Skip to main content

View Diary: Redistricting US House maps for HI, VT, RI, MA, DE, CT, ME and NH (15 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You know, abgin, (0+ / 0-)

    while I have always enjoyed your diaries and maps of big states, quite honestly, leave New England to me.

    These maps are unnecessarily convoluted, and you could easily draw maps that would keep every district safely Democratic while still making the maps look realistic (in fact, I have done this). This is especially true of your maps of Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

    First of all, in Maine, you actually split Portland? Seriously? Not only is that completely unrealistic, it's also totally unnecessary in order to make the 2nd safe.

    In Massachusetts, it's a good try, but you split too many towns (generally, the only town that should be split is Boston, and maybe a few others) and you actually split Berkshire County, which is not done since Berkshire County is a solid community of interest, and it's completely unnecessary.

    As for your Connecticut map, it has the right idea, but there are several serious issues. First of all, Manchester, East Hartford, and Rocky Hill should not be in the 2nd; take those out and replace them with Middletown and the towns of rural Middlesex County. Also, make it less ugly by putting North Haven and North Branford into the 3rd, with New Haven, which is where they belong. Finally, don't split Bridgeport; that's really not necessary.

    If you'd like to see my maps, I can post them.

    However, all that being said, I like your New Hampshire map a lot. It's much cleaner than the current version, and I like how Cheshire and Grafton are in different districts. That's definitely your best map of this bunch.

    (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

    by ProudNewEnglander on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 07:03:47 PM PST

    •  I think you are missing the point of the diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davybaby, Midwest Leftist

      To find the limits for a Democratic map.

      The first goal is to draw the districts as safe as possible. Not only safe.

      •  Town and city split in the map of MA (0+ / 0-)

        Dalton, Lancaster, Newton, Boston, Canton, Stoughton, Methuen, Medford, Bridgewater, Middleborough, Plymouth, Braintree and Hoolbrook.

        Total 13. Less than 1.5 town/city split by district for a map with at least D+9 districts and with all the districts over a 50% in the average of 2010.

      •  Then CT At Risk (0+ / 0-)

        What makes you think that your proposal for CT generates safe districts for Democrats.  Frankly, the proposed districts you've offered result in more competitive districts across the board, albeit with making CT-05 perhaps somewhat safer.  That's at the cost of making CT-01, CT-2, and CT-03 riskier for Democrats.  Nothing's been done to shore up CT-04, which is also a tough district for Democrats since it lies right along the Gold Coast.  In a difficult year like we might be facing in 2014, I can just see the Republicans slavering over a district picture like you've presented, especially with the amounts of money which will be expended by outside groups.

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 09:26:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  CT (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          davybaby, James Allen, GoUBears

          The districts proposed in this map are over 60.5% Obama in 2008. This is in the range of a D+8 PVI.

          The current districts have the following PVI:

          CT-01: D+13
          CT-02: D+5
          CT-03: D+11
          CT-04: D+5
          CT-05: D+3

          It means that 3 of the 5 districts get safer in the proposed map, just the seats that can have some risk.

      •  I think you're missing one very important point (0+ / 0-)

        Drawing districts that are "as safe as possible" does not necessarily mean drawing districts such that every district voted the same way. You should take incumbent strength and local differences into account as well.

        Take Connecticut as an example. Even if the 2nd was reduced to 55% Obama, it would still be perfectly safe, since Joe Courtney is a very popular incumbent who won 60% even in 2010. The 1st and 3rd districts could also be reduced a point or two since their incumbents are also very popular. However, the 4th and 5th districts have generally been the most Republican districts in the state, and thus ensuring that they are safe for Dems may require making them one or two points more Democratic than the state as a whole. This is especially true of these districts since Obama overperformed in the Gold Coast and Farmington Valley in 2008.

        As for Maine, take a look at this map:

        ME 2 dis same voting

        It's clean, no towns are split, and both districts voted the same way.

        (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

        by ProudNewEnglander on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 07:29:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This map of Maine is fine for me (0+ / 0-)

          It has two county split instead of one and one in my map. In fact I see a very close map to my map. It was not reason to despise my map. You split not the city, but you split too the metro area.

          My map of CT is more solid for open seat scenarios. As example, it would make easier that J Courtney or other US House representatives can run for governor, can be appointed to higher level positions, or can retire if they have health troubles some time.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site