POLITICS DEC. 25, 2021 Democrats Are Doing Weirdly Well in Redistricting

[CivilDiscourse]

In other words, "Democrats do it too"

Source: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/democrats-are-doing-weirdly-well-in-redistricting.html

The Democratic House majority was supposed to die in redistricting. For months now, pundits and political forecasters have predicted that Republicans could win back the House next year without flipping a single voter. After all, the GOP controls far more state governments than the Democrats, and this is a post-Census year, when states redraw their congressional maps. Republicans boast sole authority over the boundaries of 193 congressional districts, while Democrats command just 94. Given the slimness of Nancy Pelosi’s majority, several analyses projected that GOP cartographers would generate enough new, safe “red” seats to retake the House through gerrymandering alone.

This has been a foundational premise of much of my own commentary. And it’s an assumption that’s animated the progressive movement’s push for a package of democracy reforms that would, among other things, forbid partisan redistricting.

But it’s starting to look wrong.

The new House map is more than half finished. And in many states where maps haven’t been finalized, the broad outlines are already visible. Taken together, the emerging picture is far more favorable for Democrats than most anticipated. As of this writing, it looks like the new House map will be much less biased in the GOP’s favor than the old one. And according to at least one analyst, there is actually an outside chance that the final map will be tilted, ever so slightly, in the Democrats’ favor.

...

There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.

To be sure, blue states have probably left more gerrymander-able seats on the table than red ones, simply because some of the nation’s most Democratic states have outsourced redistricting authority to independent commissions. Fortunately for Team Blue, California’s nonpartisan commission is poised to finalize a quite pro-Democratic map. As of this writing, California’s House map is likely to feature 44 seats to the left of the country, and eight to its right. If Democrats boasted full control over California redistricting, they probably could have produced a 50-to-2 Democratic gerrymander. But still, not a bad haul.

...

According to Wertheimer’s calculations, if both of those gerrymanders are rolled back, then it is actually possible that the “tipping point” seat in the final, nationwide map will be one that was slightly more Democratic than the nation as a whole in 2020. Which is to say: The House map could end up having a tiny pro-Democratic bias.

This is by no means the likely outcome. But its plausibility underscores a basic fact: The biggest threat to the Democrats’ House majority in 2022 is no longer Republican gerrymandering but rather, the combination of the opposition party’s inherent turnout advantage in midterms and Joe Biden’s dismal poll numbers.

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

jerrynadler-gerrymander.jpg
Odd how that the left went silent about gerrymandering

[CivilDiscourse]

I expect that Stoic or Starlight will come in and use the expected handwave that goes along the lines of "It's the GOP's fault, if they didn't gerrymander, we wouldn't have to". There's a few variations, but it boils down to just being a reaction to the GOP's actions. Which of course ignores their own continued history on the topic.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Yet another reason I am losing trust in my political parties, political processes, and government in general.

[Sparko]

In order to Gerrymander they need to know who in each area is voting which way down to the individual neighborhoods and households within an existing district. But aren't votes supposed to be anonymous? So how are they figuring out which households are voting which way? Polls?

[CivilDiscourse]

In order to Gerrymander they need to know who in each area is voting which way down to the individual neighborhoods and households within an existing district. But aren't votes supposed to be anonymous? So how are they figuring out which households are voting which way? Polls?

Polls, voter registration, statistical modeling (Let's face it, there are stereotypes you can use that would be a good predictor of how likely people are to vote for one party or another).

I work in the credit industry. We can predict with decent accuracy how likely people are to default on loans. Is it accurate at the individual level? No. I can't say SParko will default, but I can say Sparko and people who look like him (statistically) will default on a loan 2%, 30%, etc of the time. That's how the credit industry works.

If you think that can't be done with voting patterns, you are kidding yourself. (The basic assumption would be that you vote to your party registration)

In addition, voting precincts are smaller still, and votes get tallied at the precinct level as well. There's lots of ways to divide up geography.

[Sparko]

Polls, voter registration, statistical modeling (Let's face it, there are stereotypes you can use that would be a good predictor of how likely people are to vote for one party or another).

I work in the credit industry. We can predict with decent accuracy how likely people are to default on loans. Is it accurate at the individual level? No. I can't say SParko will default, but I can say Sparko and people who look like him (statistically) will default on a loan 2%, 30%, etc of the time. That's how the credit industry works.

If you think that can't be done with voting patterns, you are kidding yourself. (The basic assumption would be that you vote to your party registration)

In addition, voting precincts are smaller still, and votes get tallied at the precinct level as well. There's lots of ways to divide up geography.

