How do I post my Oregon redistricting state?

I don't know how to post my own redistricting can anyone help please?

---

by: ramacher @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 01:05:53 AM UTC

Have you been registered for at least a week?

If so, you should be able to click where it says "New Diary" and post it.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 01:10:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think your CT-4 is a big problem

simply because you took Bridgeport out of the district, which is the source of Dem vote strength there. I wouldn't be surprised if your District 4 had an R PVI.

Consequently, your CT-3 is probably a huge Dem vote sink - I'd put it at D+18 as a guess, and that might even be low.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 01:26:35 AM UTC

I'm wondering about that too...

I might attempt a redraw around the Bridgeport area and north New Haven County.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 02:22:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Help again lol....

What about adding the pics from Dave's redistricting app? I saved a pic as a JPEG to my desktop but don't know how to add to a new diary?

---

by: ramacher @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 01:31:48 AM UTC

You need to get a flickr account or something similar

Then upload the pics there, and grab the HTML tag to post in your diary.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 01:35:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think it's a bit unfair

To refer to Himes' re-election as "closer than expected"--he won by 6 points, a larger margin than in 2008, when he won by 4.  Only a very few D congresspeople can boast that.  I didn't even expect him to win at all.  In 2008, Himes won only Bridgeport, Norwalk, and Stamford, whereas in 2010 he added Redding, Weston, and Westport.  

Getting down to numbers, though, in 2010 Himes won Bridgeport by 14,197 votes while winning the district by 13,109.  So, without Bridgeport the district would have gone Republican by about 1100 votes, out of about 193,000 cast.  That's still pretty close to even, actually, given the overall Republican lean of the year--I guess Stamford does an unheralded amount of work too.  So yeah, no Bridgeport, no Himes (at least in 2008 and 2010) but a hypothetical CT-04 without Bridgeport might be more competitive than you'd think.

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

---

by: Xenocrypt @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 01:46:46 AM UTC

(It's possible this should have been a reply to shamlet)

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

---

by: Xenocrypt @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 01:47:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is a interesting solution

I like the maps what find imaginative ways what benefit to the democrats.

I'm sure we will not see nothing worse than the current map for the democrats. Nothing about some EVEN district or somethig like this.

If this map give some doubt about the rating of the red district, you can give less urban areas to the blue and to the purple districts. I think it is not difficult.

Thanks Sao :)

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 02:16:06 AM UTC

The blue district

I'm a little concerned about too. Waterbury is fairly conservative as far as Northeastern big cities go, and Meriden is pretty small. The rest of the district is full of rural and suburban areas that are probably pretty swingy (again, I don't know exact numbers, these are just hunches). I would eyeball the blue district at D+4 or so.

So this map is IMHO pretty close to a Republican gerrymander of CT - swap some areas between the pink and blue seats and you might get 2 R+ districts.

I think Democrats will concede a EVEN seat, because they need the 2/3 majority to pass the plan. I also doubt they will risk court because it might open them up to a VRA challenge (see my post on the other CT thread), which would have a small likelihood of succeeding but would be an unmitigated disaster for Democrats if it did (Imagine having to carve out a D+25 district in CT! You'd probably wind up with a 3D-2R map at best)

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 02:27:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I dissagree

A republican Gerrymander of Connecticut never would have D+4 districts (taking you numbers, I should do the numbers, but I do not still). This would be a lot more close to a democratic Gerrymander, what would have D+5 to D+8 districts.

A republican Gerrymander would find some R+ or EVEN district and D+very high districts.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 02:51:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clarification

I said that if you did some swapping between the Blue and Pink (moving the northwest to the blue, putting Meriden in the pink) it would be a decent R gerrymander.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:05:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh ok

but I was talking about the purple, not the pink.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:23:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are making me smile with your bid of convice the people for concede to the republicans unnecessary advantages.

The people is not as naive.

The 2/3 is another example of bad legislation for redistricting in the bluest states what give some advantage to the republicans, but in this case it is not big. They have just the number of state house representatives what they need for be over 1/3, and they have also just the number of state senators what they need for be over 1/3. If they win not some vacant seat, they will be just in the minimum.

What would draw the court? Surely a very well balanced map since the democratic point. Looking to the results of 2008 the state has a good distribution of the democratic vote. Very good. All the counties of the state have between 56% and 61% Obama except the neighbor Litchfield (52% O) and Harford (65% O). Since this point Connecticut is not Pennsylvania.

