wow

Look how those big states benefit with the Wyoming rule

California 66 seats
Texas 45 seats
New York 34 seats
Florida 33 seats
Illinois 23 seats

That's 201 seats among the top five states!

---

by: TXMichael @ Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 20:34:17 PM UTC

That's not really any different than right now

201 / 544 = 37% of the seats
as opposed to
161 / 435 = 37% of the seats

The Wyoming rule does not affect the representation of large states.  It is supposed to correct some of the inequalities among the small states.  The purpose of post is proving that it is inadequate in that task.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

---

by: Marcus @ Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 21:43:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the info

 

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 22:26:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is one other benefit to the wyoming rule, however

Under the Wyoming rule, the size of the house would change every ten years to match the population of the smallest state. Under the current 435 system the size of the house is fixed and so the inequity increases every year.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 20:55:51 PM UTC

The house would shrink too if inequities decline

If when the Reapportionment Act of 1929 was passed they had used the "Nevada Rule" (which was the smallest sate at the time) rather than fixing the number of seats at 435, the house would have had 1413 members!  As the mountain west grew, the house would consistently have lost members every ten years, except after the 2000 census when it would have grown slightly, though those gains would be reversed in the 2011 census.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

---

by: Marcus @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 12:55:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I mentioned this on the other thread

and that of course there is an electoral college implication on the Wyoming rule.  These numbers have become too big for me to cipher out but do you have a clue from a spreadsheet what the plus or minus in the ECV would be for 2008 & 2004.  

I say 2004 because obviousily any change in numbers would not have affected 2008.  My guess on 2004 that with NY, CA, MI, IL and PA that would have surely have narrowed the Gap between Kerry & Bush.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 21:09:22 PM UTC

The Wyoming rule seems much fairer

when you consider that the states and individuals that would be "disadvantaged" under it reap a huge benefit from outrageous overrepresentation in the Senate.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 21:13:17 PM UTC

That outrageous over representation

was one of the compromises that was vital to the creation of our constitution.  Yes it seems strange that CA & Wyoming have the same number of senators--Canada has that sorted to a degree- but we are the united states of American.  That vital compromise in the composition of the US senate was crucial in 1789.  

Today it seems like crucial as we often talk about the West Coast or Northeast or Southern senators.  Parties have evolved in a way I am not sure our founding fathers envisioned because now you see say a senator Ensign & Reid vote against eachother on early every vital issue.  How often does Burr & Hagan vote together?  

That being said changing the number of US senators & the way the house calculates its membership both seem unlikely

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 22:19:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm.

The biggest beneficiaries seem to be states that are either a.) growing rapidly or b.) have had seats arbitrarily taken away from them to satisfy the stupid 435 seat rule. CA and TX end up even bigger thanks to Latino migration - and how many of those new seats in both cases would be VRA Hispanic? FL, GA, and NC just end up big, period. Regular census punching bags such as IN, CT, IL, OH, MT, and NY get their old seats back, and in many cases are better off than they've been in decades.  

The only states that really seem to get screwed are the ones that are only slightly larger than Wyoming in the first place. Of which there aren't very many. I do have to ask, though: the Wyoming rule clearly benefits minorities in large states, but wouldn't it also proportionally benefit Republicans a great deal as well, thanks to growth in the South? Of course, we also get a lot of seats back in blue and purple states that only had their seats taken away because of that dumb cap, so it probably evens out.

It's still inequity, it's just a different KIND of inequity. The Wyoming Rule at least corrects the stupid "let's take a seat away from a populous and still growing northern state and give it to a southern one that's growing faster, just because we need to maintain the 435 seat cap".  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 00:18:14 AM UTC

There is no doubt

inequality.  I wonder if unfair is the right word. The current rule freezes house members at 435 so yes the larger states are disportionally represented.  If we adopted the Wyoming rule there would still be some states treated unfairly ie those states between Wyoming & whoever is the smallest state with two congressman.  Wyoming would have one congressman and some state would be 60% larger with only one as well. Other states will be a few people short of 6 districts and will have to settle for 5.

