Redistricting Las Vegas
September 24th, 2011 at 9:27:42 AM
permalink
With 716.5K Latinos in Nevada, at first glance it would seem that it would be relatively easy to put 337.6K in one contiguous congressional district. In reality there are not the concentrations that you see in Texas or California.
However, a proposed map has been drawn that just barely creates a Latino majority congressional district #4. It does so by giving up the Vegas Strip. District #4 is a lock to vote Democratic.
However, by not carefully including the black neighborhoods in district #4, the plan creates a greatly rezoned District #1 which could go either way in an election.
The districts #2 and #3 will almost certainly go Republican in the current political climate.
Republicans are ecstatic about this movement. Mostly because the proposal is not being driven by their party, but they will probably benefit from it because it gives them an excellent chance of controlling 3 out of 4 congressional seats, and a better chance of organizing to beat Harry Reid in the 2016 election (or Harry Reid's replacement since he will be age 77 and may retire).
Democrats are in an awkward position. Currently they control only one House seat in Nevada with 37% Latinos and slightly over half the African American population of Nevada. They would rather split up the Latino vote and try to position themselves better to get 2 out of 4 congressional seats.
In politics (especially redistricting) ethnic and racial profiling is accepted to a degree that borders on illegal in other areas of society.If you feel it is necessary to point that out to me, I am already aware of the fact. The reason that it is acceptable is that very often the ethnic or racial minority group is driving the process since they feel it will give them more political clout.
However, a proposed map has been drawn that just barely creates a Latino majority congressional district #4. It does so by giving up the Vegas Strip. District #4 is a lock to vote Democratic.
However, by not carefully including the black neighborhoods in district #4, the plan creates a greatly rezoned District #1 which could go either way in an election.
The districts #2 and #3 will almost certainly go Republican in the current political climate.
Republicans are ecstatic about this movement. Mostly because the proposal is not being driven by their party, but they will probably benefit from it because it gives them an excellent chance of controlling 3 out of 4 congressional seats, and a better chance of organizing to beat Harry Reid in the 2016 election (or Harry Reid's replacement since he will be age 77 and may retire).
Democrats are in an awkward position. Currently they control only one House seat in Nevada with 37% Latinos and slightly over half the African American population of Nevada. They would rather split up the Latino vote and try to position themselves better to get 2 out of 4 congressional seats.
In politics (especially redistricting) ethnic and racial profiling is accepted to a degree that borders on illegal in other areas of society.If you feel it is necessary to point that out to me, I am already aware of the fact. The reason that it is acceptable is that very often the ethnic or racial minority group is driving the process since they feel it will give them more political clout.
September 24th, 2011 at 9:38:11 AM
permalink
Political gerrymandering (the drawing of district lines) to ensure more of a racial mix in Congress generally has meant a jackpot of seats for the GOP. By carefully drawing a district around minority voters you ensure that district votes Democrat, but at the expense of removing that voting block from the other districts, causing them to marginally tip Republican.
Nevada is a good example. If you carefully make a district out of the most Hispanic parts of Las Vegas you leave the rest of Nevada, even Las Vegas, to tip Republican. If the Nevada Democratic party were smart they would try to draw some Republicans into the Hispanic district, causing them to waste their votes, in the hopes that the other Vegas seat also goes Democratic. This would be at the expense that the so-called Hispanic seat might not always be Hispanic.
Funny how in the end it is politicians that pick their voters, as opposed to voters picking the politicians.
Nevada is a good example. If you carefully make a district out of the most Hispanic parts of Las Vegas you leave the rest of Nevada, even Las Vegas, to tip Republican. If the Nevada Democratic party were smart they would try to draw some Republicans into the Hispanic district, causing them to waste their votes, in the hopes that the other Vegas seat also goes Democratic. This would be at the expense that the so-called Hispanic seat might not always be Hispanic.
Funny how in the end it is politicians that pick their voters, as opposed to voters picking the politicians.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 24th, 2011 at 10:08:44 AM
permalink
Voting in this nation has long been a joke. I like it when networks call an election based on one percent of the votes counted. They know which are the key precincts, no body doubt the outcome in the others.Quote: WizardFunny how in the end it is politicians that pick their voters, as opposed to voters picking the politicians.
