Fiveyearlurker:
Interesting analysis , and I apologize if this is obvious to other people. Basically, 538 pointing out that at a certain point of Democratic party voting, GOP gerrymandering actually would break hard toward Democrats. The premise of gerrymandering being not wasting votes, so putting enough GOP votes to be considered “safe” within the districts that you intend to win, but no more than that. But, if what was considered safe when the districts was drawn shifts, then all of a sudden the dam breaks and those safe districts go Democrat.
The inflection point where the vote goes from linear to non-linear is about D+8.
I’ve been pointing this out for years:
I think many people underestimate the potential impact of gerrymandering. Take Ohio, for example. The voting indices by district, in order from pro-Republican (+) to pro-Democrat (-) are: +14, +9, +9, +8, +8, +6, +6, +5, +5, +5, +3, +2, -12, -14, -15, -30 . The baseline is 12 R and 4 D in the House, if the presidential race has no down-ticket impact. If there’s a 3.5-point effect in favor of the Democrats, it’ll go 10 R, 6 D. A 5.5-point effect, results in 7 R, 9 D. And 6.5 goes to 5 R, 11 D. In contrast, even a 10-point shift in favor of the Republicans does not result in the Democrats losing any seats.
Gerrymandering really tilts the results non-linearly.
I’m glad 538 is giving it more attention. It’s too mathy for most people to understand. But it’s exactly why as many people as possible should vote, especially in districts where they are often in the minority.