My point is someone gets treated unfairly.

The only absolutely fair solution is fractional congressman and even then those states that are growing fast are actually underpresented until the next census.  Utah has been entitled to 3.99 congressman for ten years!!!!

So there will be some unfairness.  Its a formula.  Someone gets rounded down.  

To me this makes very little difference.  CA has 12.18% of the current number of seats.  53/435.  As noted under the wyoming plan CA gets 13 out of 109 new seats or 11.99% of new seats.  I don't see that the Wyoming plan does all that much to make things less unfair?

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 01:22:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wyoming rule hurts Frank Pallone (NJ-6)

The districts will be too small to connect Democratic eastern coastal Monmouth County with another liberal center of population (ie Middlesex County). If it becomes an all-Monmouth district, or even a mostly-Monmouth district then it will be too Republican.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 04:06:34 AM UTC

New Jersey is the poster child

for why commissions do no better then legislative bodies.  Those are nasty looking seats in the Garden state.  I know its not nonpartisan or Iowa like but if why exactly take it out of the hands of legislators if you are going to get weird looking maps.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 04:16:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In general it should help Democrats

Not only would it reduce the relative influence of heavily GOP smaller states, but the increase of representatives in the larger states should reduce the degree to which Democrats are inefficiently distributed among congressional districts.

Take for instance a very rough sketch of New York. With 27 seats, 17 of them should be in the NYC metropolitan area. With 34 seats, 21 of them should be in the NYC metropolitan area. So, the Metro region has gained 4 seats while the Upstate has gained 3. Since urban regions obviously tend Democrat while rural regions tend Republican, this should very generally speaking help Democrats.

---

by: roguemapper @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 04:20:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

PS

And the disparity should actualy be even more pronounced, because in more rural regions the new seats would still be more likely to favor urban centers. So, for instance, if the four NYC Metro seats turned out to be 3 Dem seats and 1 GOP seat (as I think likely) and the three Upstate seats turned out to be 1 GOP seat and 2 Dem seats (as I think likely) then what you have is an overall Dem gain of 5 seats versus 2 for the GOP.

---

by: roguemapper @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 04:25:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also

The Wyoming rule would almost certainly result in another GOP seat in Brooklyn. Right now, the population threshold is high enough that you can gerrymander districts that connect south Brooklyn to Forest Hill and the Upper West Side. If New York went to 34 seats, there would almost have to be a Republican-leaning seat in South Brooklyn among them.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 19:27:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There Would Probably Be More Competitive Seats All Over

There'd be at least one more very competitive seat in Maryland.

On the other hand, Democrats would win several more seats in Florida and Texas.


36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 21:10:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eh, I don't think so

Yes, giving New York more congressional districts gives Democrats more seats... but this is almost always going to be the case for any Democratic-leaning state. The converse is true for almost any Republican-leaning state. On net, they should balance each other out. Democrats benefit only very mildly due to smaller states (mostly Wyoming itself) having slightly less representation, proportionally speaking.

More seats will matter for redistricting and gerrymandering. What party this benefits is unclear, but I'm guessing it slightly benefits Republicans on net. This is because extra districts improve the ability to gerrymander, but there are diminishing returns. Since larger states are somewhat more Democratic, the gains should be more significant for smaller states.  

---

by: Nichlemn @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:08:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Electoral College

The effects become pronounced in the Electoral College. I remember a study of the 2000 election that said that more representatives = the electoral college vote becomes closer to the popular vote.

---

by: edward @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:48:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing about the Wyoming

rule will change the fact that democrats are heavily based in urban areas while the GOP is stronger in rural & surburban areas.

Its all in who draw the lines.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 13:14:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree

When subdividing heavily Democratic urban areas, you will generally end up with more heavily Democratic seats. When subdividing more rural/suburban Republican areas interspersed with liberal enclaves, you will generally increase the voting power of said enclaves.

