I am as partisan a Democrat as most people on this website. As an Illinoisan, I am dismayed that my state elected five freshmen Republicans last fall but very grateful (for a whole lot of other reasons besides redistricting) that Governor Quinn just managed to hold on. Otherwise we would be looking at another “incumbent protection” map, which in a state that just elected five freshmen GOP congressmen last fall, would be tantamount to a GOP gerrymander.
Various would-be mappers such as Silverspring have proposed 14-4 maps that would make Delay and Phil Burton proud. But many of these maps go by Obama 2008 data, which is a fundamentally flawed data set to be basing districts on in my very educated opinion. On the surface maps provided by such places as usaelection.org, you can see counties like Kendall and Grundy and Stephenson and McHenry (just to name a few) that wound up in Obama’s column in 2008. No seasoned Democratic politician in Illinois would ever call these counties that are Democratic by any means. Perhaps as suburban/exurban areas of McHenry and Kendall start to fill up and become more swingy, those counties might change.
This diary, however, focuses on a slightly different problem with the Obama 2008 data when compared against Kerry 2004 downstate (where it models pretty accurately – I understand the concerns people have about Cook and Dupage which may be a bit bluer now in 2011 but that trend is not noticeable anywhere outside of Chicagoland). The problem is this: several of the downstate cities that mappers such as myself and Silver Spring and others count on to create as many Democratic-leaning districts as we can, aren’t really all that blue to begin with. In other cases, such as Decatur and Urbana-Champaign, they are quite blue, but turnout is a problem. Follow me across the jump where I demonstrate this using a new district I have been creating in most of my maps – a new 13th which disappears in Chicagoland and reappears as a vacant downstate cities seat.
On first glance this district ought to be safely Democratic, even in 2004. It isn’t entirely so. Believe it or not, but Bush got 49% of the vote in this district (and the narrow tendrils connecting the various cities together only amount to about 30k residents so that isn’t the problem so much). The district is good enough for my standards, though, because Obama did get 59%. By Cook PVI it is a D+4, perhaps not completely safe from a meltdown of 2010 proportions but most Republicans cannot win in districts any more Democratic than this, and other than Tim Johnson, there is no sitting Republican congressman from this area of the state who could have cross-over appeal. Even then, Tim Johnson is not a Mark Kirk, and it would take a Mark Kirk for the GOP to win this seat. So I think it is reasonably safe Team Blue, probably as safe as can be drawn in fact.
In most other parts of the country, a 51% Kerry, 59% Obama seat would be considered safely Democratic. But again, pay attention to that swing. At 8% it is a bit larger than nationwide if not as extreme as the 10-12% swings found everywhere in Chicagoland. When one looks at the cities, you see what I am discussing (with the order of the numbers being Dem-Rep):
Peoria: 28,542-18,536 in 2008; 24,795-22,398 in 2004
Danville: about 8,000 – about 4,500 in 2008; about 7,500-about 5,000 in 2004 (Does anybody know where I can find Danville or Vermillion precinct numbers; their elections website is among the most unhelpful I have ever experienced?) I calculated this by assuming, for the sake of argument, that the out-city areas of Vermillion were equally as red as the out-city areas of Champaign County next door but I could be slightly off in either direction.
Champaign-Urbana: 32,618-13,408 in 2008; 28,814-17,222 in 2004
Bloomington: 17,578-15,167 in 2008; 13,628-17,154 in 2004
Normal: 12,257-9,197 in 2008; 9,555-10,570 in 2004
Springfield: 32,463-24,019 in 2008; 24,650-28,971 in 2004
I am progressing slower than normal with my maps because it has occurred to me that there are really three scenarios that have to be taken into consideration. Scenario A: a tactically conservative but aggressive in every other sense map that would lock down 13 Kerry districts (Rockford going together with Rock Island; the 14th going into downtown Joliet, etc.). Scenario B: a more risky 12-4-2 map that would put Joliet in a swing seat as well as Melissa Bean in another one in the north part of Chicagoland. Scenario C finally would aim for a 12-5-1 which would shore up Melissa Bean while pushing a Kane seat into Rockford, which would then make the downstate cities seat very swingish (voted for Bush 53-47 then flipped to Obama 55-45).
