gemimail,
One only needs to take a look at the outlines of the current Congressional districts in Illinois to see gerrymandering run wild. This kind of gerrymandering is usually caused by one party that has control of both the state legislature and the governship using their advantage to stack the deck against the other party. In the case of Illinois, both parties collaborated in the gerrymandering since neither party had total control in 2000. This resulted in really weird shaped districts like district 17. It is also a prime example of how gerrymandering can backfire because the whole purprose of district 17 was to give the Democrats control of the district and protect control of neighboring Republican districts. The problem is that redistricting only happens every ten years and a lot can happen in that time like Republicans winning this "Democrat" district in 2010. The following map of the current districts shows what happens when politicians turn into map makers:
No doubt Illinois will again see gerrymandering run wild only this time just for the benefit of the Democrat Party since it controls both houses of the state legislature and the governorship. Actually there is no need for the Democrats to do this because just drawing nice neat districts will cause the Republicans to lose House seats. That last exercise in gerrymandering is what gave the Republicans their current 11 seats compared to only 8 for the Democrats. There is no way the Republicans in a blue state like Illinois should control that many districts and it is only because of gerrymandering that backfired that they do. Illinois has lost a congressional district because of the 2010 Census and all of these districts must be redrawn as a result. The Republicans are going to lose at least two seats and maybe three and at least two Republicans will have to run against each other no matter how much gerrymandering takes place.
That being the case how about a really strange idea? Why not let a geographical area that votes Democrat have a Democrat congressman and an area that votes Republican have a Republican one? That way everyone will get what they are voting for to the maximum extent possible instead of trying to stack the deck in favor of an outcome that will probably change in the next ten years anyway. We have prepared a map that does that as a guide to how playing the game fairly lets the chips fall where they may. Here is our suggestion:
The white dots show the location of the homes of the current congress people from Illinois. As you can see there are four white dots in the area of the purple, brown and dark blue districts. All four are Republican and there is no way they can be separated without more ridiculous gerrymandering. Why should a Democrat controlled state be so kind as to preserve four Republican congressmen? One Republican congressman is history no matter what happens. Two other Republican Congressmen barely got elected in districts 8 and 10 (the two in the upper right hand corner). One of them is in a district that was carried by Obama by 12 points so he is likely history in any case. As to whether Congressman Dold can survive no matter how his 10th district is drawn is questionable but there is no way to insure his defeat without endangering Congresswoman Schakowsky in district 9.
Our plan makes no attempt to draw the 6 districts for Chicago (the bright blue area) since it will come down to what the six Democrat congress people want to do there and it has no partisan political implications in any case. One could gerrymander things so that Congressman Costello (Dem) and Congressman Shimkus (Rep) have to run against each other at the bottom of the state since they live failrly close together but no matter how you drawn the lines, the aqua area will elect a Democrat and the orange area will elect a Republican so why bother? The 2010 Census gave Illinois a population of 12,864,380 and 18 congressional seats so ideally each district should have a population of 714,687.77. Our districts contain whole counties in southern Illinois and whole townships in Northern Illinois. Here is how our districts work out by population:
| Incumbents | 2010 Population | Deviation | % Deviation |
New Congressional Districts Figures Shimkus (R)
| 718,581 | +3,893 | +0.5471% |
Schock (R) - Schilling (R)
| 714,010 | -678 | -0.0949% |
Manzullo (R)
| 713,052 | -1,636 | -0.2289% |
Johnson (R)
| 715,793 | +1,105 | +0.1546% |
Hultgren (R)
| 712,455 | -2,233 | -0.3124% |
Biggert (R)
| 710,287 | -4,401 | -0.6158% |
Costello (D)
| 717,910 | +3,222 | +0.5408% |
Kinzinger (R)
| 709,271 | -5,417 | -0.7580% |
Dold (R)
| 720,446 | +5,758 | +0.8057% |
Walsh (R)
| 715,176 | +488 | +0.0683% |
Roskam (R)
| 712,098 | -2,590 | -0.3624% |
Lipinski (D)
| 707,888 | -6,800 | -0.9515% |
| Total/Average | 8,566,967 | +/-3,185 | +/-0.4534% |
Continue...
Summary only...
gemimail,
Iowa is one of those states that has lost a congressional seat as a result of the 2010 Census. It had five districts and now it will only have four. In practice, that means that two of the sitting Congressmen will have to run against each other. Right now, Iowa is represented by three Democrats and two Republicans. While both Republicans won handily, all three Democrats won by only from 2 to 5.07%. One way or another, the loss is going to have to cost one of the Democrats his seat unless the redistricting is gerrymandered to favor the Democrats. That is not going to happen because the Democrats only control the State Senate while the Republicans control the State House and the Governorship.
