Tag: map

Dear all,

This is the first time I've tried using Dave's App and making a redistricting map. I'm hoping you could tell me what things I've done wrong. (For one, I've kept the population of each district very close to the target population, 3,000 off at most, because I didn't know just how close you have to keep it. Could I have been more flexible?)

This is the map, but please do read on:

First off, I had an idea with this map. Most of the redistricting maps here are drawn, with great expertise, to either create the most realistically (or unrealistically) Democratic-friendly map; or, in a know-your-enemy / worst-case-scenario kind of way, the most GOP-friendly map; or the map that best fits the current political realities of the state, trying to guess what the real map will end up being.

Since I have nowhere near enough expertise to weigh in, I've just been observing, with some awe. But, as a foreigner, I still have trouble getting over my initial incredulity at the whole American practice of gerrymandering in the first place. The kind of gerrymandering that yields these sometimes mindbogglingly contorted looking districts, tracing unlikely looking paths from, say, the suburbs of one city to those of another halfway across the state, often seemingly without regard to keeping communities together. It's one of the oddest and unhealthy looking aspects of the US political system, for an outsider.

I'm from a country where we don't have any districts at all (it's all PR), and both in my adopted home country and the big European countries I know best (Germany, the UK), nothing like this kind of gerrymandering seems to exist. And often when I see the draft maps here, I can't help fantasizing about what a redistricting map purely based on good governance would look like. (I'm really curious what the new CA and FL maps will look like!)

Continued beneath the fold … 

That said, among the many things I have learned about on SSP is the VRA, and I approve. I don't like the 60+% black/hispanic vote sinks that segregate the minority altogether and allow the VRA district incumbent practically guaranteed re-election. But I have totally embraced the need for districts in which minority group candidates are favoured, so minority groups are represented more proportionally in Congress. It's history's bill: it would be great if a black candidate stood as good a chance to be elected anywhere, but the reality is that in too many parts of the country, black/hispanic candidates will only be elected in black/hispanic-majority districts.

I wanted to draw my ideal "good governance" map for a state, the way it would look if there were no bothersome laws, legislative majorities or incumbencies to take account of.

I drew up these criteria:

1. The number of districts that lean one way or another politically should be roughly proportionate to the parties' general share of the vote. (E.g.: don't stack all the voters of one party into two districts so the other party can easily win in five, when the two parties get about equal amounts of votes altogether).
2. There should be a number of districts where a minority group candidate would be favoured roughly proportional to the group's share of the overall voting age population. However, districts in which a minority group makes up a small majority (<55%) or a mere plurality, and "coalition" districts in which minorities together outnumber whites should be preferred over segregating individual minorities in 60%+ vote sink districts.
3. There should be as many competitive districts as possible, both to avoid safe incumbents coasting to victory without having to worry about accountability; and to keep the number of those whose vote doesn't "count" because their party is irrevocably in opposition to a minimum.
4. Districts should be compact and keep communities of interest together.
5. While uniting communities of interest is good, it is not beneficial for public policy if the residents of cities and surrounding suburbs are pitted against each other. (A story that struck me was the fight, at a state level I imagine, over public transport in Atlanta, in which the residents of the suburbs managed to block the extension of the city's public transport system because they feared that it would just bring more blacks into their neighbourhoods.) The map should draw cities and surrounding suburbs into common districts where possible.

As you will recognize, but I didn't quite realize beforehand, some of these points make some of the others impossible. Applying point 2 in particular throws a spanner in the works when it comes to points 4 and 5. Creating that many minority-majority districts means contorted shapes, and splitting off black or hispanic city neighbourhoods. Since minority voters tend to vote Democratic, creating more minority districts also means creating more safe Democratic districts, so it's a problem with point 3 too.

Virginia turns out to neatly illustrate all this. My other problem is that I know little about Virginia, so it's hard for me to guess where communities of interest lie exactly in any case. (Any feedback much appreciated.)

(All these data from within Dave's app. I noticed that if you download the data on race by congressional district (18+ population, hispanic and non-hispanic by race) from the census site, there's slight variations, though never more than 1% up or down.

Here's maps with some more detail:

 

 

How does this stack up with my criteria?