Personally I would opt for Scenario A if I were drawing the map and not try to do a 14-4. Unfortunately with Citizens United, the money game is even more unstacked in our disfavor. Our ticket should get a bump with Obama on the top of the ticket, but then what about the remaining four elections in the decade-long period that any map would be operative? Finally, another reason to be aggressive when possible but tactically conservative, drawing maps more according to Kerry or 2010 congressional data rather than Obama: Illinois is notorious for split-ticket voters. In the weeds work I have been doing up in Chicago suburbia, I cannot tell you how often a precinct that voted 60-40 for Obama voted also in the same election for Biggert or Roskam. And that was in 2008! Chicago suburbia is full of independents and moderates.
That being said, it is possible to draw 13 Kerry seats to only 5 Bush seats, and if 13-5 were achieved in 2012, that would still mean -6 GOP, +5 Dem. That is nothing to snuff at.
Do you find the following trendlines significant, or irrelevant?
Springfield
2000 Census: 81.0% White
2010 Census: 75.7% White
Peoria
2000 Census: 69.3% White
2010 Census: 62.3% White
Champaign
2000 Census: 73.2% White
2010 Census: 67.7% White
Bloomington
2000 Census: 84.9% White
2010 Census: 77.4% White
Decatur
2000 Census: 77.6% White
2010 Census: 71.7% White
This raises an important question, and I agree with your point as it applies just to Illinois. But I think we have to look at the question in a national context, and to ask what, ultimately, is the goal behind doing a partisan gerrymander?
An obvious initial answer is that the goal is to maximize the number of safe seats for your party. But I think this is wrong. Instead, the goal is to maximize your party’s chances of winning a national majority.
This is especially true in the case of the House of Representatives, which is very strongly majoritarian. Increasing your party’s seats from 200 to 201 makes very little difference, because it does not change control of the House. On the other hand, going from 217 to 218 seats makes a huge difference, by changing the majority. It’s true that the exact size of the majority/minority matters somewhat because members do not always vote the party line, but the difference between a 20 seat majority and a 21 seat majority or a 10 seat minority and a 9 seat minority pales in comparison to the difference you get from going from a 1 seat minority to a 1 seat majority.
Simply put, it’s just not possible for Democrats to draw 218 safely Democratic Congressional Districts, especially given the fact that Republicans control redistricting in more states than Democrats.
The playing field of districts is going to be tilted heavily in the GOP’s favor this round of redistricting. So in the states where Democrats do control the process, they need to create as many seats that they could potentially win as possible, because that is the most plausible path to winning a majority.
I would not deny that going for 14-4 or 13-5 in Illinois, or 8-0 in Maryland is necessarily “safe” in the sense that those states would always and under all conditions vote to elect such strong Democratic delegations. But if Democrats want to have a chance to take over the House in the next decade, they are going to need every last competitive (note – not safe, but competitive) seat they can wring out of states like Illinois and Maryland, because they’re definitely not going to find them in states like Ohio and Michigan where the GOP controls the process.
Dems are going to have to win back swing districts (and probably GOP leaning swing districts at that) to win a majority. They can’t do this if they don’t draw any.
I’ve tried at least a half dozen different ways of creating a valid ‘Obama adjustment’ so to speak. One thing that I realized swiftly enough, as you point out, is that the ‘Obama boost’ varied drastically across the state. One method that I tried to account for this was to adjust the Obama numbers to match the Kerry percentages by county, but I’ve realized that this effectively erases whatever demographic shifts took place in the intervening four years (to say nothing of the 8 years between 2004 and 2012).
