Skip to main content

View Diary: Did Gerrymandering Cost Dems the House? A 34-State Look at Alternative Nonpartisan Maps Suggests Yes (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Responses (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stephen Wolf, Englishlefty

    I tried to redraw PA, and I've come to the conclusion that 1) Berks County will be chopped into several pieces and 2) Reading will have to go with either Chester or Lancaster County. Neither seems a good match, but those seem to be the only options. I drew a map that kept York, Lancaster, Dauphin, Lebanon, Schuylkill, Delaware, Bucks, Lehigh, and Northampton all whole, and the splits in Chester and Berks are clean. The map puts Reading with Lancaster, which I think looks better than Chester.

    On Washington, I see what you're saying, but could you explain why you believe that "Yakima needs to be in the 4th"?

    I drew a nonpartisan, CoI map of Massachusetts. The end result combined Springfield and Worcester (which I don't think is a bad thing), put the whole Merrimack Valley in the same district, split Boston (on logical lines), and followed CoI lines in the Boston suburbs. I can post it in a diary if you want and if I have time.

    In Connecticut, the court-drawn map was basically a least-change map from the old one, which was a compromise done in 2001 after CT lost a seat. A truly nonpartisan map would have different borders between the 1st and 5th, while the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th would be largely the same.

    DRA wouldn't load my maps of NJ for some reason, so I'll have to get back to you on that one.

    (-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 Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 07:07:43 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Schuylkill with Berks (0+ / 0-)

      My Holden district is similar to the one in the 1990s, consisting of Schuylkill, Berks and Lebanon counties. Lancaster is paired with exurban Chester, while York and Adams county is with portions of Cumberland counties, all high population suburban areas.

      If you are naughty you can always pair Harrisburg with State College.

      •  There are too many people (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stephen Wolf

        in Chester County for that.

        If you keep Delaware whole and put parts of Chester with it, and then put some of exurban Chester with Lancaster, there will still be some of Chester remaining. There will also be some of Montgomery still remaining after the district entirely in Montco is drawn. Even if some of Montco is picked up to complete the Lehigh/Northampton district, there will still be some left over, and the leftovers of Montco and Chester plus Berks, Lebanon, and Schuylkill would create an overpopulated district.

        Also, your plan strands Dauphin with a bunch of areas that are nothing like it (such as Mifflin, Juniata, Perry, and Centre). Dauphin is much better off with Lebanon and Schuylkill.

        Additionally, Lancaster County is nothing like exurban Chester; they are distinct CoIs. At least the cities of Lancaster and Reading have some similarities. I think it makes sense to put exurban Chester with exurban and rural Berks and outer Montco, since those areas are much more similar to each other.

        That being said, I agree with your York/Adams/Cumberland idea, and have incorporated that into my map.

        (-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 Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:26:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site