I once posted about Huey Long having run 26 candidates for Dog Catcher, many of the candidates being disabled. So on election eve that candidates standing for election all put three names in a hat and the names of the Election Commissioners are drawn. With 26 dog catchers placing the same names in the hat, the random drawing meant Huey Long's friends were the only ones chosen as Election Commissioners.
September 24th, 2011 at 11:03:53 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardPolitical gerrymandering (the drawing of district lines) to ensure more of a racial mix in Congress generally has meant a jackpot of seats for the GOP. By carefully drawing a district around minority voters you ensure that district votes Democrat, but at the expense of removing that voting block from the other districts, causing them to marginally tip Republican.
Nevada is a good example. If you carefully make a district out of the most Hispanic parts of Las Vegas you leave the rest of Nevada, even Las Vegas, to tip Republican. If the Nevada Democratic party were smart they would try to draw some Republicans into the Hispanic district, causing them to waste their votes, in the hopes that the other Vegas seat also goes Democratic. This would be at the expense that the so-called Hispanic seat might not always be Hispanic.
Funny how in the end it is politicians that pick their voters, as opposed to voters picking the politicians.
What seems to have happened is after about 1984 the Democrat Party wrote off the white vote and espically the white male vote. Instead of trying to get a majority of all people they have decided to try to get a supermajority of minotiry groups (blacks, hispanics, jews, gays) or special interest groups (unions, etc.) Sometimes it works on the larger scale and sometimes it does not. What it has resulted in is Democrats being concentrated in fewer, high-density areas population-wise (see any of the famous "red" maps) and also pandering to the point that a Democrat has to basically be in favor of allowing unrestricted illegal immigration and a host of other radical things that one or another group want such that it might upset an unrelated group.
Hispanics were never as monolithic a vote for Democrat as blacks have been, no other group has. I keep wondering when or if the "second and third" generation hispanics will revert to a more "normal" voting pattern based on their beliefs and status vs. ethnicity vs blacks going 90%+ Democrat election-in and election-out.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
September 25th, 2011 at 12:11:44 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardIf the Nevada Democratic party were smart they would try to draw some Republicans into the Hispanic district, causing them to waste their votes, in the hopes that the other Vegas seat also goes Democratic. This would be at the expense that the so-called Hispanic seat might not always be Hispanic.
Funny how in the end it is politicians that pick their voters, as opposed to voters picking the politicians.
Absolutely, the best chance the Democratic party has to control all of urban Las Vegas is to split the Latino districts. But the Republicans are enjoying this debate, because they don't have to do anything. The Latino group is arguing for gerrymandering to give them a 51% majority in one district. All the Republican politician has to do is to say that the wishes of the Latinos should be respected.
Unlike Texas, New Mexico, or California there are only two small Latino majority communities in Nevada (tiny Jackpot and West Wendover in Elko county). So in order to get a Latino majority congressional district you have to carefully draw lines around the neighborhoods.
The current Democratic representative of the first district ("Shelley" Berkley ) who has won 7 elections will attempt to become a Senator. So the Republican Party has another advantage in that it won't be running against an incumbent. If the Democrats squander all their votes in one Latino district, the newcomer will face very difficult odds. I would say the Republican chances of winning 3 out 4 seats is very high if a Latino district is formed.
"Shelley" Berkley is of Jewish and Greek descent.
Arizona has a somewhat similar issue as some people are trying to get a second Latino majority district as they jump from 8 to 9 congressional districts.
To second the earlier point that Latinos are not a monolithic voting group you should look at New Mexico. Only one of the three districts is a latino Majority, and it is the only one with a Republican congressman. Also the only Latino congressmen represents the district with the smallest Hispanic percentage.
48.4% - 1 - Democrat (Martin Heinrich is a Lutheran evangelical of German descent)
51.8% - 2 - Republican ("Steve" Pearce is a 64 year old white Baptist)
39.0% - 3 - Democrat (Ben Lujan is New Mexico's only Latino congressman)
Also 8 of the 29 Latino members of the House of Representatives are Republican.
Devin Nunes CA
Mario Diaz-Balart FL
David Rivera FL
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen FL
Raul Labrador ID
Francisco Canseco TX
Bill Flores TX
Jaime Herrera WA
September 25th, 2011 at 3:40:35 AM
permalink
I understand alot of these Hispanic newscasters are using fake names, must be harder for a politician to get away with.
