NEW: by Cook PVI℠, four more districts shifted from R-leaning to D-leaning in redistricting than vice versa (17 to 13). But because Ds hold most seats in both categories, Rs have more pickup opportunities from revamped lines. https://t.co/AffIOzAvbVpic.twitter.com/eo8W90Y0OJ
NEW: after redistricting, the number of hyper-competitive House seats (Cook PVI℠ between D+3 and R+3) has declined from 51 to 45, our lowest count ever. Full report: https://t.co/AffIOzAvbVpic.twitter.com/9GiB63pcoO
NEW: the entire decline in competitive House seats from redistricting is attributable to GOP gerrymanders (esp. TX and GA), whereas swing seats *increased* in Dem-controlled states and held steady in court/commission-drawn states. Full report: https://t.co/AffIOzAvbVpic.twitter.com/TnherK4HS2
“Really? The Democrats didn’t gerrymander districts in Illinois, Oregon, New Mexico, and Nevada?” Reading is fundamental. He didn’t say we didn’t gerrymander. We did. But, what we did is a drop in the bucket compared to what happened in GOP states. That’s his point.
Wasserman isn’t terribly impressed by the Democrats’ gerrymander in IL, and on this topic, he’s pretty knowledgeable. He thinks they could have drawn some significantly safer Democratic seats with still weirder lines, including IL-17 for instance.
I don’t see the bottom map as being that insightful, more less an illusion by color to illicit emotion. Even court ordered and “bipartisan commissions” can still gerrymander. When you look at the hyper-competitive over the last 22 years it’s not as if one party or the other took over, the gap was just closed, so I disagree with statement,
==the entire decline in competitive house seats from redistricting is attributable to GOP gerrymanders==
- lake county democrat - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 11:55 am:
Kinda dishonest to point out Democrats gerrymandered in those states without noting the Democrats in Congress introduced legislation to ban the practice nationwide. While I reject the argument Illinois Dems shouldn’t “unilaterally disarm,” there’s no moral equivalence here.
===Until a “national, non-partisan” map making way is put into place and recognized by all states, gerrymandering will continue.===
Gerrymandering will also continue afterwards, but it will continue until then as well. /s
In my experience, the only non-partisan way to do anything is to eliminate the thing. In the case of maps, that would be to make all the seats at large. To do that without all representatives coming from Chicago, you would have to randomly select representatives like we do for jury duty. Those people would be more statistically representative, but less knowledgeable about lawmaking. So, they would be reliant upon staffers and other experts, as well as an elected professional senate. But it would have the benefit of eliminating money from those races.
Alternatively, you could embrace the bipartisan nature of our politics. Flip a coin to determine which party gets to draw congressional districts. The opposite party then gets to divide those into senate districts. The first party divides those into house districts. And the opposite party combines house districts to choose judicial districts. That might encourage more bipartisan compromise.
===In the case of maps, that would be to make all the seats at large. To do that without all representatives coming from Chicago, you would have to randomly select representatives like we do for jury duty. Those people would be more statistically representative, but less knowledgeable about lawmaking. So, they would be reliant upon staffers and other experts, as well as an elected professional senate. But it would have the benefit of eliminating money from those races.===
The dorm room popcorn is fresh today, and there’s only summer school going on.
@Lake County Democrat: == Kinda dishonest to point out . . . ==
In the last twenty years I feel like 90% or more of all ‘BOTH SIDES’ arguments have been in defense of something conservatives have been actively trying to do, that liberals have been actively trying to prevent.
Perhaps we shouldn’t worry about who draws the maps, and just bind the hands of whomever it may be. Mandate that all districts must be of a geometric shape with no angle smaller than say 35 degrees except for State boundary lines. Geographically some districts will be tiny and some huge, but would eliminate these “slivers” and horseshoe monstrosities.
- Homebody - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 10:10 am:
== the entire decline in competitive House seats from redistricting is attributable to GOP gerrymanders ==
I keep getting reminded why the the Philip J. Fry “shocked/not that shocked” reaction gif is easily my most used.