Western NC is a good example of the latter. If you take the two westernmost districts that should both be Republican (Shuler notwithstanding - imagine Charlie Taylor were still in office, if it helps) and turn them into three districts (actually 2.6 to be exact) you cannot avoid increasing the voting power of Asheville. You will either end up with one likely Dem district and two safe GOP seats (so, plus one for the Dems) or you will end up with two swing seats and a safe GOP seat. It is virtually impossible to end up with three strong GOP seats.

Both the Triangle and Charlotte are good examples of the former. If you subdivide them you will no doubt end up with two additional Dem seats. They won't be as staunchly Dem as the current seats, but they'll still be heavily Dem leaning at worse.

Put differently, it doesn't matter whether GOP legislatures are drawing the lines for Dallas and Philly. Giving them additional seats will still result in more Dem seats.

But, hey, whatever! It's a moot point anyhow since the Wyoming Rule isn't going to happen, ever. It's just a fun little debate for a minuscule fraction of political junkies.

---

by: roguemapper @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 16:59:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RM

I take your points and there are valid ones.  Here's two points to ponder.  Lets look at state senate & state house races.  

1. My point #1 is does size matter or is it still a matter of how you slice the pie??  In NY state-the state senate districts are twice the size of house districts but instead of being 2-1 democratic its narrowly GOP.  In CA the oppisite happens as the smaller state senate (40 seats) is actually 25D-15R which is more democratic then the congressional map.  So maybe that drawing of seats is as important if not important then size.

2. Is there a direct relationship in the states between size of district and its affect on helping democrats?  Your theory is that smaller is better for the D's.  If that holds for congressional seats we should more democrats in state house seats as opposed to state senate seats.  That's a hard point to illustrate.  Naturally comparisons can be hard as state senates are often 4 year terms and are often staggered so the electoral tides shift differently.  Yet I count 14 states where the larger state house is more GOP then democratic.  Those states are AK CO CT Iowa IL MA NM OR SC TN TX VA and WV.  On the flip side AZ, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, NV. NY, OH and PA have senates that are more GOP.  That's 11 but even most states are fairly close.  Only VA, CO, NY, NV, OR, MS, LA and AK are split as of right now.  So size does not seem to matter

Are there specific states where 1 or 2 more seats added would help either party?  No doubt.  We see that in UT and NV this year as the new seat is almost certainly R in one case and D in the other.  In LA the lost seat is certainly an R just as its a D gone in MA.  I suspect the Wyoming plan  might be a slight plus  for D's if redistricting was an even steven thing.  I can see the GOP, however, taking the three new seats in MI as they control redisticting. There is a small state bias for the GOP but controlling the process is more important.

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 17:37:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your points

#1) By law, state legislative districts can deviate by up to 10% in population - and often do. That's how legislative gerrymanders such as the NY Senate can be maintained. That is not an option in congressional redistricting.

#2) See #1.

---

by: roguemapper @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 18:01:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In point of

fact very states take advantage of the 10% rule. The size differnce in NY is not enough to account for the variation between US house seats and state senate seats in that state.

Its clear that with NY senate being 50-50 and the NY house being nearly 2-1 D the size of the district is secondary to who draws the district.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 18:29:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In point of fact, you're wrong

The following state senates exceed 8% deviation:

AL, AR, AZ, DE, GA, HI, ID, KY, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NH, NM, NC, OH, RI, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY

The following state senates exceed 4% deviation:

CO, CT, ME, MA, NJ, NY, UT

The following state houses exceed 8% deviation:

AL, AR, AZ, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, RI, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY

The following state houses exceed 4% deviation:

CO, FL, MN, NV, NJ, OK, PA, SC, UT

PS. When you make a habit of saying what you feel to be true, versus what you know to be true, it greatly increases the odds of saying something demonstrably wrong.

