Skip to main content

View Diary: Illinois: 18D-0R US House map (40 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is obvious that to improve the % of Dem vote (0+ / 0-)

    in some districts, it is necessary to take the these votes from other districts. And from an egoistic point some representatives can object the map.

    If an incumbent US Representative can not win a 57.6% Obama 2008 district... well... maybe he/she deserve to lose.

    The risk of losing a 57.6% Obama 2008 district is very low, even in Illinois. As I commented before, to concede one district to the Republicans with a 44.6% Obama 2008 level of vote, only would up a 1% the percentage of the rest of the districts in 57.6%. To concede two districts to the Republicans with a 45.6% Obama 2008 level of vote, only would up a 2% the percentage of the rest of the districts (until a 59.6%). Knowing that, I think it is better to concede not these districts because I see not a solution with it because the risk of losing one or two seats with this level of Democratic vote is a lot lower than the effect of conceding one or two districts to the Republicans. In this case to concede some seat to the Republicans would not have a strong effect improving the rest of the districts. This is habitual in states with high number of districts.

    In the other hand, to concede to the Republicans one or two districts would make the mapa nicer. But still without the my requirement of assigning a district to concrete not incumbents the map can be a lot nicer too.

    •  I see your point, but the fact is... (0+ / 0-)

      No legislature draws maps like yours, regardless of whether it is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Even the Ohio and Pennsylvania Republicans allowed a few Democratic "vote sinks" (and not just the couple needed to have African American majority districts).  Getting secure seats for your existing Representatives is always the first priority.  After that comes winning seats you almost won last time (in Illinois, that would notably include defeating Bob Dold in the 10th, which would not have happened with your map, and defeating Bobby Schilling in the 17th, which would have been a very close call).  Only then do you look at going after previously "safe" seats for the other party.  And once again I would have to disagree that if you look at the 2012-2022 decade as a whole, and remember it is likely to have some Republican-leaning years, that "The risk of losing a 57.6% Obama 2008 district is very low, even in Illinois."  Tell that to Phil Hare, who lost by eleven points in 2010!

      Anyway, making the 4th only 45% Hispanic in its voting-age population (which means that it would be considerably less than 45% in the number of actual Hispanic voters, since many Hispanics are not US citizens) would by itself be enough to kill your map.

      •  The fact is that this is a theorical map finding (0+ / 0-)

        the limits. It is not a map with other purposes.

        Also, there is other interesting question. These districts are 57.6% Obama 2008, but most of them have a strong basis of voters from Chigago. These voters are very to the left of the average in the state, and very to the left of a no Chicago district like IL-17 in 2010. This mean that in these districts it is a lot less likely to see voters of this 57.6% changing for voting to a Republican. In fact the district would be very polarized, with very few voters in the center. (Also most of the Republican voters from these 57.6% districts would be from the rural areas of these districts, and would be far to the right of the Republican average.

        This mean that the Districts of this map would be a lot more solidly Democratic than IL-17 in 2010.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site