- JM - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 10:40 am:
== the entire decline in competitive House seats from redistricting is attributable to GOP gerrymanders ==
Really? The Democrats didn’t gerrymander districts in Illinois, Oregon, New Mexico, and Nevada?
https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 10:42 am:
Until a “national, non-partisan” map making way is put into place and recognized by all states, gerrymandering will continue.
How abortion will play in these new “competitive districts will be interesting
- The Doc - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 11:01 am:
JM, take a breath and re-read the quote.
There’s no claim that Dems didn’t gerrymander, only that the GOP gerrymanders are entirely responsible for the increase of noncompetitive districts.
- New Day - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 11:02 am:
“Really? The Democrats didn’t gerrymander districts in Illinois, Oregon, New Mexico, and Nevada?” Reading is fundamental. He didn’t say we didn’t gerrymander. We did. But, what we did is a drop in the bucket compared to what happened in GOP states. That’s his point.
- ZC - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 11:05 am:
Wasserman isn’t terribly impressed by the Democrats’ gerrymander in IL, and on this topic, he’s pretty knowledgeable. He thinks they could have drawn some significantly safer Democratic seats with still weirder lines, including IL-17 for instance.
- really??? - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 11:08 am:
I don’t see the bottom map as being that insightful, more less an illusion by color to illicit emotion. Even court ordered and “bipartisan commissions” can still gerrymander. When you look at the hyper-competitive over the last 22 years it’s not as if one party or the other took over, the gap was just closed, so I disagree with statement,
==the entire decline in competitive house seats from redistricting is attributable to GOP gerrymanders==
- lake county democrat - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 11:55 am:
Kinda dishonest to point out Democrats gerrymandered in those states without noting the Democrats in Congress introduced legislation to ban the practice nationwide. While I reject the argument Illinois Dems shouldn’t “unilaterally disarm,” there’s no moral equivalence here.
- Frank talks - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 12:15 pm:
Maybe Dems should stop feeding into the GOP trap of “fair” maps and running bills for them.
- thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 1:18 pm:
===Until a “national, non-partisan” map making way is put into place and recognized by all states, gerrymandering will continue.===
Gerrymandering will also continue afterwards, but it will continue until then as well. /s
In my experience, the only non-partisan way to do anything is to eliminate the thing. In the case of maps, that would be to make all the seats at large. To do that without all representatives coming from Chicago, you would have to randomly select representatives like we do for jury duty. Those people would be more statistically representative, but less knowledgeable about lawmaking. So, they would be reliant upon staffers and other experts, as well as an elected professional senate. But it would have the benefit of eliminating money from those races.
Alternatively, you could embrace the bipartisan nature of our politics. Flip a coin to determine which party gets to draw congressional districts. The opposite party then gets to divide those into senate districts. The first party divides those into house districts. And the opposite party combines house districts to choose judicial districts. That might encourage more bipartisan compromise.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 1:25 pm:
===In the case of maps, that would be to make all the seats at large. To do that without all representatives coming from Chicago, you would have to randomly select representatives like we do for jury duty. Those people would be more statistically representative, but less knowledgeable about lawmaking. So, they would be reliant upon staffers and other experts, as well as an elected professional senate. But it would have the benefit of eliminating money from those races.===
The dorm room popcorn is fresh today, and there’s only summer school going on.
:)
- Homebody - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 1:34 pm:
@Lake County Democrat: == Kinda dishonest to point out . . . ==
In the last twenty years I feel like 90% or more of all ‘BOTH SIDES’ arguments have been in defense of something conservatives have been actively trying to do, that liberals have been actively trying to prevent.
- really??? - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 1:50 pm:
Perhaps we shouldn’t worry about who draws the maps, and just bind the hands of whomever it may be. Mandate that all districts must be of a geometric shape with no angle smaller than say 35 degrees except for State boundary lines. Geographically some districts will be tiny and some huge, but would eliminate these “slivers” and horseshoe monstrosities.