---

by: roguemapper @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 18:41:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Massachusetts

I know in the case of Massachusetts the deviation is done mostly with the intention of keeping towns intact rather than gaining political advantage.  (Many state rep districts are coterminous with towns if the population is relatively close.)  This is significantly different than New York where every single upstate Senate district is the minimum population allowed by law and every single downstate house district is the minimum population allowed.  It's a gross abuse of the deviations rule and should not be allowed.

"Virtually every Republican senator elected in 2002 represented 10 percent fewer people than virtually every Democrat."

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/...

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

---

by: Marcus @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 18:56:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No argument here

I realize many of the deviations are due to geographic concerns such as keeping towns or counties intact as much as possible, but it nonetheless prevents the type of extrapolation to congressional districts that rdelbov is attempting to make.

---

by: roguemapper @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 19:00:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RM

I still think your basic point is flawed as the 10% variance immaterial for democrats when they draw the districts!!!

When democrats draw 10% variance districts who benefits?? In half of the states with variances the maps were drawn by democrats.  

So my basic point in my opinion still holds.  

There is no basis for saying that democrats would reap any sort of benefit from having more congressional seats.  I don't see any relationship between the increase in numbers in legislative seats between house and senate chambers.  Variances are immaterial as party control has been split plus in the drawing of legislative seats.  

The basic problem the democrats have redistricting is still there whether there are 435 or 870 house seats.  The democratic support is very deep in urban areas.  The GOP support is not as deep but is wider over the state's maps.  As long as you have to draw districts that cover parts the state its better to be wide and swallow then small and deep.  That's why in most of your maps & SS's maps you divide urban counties and stretch them out in rural and surburban areas.  Surely you have noticed this pattern? You can one or two seats or even a dozen seats to a state the same redistricting problem will be there.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 21:25:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, sure, whatever

My basic point is that the increase of representatives in the larger states should reduce the degree to which Democrats are inefficiently distributed among congressional districts. That is not an opinion. That is a mathematical certainty. Nothing you say can change that, no matter how forcefully, repeatedly, and passionately you say it.

If math is not your strong suit, then perhaps it would help you to imagine that there were a congressional seat for every voter. Then the distribution inefficiency would be zero. The distribution inefficiency would then increase in direct proportion to the decrease in the number of seats. Since Democrats are more inefficiently distributed than Republicans, this means the fewer seats there are the more this benefits Republicans.

Or maybe it'll help you to consider how long it's been since Republicans have won a congressional seat in Massachusetts versus how often they've won statewide.

Or, who cares? You are probably beyond reach, and I don't make a habit of banging my head against a wall.

---

by: roguemapper @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 00:03:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually

I take the Massachusetts part back. It is a faulty analogy. My mistake!

(When all voters are in the same pool, then there can be no function of distribution inefficiency in the first place.)

---

by: roguemapper @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 00:13:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Certainly it's the case in Pennsylvania

where the state HoR has 203 seats and is consistently swingy, whereas the state senate has 50 seats and hasn't had an endangered majority in ages.  

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 00:26:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

RM

actually is one of my strong suits and thanks for asking.

Let me run this fact-fact not opinion-by people here one time.  Democrats win urban voters by overwhelming margins.  Google up CNN maps for the counties in the 2000. 2004 and 2008 Presidential election.  You will see a sea of Red Counties that surround blue urban ones.  Not in all states but in most of them.  

That is a fact. Does anyone here deny it?  In some cases, like PA, the democratic Presidential can win 7 or 8 counties yet win the whole state.  The vote within those counties are also very deep for the democrats.  Look at Oregon.  The margin in one county Multnomah, 1/5 of the state, overcomes the GOP margin in all of the other counties.  The Deep blue margin, over 70% for obama or Kerry or Gore, in that one county overcomes the GOP margin in the 50 counties.  

These are all Statistics that cannot be disputed.  

