People who own condos there and live elsewhere most of the year have a habit of voting in every district where they own land and can get away with it. It’s super common for northeasterners with Florida condos to proudly vote in both places. And not only in local elections. It’s illegal of course. But so is speeding and lots of folks do that too.
And that’s why Colorado’s mean district has the same lean as its median district? William of Ockham just threw up a little bit.
Even if we restrict ourselves to legal voting, people who own residences in multiple states might choose to vote in whichever state is swingier, where their vote will have more impact.
Well, not yet, but we can put it in. In 2020, Vinton County, the most rural county in Ohio, went 76.9% Trump, 22.1% Biden. I doubt you’ll find any location that has a much larger Republican bias than that. But some cities, such as East Cleveland, went as much as 95% Biden. If district lines were drawn in a completely party-blind manner, based only on geography, geometry, and population density, then whatever district included East Cleveland would have a lot more “wasted votes” than whatever district included Vinton.
Is that how district lines are drawn? Is that how they were drawn in Ohio? If that’s not how lines are drawn, I’m not sure whatever you’re getting at here is relevant.
This is certainly possible. Is that the reason Colorado’s median district has nearly the same lean as its mean district? What about ski resorts? Do ski resorts still matter? Are any homes in Wisconsin owned by people who don’t live in Wisconsin? What about Wisconsin’s (incredibly shitty) ski resorts?
No, of course not. But it is how lines would be drawn if there were truly no gerrymandering. The point is that, even with no gerrymandering, Republicans would still benefit from that.
I’m willing to believe you. Can you support that mathematically?
Are you denying that resort towns are an influence? I’m by no means saying they’re the only factor, or even the most important one, but they’re certainly a factor.
Look to Utah for a clearer example (plus I don’t feel like going through every single blue-leaning county in Colorado). In 2016, Hillary won Salt Lake and Summit counties. Salt Lake is obvious. Summit contains the Park City ski resort town. She lost every other county.
Biden also flipped Grand in 2020. Another resort town in Moab (though mountain biking, not skiing). Not a coincidence: has the fewest percentage of Mormons in it.
Rich people like to buy properties in these places. And there’s a certain type of ski bum / bike bum type that also likes them. Whatever the demographic situation is, the people who live there are attracted to the geographic qualities, not the overall political makeup up the state. But their existence clearly influences the overall makeup. Not remotely enough to flip Utah overall. But combined with a few other effects, enough for Colorado.
Said another way, if there’s a nice part of a state, the Ds overwhelmingly live there. Or at least Ds move to there to get the good stuff. If there’s an ignorant backwards shithole stagnant part of the same state, the rural Rs love that environment and stay, and anyone who grows up there with a D mentality leaves as soon as they can. Like just about when they can vote.
The other sort of R, the country club / executive / doctor / lawyer R, is found in the big cities or the burbs attached to them, where they’re competing with the urban / suburban Ds for the majority.
Most states have a large rural hinterland that is not a ski resort, or a pristine beach, or a desirable [whatever], just plain old low-population density rural / agricultural / barely populated wilderness. Those areas are a lock for R majority voting.
I’m not sure how much detail you want me to go into here, because this is all Gerrymandering 101. But if you have districts with one elected representative each, and each district selects its representative by a simple majority in a two-party race, then 50% + 1 of the population of a district is enough to win that district for that party. Any additional voters of that party are, effectively, wasted in that district, where they do nothing, whereas if they moved to some other district, they might be able to flip it.
Gerrmandering works by giving your opponent’s party a small number of districts, in each of which they have an overwhelming majority, while giving your own party a larger number of districts where you have a smaller majority. Thus, more of your opponent’s voters are wasted than yours, and you’ll be able to win more of the seats, possibly even winning a majority of the seats with a minority of the total voters.
But even without gerrymandering, that effect happens naturally. As evidenced by locales like Vinton and East Cleveland. In East Cleveland, nearly a half of the Democratic votes are wasted, while in Vinton, only a third of the Republican votes are wasted. A half is more than a third, and so more Democratic votes are wasted than Republican votes, which benefits the Republicans.
I’m not denying it, but I am saying that I don’t see an immediate reason to believe that ski resorts have an effect on the relationship of the median to the mean districts in statewide legislative maps or that ski resorts are necessary for the median district to have a similar lean to the mean district.
What if there are more areas like Vinton than there are like East Cleveland? When you are calculating a median or a mean, do you consider all the elements or is looking at the most extreme element on either end sufficient? Is the bluest area in Colorado more blue than the reddest area in Colorado is red?
There’s also the fact that who actually votes isn’t necessarily representative of the wider population in an area. Older white folks vote in disproportionate numbers relative to other demographic groups, for example.
How do you get around that, or do you even need to worry about it?
That’s beyond the scope of what I’m trying to do right now, which is quantifying partisan advantage due to districting.
I did, however, notice something related to what you’re asking about. Districts are all roughly equal in population (I didn’t actually look up the populations but they have to be by law although I don’t know the details of the law). Districts are not equal in the number of votes cast in a general election.
Furthermore, it’s not even close and there is definitely a partisan bias. E.g. In the 2022 general election there were 7,821 cast in Wisconsin’s 8th state House district compared to 35,425 in Wisconsin’s 9th district. This is about 4.5 to 1. I’m sure it won’t surprise anyone to learn that the 8th is D+61 and the 99th is R+36. Statewide the 16 districts with the least votes are all Democratic leaning. Put another way, there were an average of 24,231 votes cast on average in D leaning districts compared to 27,428 in the average R leaning district.
This isn’t gerrymandering but it is an issue that tilts election. It feels like team D is leaving a lot of votes on the table.
Here’s a scatter plot of all 99 districts in Wisconsin.
Similar, but less extreme results observed in Colorado.
Yeah, I only bring it up because my zip code is nearly 45% black and 25% hispanic, but when you go to the polls, it’s all older white people. So much so that I’m the youngest person there most of the time, and I’m 51!
But I thought the whole rationale of congressional districts was to have a Representative that worked for constituents within a compact local area. If we have a district that covers Loveland and then follows the 25 down to Longmont to serve some sort of purpose … well at that point why not just have proportional representation as an option.
Moderating: Proportional representation hijack. See earlier modnotes and please stay on topic.
Of course, starting a new topic on this, pointing back to this thread is welcomed.
hidden by WE?
I didn’t see my post as promoting proportional representation (even though I see how it came across that way) so much as my point was that after a certain point if a district is gerrymandered so much that a major part of the constituency is not local to the Representative’s community, then what’s the point of having a district at all. This as a direct response to Lance_Turbo with my holding that physical closeness has more to do with “your local Congressperson” than mathematical fairness.
I wonder how much of that difference comes down to actual votes and how much is the younger & darker folks using early or mail-in voting in higher percentages than white geezers do?
It’s like reverse of the comments that you can see a true cross section of your city standing in line at the DMV offices since everyone goes there.
Not really. The folks who can renew online, don’t move every few months chasing work or outrunning eviction, or can pay a runner to do their business are underrepresented.
Do not argue moderation in thread. I’m pretty sure you know better.
I am looking for more states where I can look at statewide races by lower chamber of the legislature district. Typically this requires precinct/ward/whatever level data, but I’m not finding a ton. I have not by any means conducted an exhaustive search and I would appreciate it if anyone could point me to a state that has that kind of data available.