1. Fulfilled: My redistricting map creates six Republican districts, four Democratic districts, and one Democratic-leaning district.
2. Fulfilled: The map creates two districts in which a minority group has a plurality (blacks in VA-3 and VA-4) and a third district in which the minority groups together outnumber non-hispanic whites (VA-11). (I tried to group together disproportionally hispanic towns and neighbourhoods in VA-11, so there’s at least one district where they make up as much as 23% of the VAP – as close to having a district of their own as possible.) That's three minority-favoured districts compared to one now. Pitfall: while non-hispanic whites make up no more than 45% of each of these districts' VAP, they are 43%-45% in each, meaning that disparate turnout rates could also end you up with no minority Congressmen at all. Unlikely in an Obama year, but a concern otherwise.
3. Failed: My redistricting map actually makes most districts less competitive. This is due to applying point 2. In order to create two more minority-favoured districts, I had to take black votes out of largely white districts, shoring up Republican majorities there. I also took some from the existing minority-majority VA-03, a Democratic vote sink – but that means that instead of having one D+38 district in the south, I ended up with two, still safe D+17-23 districts. Same in the north – by taking black and hispanic precincts from VA-8, I reduced that Democratic vote sink from D+32 to a still safe D+19, while creating an additional safe Democratic seat in VA-11 (D+18). All in all, I went from four arguably toss-up seats (VA-2, VA-4, VA-5 and VA-10) to one (VA-10).
4. Partial: In the Northeast and the Southeast, districts are pretty contorted looking because of heeding point 2 (though I did manage to cut VA-03 short of stretching all the way up into Richmond neighbourhoods). Elsewhere, some districts are reasonable compact (VA-05 and VA-09, as well as VA-10 up north), but VA-1 stretches a long way across the state… How could this be done better, and do these districts unwittingly split any communities of interest?
5. Partial: Creating three minority-favoured districts meant splitting a number of cities, in particular Richmond, but also Norfolk, Hopewell, Danville and Franklin – plus the agglomeration in NoVa.

Here's maps of each individual district:

VA-01

VA-02

VA-03

 

VA-04 (or as I like to call it, the dragonboat

 

VA-05

 

VA-06

VA-07 (the crab, or is it a lobster?)

 

VA-08

 

VA-09

 

VA-10

 

VA-11

I drew this map upon release of the new Census data for Iowa.  I paid no attention to partisanship and tried to correlate each district with a geographical area of the state.  Starting with Des Moines, I drew a district around it, then drew a district for the southeast, northeast and western Iowa.  My goal was to have each district within 1,000 persons of the ideal district population.  Amazingly, my configuration worked out on my very first try (which means there’s probably many possible combinations to how the state can be drawn).  Nevertheless, I kind of like the map here because I think it does a good job in keeping the different regions of the state together (in that respect, I think it’s better than, for example, the 1990’s Iowa map which had one district run from Des Moines to  the western border).

The population numbers are as follows:

blue – 762,255

green – 761,010

purple – 760,876

red – 762,214

ideal pop. is 761,589

I originally posted my map as part of  a comment on another diary , http://www.swingstateproject.c…  and reader OGGoldy crunched the partisan numbers for the map as follows:

blue – 55.3% Obama, 44.7% McCain

green – 58.8% Obama, 41.2% McCain

purple – 58.9% Obama, 41.1% McCain

red – 46.3% Obama, 53.7% McCain

OK … this is probably my last attempt at redrawing my home state of Maryland.   I feel that this is my best plan yet.  I create eight solid Democratic districts (58% or more Obama each) while making each district as compact as possible.

There’s just one problem — Steny Hoyer may not be happy (?).  However, the best way to get 8 Democrats out of Maryland AND to create very compact districts at the same time is to draw the map this way, where parts of the current MD-4 and MD-5 are combined.  The new MD-4 combines much of Prince George’s Co. with southern Maryland and is majority black.  It is drawn for Donna Edwards; African-Americans would comprise approximately 63% of the Democratic primary vote there (white voters about 32%).  Hoyer (who lives in St. Mary’s Co.) can move and run in the new MD-5 which includes much of northern PG Co. and northern and central Anne Arundel Co.  Northern PG was Hoyer’s home base in the past and, at one point or another in his career, Hoyer has represented about 43% of the new MD-5, so it would not be a stretch for him to run there.  The new MD-7 also remains majority black, and African-Americans would comprise approximately 60% of the Democratic primary there.   Other than Hoyer, the plan keeps the home of each incumbent in their district.  The population deviation ranges from 4 to 848 persons per district.