That's the situation the democrats face in nearly every state with a large urban population.  Thus in redistricting situations that puts the democrats at a disadvantage as you have to draw convulated maps dividing Cook County 15 ways or Multnomah 4 ways or Prince Georges county four ways to acheive redistricting goals.  

That's the challenge for the democrats-to spread its urban strength out to rural and suburban areas.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:08:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't argue with that

You are of course right. That is the basis of this whole discussion.

I never said gerrymanders won't matter. I didn't even say that, in many cases, they wouldn't cancel out whatever benefit Democrats were to gain. I also didn't say that the difference would be all that significant in most cases, nor did I say that it would be significant enough to change the outcome in most cases (i.e., the D-R ratio of seats in a given state).

What I did say, because it's an incontrovertible fact, is that increasing the number of congressional seats would reduce the distribution inefficiency of Democrats. How much of a difference a given increase would make is a whole 'nother issue.

Emphasizing the distribution inefficiency of Democrats doesn't change that.

PS. Packing & cracking become inherently more difficult when you reduce the number of voters per congressional district. In other words "spreading out" Democratic strength from urban to suburban/rural areas becomes easier, or more difficult to avoid (depending on your perspective). That's a big part of my whole point.

---

by: roguemapper @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:32:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree

with your premise.  As noted there are state by state situations where adding one or two seats benefit either party but I don't believe that just going from 435 to 544 or going from 435 to 870 or 435 to whatever helps the democrats because it unpacks the distribution effiecency of the democrats.

Going from house seats to state senate to state house there is no relationship between the increase in # of seats and the number of democrats in each chamber.

There is just no connection.  

Whatever number of house seats you choose be it 544 or whatever the democrats will still face the problem of voter strength being more concentrated.  

You CA66 map is similar to nearly every other map you draw.  It packs the GOP voters in districts and connects urban democrats with surburban & rural voters.  That's what the democrats have to do to be effective in distributing their vote.  

I do note that on a state by state basis one more seat here or two more seats there will help either party in a particular way but its not uniform from Maine to CA.

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 13:28:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

broken record

You CA66 map is similar to nearly every other map you draw.  It packs the GOP voters in districts and connects urban democrats with surburban & rural voters.

And, you know this how exactly?

---

by: roguemapper @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 14:17:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, it's pretty obvious that it's a Democratic gerrymander

a fair map would be 60 R 6 D. And of those 60 R seats, 10 must be within LA County.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 14:38:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hehe

When you put it that way, I guess it is rather transparent..

I was hesitant to draw any hypothetical 'Wyoming Rule' map for this purpose because a single sample isn't particularly helpful. I was just curious to see what it would do to California, but I realized that was probably not the greatest example in this regard. A much better one would be Illinois where you have densely packed Democrats in Chicago and multiple downstate Democratic enclaves.

The point remains that more seats by definition reduce the distribution inefficiency of Democrats. That is a mathematical certainty. The only question is to what degree the Wyoming Rule adds enough seats to make a practical difference in that regard.

Clearly enough, a California redistricting based on neutral geographic criteria doesn't reveal a significant impact. That said, it is worth noting that most of the 50-55% Obama seats on my CA66 map were 53%-55% Obama, whereas all of the 50-55% McCain seats were just 50%-51% McCain.

And, that does it for me and this topic. I'd rather devote my time to more useful pursuits than debating fictitious alternate-reality maps.

---

by: roguemapper @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 15:00:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lets look at election after election

In 2008 the President won 53% popular vote but the democrats won 58% of house seats.

The idea that democrats are somehow under represented because of the 435 house seats just can't stand up to reason.  

The idea that somehow state after state is drawn to their disadvantage does not bare up.

Yes let me retreat a bit and I might add that's not unusual for me.  If I can't back up something with a fact or reasoning or historical reference I will retreat.

I don't know what your 66 seat map for CA will look like so it make not be a D gerrymander.

