538: The Congressional Map Has A Record-Setting Bias Against Democrats

[DC Al Fine]

I'm skeptical that fair maps would make a major difference for the Democrats given how self-packed they are. There's just no way to draw a reasonable map of any state with a major metro without having huge Democratic packs. e.g. Most of New York City votes 75%+ Democrat. The GOP would punch above their weight there no matter what.

[krazen1211]

The gerrymanders are not even the main cause - reasonable maps in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would combined swing MAYBE 6-7 seats, but probably less.

Dems' problem is a simple one: their voters self-pack. The constitution places a large value on geographic diversity and winning individual states, and on both measures Dems fail miserably.

Remarkably lazy analysis by 538 honestly.

Lol, the map in Wisconsin is very close to the same as the last decade, except possibly district 3 and 7....which don't even need to be gerrymandered anymore because 7 is so strong for the GOP.

If anything that backfired.

Last decade's map was drawn by Sensenbrenner and Obey.

[krazen1211]

forcing "competitive" districts on states where one party's population is concentrated in a particular city or region is a dumb idea that destroys communities of interest, overrepresents the minority party and overrepresents that city or region.

Isn't it funny how all 3 'competitive' oddly shaped districts in Arizona lean towards to Democrat party?

[Nyvin]

forcing "competitive" districts on states where one party's population is concentrated in a particular city or region is a dumb idea that destroys communities of interest, overrepresents the minority party and overrepresents that city or region.

Isn't it funny how all 3 'competitive' oddly shaped districts in Arizona lean towards to Democrat party?

Romney won 6 out of 9 districts and the biggest vote sink in the state is AZ-7, which is dem.

[Nyvin]

I'm not a proponent of eliminating partisan gerrymandering, though, as it is an American tradition as old as Elbridge Gerry.

You're for politicians basically stealing seats for their party just because it is a ...tradition?

...seriously?

Sorry. I don't find something that has been going on since the founding of the republic as offensive as most here seem to do. Quite frankly, a lot of the supposedly neutral redistricting criteria proposed by others are just as likely to lead to partisan Gerrymandering. Forcing "competitive" districts on states where one party's population is concentrated in a particular city or region is a dumb idea that destroys communities of interest, overrepresents the minority party and overrepresents that city or region. Supposedly "neutral" commissions almost always aren't. And court-drawn maps often take on the biases of the appointed special master.

So, no, there is no such thing as "neutral" redistricting. And I don't view partisan redistricting as "stealing" seats for any one party - what Republicans do in Ohio or Michigan can easily be offset by what Democrats do in Illinois or California, anyway.

There might not be such thing as completely neutral redistricting, but attempting something close to it is a HELL of a lot better than doing nothing.

[krazen1211]

forcing "competitive" districts on states where one party's population is concentrated in a particular city or region is a dumb idea that destroys communities of interest, overrepresents the minority party and overrepresents that city or region.

Isn't it funny how all 3 'competitive' oddly shaped districts in Arizona lean towards to Democrat party?

Romney won 6 out of 9 districts and the biggest vote sink in the state is AZ-7, which is dem.

In a state in which he won by 10. Tell me good sir, out of 9 Congressional races in 3 elections in these districts, how have they split?

AZ-07 is not a vote sink. It casts very few votes because many residents are not U.S. citizens.

[Coraxion]

One way that could increase the Party's support in rural America and also have desirable effects on the environment - which is important to most Democrats - would be to significantly increase agricultural subsidies. Urban sprawl is not a good thing because it has very negative effects on the environment. If farms were more productive due to higher agricultural subsidies, then farmers would be less likely to sell their land to real estate developers, thus decreasing the growth of sprawl. And obviously, farmers in states like Iowa and Wisconsin would have a more favorable view of the Party because they'd benefit.