Maps:

District 1

60% Obama, 39% McCain (currently 40% Obama, 58% McCain)

61% white, 33% black

All of Eastern Shore; southern part of Anne Arundel Co.; central part of Prince George’s Co.

District 2

58% Obama, 40% McCain (currently 60% Obama, 38% McCain)

69% white, 22% black

All of Harford Co.; northern part of Baltimore Co.; northern and central parts of Baltimore City

District 3

58% Obama, 41% McCain (currently 59% Obama, 39% McCain)

63% white, 25% black

All of Howard Co. and Carroll Co.; western part of Baltimore Co.; one precinct in PG to maintain equal population of districts

District 4

75% Obama, 24% McCain (currently 85% Obama, 14% McCain)

50%+ black, 39% white

All of southern Maryland; southern and central parts of Prince George’s Co.

District 5

59% Obama, 40% McCain (currently 65% Obama, 33% McCain)

57% white, 24% black, 12% hispanic

Northern part of Prince George’s Co.; northern and central parts of Anne Arundel Co.; most of Takoma Park in Montgomery Co.

District 6

62% Obama, 36% McCain (currently 40% Obama, 58% McCain)

59% white, 15% black, 12% asian, 12% hispanic

Northern part of Montgomery Co.; northern and central parts of Frederick Co.

District 7

67% Obama, 31% McCain (currently 79% Obama, 20% McCain)

50%+ black, 44% white

Eastern part of Baltimore Co.; most of Baltimore City

District 8

61% Obama, 37% McCain (currently 74% Obama, 25% McCain)

69% white, 11% black; 10% hispanic

All of western Maryland; southern part of Frederick Co.; southern part of Montgomery Co.

(PS.  In my last diary, I indicated that I was working on a very compact plan for California in which as many Democratic districts as possible are created.  I did come up with a plan with 48 Democratic seats for the state (each district is at least 55% Obama) with very compact districts that adhere to county lines and actually have less county fragments than even the bipartisan, commission-drawn map of the 1990’s  However, I will not post my plan as I strongly believe that the resulting map is in effect a “dummymander”; 55% Obama districts are just not strong enough to assure Democratic representation in California.)  

This diary takes a look at what might have happened if the 2003 Texas redistricting had never occurred. I compared the 2000 demographics and presidential results for the map used in the 2002 elections with the 2008 demographics and presidential results under the same lines. I used Dave’s App to do this, with the Test Data setting to get the political data, but the regular voting district map (without the Test Data setting) to get the correct demographic estimates. I also looked at the shifts for the districts during this time period and elaborated a bit on what might have occurred had this map remained in place for the rest of the decade. Please vote in the survey at the end as well. Thanks and enjoy!

Statewide Map

East Texas



District 1 (Blue); Northeast Texas-Texarkana, Paris, Greenville, Nacogdoches, Marshall

2002 winner and winning percentage: Max Sandlin (D), 56%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	75	16	7	0	651,619
2008 population (est.)	72	15	11	1	683,417
Change from 2000 to 2008	-3	-1	+4	+1	+31,798

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
64% Bush-36% Gore	69% McCain-30% Obama	+5% Republican, -6% Democratic

District 2 (Green): East Texas-Lufkin, Orange, Huntsville, Liberty

2002 winner and winning percentage: Jim Turner (D), 61%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	76	14	9	0	651,619
2008 population (est.)	73	13	12	1	683,417
Change from 2000 to 2008	-3	-1	+3	+1	+37,712

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
63% Bush-37% Gore	70% McCain-29% Obama	+7% Republican, -8% Democratic

District 4 (Red): North and East Texas-Longview, Tyler, Sherman

2002 winner and winning percentage: Ralph Hall (D), 58%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	77	12	9	1	651,620
2008 population (est.)	72	11	14	1	773,426
Change from 2000 to 2008	-5	-1	+5	0	+121,806

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
70% Bush-30% Gore	70% McCain-29% Obama	0% Republican, -1% Democratic

District 9 (Light Blue): East Texas and Harris County-Beaumont, Port Arthur, Galveston, Texas City

2002 winner and winning percentage: Nick Lampson (D), 59%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	60	21	14	3	651,619
2008 population (est.)	56	21	19	3	675,944
Change from 2000 to 2008	-4	0	+5	0	+24,325

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
55% Bush-45% Gore	56% McCain-43% Obama	+1% Republican, -2% Democratic

Dallas/Fort Worth Area



District 3 (Purple):Collin County and northern Dallas County-Richardson, Garland, Plano, McKinney