I do stand by my point, however, as I see no historical or factual basis for these two points of yours.

1. There does not appear to be any historical or factual basis for claiming democrats are under represented in the US house.  They have been fairly represented, overall, in the US house based on their popular vote.  Are there GOP gerrymanders you bet.  Are there democratic gerrymanders you bet.  I say Obama 53% and democrats 58% in house in 2008 is fairly typical of historical results.

2. There is no basis for thinking that increasing the number of US house members will change item #1.  If the democrats are not currently under reperesented why would adding more seats change anything?  

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 14:58:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK

The last point I'll make on this is to say that looking at what the Wyoming Rule would've done to the Bush/Gore 2000 electoral college is a better standard, as would be comparing the Bush/Gore results to the House breakdown of 2000.

I'll let someone else do the figures if they see fit.

---

by: roguemapper @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 15:03:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't mean to be

disagreeable but there is a common theme here that the democrats are victims of some sort of Republican gerrymander in state after state.  

The reality is that democrats,  from say from 1940 on , have outperformed in their US house numbers versus their popular vote numbers.  In election after election from 1954 to 1994 irregardless of the national trend the US house stayed democratic.  You might could point to 2000 where a narrow popular loss for the GOP still kept the house republican but that's about it.

Other then that election the democrats have historically have outperforemed in US house numbers.  2008 was not typical where the democrats exceeded their popular vote % by 5% in the US house.  If anything we argue that the democrats already outperform stat wise their numbers.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 17:27:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um, yes

The Democrats are certainly victims of Republican gerrymander in state after state. Of the twelve largest states, here's what the current maps are:

California: A GOP favoring incumbent protection scheme.
Texas: A blatant GOP gerrymander.
New York: A compromise map from a split legislature.
Florida: A blatant GOP gerrymander.
Illinois: An incumbent protection scheme from a split legislature.
Pennsylvania: A blatant GOP gerrymander.
Ohio: A blatant GOP gerrymander.
Michigan: A blatant GOP gerrymander.
Georgia: A blatant GOP gerrymander.
North Carolina: A Democratic leaning incumbent protection scheme.
New Jersey: A bi-partisan commission map.
Virginia: A blatant GOP gerrymander.

---

by: roguemapper @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 17:49:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I want to comment one more time

I can't help myself as I was about to purpose a truce on the Wyoming rule.  Comments in no particular order

1. Bravo for your debate skills but like a seasoned pol you did not respond to my major point.  How do you account for the 60 year disparity between the democrats popular vote and their numbers in the house of representatives?  You skillfully dodged that question.  Isn't that the heart of the matter?  If there was a stat disadvantage for the democrats would not that stat be reversed?  Would you not see democrats winning the popular vote and losing the US house?

2. Yes there are states the democrats got messed over but here is a list of states where the maps do not favor the GOP.  ME, MA, CT, NY, MD, NC, IN, WI, AR, CO, AZ, OR and WA. I might add that I question your calling CA, NC and NJ plans that favor the GOP.  Obama got 61% of the vote in CA and the democrats  got 34/53 seats.  How exactly is that out of sync?  34/53 is 63%.  I think 63% is higher then 61%?

Here's my peacepipe move.  You can be right and wrong at the same time in looking at congressional elections.  On a certain level numbers don't sense as our electoral system is imprecise and imperfect.  The GOP won 3/29 seats in NY in  2008 but McCain won 35% of the popular vote.  Was the map lousy for the GOP or did they field pitiful candidates?  McCain won 35% of the vote in MA but the GOP won zero seats?  

My point is this.  You are correct that the GOP do have some sweet maps in OH, PA, Fl and TX yet somehow the relationship between the popular vote and party representation in the house of representatives is not that far out of line.  The US house is 55% GOP now.  Is that out line with what the election results were in 2010?  On a state by state basis there are disparities but somehow over the 50 states it works out.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 18:56:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One element of that over-representation

is that, at least through 2008, Dems represented several at-large seats or low-population districts -- SD, ND, half of ID, VT, RI, HI, etc.  So their numerical number in the House would exaggerate their influence vis-a-vis the popular vote.  

