100 Senate districts

[Idaho Conservative]

not a mild gerrymander, the entire map is dripping with partisan intent.  There is no logical reason to split the Twin Cities, Denver metro, Detroit metro, etc with districts this large.  Except for partisanship.

[Idaho Conservative]

not a mild gerrymander, the entire map is dripping with partisan intent.  There is no logical reason to split the Twin Cities, Denver metro, Detroit metro, etc with districts this large.  Except for partisanship.

I am forced to admit that I agree. This made it more fun, not less, to dredge up this map from 2017 and upload it onto StatesFun.

However, it should be noted that Democrats tend to create vote sinks for themselves and that neat districts tend to be R biased.

today that's the case, but it's not inherent.  For a long time urban areas were often more GOP friendly, particularly in the south.  Dems just really struggle to appeal to folks outside of big cities these days.  I don't see that as a justifiable reason to crack cities on a "fair" map tho. 

[Idaho Conservative]

not a mild gerrymander, the entire map is dripping with partisan intent.  There is no logical reason to split the Twin Cities, Denver metro, Detroit metro, etc with districts this large.  Except for partisanship.

well, yes, I agree that there is no real reason other than desiring to taking into account partisanship to draw the lines this way.
But this map was designed to correct for the impact of partisanship on the results of district lines in the present, so...
Not to mention, in the parlance I use, "fair map" is one that uses partisan data and tries to make it equal, while one that ignores partisanship at least mostly is a "non-partisan map". So this is a fair map under that definition. A non-partisan 100 seat Senate map would only create a larger R advantage.

no, it's not even fair.  Trump and Clinton were pretty close in the popular vote, if you wanted to make it fair from a partisan perspective there would 49 Trump seats.  Yes it's true that Dems fail to appeal to rural areas, but you waaaaay overcompensated for that.

[Idaho Conservative]

not a mild gerrymander, the entire map is dripping with partisan intent.  There is no logical reason to split the Twin Cities, Denver metro, Detroit metro, etc with districts this large.  Except for partisanship.

well, yes, I agree that there is no real reason other than desiring to taking into account partisanship to draw the lines this way.
But this map was designed to correct for the impact of partisanship on the results of district lines in the present, so...
Not to mention, in the parlance I use, "fair map" is one that uses partisan data and tries to make it equal, while one that ignores partisanship at least mostly is a "non-partisan map". So this is a fair map under that definition. A non-partisan 100 seat Senate map would only create a larger R advantage.

no, it's not even fair.  Trump and Clinton were pretty close in the popular vote, if you wanted to make it fair from a partisan perspective there would 49 Trump seats.  Yes it's true that Dems fail to appeal to rural areas, but you waaaaay overcompensated for that.

The median district was within 2 points of the nation four times consecutively. This doesn't look like a completely ironclad Dem gerrymander. If it was, then I'd be agreeing with you more on the topic.

That doesn't disprove my point at all.  Sure, there are limits to how much you can mathematically gerrymander because you didn't split counties.  But the intent was clear and it very much benefits one party even when taking into account the popular vote (which isn't even relevant in SMDs, if you care about the popular vote, do PR)

[Idaho Conservative]

not a mild gerrymander, the entire map is dripping with partisan intent.  There is no logical reason to split the Twin Cities, Denver metro, Detroit metro, etc with districts this large.  Except for partisanship.

well, yes, I agree that there is no real reason other than desiring to taking into account partisanship to draw the lines this way.
But this map was designed to correct for the impact of partisanship on the results of district lines in the present, so...
Not to mention, in the parlance I use, "fair map" is one that uses partisan data and tries to make it equal, while one that ignores partisanship at least mostly is a "non-partisan map". So this is a fair map under that definition. A non-partisan 100 seat Senate map would only create a larger R advantage.

no, it's not even fair.  Trump and Clinton were pretty close in the popular vote, if you wanted to make it fair from a partisan perspective there would 49 Trump seats.  Yes it's true that Dems fail to appeal to rural areas, but you waaaaay overcompensated for that.

The median district was within 2 points of the nation four times consecutively. This doesn't look like a completely ironclad Dem gerrymander. If it was, then I'd be agreeing with you more on the topic.

That doesn't disprove my point at all.  Sure, there are limits to how much you can mathematically gerrymander because you didn't split counties.  But the intent was clear and it very much benefits one party even when taking into account the popular vote (which isn't even relevant in SMDs, if you care about the popular vote, do PR)

Again, I ask, would this map stop Rs from taking the majority in 2014?

I have no idea, there is no way to know.  States don't vote the same for president as they do senate.  But what I do know is the national popular vote is completely irrelevant in SMDs.

[Idaho Conservative]

not a mild gerrymander, the entire map is dripping with partisan intent.  There is no logical reason to split the Twin Cities, Denver metro, Detroit metro, etc with districts this large.  Except for partisanship.

well, yes, I agree that there is no real reason other than desiring to taking into account partisanship to draw the lines this way.
But this map was designed to correct for the impact of partisanship on the results of district lines in the present, so...
Not to mention, in the parlance I use, "fair map" is one that uses partisan data and tries to make it equal, while one that ignores partisanship at least mostly is a "non-partisan map". So this is a fair map under that definition. A non-partisan 100 seat Senate map would only create a larger R advantage.

no, it's not even fair.  Trump and Clinton were pretty close in the popular vote, if you wanted to make it fair from a partisan perspective there would 49 Trump seats.  Yes it's true that Dems fail to appeal to rural areas, but you waaaaay overcompensated for that.

The median district was within 2 points of the nation four times consecutively. This doesn't look like a completely ironclad Dem gerrymander. If it was, then I'd be agreeing with you more on the topic.

That doesn't disprove my point at all.  Sure, there are limits to how much you can mathematically gerrymander because you didn't split counties.  But the intent was clear and it very much benefits one party even when taking into account the popular vote (which isn't even relevant in SMDs, if you care about the popular vote, do PR)

Again, I ask, would this map stop Rs from taking the majority in 2014?

I have no idea, there is no way to know.  States don't vote the same for president as they do senate.  But what I do know is the national popular vote is completely irrelevant in SMDs.

It's not completely irrelevant. The median seat measure is a valid way of measuring how a map leans in terms of likely outcomes. One of the best markers of a fair map is having a median district close to the average.

compactness is a better measure of that.  If you care about the total votes meeting the outcome, support PR.  But drawing SMDs to have a similar outcome to the PV is partisan gerrymandering, splitting the Twin Cities simply makes no sense.