2002 winner and winning percentage: Sam Johnson (R), 74%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	70	7	14	7	651,620
2008 population (est.)	61	9	18	10	898,778
Change from 2000 to 2008	-9	+2	+4	+3	+247,158

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
72% Bush-28% Gore	60% McCain-39% Obama	-12% Republican, +11% Democratic

District 5 (Yellow): Dallas County and Central/East Texas-Dallas, Mesquite, Palestine, Athens

2002 winner and winning percentage: Jeb Hensarling (R), 58%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	63	16	18	2	651,620
2008 population (est.)	56	17	23	2	677,043
Change from 2000 to 2008	-7	+1	+5	0	+25,423

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
62% Bush-38% Gore	57% McCain-42% Obama	-5% Republican, +4% Democratic

District 6 (Dark Teal): Tarrant County and Dallas/Fort Worth suburbs and exurbs: Arlington, Ennis, Cleburne, Corsicana

2002 winner and winning percentage: Joe Barton (R), 70%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	72	10	14	3	651,620
2008 population (est.)	67	11	18	3	748,734
Change from 2000 to 2008	-5	+1	+4	0	+97,114

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
67% Bush-33% Gore	61% McCain-38% Obama	-6% Republican, +5% Democratic

District 12 (Periwinkle): Tarrant and Parker Counties-Weatherford, Fort Worth, Keller

2002 winner and winning percentage: Kay Granger (R), 92%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	71	5	20	2	651,619
2008 population (est.)	64	5	26	3	788,643
Change from 2000 to 2008	-7	0	+6	+1	+137,024

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
67% Bush-33% Gore	65% McCain-34% Obama	-2% Republican, +1% Democratic

District 24 (Dark Purple): Dallas and Tarrant Counties-Fort Worth, Arlington, Dallas, Duncanville

2002 winner and winning percentage: Martin Frost (D), 65%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	35	22	38	3	651,619
2008 population (est.)	28	22	45	4	836,571
Change from 2000 to 2008	-7	0	+7	+1	+184,952

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
46% Bush-54% Gore	36% McCain-63% Obama	-10% Republican, +9% Democratic

District 26 (Dark Gray): Denton, Tarrant, and Collin Counties-Denton, Lewisville, Flower Mound, McKinney

2002 winner and winning percentage: Michael Burgess (R), 75%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	78	5	11	4	651,619
2008 population (est.)	70	7	16	6	897,454
Change from 2000 to 2008	-8	+2	+5	+2	+245,835

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
73% Bush-27% Gore	63% McCain-36% Obama	-10% Republican, +9% Democratic

District 30 (Salmon): Dallas County: Dallas, Irving

2002 winner and winning percentage: Eddie Bernice Johnson (D), 74%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	25	41	31	2	651,620
2008 population (est.)	19	39	39	2	726,340
Change from 2000 to 2008	-6	-2	+8	0	+74,720

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
31% Bush-69% Gore	21% McCain-78% Obama	-10% Republican, +9% Democratic

District 32 (Burnt Orange): Dallas County-Dallas, Farmer’s Branch, University/Highland Park, Irving

2002 winner and winning percentage: Pete Sessions (R), 68%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	55	9	27	6	651,619
2008 population (est.)	44	9	38	7	703,588
Change from 2000 to 2008	-11	0	+11	+1	+51,969

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
65% Bush-35% Gore	53% McCain-46% Obama	-12% Republican, +13% Democratic

Houston Area



District 7 (Gray): Harris County-western Houston, the Villages

2002 winner and winning percentage: John Culberson (R), 89%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	50	11	26	11	651,620
2008 population (est.)	43	11	32	12	746,517
Change from 2000 to 2008	-7	0	+6	+1	+94,897

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
68% Bush-32% Gore	55% McCain-44% Obama	-13% Republican, +12% Democratic

District 8 (Dark Lavender): Harris and Montgomery Counties-Jersey Village, Humble, Conroe

2002 winner and winning percentage: Kevin Brady (R), 93%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	77	5	13	3	651,619
2008 population (est.)	71	6	18	4	846,293
Change from 2000 to 2008	-6	+1	+5	+1	+194,674

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
78% Bush-22% Gore	71% McCain-28% Obama	-7% Republican, +6% Democratic