September 25th, 2011 at 10:38:07 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffI understand alot of these Hispanic newscasters are using fake names, must be harder for a politician to get away with.
Wikipedia lists the majority-minority congressional districts in the USA. I do not believe that any congressional district with an African-American majority elects a white representative. There is only 1 out 435 districts with an Asian majority.
A hispanic majority district does not always elect a Latino representative. I doubt that any use a "fake" name, but they might highlight a family name that makes their immigrant roots more visible. An example would be James Manuel "Jim" Costa who represents California's 20th congressional district which takes in large and predominantly Latino portions of Fresno and Bakersfield in the Central Valley. His middle name reflects that his grandparents emigrated from Portuguese Azores Islands in the early part of the 20th century.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) comprises 21 Democratic members of the United States Congress most of whom are of Hispanic origin. The Caucus is dedicated to voicing and advancing, through the legislative process, issues affecting Hispanics and Latinos in the United States and Puerto Rico. this group is now 35 years old.
Out of the 21 members, two representatives come from Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas. Nine members (including the entire leadership) are elected from districts where Latinos are not a majority. The last ten represent 10 of the 19 Latino majority districts.
The Congressional Hispanic Conference (CHC) is a Republican Party-controlled caucus in the United States Congress. The CHC was formed in 2003, with the stated goal of promoting policy outcomes of importance to Americans of Hispanic or Latino and Portuguese descent.
September 25th, 2011 at 10:45:17 AM
permalink
I wish I could live long enough see the day where there was no need to categorize people by race at all. In an effort towards that end, on my 2010 census form I put "human" as my race.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 25th, 2011 at 10:51:05 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI wish I could live long enough see the day where there was no need to categorize people by race at all. In an effort towards that end, on my 2010 census form I put "human" as my race.
I thnk most people agree with you. If I were POTUS I would eliminate ALL racial "boxes" on all federal forms on day one. Thing is, the Al Sharptons of the world have too much vested in what we have now.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
September 25th, 2011 at 12:18:57 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI wish I could live long enough see the day where there was no need to categorize people by race at all. In an effort towards that end, on my 2010 census form I put "human" as my race.
As we discussed before, there is a grassroots movement to make racial classifications obsolete. In Nevada the "other" category is now 78% of the combination of African American and Asian groups.
While certainly the idea of polish jokes now seems archaic, politics has a way of keeping ethnic divisions very active. While it may at first seem like ethnicity is the enemy of politics, in reality it is a very powerful tool of a politician. The easiest way to get a large number of people on your side is to convince them they are one of PLU (persons like us).
Quote: Charles Louis KincannonBeginning in 1790, the census implicitly recognized three race categories, White, Black, and Indian. These categories reflected the political realities of slavery. It is worth noting that while this classification was originally used as a means of maintaining the parameters of the three-fifths compromise, by 1850 it revealed the expansion of our frontiers and exposed the truth that slavery had to end. With the 14th Amendment, the census clause was amended and the census became a true count of every person. By 1890 several new race classifications emerged, acknowledging the presence of Asian immigrants from China and Japan. Throughout the twentieth century race classification continued to evolve to include Filipino, Aleut, Hawaiian, and other categories. In 1970, a separate question for Hispanic origin was added to the questionnaire as part of the long-form sample (the extended questionnaire of population and housing obtained from approximately one of every six households). This question has been included ever since as part of the census short form (the questions answered by every household). Also, since 1970 the census has relied on self-identification in its procedures.
Now race reflects what individuals have chosen, and not enumerator observations as with earlier censuses.
So you are free to identify yourself as other if that is what you choose.
September 26th, 2011 at 6:27:54 AM
permalink
Race should read "ethnic background". Your physical characteristics are only useful for identification of a person, whereas your ethnicity can say a lot more about your cultural background. Th latter should be self defined, whereas the racial appearance has no need to be on a census form... It tells you nothing.
The UK still has White British and White Irish as choices ( as well as others). The fact there is a difference made in the question tells you more about the UK than the answers given...
The UK still has White British and White Irish as choices ( as well as others). The fact there is a difference made in the question tells you more about the UK than the answers given...
