« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ideas for Redistricting

By: freemanja1991 (Diary)  |  December 17th, 2010 at 11:45 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Some Districts need to be cut to be made more competitive, they may be almost impossible for a Republican to win, but it may for the DCCC use some resources there. Instead of other races. One such District is IA-3 Leonard Bosewell. Cook Rates it as D+1, but trends more left than that. Bosewell is on the DCCC’s chronically endangered list, and thus receives large amounts of aide each cycle. We need to have districts that lean one way but aren’t so far out of the way that it is impossible to win but it is improbable. And causes the DCCC to dump money into the race instead of somewhere else where it may be needed more.

This brings me to Missouri

if MO loses a seat eliminate MO-3 Russ Carnahan. Carnahan will probably run for LT Gov then Since LT Gov Kinder is going to vacate the seat to run against Governor Nixon. And I suspect he wants his Dad’s old Job as Governor. He will not challenge Nixon in a primary but it sets him up perfectly. If Nixon loses he challenges Kinder in four years, or waits another four years when Nixon will be done. But moving on, MO-5 Emanuel Cleaver D+10. If this could be cut to be more like D+5 it could cause a situation like IA-3 above. the 2010 results were 53-44. so if it was D+5, it would cause the DCCC to waste resources there instead of other districts that need the money.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • drfredc

    There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires ‘districts’. A State gets X reps. They can be by district, at large, or whatever reasonably balanced system the State chooses to use.

    For example, many cities have a mix of district and at large for their councils, why not CongressCritters? IMHO, one might consider alternating districts and at large every other election to clean out the safe seat dead wood of either party.

    When a Congress critter has to run at large, they have to learn to appeal to the general population AND they actually have to run a campaign as there is no safe seat to hide behind…. This would also likely cause many folks to become more and more aware of the issues since there would be a lot more wide open public debate.

  • scarlos

    It’s why their maps are always so nice. We have no say whatsoever in how partisan those districts are.

    • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

      the House and give people more representation.

      • IJB

        …And that would require an expansion in the number of House seats (to maybe as many as 600!).

        I think the GOP should look closely at this issue over the next few years, and should maybe think about the “Wyoming rule” and expanding the number of House seats to coincide with the next reapportionment in 2022…

        • pilgrim
          • freemanja1991

            But i also think too many more congressman is bad. and expensive.

          • proudgop

            some nice links on redistricting

            http://nationaljournal.com/politics/on-the-bubble-10-states-await-tuesday-census-verdict-on-congressional-gains-losses-20101217

            http://www.cookpolitical.com/node/10459

            On Iowa I read somewhere its likely 2 Dems will be paired together

            A lot these states gaining are still under VRA so the Republicans aren’t going to be able to pickup huge wins even though we control everything in TX, GA, SC for ie

            The biggest worry for us will be Illinois ( losing that Gov race is extra bad now)

  • froster

    The new Iowa district will certainly be between D+5 and R+5, and be Tom Latham vs Boswell.

    And the Democratic governor of Missouri won’t accept getting rid of Cleaver or even weakening him if they get rid of Carnahan.

  • IJB

    …And from everything I know, re: the commission and the commission’s rules (e.g. requiring as “round” a district as possible), I’ve concluded that “square-shaped” Iowa will just be divided into “quarters” and cut into 4 “square” districts after reapportionment and redistricting.

    I haven’t figured out “who goes where” yet in such a set-up, but it’s clear there will be one pretty strong ‘R’ district in the NW, one pretty strong ‘D’ district in the NE, and 2 more “swing-y” districts in the southern half of the state that will still “lean D” (though could be won by an ‘R’ under the right conditions).

    Anyway, I guess my point is, we aren’t likely to get much out of Iowa, and Iowa may very well end up 3D-1R after all is said and done. Of course, some at SSP are implying that Boswell may retire in 2012, so IA may end up being 2D-2R after all.

    I’ve got Iowa maps ready to go – I may do a diary on IA redistricting over the holidays, if I find some time…

  • freemanja1991

    Latham will probably lose Warren, Madison, and Dallas County, to 3, then lose a chunk of the west to 5. Then he will pick up into the east more than likely.

  • freemanja1991

    Could do very well. He is very likable.

  • IJB

    …And if I’m right about the “quarters” districts, it looks like it won’t be Lantham vs. Boswell – it’ll be King vs. Boswell!

    Lantham would get a ‘free ride’.

    It would also potentially set up Loebsack vs. Braley!! assuming Loebsack wouldn’t move further south (which I assume he would…).

  • freemanja1991

    The “Commission” is a computer program. And Iowa Cannot be quartered, due to population distributions.

  • IJB

    I never said they’d be “perfect” quarters.

    What they’ll be is 4 roughly square/rectangular districts situated in the 4 corners of IA. They definitely *won’t* be the same size! – The NW district is by far the largest in area, and the two southern quarters are the smallest (and more rectangular-shaped than “square”).