District 18 (Banana Yellow): Harris County-Houston

2002 winner and winning percentage: Sheila Jackson-Lee (D), 77%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	21	42	33	3	651,620
2008 population (est.)	18	41	38	3	779,948
Change from 2000 to 2008	-3	-1	+5	0	+128,328

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
26% Bush-74% Gore	22% McCain-77% Obama	-4% Republican, +3% Democratic

District 22 (Brown): Fort Bend, Brazoria, and Harris Counties-Rosenberg, Sugarland, Pearland, Pasadena

2002 winner and winning percentage: Tom DeLay (R), 63%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	60	10	20	8	651,619
2008 population (est.)	52	12	23	12	866,297
Change from 2000 to 2008	-8	+2	+3	+4	+214,678

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
68% Bush-32% Gore	59% McCain-40% Obama	-9% Republican, +8% Democratic

District 25 (Dark Pink): Fort Bend and Harris Counties-Houston, Belaire, University Place, South Houston, Baytown

2002 winner and winning percentage: Chris Bell (D), 55%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	37	23	34	5	651,619
2008 population (est.)	32	22	40	5	683,417
Change from 2000 to 2008	-5	-1	+6	0	+156,401

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
48% Bush-52% Gore	41% McCain-59% Obama	-7% Republican, +7% Democratic

District 29 (Grayish Green): Harris County-Houston, Jacinto City, Galena Park, South Houston

2002 winner and winning percentage: Gene Green (D), 95%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	20	15	62	2	651,620
2008 population (est.)	16	13	68	2	825,305
Change from 2000 to 2008	-4	-2	+6	0	+173,685

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
39% Bush-61% Gore	31% McCain-69% Obama	-8% Republican, +8% Democratic

Central Texas



District 10 (Magenta): Travis County-Austin

2002 winner and winning percentage: Lloyd Doggett (D), 84%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	50	11	33	4	651,619
2008 population (est.)	45	10	38	5	809,987
Change from 2000 to 2008	-5	-1	+5	+1	+158,368

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
47% Bush-53% Gore	28% McCain-70% Obama	-19% Republican, +17% Democratic

District 11 (Lime Green): Central Texas-Waco, Georgetown, Temple, Killeen

2002 winner and winning percentage: Chet Edwards (D), 52%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	64	15	16	2	651,620
2008 population (est.)	61	15	20	2	742,620
Change from 2000 to 2008	-3	0	+4	0	+91,000

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
67% Bush-33% Gore	61% McCain-38% Obama	-6% Republican, +5% Democratic

District 14 (Bronze): Texas Hill Country and Texas Coastline-Victoria, San Marcos, Calhoun, Seguin

2002 winner and winning percentage: Ron Paul (R), 68%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	58	8	32	1	651,620
2008 population (est.)	54	8	35	1	751,893
Change from 2000 to 2008	-4	0	+3	0	+100,273

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
66% Bush-34% Gore	62% McCain-37% Obama	-4% Republican, +3% Democratic

District 21 (Maroon): Central/West Texas-San Antonio, Austin, New Braunfels

2002 winner and winning percentage: Lamar Smith (R), 73%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	77	2	17	2	651,619
2008 population (est.)	74	2	20	3	779,551
Change from 2000 to 2008	-3	0	+3	+1	+127,932

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
73% Bush-27% Gore	62% McCain-37% Obama	-11% Republican, +10% Democratic

District 31 (Beige): Central Texas and Houston suburbs/exurbs: Round Rock, Bryan, Sealy, Katy

2002 winner and winning percentage: John Carter (R), 69%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	69	9	17	3	651,620
2008 population (est.)	64	9	21	4	780,639
Change from 2000 to 2008	-5	0	+4	+1	+129,019

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
72% Bush-28% Gore	60% McCain-38% Obama	-12% Republican, +10% Democratic

West Texas



District 13 (Tan): West Texas-Wichita Falls, Amarillo

2002 winner and winning percentage: Mac Thornberry (R), 79%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	70	6	22	1	651,619
2008 population (est.)	65	6	26	1	654,677
Change from 2000 to 2008	-5	0	+4	0	+3,058

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
75% Bush-25% Gore	76% McCain-23% Obama	+1% Republican, -2% Democratic

District 16 (Bright Green): El Paso County: El Paso

2002 winner and winning percentage: Silvestre Reyes (D), unopposed

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	17	3	78	1	651,619
2008 population (est.)	14	3	81	1	683,417
Change from 2000 to 2008	-3	0	+3	0	+59,428