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
September 26th, 2011 at 8:18:55 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitRace should read "ethnic background". Your physical characteristics are only useful for identification of a person, whereas your ethnicity can say a lot more about your cultural background. Th latter should be self defined, whereas the racial appearance has no need to be on a census form... It tells you nothing.
The UK still has White British and White Irish as choices ( as well as others). The fact there is a difference made in the question tells you more about the UK than the answers given...
The ethnic question about hispanic background first appeared in 1980. After 1990 they were able to use this information to draw up this gerrymandered district in Chicago area to connect a Mexican and a Puerto Rican neighborhood into one congressional district. It was the first hispanic majority congressional district outside of the states that once were part of the country of Mexico. The first election was in 1992 and was won by Luis Gutiérrez (Democrat). He has now won 10 straight elections by massive majority. There is very little point of even putting up a candidate against him.
I never thought about the White British and White Irish choices on the UK census. Besides comparing the data with previous years, you wonder what they do with data today.
September 26th, 2011 at 5:48:14 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI wish I could live long enough see the day where there was no need to categorize people by race at all.
Stop electing so many racist Democrats, then. By racist I mean people who consider race, whatevr that means, to be of any but the most superficial importance.
Quote:In an effort towards that end, on my 2010 census form I put "human" as my race.
Not bad. You can also put a made up race, or a fictional one, like Liliputian. If that fails, put down American or Earhtling.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
October 2nd, 2011 at 6:49:11 PM
permalink
I did some research into minority-majority districts.
The African-American districts are 27 (out of 436) ranging from over 50% to 69.3% of the citizens [not including Virgin Islands].
The Hispanic districts are 30 ( out of 436) ranging from over 50% to 82.5% of the citizens [not including Puerto Rico or Northern Marianas territories].
The black congressional caucus has 43 members and is open to both parties. They have 1 Republican, an Allen West, a black man who represents a district which is only 7% black in Florida. The non-voting delegates are from D.C. and US Virgin Islands.
There are two Hispanic groups, a Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and a Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference. They split in the early 1990's. As the Republicans only have 8 Latino congressmen, they permit 5 "associate members" who are not Latino themselves, but represent districts with large Latino populations.
There are two districts with overwhelming "minority-majorities" that have elected against ethnicity. A district in Texas outside of Houston is 76% Latino, but a single White candidate has won since the district was created in 1992. In Memphis a long time Jewish politician (Democrat) has beaten the odds and won a seat since 2006 representing a district which is 63.5% black (3rd highest in the country).
Critical Data for Vegas plan
The Hispanic majority districts with majorities between 50% and 65% (11 of them) are a mixed bag. Two are Republican with 1 represented by a Hispanic congressman. Of the 9 Democratic districts only 4 are represented by Latinos.
My guess is that if Nevada decides to create a 51% Hispanic majority 4th district, the district will have a slightly better than even chance of getting a Hispanic representative. Other people have been in politics longer and are better organized, while Hispanic voter turnout is often low. However, the district will basically be conceded to the Democrats. The Republicans may not even put up a candidate.
The Latino district will, however, greatly increase the odds of Republicans controlling 3 out of 4 districts in Nevada.
The 2010 elections changed the House from (255-D,179-R) to (193-D,242-R).
Regardless of the outcome of the Presidential race, it is widely believed that Republicans will win many battleground House districts.
The African-American districts are 27 (out of 436) ranging from over 50% to 69.3% of the citizens [not including Virgin Islands].
The Hispanic districts are 30 ( out of 436) ranging from over 50% to 82.5% of the citizens [not including Puerto Rico or Northern Marianas territories].
The black congressional caucus has 43 members and is open to both parties. They have 1 Republican, an Allen West, a black man who represents a district which is only 7% black in Florida. The non-voting delegates are from D.C. and US Virgin Islands.
There are two Hispanic groups, a Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and a Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference. They split in the early 1990's. As the Republicans only have 8 Latino congressmen, they permit 5 "associate members" who are not Latino themselves, but represent districts with large Latino populations.
There are two districts with overwhelming "minority-majorities" that have elected against ethnicity. A district in Texas outside of Houston is 76% Latino, but a single White candidate has won since the district was created in 1992. In Memphis a long time Jewish politician (Democrat) has beaten the odds and won a seat since 2006 representing a district which is 63.5% black (3rd highest in the country).