    But the “best” way to get 4 “roundish” (really: “squarish”) districts is to simply “quarter” the state.

    If it makes you feel any better, I have a second map of IA that I’ve drawn up that preserves more of the current districts, and you get 2 “roundish” districts out of 4 from it (one of which is indeed Lantham vs. Boswell, while the other is actually Braley vs. Loebseck!) – the problem with it is that the far “west” and far “east” districts are pretty ugly if you’re shooting for “compact and *round*”.

    Like I said, if I have time, I’ll post up a diary on this.

    But I still maintain – if the commission is being honest to their own guidelines, they’ll simply ‘quarter’ IA.

    If they don’t (esp. if they adopt something more like my second map), then I’d advise the GOP-controlled IA House vote the plan down, as my second map is really more of a genuine pro-D gerrymander that would guarantee Dems 3 out of the 4 IA districts…

  • freemanja1991

    Kings district moves further west Taking parts of Latham’s (Greene, Calhoun, Pocahontas, Emmet, Palo Alto) and Loebsack’s (Lucas, Wayne, Monroe, Apanoose)
    Bosewell’s Picks up Dallas, Warren, and Madison, Counties
    Latham’s moves more North East Maybe taking Grundy Benton and Tama from Bosewell. Blackhawk gets put in this district.
    Braley’s is cut between Latham and Loebsack.
    Loesback picks up Scott, Clinton, and Jones.
    These are not exact but close plus or minus a few counties
    King will retain his district. Latham will beat Braley, and besides the conservative counties are the ones he is getting out on the old 1st district minus Blackhawk of course.
    Bosewell may retire but the district will be similar in voter registration and if he retires we will win the open seat.
    Loebsack will be in a left leaning seat but it will be slighlty more favorable due to Scott county.
    Then RPI has to do some work to get better voter registration numbers. Loebsack’d district will move right with time.

  • freemanja1991

    is he can stay in Ames or move back up to Alexander Iowa (Franklin county) if he chooses. Latham is Popular and personally likable but i am not sure if he could win in a Des Moines Based District.

  • IJB

    I was going to dig up Iowa’s guidelines for redistricting, but my recollection is that it is supposed to be done without regard to incumbency or the current districts’ lines. If that’s the case, it’s just as likely that the “old” map will be totally “thrown out” and ignored, and they’ll just start from scratch. And if that’s the case, my ‘quartering’ idea for Iowa looks a lot more likely.

    OTOH, if they are allowed to take where the current incumbents live into account… nope, I just looked it up: they are indeed not supposed to take incumbents into account.

    And if they don’t have to pay attention to the incumbents and the current lines? My guess is that they’ll just start completely over from scratch…

  • IJB

    They’re roughly plausible, though I don’t think the counties could be switched quite the way your suggesting – I had to switch a number of counties around to get the population numbers to work out OK.

    The thing is, I don’t think they’re as “round/square” as they should be, esp. King’s district which ends up looking a little jagged.

    But, yeah – I think your scenario is also plausible. It looks like your way will create two roughly ‘swingish’ districts, with 1 strong R district and 1 strong D district.

  • IJB

    …is how they define the “boundaries of political subdivisions” in Iowa, aside from the county lines.

    But, bottom line: The IA General Assembly (currently held by Republicans) is allowed to approve or disapprove whatever the Commission comes up with, and they certainly shouldn’t approve any plan that sets up three pretty safe Dem House seats.

  • froster

    Have you tried CA? It’s so annoying – the really tiny precincts of Contra Costa County take forever to fill in.

  • IJB

    It’s funny you mention Contra Costa county – I grew up there, and I’m doing CA *specifically* to create the district that I’ve wanted to see since I was a kid in the 70′s: namely, linking up most of Contra Costa and Alameda east of the Berkeley hills (e.g. Lamorinda, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Alamo, Danville, San Ramon, etc.). To get that to work I had to go all the way out to Tracy to get the population to work.

    Basically, I’m mostly sticking with the currently existing districts – just cleaning them up so they stay within county lines and stick ‘like’ communities together more. (The districts will get more different from the current ones the further south I go – my current CA-10 and CA-11 are already quite different from their current incarnations…)

    But I’m only about 1/4 of the way done with CA (I’ve been sidetracked with work stuff lately… :( ) – I’ll probably get back to the CA map during the holidays, esp. after the reapportionment numbers come out on Tuesday… :)

  • freemanja1991

    Yes they don’t Take incumbents addresses into account. Last time Leach moved into the 2nd district to avoid conflicts with Nussle. But Latham Benefits because he can easily move back if Ames is put in a bad spot.
    IBJ- It could be townships or precincts. Or in Iowa all State Senate and assembly seats cannot cross congressional district lines.