In states with higher per-district populations -- i.e. Texas, Florida, etc. -- gerrymandering has certainly given Dems the short shrift.

---

by: AnthonySF @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 16:23:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

12 largest states gerrymander status

I think the current maps aren't quite as anti-Democratic as you make it sound.

California: A GOP favoring incumbent protection scheme.

California has changed; I'm not sure how clear it was at the time that this would favor the GOP.  I remember reading that the GOP held the budget hostage to get a better deal, but for all I know, that may have just been to stop a blatant Democratic gerrymander.

New York: A compromise map from a split legislature.

I think it could better be described as a stand-pat incumbent protection map based on an earlier gerrymander that generally favored Democrats.  There were certainly some factors that favored that GOP, but I don't think a randomly drawn map would have been quite so lopsided.

Michigan: A blatant GOP gerrymander.

Blatant might be too strong; the lines aren't as bad as seems to be "normal" in other regions of the country.

New Jersey: A bi-partisan commission map.

I had read that there is a bi-partisan commission, but in the end, when they don't agree, the independent makes the decisions -- and that last time he basically sided with Democrats.  That may well be because Republicans were more obviously overreaching, but it still suggests at least a slight Democratic gerrymander in the end.

---

by: JimJ @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 00:38:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michigan was definitely a /blatant/ R gerrymander

Michigan: A blatant GOP gerrymander.

Blatant might be too strong; the lines aren't as bad as seems to be "normal" in other regions of the country.

Michigan's lines don't look bad because they can't; state redistricting standards heavily restrict county/locality splitting. But they allow partisan considerations, and the 2000-era Republican state legislature certainly did.

The 2000 plan in Michigan redistricted three seperate pairs of Democratic incumbents into the same districts while creating two new open Republican seats. This flipped the composition of the delegation from 9-7 in favor of the Democrats to 9-6 in favor of the Republicans.


30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

---

by: borodino21 @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 02:49:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michigan's current GOP gerrymander

Michigan's lines don't look bad because they can't; state redistricting standards heavily restrict county/locality splitting.

Agreed; I didn't say that Republicans were voluntarily restrained, or even that it wasn't still egregious, just that it wasn't blatant.

---

by: JimJ @ Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 17:14:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We're apparently working with different definitions of these words

"Blatant", to me, doesn't have a positive or negative valence to its connotation. "Egregious", though, has a strongly negative valence.

Dictionary.com's list of synonyms for "blatant" consists of "unmistakable, overt, undeniable, [and] obtrusive". The first three definitely apply to the Republican gerrymander of Michigan, the last one perhaps not so much. (The current Republican gerrymander of California, on the hand, is not so blatant.)

The first hit when you ask Google to define "blatant" is "without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious". Again, this very much applies to Michigan.

Google's first definition for "egregious", on the other hand, is "conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible". Dictionary.com's list of synonyms consists of "gross, outrageous, [and] notorious".

So "egregious" actually isn't a word that I'd apply to the Republican gerrymander of Michigan. The Republican gerrymander of Texas or the Democratic gerrymander of Maryland, sure. But not Michigan.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

---

by: borodino21 @ Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 03:56:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

CA, NY, NJ

Michigan has been addressed (quite accurately I might add) so I'll just briefly comment on the other three.

California: It doesn't matter why the map is what it is; it matters that the map is what it is.

New York: The 90s map was a court-drawn map. The 2001 map was clearly a legislative compromise to eliminate one Democrat and one Republican as the state lost 2 seats.