It’s a dilemma that I haven’t yet resolved to my satisfaction. I’m certainly open to proposed solutions myself. In the meantime, I’ll keep working at putting together a full 2008 Obama/McCain precinct-by-precinct dataset for Illinois. I’m getting close now. It will obviously be a heck of a lot easier to manipulate Illinois maps if Dave gets election data uploaded.
I’ve been focusing on the three downstate Democratic seats that I intend to have: basically the mid-cities district, the East St Louis district, and the Rock Island district. Once I’m satisfied that I’ve made those three as Democratic as possible, then I’ll map the majority-minority seats in Chicago and the three downstate Republican seats (IL-18, IL-11, and whatever number the Shimkus district gets). After I see how far I can push IL-11 into the GOP areas of the collar counties, I’ll be able to assess what I have left to work with.
Oh, and a quick warning for anyone who may be working with Peoria city data. The actual precinct numbers do not match up with the numbers on Dave’s App. Here are the correct numbers. The first number is the correct precinct number and the second number is the number given that precinct on Dave’s App.
City 1: 1
City 2: 2
City 3: 7
City 4: 70
City 5: 4
City 6: 3
City 7: 5
City 8: 6
City 9: 8
City 10: 9
City 11: 10
City 12: 11
City 13: 17
City 14: 18
City 15: 16
City 16: 15
City 17: 13
City 18: 14
City 19: 12
City 20: 28
City 21: 76
City 22: 79
City 23: 26
City 24: 29
City 25: 30
City 26: 81
City 27: 42
City 28: 31
City 29: 33
City 30: 32
City 31: 27
City 32: 86
City 33: 19
City 34: 21
City 35: 22
City 36: 75
City 37: 87
City 38: 20
City 39: 89
City 40: 24
City 41: 23
City 42: 65
City 43: 64
City 44: 43
City 45: 91
City 46: 68
City 47: 103
City 48: 102
City 49: 44
City 50: 61
City 51: 85
City 52: 97
City 53: 96
City 54: 75
City 55: 54
City 56: 45
City 57: 46
City 58: 40
City 59: 39
City 60: 41
City 61: 35
City 62: 34
City 63: 77
City 64: 36
City 65: 37
City 66: 38
City 67: 53
City 68: 52
City 69: 49
City 70: 47
City 71: 48
City 72: 107
City 73: 50
City 74: 51
City 75: 62
City 76: 57
City 77: 83
City 78: 73
City 79: 56
City 80: 55
City 81: 66
City 82: 74
City 83: 99
City 84: 72
City 85: 100
City 86: 93
City 87: 58
City 88: 63
City 89: 101
City 90: 59
City 91: 60
City 92: 106
City 93: 105
You wrote several things here:
“… the district is good enough for my standards, though, because Obama did get 59%. By Cook PVI it is a D+4, perhaps not completely safe from a meltdown of 2010 proportions but most Republicans cannot win in districts any more Democratic than this …”
and..
” … Scenario A: a tactically conservative but aggressive in every other sense map that would lock down 13 Kerry districts … personally I would opt for Scenario A if I were drawing the map and not try to do a 14-4…”
In the map I drew 13 of the 14 Democratic districts had an Obama percentage higher than 59% (actually, 13 were 61% Obama or higher) with my IL-11 (same general area as your IL-13 here) being the exception at 59% …
Also, all 14 of the districts I drew were Kerry districts (with only one estimated at 51% Kerry, again IL-11), the others all higher …
I understand that this is kind of a discussion re. what an Obama “baseline” should be in IL and I appreciate that … but if you’re advocating some sort of higher Obama percentage “baseline” (or Democratic performance “baseline”) what do you think it should be ??
and, of course, it would not need to be a uniform baseline across the state as the Kerry to Obama shift in IL was not uniformly distributed:
that the statewide average of all 2010 races comes very close to Kerry/Bush, and that it seems like a good proxy for the baseline.