I forgot about voter registration rolls.

and a pirate default on a loan?

[Ronson]

Polls, voter registration, statistical modeling (Let's face it, there are stereotypes you can use that would be a good predictor of how likely people are to vote for one party or another).

I work in the credit industry. We can predict with decent accuracy how likely people are to default on loans. Is it accurate at the individual level? No. I can't say SParko will default, but I can say Sparko and people who look like him (statistically) will default on a loan 2%, 30%, etc of the time. That's how the credit industry works.

If you think that can't be done with voting patterns, you are kidding yourself. (The basic assumption would be that you vote to your party registration)

In addition, voting precincts are smaller still, and votes get tallied at the precinct level as well. There's lots of ways to divide up geography.

I'd think income levels are a good indicator. Lowest income neighborhoods and (generally) the highest income going Democratic. Middle income neighborhoods going Republican.

When I lived in Orange County, California in the 1980s, it was solidly Republican and it was middle class. By contrast, Los Angeles County was Democratic and it was both richer and poorer. I understand OC has eroded since that time and has become more of a two-class county, like L.A.

[rogue06]

jerrynadler-gerrymander.jpg
Odd how that the left went silent about gerrymandering

And Illinois

Source: ILLINOIS’ ‘EXTREME’ RISK OF GERRYMANDERING BECOMES REALITY THROUGH CONGRESSIONAL MAP

The Illinois congressional map proposal released by Democrats has districts that are far from compact, snaking to catch and avoid populations. Republicans label it the ‘Nancy Pelosi Protection Plan.’

Democrats in Illinois’ General Assembly unveiled a proposed congressional map Oct. 15, with 17 districts that twist, turn and look like the textbook version of a gerrymander.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

212310comparisonmap-768x707.jpg

The only time Democrats have a problem with gerrymandering is when they aren't doing it.

[rogue06]

I expect that Stoic or Starlight will come in and use the expected handwave that goes along the lines of "It's the GOP's fault, if they didn't gerrymander, we wouldn't have to". There's a few variations, but it boils down to just being a reaction to the GOP's actions. Which of course ignores their own continued history on the topic.

Yup, like the abusive husband who after he beats the crap out of his wife and screams at here "Look at what you made me do!"

[CivilDiscourse]

Yup, like the abusive husband who after he beats the crap out of his wife and screams at here "Look at what you made me do!"

I can't count the number of times I heard the left blame their vitriolic rhetoric about the GOP/Republicans on Trump's rhetoric.

[rogue06]

I can't count the number of times I heard the left blame their vitriolic rhetoric about the GOP/Republicans on Trump's rhetoric.

Which is odd given they were saying essentially the same things they said about Trump (except for the fraudulent collusion delusion that they cooked up) as they did about George W. And his father. And Reagan. And... etc. etc. etc.

So how do they explain reacting they same way for decades before Trump?

[CivilDiscourse]

Which is odd given they were saying essentially the same things they said about Trump (except for the fraudulent collusion delusion that they cooked up) as they did about George W. And his father. And Reagan. And... etc. etc. etc.

So how do they explain reacting they same way for decades before Trump?

It's easy. They simply don't. They handwave it away, ignore it, or pretend that something between then and now makes it apples and oranges. Redistricting is a prime example. They LOVED redistricting, until the GOP made those down-ballot races a priority, and won them in time to redistrict. THEN they had a problem with redistricting, THEN they championed "neutral commissions" for redistricting. Then when they had the chance they went right back to it.

[rogue06]

It's easy. They simply don't. They handwave it away, ignore it, or pretend that something between then and now makes it apples and oranges. Redistricting is a prime example. They LOVED redistricting, until the GOP made those down-ballot races a priority, and won them in time to redistrict. THEN they had a problem with redistricting, THEN they championed "neutral commissions" for redistricting. Then when they had the chance they went right back to it.

To be fair I think the Republicans would have done the same thing.

It's like the filibuster. When either side is in control they think it is a relic of the past and needs to be done away with, but the moment they lose power, the filibuster is transformed into a prime example of our founding father's wisdom. Rinse and repeat.

[CivilDiscourse]

To be fair I think the Republicans would have done the same thing.

It's like the filibuster. When either side is in control they think it is a relic of the past and needs to be done away with, but the moment they lose power, the filibuster is transformed into a prime example of our founding father's wisdom. Rinse and repeat.

Never claimed the opposite.