Critical Data for Vegas plan
The Hispanic majority districts with majorities between 50% and 65% (11 of them) are a mixed bag. Two are Republican with 1 represented by a Hispanic congressman. Of the 9 Democratic districts only 4 are represented by Latinos.
My guess is that if Nevada decides to create a 51% Hispanic majority 4th district, the district will have a slightly better than even chance of getting a Hispanic representative. Other people have been in politics longer and are better organized, while Hispanic voter turnout is often low. However, the district will basically be conceded to the Democrats. The Republicans may not even put up a candidate.
The Latino district will, however, greatly increase the odds of Republicans controlling 3 out of 4 districts in Nevada.
The 2010 elections changed the House from (255-D,179-R) to (193-D,242-R).
Regardless of the outcome of the Presidential race, it is widely believed that Republicans will win many battleground House districts.
October 16th, 2011 at 8:34:41 AM
permalink
The three “special masters” appointed by Judge Todd Russell drew the maps after holding hearings and taking public testimony this week. The masters -- Robert Erickson, Alan Glover and Thomas Sheets -- wrote that they “endeavored to not irregularly shape by arbitrary distortion or non-arbitrary distortion any district.”
• The 1st Congressional District would cover urban Las Vegas. It would have the highest percentage of Hispanics of any Nevada district, at 42.8 percent, but would fall short of the 51% Hispanic majority that is possible.
It would include 52 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans.
• The 2nd Congressional District would cover Washoe County and Northern Nevada.
That seat, held by Republican Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, would be 35 percent Democratic and 42 percent Republican.
• The 3rd Congressional District, which is held by Heck, a Republican, would cover most of Southern Clark County and
would be 40 percent Democratic and 37 percent Republican.
• The 4th Congressional District would include the northern parts of Clark County, most of North Las Vegas and White Pine, Minderal, Esmerelda, Nye, Lincoln and part of Lyon County. It would have 46 percent Democrats and 33 percent Republicans.
This division strongly leans towards 1st-Democrat, and 2nd-Republican, but both the 3rd and 4th are up for grabs.
December 18th, 2011 at 11:44:06 AM
permalink
Nevada had a bi-partisan committee draw up it's new districts which are geographically coherent. They did not create a Latino-majority district.
Pennsylvania on the other hand, had the districts drawn by the Republican party. The 7th district (in the Philadelphia suburbs) was one of 5 that was won by a Republican in the mid-year elections in 2010 It's been going back and forth for the past decade.
In order to increase the probability of being held by Republicans it was gerrymandered in this funny shape which is only 800' across in one place.
One calculation showed that they increased the district from 47.2% to 51.8% Republican
The old district looked like this:
So far there are no governing laws for the geography of redistricting other than districts have to be continuous. The can be as narrow as you want, and they can meander as far as people can make them. They can cross in and out of counties, cities and towns.
The 7th district in PA was drawn to get a 4.5% increase in voters, an edge that could vanish in a few elections.
Is it time for some laws?
Pennsylvania on the other hand, had the districts drawn by the Republican party. The 7th district (in the Philadelphia suburbs) was one of 5 that was won by a Republican in the mid-year elections in 2010 It's been going back and forth for the past decade.
In order to increase the probability of being held by Republicans it was gerrymandered in this funny shape which is only 800' across in one place.
One calculation showed that they increased the district from 47.2% to 51.8% Republican
The old district looked like this:
So far there are no governing laws for the geography of redistricting other than districts have to be continuous. The can be as narrow as you want, and they can meander as far as people can make them. They can cross in and out of counties, cities and towns.
The 7th district in PA was drawn to get a 4.5% increase in voters, an edge that could vanish in a few elections.
Is it time for some laws?
December 18th, 2011 at 11:54:05 AM
permalink
I've said this before, this just goes to show that it isn't the people choosing our representatives, it is the representatives choosing us.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 18th, 2011 at 12:04:16 PM
permalink
Is there some rule the district can't have breaks? In other words, it can be wasp-waisted but can't be two separate blobs?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
December 18th, 2011 at 1:07:27 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitIs there some rule the district can't have breaks? In other words, it can be wasp-waisted but can't be two separate blobs?