Just Sao's map join parts of Litchfield and Harford, and without know the exact numbers, this seems pretty right since a democratic point. Of course it is necessary to do the numbers. We will see nothing about EVEN or R+ districts for Connecticut.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:19:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anything I can do to make you smile!

The County results are misleading because the Cities are spread out more or less evenly between the counties. Notice I'm not doing anything with CT-2. It's D+6, Uniformly D+6, and will stay D+6. East of the Connecticut River is more homogeneous, as is typical of rural New England. But west of the Connecticut River, cities like the Hartfords, Bloomfield, Meriden, New Haven, and Bridgeport are Dem vote sources, while wealthier areas around them are mildly Republican - characteristic of areas along the southern half of the Northeast Corridor. So County statistics doesn't reveal as much as in other cases where counties are more homogeneous (for example, Maryland)

Joining Litchfield with Hartford is a smart move from a Dem point of view; I don't dispute that. I do dispute that Republicans would acquiesce to something that blatant. Republicans don't have the power to force a 3-2 map, or even a 4-1 map. They do have the power to force a 4-0-1 map. If Democrats do not throw them a small bone, they will block it and force a court battle.

Remember, an EVEN district is not a Republican district. In fact, in a state like CT, in a presidential year, it's probably a Leans D district. And CT, like all of New England, is getting more Democratic. So that district will probably be D+3 by the end of the decade Any Republican that wins there will likely be succeeded by a Dem within 10 years. I don't think that's a bad deal for the Democrats, when you consider that the map also takes CT-2 and CT-4 out of play.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:48:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The other possibility...

Is drawing an open seat like this map's CT-05 as a tossup.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:56:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Talking about the counties

I mean the distribution of the democratic vote is good. It would be a ugly gerrymander to join only the most republican areas, and I expect not this from a court.

I see not the strength of the republicans for force 1 EVEN district. They are very narrowly over the 33.33% in both chambesrs.

I understand not like you can think what the republicans with farr less delegations in the state chambers will have improvements, and the democrats with near a 2/3 delegations will have a worse map than the current map. It is not a right lecture of the balance of power in the state.

The republicans can stop a full democratic map, well, maybe, very, very narrowly. But to have improvements is out their prospect.

The current map is better than a map with a EVEN district. The current map is so good and need only little improvements.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 04:15:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is really not a productive discussion

but let me point out one last thing: the difference between a D+2 district and an EVEN district is zero in about 99% of all circumstances. The 5th district may not be exactly EVEN - it may be D+1 or even D+2. But it will be R-Winnable, while the other 4 will be safe D in all circumstances.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 15:19:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well

LA-02 or HI-01 are examples what make think you are wrong here. I think they are not a (viable) level for 100% safe seats. For me to have seats what resist republican waves (like 2010) is enough, and D+5 seats resist it enough well if they are not big mistakes in the democratic side. If they are big mistakes, well nothing is safe, the democrats can lose LA-02 D+20+.

A D+2 seat would be less winnable for the republicans than a EVEN district, it is obvious, then, the conclusion is so clear: They are not chance of see a EVEN district because they are no chance of the democrats go to worse.

The democrats of the state legislature of Connecticut need not to change CT-02, CT-03 and CT-04 districts, and less for go to worse. Maybe very little changes for have less county splits, as example, but nothing serious what affect to the district ratings. The democrats would mix CT-05 and CT-01 for have two better balanced district but if the republicans can oppose to it (they will be very weak here too) the new map would be so close to the current map. But never worse. Never worse. Never worse.

This is my point about the redistricting in Connecticut.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 18:27:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Slight revision

Expanded CT-05 (blue) slightly west toward New Haven while shedding parts of more conservative north New Haven County. I also split Bridgeport in such a way as to make sure CT-04 (red) is a "fair fight" district even in case of an open seat (I should hope). As for CT-03 (purple), it's still anchored in New Haven, including parts of Bridgeport; Rep. DeLauro shouldn't be hurt at all by the inclusion of north New Haven County in this revised drawing.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 02:52:35 AM UTC

Looks pretty good

but I'd still be upset if I were Himes. Bridgeport is such a powerhouse Dem vote-maker (I think the average margin there is around 85-15), especially in a Presidential year. Taking any of it out is liable to hurt CT-4 significantly, and help Rosa DeLauro, who doesn't need it.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:08:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's a much more effective drawing...

