Texas redistricting

GoSlash27,

I apologize GoSlash27, I did not understand your point.

Please consider that we elect our representatives, we do not select them by registering with a political party. I understand that some Democrats have advocated for a statistical method for selecting our representatives but thankfully our laws require a person to actually vote to exercises the franchise and how many of this or how many of that are registered to a specific political party is of no significance other then as an indication of how lazy a particular demographic group might be when it comes time to actually go to the polls. Those that are so lazy they can not be bothered to vote have "disenfranchised" themselves Alethea that is something of a corruption of the word disenfranchise as no one is taking away anyones right to vote.

If you find that using the presidential election results as a proxy to be unacceptable, then the data for each of the thirty two individual districts is certainly available for both 2002 (Democratic gerrymandering map) and 2004 (the Republican map). It might be interesting to tally the votes in each individual district for those years but that would require some little effort and I am satisfied that the presidential election results serve as a reasonable proxy as a statewide indication of voter preferences. I can assure you that I did not do a survey of state wide returns to find a result most favorable to my position, I simply took the Presidential results as they where easy to obtain.

If you where to tally the results from every individual district, I would be most please to substitute that data for the mine own as there would actually be a reasonable and rational basis for preferring such a tally over looking at the Presidential results.

Respectfully,
Richard
 
Richard,
Let me apologize as well for my participation in the snarky tit-for-tat.

If you find that using the presidential election results as a proxy to be unacceptable, then the data for each of the thirty two individual districts is certainly available for both 2002 (Democratic gerrymandering map) and 2004 (the Republican map).
Click to expand...

That information would certainly be useful for these purposes, and arguably more accurate than trying to compare presidential votes to congressional makeup.
These votes often go in different directions in different election years.

But more to the point, it's not just a matter of the results reflecting the political makeup of the state, but that each district represents a balanced cross-section of the state.
IOW, it's not just the destination, but how it's arrived at.

I will see about tallying the results from these previous cycles, but these results will have to be taken with a grain of salt as well, as I don't have the data to differentiate between all the factors involved in each race beyond mere voter idological preference.

I'll pull the data from here
and here

What I'm mainly looking for is districts that became less competitive between each cycle.
Initial results look pretty grim.
Best,
-John
 
Richard,
Done crunching the numbers.

gerrymander.jpg


I ignored all individual races where one party or the other was not represented.

Here's the tabulated info and gerrymandered districts (% Republican votes):
'02 Texas mean Republican votes: 53.3%

'02 districts <48.3
1 2 4 9 11 17 18 24 25 27 28 30 T= 12
'02 districts within 48.3-50.8
T=0
'02 districts within 50.8-55.8
23 T=1
'02 districts within 55.8-58.3
5 T=1
'02 districts >58.3
3 6 13 14 21 22 26 31 32 T= 9

'04 Texas mean Republican votes: 57.7%
'04 districts <52.7
9 15 16 17 20 25 27 28 T=8
'04 districts within 52.7-55.2
32 T=1
'04 districts within 55.2-60.2
2 19 22 T=3
'04 districts within 60.2-62.7
1 21 T=2
'04 districts >62.7
3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 23 24 26 31 T=12

So there you have it. The Texas redistricting did not 'correct' the previous Dem gerrymander, it merely gerrymandered Republican.

Best,
-John
 
GoSlash27,

Please explain your methodology. Also, I would not be much inclined to exclude all the districts where a candidate ran unopposed. Indeed, it is likely that these are the most important districts from a perspective a gerrymandering as the normal tactic would be to draw district lines to create a few "safe districts" for the other party while creating a larger number of districts where the party in power has a numerical advantage.

Also, I do not agree that the competitiveness of a district is naturally indicative of gerrymandering. To illustrate, if Texas was even more of a Republican state then it is now, that is if an even larger majority of the people of Texas where to vote Republican then at this time, say 90%, then very few of the districts would be competitive even if the most partisan of Democrats where allowed to draw the district lines.

I could certainly write a computer program that would divide the state into contiguous districts by looking only at the population numbers in each postal zip code without regard to political affiliation, racial or religious demographics, age, sex, or any other data. Few would argue that the results of such a program would be gerrymandering as it would make no attempt to favor either party and yet it would result in many districts that where uncompetitive as certain areas, inner cities for instance, are dominated by members of one party while other areas, perhaps the affluent suburbs, are dominated by the other.

When I get the time, I will try to look at the numbers as well. It might be best to select a less controversial state then Texas or California to develop a sensible methodology and then apply that quantitative definition of gerrymandering to Texas. It is the very districts that you have excluded, districts in which a candidate ran unopposed, that are the most important but I would also expect voter turn out, especially in mid-term elections to be rather low in such districts. A good approach should probably normalize the data from individual districts based on voter turnout of that district compared to the voter turn out of the state and then total all of the votes for a party from all districts for each party. If the number of resultant representatives for each party is reasonably proportional to the aggregate vote, then I would think the level of gerrymandering to be relatively low.

On a person note, I hope you had a great 4th.

Respectfully,
Richard
 
Richard,
I can include those districts if you like, but the percentages would be misleading.
In 2000 there were 5 Dem unopposed districts and 4 Rep unopposed districts.

In 2002 there were 3 Dem unopposed districts and 4 Rep unopposed districts.

The methodology is pretty self-explanatory; the percentage of Republican Congressional votes within each district was compared to the percentage of Republican Congressional votes statewide per your request.
District results that differed from statewide results by more than +/- 2.5% were deemed lightly gerrymandered. Results that differed by more than +/- 5% were deemed heavily gerrymandered.

I do not agree that the competitiveness of a district is naturally indicative of gerrymandering.
Click to expand...
Gerrymander: to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible. (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

It might be best to select a less controversial state then Texas or California to develop a sensible methodology and then apply that quantitative definition of gerrymandering to Texas.
Click to expand...

The most sensible comparison is to look at registered Democrats and Republicans within each district (which I attempted) but this is impossible to do in Texas.
This method definitely has it's problems, but arguably less than attempting to compare it to an unrelated race.

[edit] Yes, I had a very good 4th. Hope yours went well too :) [/edit]
 
Kinda explains why congress has a 98% reelection rate.
From now on the purple states get 1 vote and the pink states get 2 votes. That 'ot to simplify things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top