making sub-state projections