Gerrymandering

[Happy Monkey]

Is the goal the center of the randomized grouping, or is the goal zero? R+1.5 is still favoring Republicans, and that 1.5 bonus can translate to an even bigger benefit in actual representation:

In the average 2016 contest on the new map, Democrats would have carried an average of 8.4 districts (out of 18), even though Democrats won the statewide popular vote in the average contest. The median congressional district favored the Republicans by a point in the average 2016 contest.

Over 50% Democratic voters becomes less than 50% Democratic representatives - with the NEW map.

As I see it, the grouping is the leeway that Republicans would have had when making the map themselves, while still having cover claiming that their advantage was structurally inherent in the urban/rural divide.

But if deliberately designing a map with the intent to minimize partisan advantage, the goal is zero.

If they hadn't pushed for an even more obscene advantage, they could have easily gotten away with R+6 to even R+10. But they forced the court to make the map, instead, and will have to settle for R+1.5.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Is the goal the center of the randomized grouping, or is the goal zero?

That's the 64 dollar question.

In general, partisan balance is not usually a goal when redistricting. You could certainly argue that partisan balance and maximizing the number of competitive districts should be among the criteria, but, in general, they are not. Instead, a nonpartisan map usually means a partisan-blind map. It strives for compact districts that respect communities of interest, with little regard for the partisan outcome.

A decision to pursue partisan balance in Pennsylvania would be particularly significant because Democrats are at a clear geographic disadvantage. They waste a lopsided number of votes in heavily Democratic Philadelphia and Pittsburgh; the Republicans don’t waste as many votes in their best areas, and so the rest of the state (and therefore its districts) leans Republican. As a result, a partisan-blind map will tend to favor the Republicans by a notable amount.

As I see it, the grouping is the leeway that Republicans would have had when making the map themselves, while still having cover claiming that their advantage was structurally inherent in the urban/rural divide.

That claim wouldn't hold up, this is the PA 7th district (where I live), the Republicans created.

[Happy Monkey]

That claim wouldn't hold up, this is the PA 7th district (where I live), the Republicans created.

Yes, but if they hadn't been so greedy, and put their map as a whole in the +6 to +10 range, they could have pointed to the simulation evidence and said that they were covered on that metric, and the court might not have gone through, district by district, looking for issues.

(note, this is in the context of when the court asked them to resubmit, after the simulation evidence had been introduced, i I have my timeline right).

[xoxoxoBruce]

This was back in 2010 and probably the worst district in the country. But you're right, if they had been more subtle they wouldn't have become the laughing stock of the country / admired for their chutzpah(depending on which side you're on), and drawn the ire of the courts.

[Happy Monkey]

Looks like the new map is in place for this election.

[Undertoad]

Philly.com (paywalled): Pa. gerrymandering's surprise co-conspirators: Democrats

This map we've been choking on? In 2011, one in three Democrats voted in favor of it. Without their votes, it couldn't have been the final map. Why'd they do it... philly.com says, local interests prevailed. The state Ds were disorganized, so local Ds were happy to go along with the plan if it protected their own district.

[Flint]

If democrats don't always agree on everything, then how can we trust anything they say?

[Griff]

It turns out my new district is a few more points pro-Trump than my old district. That means we saddle the rest of you with Opioid Tom Marino, my apologies.