New Jersey: An independent may well have broken the deadlock in favor of the Democratic alternative, but the Democratic alternative was drawn with the intent of getting bi-partisan commission approval in the first place. Whatever it may be, it was hardly designed as a Democratic gerrymander. If it were, then several GOP incumbents could've easily been targeted.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 09:15:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The NJ Congressional map

was 100% a bipartisan compromise.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Feb 06, 2011 at 17:54:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CA66

Comparing my two California maps is probably not a great example anyhow, because I'm comparing two non-gerrymandered maps (regardless of what your psychic abilities tell you). One should actually expect to see the difference primarily in gerrymandered maps that rely in packing & cracking.

It probably would've been more telling if I tried to rework a 22 seat Pennsylvania gerrymander or a 45 seat Texas gerrymander. It would also be a lot more time-consuming than just throwing districts on a neutral map, which is why I didn't do it.

---

by: roguemapper @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 14:33:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

district size effects on gerrymandering

One should actually expect to see the difference primarily in gerrymandered maps that rely in packing & cracking.

Per the Florida study, it happens even with mechanically drawn districts; the problem is that there is a "natural" Republican gerrymander due to the packing of Dem votes in urban locations, and the less lopsided Republican lean elsewhere.

Theoretically, this should also hold true even with explicitly gerrymandered districts; the only difference is that incumbency should matter far more, so it should take far longer to catch up to changes.  It doesn't show up unambiguously because the effect is fairly small compared to the number of districts in a state, let the effects of an intentional gerrymander.

As to the effects in a particular state -- I suppose it depends on which population thresholds let a city dominate its suburbs, and which let it have its own (packed) district.  The particular cutoff is likely to be different in different states.

---

by: JimJ @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 00:56:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just for fun

I did decide to do a 66 seat California map. I basically just started a district in San Francisco and another in Marin Co. and then just filled in the map until it was done. In short, I created a 66 seat map using the same method I used in my original California map a month ago.

This is what I ended up with:

55%+ Obama: 40 seats

50-55% Obama: 12 seats

55%+ McCain: 4 seats

50-55% McCain: 10 seats

If you give the GOP all the McCain seats and then split the 50-55% Obama seats, the GOP ends up with 20 seats while the Dems end up with 46 seats.

The current breakdown is 34 Dem to 19 GOP.

Interpret that as you please..

---

by: roguemapper @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 08:11:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

53 seats

Though, a proper comparison is to my 53 seat map, which had this breakdown:

55%+ Obama: 31 seats

50-55% Obama: 12 seats

55%+ McCain: 5 seats

50-55% McCain: 5 seats (one of these is actually 49%)

Using the same method, the projection would be 37 Dem seats to 16 GOP seats.

So, when adding 13 seats, the Dems pick up 9 and the GOP picks up 4. That's basically a wash, so I guess it proves much of nothing. LOL

PS. For the record, it does not result in a second GOP seat in LA County. :)

---

by: roguemapper @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 09:11:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More seats ==> less "natural" pro-Republican gerrymandering

There was a paper (I don't have the URL at the moment) which studied this using Florida precinct-level data and mechanically drawn districts.

Initially, more districts helped Republicans, but then the curve turned around, and more districts starting helping Democrats.  The catch is, it took about 10000 districts before the Democrats were winning as many seats as their vote total suggested they should.  Going from 60:40 to 50:50 over 10K districts means that the noise probably matters more than the trend, and the question of who draws the lines certainly matters more.

---

by: JimJ @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 23:18:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It might help

To keep in mind that when increasing the big-state seats you are decreasing the population of each district. So, in North Carolina again, to keep with my example, the districts are dropping from about 735,000 apiece to about 560,000 apiece. It should then be fairly obvious how a population center like Asheville/Buncombe (250,000) or Fayetteville/Cumberland (325,000) will increase in electoral power. It should be even more obvious how a city like Charlotte (720,000) can no longer be packed into one district, but must now dominate 2.

---

by: roguemapper @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 17:05:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PS

And let's not even get into another VRA debate considering how many more places you would be able to draw compact majority-minority districts..

---

by: roguemapper @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 17:13:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]