Which cedes pretty much all of Bridgeport back to CT-04; I tried that one out. Looks like a solid 5-0 map. But I don't think it could get to Gov. Malloy's desk.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:16:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you're curious, here it is

It looks like a fairly secure Democratic gerrymander; Reps. Larson and DeLauro would probably have to campaign a little, which they might not be used to, but it's pretty hard to see even a moderate Republican (should one win a primary) representing Hartford or New Haven these days.

Again, though, I don't think the commission would approve such a plan. It would probably serve to box out Republicans from federal office for at least a decade.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:20:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This map seems pretty right

since a democratic point

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:28:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice.

If CT were a standard Legislature-Governor state, I think this is the map they'd draw.

Since this is a commission with both parties holding some cards, though, I find it hard to believe the Republicans won't settle for anything less than an OPEN EVEN seat, or maybe an OPEN D+low Seat. So I think making Himes's district the weakest one is not going to fly.

I wonder what a court would do here - I imagine it would probably go for a least-change map, which is probably close to what the Republicans would want anyway.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:32:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's an interesting point

I can't help but think, though, that the Hartford-area boundary between CT-01 and CT-05 on the current map is ugly enough that a court might want to make it more compact...which could potentially result in a map that looks a lot like one of the ones I drew. I don't know if the special master would be so kind as to include Kennedy's home in a new open-seat district - probably not - but I can see a court-drawn map opening up a new district in central Connecticut rather than leaving that gross gerrymander around Hartford as is.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:37:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think too about a map like you tell

I have not still estimation about the rating of some districts but the map would be something like this:

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 19:06:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nicely done...

Bonus points if you can get Kennedy's home of Branford into the yellow district without drawing Rep. DeLauro out of the purple district.

For the record, looks like a 5-0 to me with the yellow district being winnable by Republicans but leaning Democratic in a neutral year (thanks to Danbury, Meriden, and the Hartford suburbs).

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 19:49:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks

For it, it would be necessary to go with CT-03 toward the west and take part of the Fairfield county, and with CT-05 toward the south west.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 23:22:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would not call that a gerrymander.

If you can lay the area out in a fairly compact manner to neatly divide one party's strengths and to maximize another's party's seat that's just clever redistricting.  

After seeing a map with a Madison to lake Superior map for WI it gives me an idea of what a gerrymander is.

Your map above is just a variation of the few ways to do compact seats in CT.  For years the Hartford seat was done differently but moving around as you had could have been done 10 years.  The two inner CT seats have packed a bit with democrats in the last two redistricting so unpacking them a bit is not unreasonable.  

I do think, however, we will see a map produced that looks more like the current one.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:34:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed

It looks nice and appears very ungerrymandered

---

by: TXMichael @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 04:19:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My old map...

All boundaries follow city lines, and counties are not broken up in most cases.  

Districts are changed only in a minor fashion.  

CT-4 gains Stratford, and loses some more right-leaning suburbs, making it a bit more Democratic.

CT-2 with the exception of one town covers the eastern counties only.  Slight Democratic boost most likely due to the inclusion of Middletown (a college town)

CT-3 is probably a bit less Democratic, but still safe.

CT-1 and CT-5 exchange towns a bit, de-gerrymandering the border, and making the former a little less, and the latter a little more, Democratic.

Bottom line is marginal improvements to Democratic performance.  

---

by: eschaton @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 12:52:46 PM UTC

Nice work

Every district covers what looks like a natural region to my myopic eyes.  In particular, on natural-ness grounds, I don't see why CT-04 should go out of Fairfield County, or why CT-03 should have any of Waterbury.

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

---

by: Xenocrypt @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 17:00:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is a interesting map

Especially if CT-05 is a little more democratic than the current D+2.

Your map and my map go to very close CT-04 and CT-02. I think it is the most logical solution for both districts. As little detail, I would not include this little part of Hartfor county, it would be a unnecessary county split.

I would like to go to a district like your CT-05 if it is enough democratic. To send Waterbury to CT-03 and go a little more to the suburbs of Hartford would help enough? I doubt.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 22:39:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]