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
41% Bush-59% Gore	33% McCain-66% Obama	-8% Republican, +7% Democratic

District 17 (Iris): West Texas: Abilene, San Angelo

2002 winner and winning percentage: Charlie Stenholm (D), 51%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	75	4	20	1	651,619
2008 population (est.)	71	4	23	1	683,417
Change from 2000 to 2008	-4	0	+3	0	+16,986

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
72% Bush-28% Gore	75% McCain-24% Obama	+3% Republican, -4% Democratic

District 19 (Pea Green): West Texas-Lubbock, Big Spring, Midland, Odessa

2002 winner and winning percentage: Larry Combest (R), 92%

2003 special election winner and winning percentage: Randy Neugebauer (R), 51%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	58	6	34	1	651,619
2008 population (est.)	53	6	39	1	689,654
Change from 2000 to 2008	-5	0	+5	0	+38,035

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
76% Bush-24% Gore	73% McCain-27% Obama	-3% Republican, +3% Democratic

San Antonio and South Texas

District 15 (Tangerine): South Texas- McAllen, Kingsville

2002 winner and winning percentage: Ruben Hinojosa (D), unopposed

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	17	3	78	1	651,619
2008 population (est.)	14	3	81	1	711,047
Change from 2000 to 2008	-3	0	+3	0	+59,428

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
41% Bush-59% Gore	33% McCain-66% Obama	-8% Republican, +7% Democratic

District 20 (Light Pink): Bexar County-San Antonio

2002 winner and winning percentage: Charlie Gonzalez, unopposed

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	24	5	68	1	651,619
2008 population (est.)	21	5	71	2	776,861
Change from 2000 to 2008	-3	0	+3	+1	+125,242

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
43% Bush-57% Gore	36% McCain-63% Obama	-7% Republican, +6% Democratic

District 23 (Light Blue): West and South Texas: El Paso, Eagle Pass, Laredo, San Antonio

2002 winner and winning percentage: Henry Bonilla (R), 52%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	30	1	67	1	651,619
2008 population (est.)	27	1	69	1	728,212
Change from 2000 to 2008	-3	0	+2	0	+76,593

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
59% Bush-41% Gore	50% McCain-49% Obama	-9% Republican, +8% Democratic

District 27 (Spring Green): South Texas-Corpus Christi, Harlingen, Brownsville

2002 winner and winning percentage: Solomon Ortiz, 61%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	25	2	72	1	651,619
2008 population (est.)	21	2	75	1	717,846
Change from 2000 to 2008	-4	0	+3	0	+66,227

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
49% Bush-51% Gore	43% McCain-56% Obama	-6% Republican, +5% Democratic

District 28 (Rose): South Texas and Bexar County: San Antonio, McAllen

2002 winner and winning percentage: Ciro Rodriguez (D), 71%

	% white	% black	% Hispanic	% Asian	Total district population
2000 population	21	8	70	1	651,620
2008 population (est.)	19	7	72	1	761,316
Change from 2000 to 2008	-2	-1	+2	0	+109,696

2000 presidential results	2008 presidential results	Partisan swing from 2000 to 2008
41% Bush-59% Gore	36% McCain-63% Obama	-5% Republican, +4% Democratic

So what would have happened in the past three elections had this map stayed in place for the rest of the decade? Often people assume that the Anglo Democratic incumbents who were targeted would have been reelected had the redistricting not occurred. This is definitely true in the case of Martin Frost, Lloyd Doggett, and Chris Bell, whose already Democratic and urban districts have shifted even more to the left since 2000. But the other Anglo Democrats largely came from more rural, Republican-leaning areas, and their districts all went for Bush in 2000. This list includes Max Sandlin, Jim Turner, Ralph Hall, Nick Lampson, Chet Edwards, and Charles Stenholm. Now let’s look at a county map of Texas showing the change between 2000 and 2008, with the congressional districts where Gore outperformed Obama superimposed over the map.



Despite a roughly 4% move towards the Democrats statewide between 2000 and 2008, there were 6 congressional districts where Obama  actually did worse than Gore: TX-01 (Max Sandlin (D)), TX-02 (Jim Turner (D)), TX-04 (Ralph Hall (D)), TX-09 (Nick Lampson (D)), TX-13 (Mac Thornberry (R)), and TX-17 (Charlie Stenholm (D)). Besides TX-13, all of these districts elected Democrats in 2002. In addition, all of the Anglo Democrats elected in districts that Bush won in 2000 saw their districts become more Republican over time, with one exception. TX-11 in Central Texas would have become notably more Democratic during this time period, and  its representative, Chet Edwards, is the only one of these men still in office as a Democrat.