This means that if the Democrat Senate cannot work out a compromise with the Republicans in the House, this whole battle will wind up in court where anything can happen. The court will not care about keeping incumbent Congressmen in separate districts or being opposed to creating a district which has no incumbent in it at all. The Court will only be concerned about making the population in each of the four districts equal to one-fourth of the population of the state, which is 3,053,787. We speak from experience in having designed the first three redistricting plans for the State of Arizona many years ago and then testifying in federal court in behalf of the plans.
The criteria we used was compactness, keeping incumbents separated, equal population and allowing precincts that voted similarly to be clustered together to form districts so as to avoid gerrymandering. The court frowned on any criteria except equal population. Actually the federal courts today would allow the original gerrymander in Massachusetts where all the precincts voting for the Whigs were put into one district so that they would at least be represented by someone who would vote according to their wishes. Gerrymandering today means burning one party at the expense of the other one. You do this by creating districts that have 60% of precincts voting for the party you are helping and 40% of them voting for the other party so that you waste those votes and can create more districts for the favored party.
In practice gerrymandering creates long skinny districts that reach from the part of town that favors one party down into the part that favors the other party but not as deeply in one end as in the other favored end. Neutral redistricting will create districts that are more or less square or at least combine counties that have similar economic and social outlooks. Gerrymandering in Iowa is easy because we have two sets of pairs of incumbents that live quite close to each other. It is easy to dump these two pairs into the same district and then create an open district. It is possible to keep these two pairs separated but there still has to be one district that has two incumbents running against each other.
The Democrats in Iowa will want to have the two Republicans run against each other in hopes of getting three Democrats and only one Republican in 2012. The Republicans will want two of the Democrats to run against each other in hopes of beating the third one and winding up with three Republicans and one Democrat. The fair way to do things would be to have one of the Republicans run against one of the Democrats so that the Democrats and Republicans each get one district and the other two will be up for grabs. Given where the various incumbents live, there is only one way to do this although one can make some agjustments around the edges.
Right now, population data is only available down to the county level but it is still possible to create four districts of just about equal size without crossing any county lines. In the spirit of getting a discussion going we have created a proposed redistricting of Iowa into four districts that the Republicans and Democrats might be able to compromise on to avoid winding up in court where all bets are off.
The above map shows the districts we are suggesting that the Iowa legislature could compromise on at least as a starting point. The five towns shown are where the five incumbents live. The four districts break down with the following figures:
| Incumbents | 2010 Population | Deviation | % Deviation |
New Congressional Districts Figures Loebsack (D)
| 765,897 | +2,450.25 | +0.3209% |
Braley (D) - Latham (R)
| 764,647 | +1,200.25 | +0.1572% |
Boswell (D)
| 760,819 | -2,627.75 | -0.3442% |
King (R)
| 762,424 | -1,022.75 | -0.1340% |
| Total/Average | 3,053,787 | +/-1,825.25 | +/-0.2391% |
Continue...
Summary only...
gemimail,
One of the big problems in predicting how the House races will turn out in 2012 is that all of the states except Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming must reapportion their House districts to allow for changes in where the people in their state now live according to the 2010 Census. Those seven states have such a small population that they only have one Congressional District that is the entire state so there is nothing to adjust. Making matters even tougher is that many states have either lost or gained House seats and must then change every district to allow for that. The other pertinent fact is that this reapportionment process will be gerrymandered to benefit one political party if that political party controls the state legislature and the governorship. To see how all of this will effect the partisan balance in the House in 2013, we need to know several things. Which states are controlled by which party or is it split? What is the present partisan breakout of a state's congressional delegation. Is there a change in the number of seats that the state has? What was the margin in 2010 of all the House seats added together in favor of one party or the other. All of that information is set forth in the following table:
| State | 2010 Margin | Legis Control
| Governor
| House Dems
| House Reps
| Change | Net Gain |
| Vermont | 32.54% | Dem | Dem | 1 | 0 | | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 27.70% | Dem | Dem | 10 | 0 | -1 | 0 |
| Maryland | 26.93% | Dem | Dem | 6 | 2 | | 0 |
| Hawaii | 24.57% | Dem | Dem | 2 | 0 |
| 0 |
| New York | 21.20% | Split | Dem | 21 | 8 | -2 | DR-1 |
| Connecticut | 18.97% | Dem | Dem | 5 | 0 | | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 18.46% | Dem | Dem | 2 | 0 |
| 0 |
| Delaware | 15.74% | Dem | Dem | 1 | 0 |
| 0 |
| Maine | 12.07% | Rep | Rep | 2 | 0 |
| 0 |
| California | 10.81% | Dem | Dem | 34 | 19 | | 0 |
| Illinois | 7.14% | Dem | Dem | 8 | 11 | -1 | R-1 |
| Washington | 6.75% | Dem | Dem | 5 | 4 | +1 | D+1 |
| Oregon | 3.99% | Split | Dem | 4 | 1 |
| 0 |
| New Mexico | 3.32% | Dem | Rep | 2 | 1 |
| 0 |
| Minnesota | 2.04% | Rep | Dem | 4 | 4 |
| 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 0.53% | Rep | Rep | 7 | 12 | -1 | D-1 |
| New Jersey | 0.64% | Dem | Rep | 7 | 6 | -1 | R-1 |
| South Dakota | 2.23% | Rep | Rep | 0 | 1 | | 0 |
| Colorado | 5.27% | Split | Dem | 3 | 4 | | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 6.88% | Rep | Dem | 0 | 2 |
| 0 |
| Nevada | 6.90% | Dem | Rep | 1 | 2 | +1 | D+1 |
| Michigan | 7.68% | Rep | Rep | 6 | 9 | -1 | D-1 |
| North Dakota | 9.81% | Rep | Rep | 0 | 1 | | 0 |
| Mississippi | 10.02% | Rep | Rep | 1 | 3 | | 0 |
| Ohio | 11.75% | Rep | Rep | 5 | 13 | -2 | DR-1 |
| North Carolina | 11.78% | Rep | Dem | 7 | 6 | | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 11.90% | Rep | Rep | 3 | 5 | | R+1 |
| Arizona | 12.46% | Rep | Rep | 3 | 5 | +1 | R+1 |
| Virginia | 12.57% | Split | Rep | 3 | 8 | | 0 |
| Iowa | 13.12% | Split | Rep | 3 | 2 | -1 | D-1 |
| West Virginia | 13.21% | Dem | Dem | 1 | 2 | | R-1 |
| South Carolina | 16.14% | Rep | Rep | 1 | 5 | +1 | R+1 |
| Arkansas | 17.28% | Dem | Dem | 1 | 3 | | 0 |
| Indiana | 18.78% | Rep | Rep | 3 | 6 | | R+1 |
| Missouri | 19.71% | Rep | Dem | 3 | 6 | -1 | R-1 |
| Florida | 20.70% | Rep | Rep | 6 | 19 | +2 | DR+1 |
| Montana | 26.57% | Rep | Dem | 0 | 1 |
| 0 |
| Idaho | 27.82% | Rep | Rep | 0 | 2 | | 0 |
| Kentucky | 28.41% | Split | Dem | 2 | 4 | | 0 |
| Tennessee | 28.75% | Rep | Rep | 2 | 7 | | 0 |
| Georgia | 31.29% | Rep | Rep | 5 | 8 | +1 | R+1 |
| Utah | 31.29% | Rep | Rep | 1 | 2 | +1 | R+1 |
| Kansas | 31.45% | Rep | Rep | 0 | 4 | | 0 |
| Louisiana | 33.79% | Split | Rep | 1 | 6 | -1 | R-1 |
| Texas | 34.72% | Rep | Rep | 9 | 23 | +4 | R+3 |
| Oklahoma | 35.27% | Rep | Rep | 1 | 4 | | 0 |
| Alaska | 38.44% | Split | Rep | 0 | 1 | | 0 |
| Nebraska | 40.02% | Rep | Rep | 0 | 3 | | 0 |
| Alabama | 43.03% | Rep | Rep | 1 | 6 | | 0 |
| Wyoming | 45.94% | Rep | Rep | 0 | 1 |
| 0 |
So what does all this information tell us? If you see two Dems in the party columns, then the Democrats can gerrymander the reapportionment process to benefit their party and hurt the Republicans. Likewise if you see two Reps in those columns, the opposite is true. There are 12 states controlled by the Democrats, but in 7 of them, the Republicans do not have any seats to be taken away from them. There are 22 states controlled by the Republicans but 6 of them do not have any Democrat seats to damage. The rest are split and the reapportionment process most likely will wind up in court if a compromise cannot be hammered out in the state legislature that also gets the governor to sign the bill.
It is the states that are gaining or losing more than one seat where gerrymandering can have the biggest effect. Texas is gaining 4 seats and is controlled by the Republicans but since the Democrats only have nine seats, it is hard to see how the Republicans can pick up any of the Democrat seats especially when they need to shore up districts 23 and 27 where the winning margin was under 5%. On the contrary, if they try to get greedy and make all four new seats Republican, they endanger holding ones they already have. The wisest course is to go for three to be Republican and let the Democrats have the fourth one. Thus the best the Republicans can hope for is a gain of 3 seats.
Florida is gaining two seats and it is controlled by the Republicans. Since the Democrats only have six seats it is hard to see how the Republicans can do any better than to split the two new seats with the Democrats. The same thing is true in Ohio only each party will have to lose a seat. If the Republicans controlled New York both seats that must be lost would come out of the Democrat majority. Since control is split, the most likely result will be a compromise in which each party loses a seat. Our best guess is that reapportionment will give the Republicans four new seats on top of whatever other gains or loses they might otherwise get.
Continue...
Summary only...