I'm pretty sure there is such a rule, but can't quote it. I wonder if the borders can go over the water, to connect two separate pieces, as is the case with the city limits of Santa Barbara.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 18th, 2011 at 1:51:15 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitIs there some rule the district can't have breaks? In other words, it can be wasp-waisted but can't be two separate blobs?
I believe that individual state's are permitted to set up rules for redistricting, to respect municipal boundaries. The state can also mandate the composition of the committee. Because Nevada had a bipartisan committee, the districts are much more cohesive. Pennsylvania's process is completely controlled by Republican party, which (as of last election) dominates the House. They also have one senator and the governor.
I don't think there are any federal regulations of a mathematical variety.
You can petition the Supreme Court for unfairness on racial grounds. But although cracking and packing are both ways to reduce the impact of racial voting, the courts tend to worry about "cracking" more than "packing".
No one has ever successfully sued over partisan divisions.
In PA that one black majority district in Philadelphia (2nd district) which has been represented by a Black Democrat since 1958 was hardly touched beyond what is required by law to make it equal in population. But the (1st district- also near Philadelphia) was reduced from 48% black to 35.5% black. Pittsburgh was reduced only slightly. The Republicans may be planning long term goals to eventually take these districts, but it won't happen while the popular candidates are in power.
December 18th, 2011 at 1:57:13 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinIn PA that one black majority district in Philadelphia (2nd district) which has been represented by a Black Democrat since 1958 was hardly touched beyond what is required by law to make it equal in population. But the (1st district- also near Philadelphia) was reduced from 48% black to 35.5% black. Pittsburgh was reduced only slightly. The Republicans may be planning long term goals to eventually take these districts, but it won't happen while the popular candidates are in power.
City of Pittsburgh would vote for Karl Mark if he had a (D) after his name. First ring of suburbs would as well. But if they get packed there the outers are much more conservative. So probably long-term planning.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
December 18th, 2011 at 2:40:56 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanCity of Pittsburgh would vote for Karl Mark if he had a (D) after his name. First ring of suburbs would as well. But if they get packed there the outers are much more conservative. So probably long-term planning.
Exactly. What they did was slide Indiana county over to the 9th where they have such a large Republican majority, that they can take the hit. They slide Lawrence county into the 3rd. Then they combined the Democratic 4th and 12th, but remains is 51% GOP and 49% Democratic. So even if they lose to the Democrats they are still ahead one district, but they have an even shot of winning. Then Democrats will be all alone in the city of Pittsburgh.
In Central PA they did the same thing with Harrisburg. The Republican from York wins by such massive majorities, that he can absorb the Democratic vote from Harrisburg and still win (by a smaller majority). That makes it safer for the Republicans in the more marginal counties.
So the Democrats will automatically go from 7 to 6 districts by virtue of losing a district. The Republicans have a much better grip on their current 12 districts.. So Republicans packed 2 districts in Philadelphia and 1 in Pittsburgh, and they packed Scranton, Wilke's Barre and Easton into one district. And they cracked the two suburban districts in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh so that they have an even shot at them in November.
But this packing and cracking was done at the expense of some very strange shaped districts in the Eastern part of the state.
It's hard to believe that the Democrats had a majority of the PA house seats up through November 2010.
December 18th, 2011 at 5:25:06 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI wonder if the borders can go over the water, to connect two separate pieces
Congressional districts have been doing that for decades. In one well-known case, a Congressional district that had been solely in Brooklyn was jumped over no less a body of water than the Lower Bay of New York Harbor to Staten Island.
December 18th, 2011 at 6:14:20 PM
permalink
I suppose it would have to cross water since Staten Island is too small to be a district by itself
Year 2000, 443,728 in Staten Island, while 654,361in an ideal NY congressional district
Year 2010, 468,730 in Staten Island, while 717,707in an ideal NY congressional district
But theoretically, Staten Island could be broken up so that it is in 2 or 3 congressional districts.
=====================
The relatively bizarre thing about the Pennsylvania redistricting is that the Republicans currently control the 6,7,8, 15 and 16 districts in the Philadelphia suburbs. So all the strange borders are carving up territory that they already control. All this just to get a few percentage points in equalizing some standard which may not even be true in five years.