However, I am not convinced that the marked rightward shift would have occurred inevitably had the boundaries not changed in the 2003 redistricting. Many residents in these districts were trending Republican at the presidential level, but felt comfortable continuing to vote for Democrats at the congressional level. But in 2004, the redrawn districts included areas that had previously been represented by Republicans or by other targeted Democratic members, meaning the advantage of incumbency was greatly diminished. This led to the defeat, party switching, or retirement of all the legislators listed above, but I believe, also contributed to these areas becoming more Republican at the presidential level in 2004 and 2008. Without the option to vote for a familiar incumbent Democrat for Congress further down the ballot, voters felt less inclined to vote for a Democrat at any level, including President. Had the 2003 redistricting not occurred, I believe not only that several of these lawmakers might still be in office, but Obama may have even performed better in these districts in 2008.

Other than the representatives just discussed, I believe that all of the other Democratic and Republican incumbents would still be in office right now, with the possible exceptions of John Culberson (R, 7th) and Henry Bonilla (R, 23rd), whose districts would have become much more competitive by the end of the decade. But I think this analysis shows that in the long-term, Texas is turning blue, and it is only a matter of time before the shifts to the Democrats in the Houston area, the Dallas/Forth Worth Area, and Central Texas finally push Texas into the Democratic column.

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpress.com/

The New York Times posted a very interesting map of Afghanistan’s recent election.



Before continuing, I must note that my purpose is not to question whether irregularities or fraud might have denied Abdullah Abdullah victory; I am simply analyzing the data as it appears.

There’s a lot of data here, and interpreting it is fairly difficult; few people know much about Afghan politics and demographics. This map indicates the margins each candidate won. Kabul is the big red circle. In total, Karzai won 55% of the vote, essentially doubling the vote of the second-closest candidate.

Compared to a similar maps of U.S. elections, several things stand out. The first is the extent to which polarization is apparent. Afghani society is very clan-based, and elections can reveal polarization like nothing else.

At the point most politicians win an election by more than 20%, maps like the one above tend to consist of something like below:



This is Barack Obama’s 24.03% landslide in California. Compare it to Karzai’s 27% victory: one might be forgiven for concluding that out of the two elections, Karzai did worse.

(Many) more maps below the fold.

Notice too that Ramazan Bashardost, who won only 9% of the vote, shows up as a presence on the map. This indicates a very regional candidacy, like that of William Wallace. Candidates who win 9% of the vote nearly never show up on any type of election map; Ross Perot, for instance, won less than a dozen counties with his 18.9% of the vote.

Abdullah Abdullah was also a regional candidate, as the following map reveals:



Mr. Abdullah  is almost entirely limited in support to the north; very few Pashtuns in the south seem willing to vote for him. This was not the case with Karzai; his total vote looks far more homogeneous:



There are several American states that the results Afghanistan’s election can be comparable to. The victor wins the one major city along with a number of more rural areas, although the opposing candidate summons strong support in one region. In this respect, Karzai’s victory resembles the coalition Bill Clinton assembled in many Appalachian states, such as Missouri and Tennessee (his loss in Oklahoma also bears similarities to Afghanistan). Recent presidential elections, on the other hand, generally do not follow this pattern; cities and rural areas rarely vote together (and cities never vote Republican). After Bill Clinton, only Obama’s Iowa victory comes to mind as a state with a “Karzai” coalition. Note that in all this states, the winner’s margin was far less than Karzai’s 27%.

The place that Afghanistan’s election calls most to mind, however, is Alabama. Both are extremely polarized: Afghanistan by tribe, Alabama by race. Republicans regularly win landslides in Alabama, yet always lose a particular region – the Black Belt – just as Karzai lost many Afghan areas despite his strong performance. Accusations of fraud have severely tainted the Karzai “landslide,” just as fraud of a different type was practiced in Alabama for many decades. Finally, both areas are extremely poor and will likely remain so during the forseeable future.

To end this post, here is McCain’s performance in Alabama.

I created a map showing the results for the 2008 Presidential Election by Congressional District. It also shows the contrast to the party that won the congressional race in that district.

I uploaded it to Wikipedia, let me know if I need to make any changes.

Thanks and enjoy!