December 18th, 2011 at 6:46:32 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartin
I suppose it would have to cross water since Staten Island is too small to be a district by itself
Year 2000, 443,728 in Staten Island, while 654,361in an ideal NY congressional district
Year 2010, 468,730 in Staten Island, while 717,707in an ideal NY congressional district
But theoretically, Staten Island could be broken up so that it is in 2 or 3 congressional districts.
Take a look at the 8th in your NYC map above, it's worse than the 13th. If this stuff interests you, there are tons of redistricting "geeks" out there that draw tons of maps. Check out "redracinghorses.com" and look at the diaries on the left. I know they did a bunch of NV ones, and have also thoroughly analyzed all the completed areas...
December 18th, 2011 at 8:21:04 PM
permalink
Quote: cclub79Take a look at the 8th in your NYC map above, it's worse than the 13th. If this stuff interests you, there are tons of redistricting "geeks" out there that draw tons of maps. Check out "redracinghorses.com" and look at the diaries on the left. I know they did a bunch of NV ones, and have also thoroughly analyzed all the completed areas...
This cartoon is 200 years old this election.
I guess that tells you that nobody is really interested in stopping gerrymandering. They just complain when the other party does it.
December 18th, 2011 at 8:30:14 PM
permalink
Well, however bad gerrymandering is, there is something worse - left-wingers in power.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
December 18th, 2011 at 9:45:56 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinThis cartoon is 200 years old this election.
I guess that tells you that nobody is really interested in stopping gerrymandering. They just complain when the other party does it.
Weirdly, on a gambling forum, this is my first post. Also weirdly, a lot of stuff I read on this post are things that I've seen on television episodes and are being credited as unique works.
This little cartoon does NOT strike me as someone taking credit for another's thoughts. But its 111218 posting also closely coincides with its appearance on the H2 series "How The States Got Their Shapes."
Pacomartin has over 4,700 posts to this forum without (I'm guessing) breaking any rules, so all benefits of the doubt are given. Still, I can't help but notice that many posters here just seem to be vomiting up what recently appeared on the latest History Channel show.
This will be my last post if the general populace deems it so, but to quote television shows as unilaterally authoritative seems as stupid as thinking that Spartacus is authentic because it pairs Shakespearean language with a hard rock soundtrack and some graphic sex.
Don't get me wrong. I like Spartacus, and I love sex. But I don't think it's authoritative any more than Homeland is.
December 19th, 2011 at 3:52:43 AM
permalink
Quote: PhilOlivoPacomartin has over 4,700 posts to this forum without (I'm guessing) breaking any rules, so all benefits of the doubt are given. Still, I can't help but notice that many posters here just seem to be vomiting up what recently appeared on the latest History Channel show.
Actually, I don't watch the History channel. Let me offer another explanation.
As this month is the formal response time for many states to respond to their 10 year requirement for redistricting, it is a popular subject. The fact that I would refer to one of the best known political cartoons in US history, and the "History Channel" would refer to the same cartoon is simply because we are discussing the same topic. It's not that I am vomiting up TV from last night.
December 19th, 2011 at 4:36:06 AM
permalink
Let me present an analysis that you won't see on the History channel. Philadelphia, with a large black population and a strong working class, is an obvious Democratic stronghold. In 2009-2011 Democrats controlled all five districts, #7, #1, #2, #13, and #8.
District #2 is a black majority district that has elected 4 different black male Democrats in the last 50 years. District #1 has elected 4 different white male Democrats for a period of over 60 years (since WWII). Last election Republicans didn't even put up a candidate in district #1, and the candidate in district #2 got slaughtered.
Not surprisingly given the Republican sweep in 2010 elections the outlying suburban districts #7 and #8 switched to Republican representatives. They also got an impressive 44% of district #13.
The obvious redistricting strategy would be to strengthen the newly elected candidates in district #7 and #8. Of course they did that. But one would assume that for a long shot they would weaken district #13, and see if a Republican victory is possible.
Much to my surprise, the Republicans moved 80,000 African American citizens from district #1 to #13. On the face of it that should make both #1 and #13 impossible to win for Republicans. I think that the Republicans think they can take both districts.
To me, this strategy is very bold. Only a year ago, the Republicans controlled only 7 of 19 congressional seats in PA. After the last election they increased to 12 of 19 seats. This redistricting seems to mean that they think that they have a shot at taking all but the center city districts in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
