Recent Posts

Chip Cravaack

Redistricting: Partisan numbers for proposed maps

by TonyAngelo on November 21, 2011 · 0 comments

Redistricting MinnesotaI tried to resist the urge to break this up into multiple posts and instead just do one big post comparing all the proposals. That post quickly grew to unmanageable proportions though, so I’m going to go ahead and break it up anyway.

So, today I’m going to go over the partisan numbers of the proposed districts and tomorrow I’ll start breaking down the districts themselves.

The three proposals are from the Britton, Hippert (GOP) and Martin (DFL) intervenors. The Hippert map is old news, as it is the same map that passed through the GOP controlled legislature earlier this year and was vetoed by Governor Dayton. The two other maps are interesting in their similarities and their differences; drawing rural Minnesota almost exactly the same but taking completely different approaches in the metro area.

Cutting to the chase though; here are the Obama percentages for the three maps:


Obama % for proposed maps
CD Britton Hippert Martin Old
1 52% 51% 52% 51%
2 45% 49% 45% 48%
3 50% 50% 55% 52%
4 64% 64% 62% 64%
5 72% 74% 73% 74%
6 48% 45% 43% 45%
7 47% 45% 48% 47%
8 53% 56% 54% 53%

Here is the same table with the Average Democratic vote numbers instead of the Obama numbers:


Ave Dem % for proposed maps
CD Britton Hippert Martin Old
1 52% 51% 52% 51%
2 45% 48% 44% 47%
3 48% 47% 53% 50%
4 62% 63% 61% 64%
5 71% 73% 73% 74%
6 48% 45% 44% 45%
7 48% 47% 49% 49%
8 57% 58% 57% 57%

What follows now are two tables showing the differences between the proposed map and the existing map by subtracting the partisan numbers of the old map from the new one. What this will tell us is if a district is made more Democratic or more Republican (positive numbers mean more Democratic, negative more Republican):


New Obama % minus Old
CD Britton Hippert Martin
1 1.1% -0.3% 0.7%
2 -3.4% 0.6% -2.9%
3 -2.1% -2.6% 2.9%
4 -0.9% -0.7% -2.4%
5 -2.2% -0.2% -0.7%
6 3.7% 0.1% -1.8%
7 -0.4% -2.5% 0.1%
8 -0.1% 2.8% 0.9%

And here’s the table for the Ave Dem vote:


Ave Dem % for proposed maps
CD Britton Hippert Martin
1 1.1% -0.3% 0.8%
2 -2.8% 1.0% -3.4%
3 -1.6% -2.8% 2.9%
4 -1.1% -0.7% -2.5%
5 -2.7% -0.3% -0.8%
6 3.4% 0.3% -0.7%
7 -0.4% -1.3% 0.0%
8 0.0% 1.5% 0.6%

Getting to incumbent pairings; the Martin map draws Michele Bachmann’s residence into CD4, and Chip Cravaack’s residence into CD6, while keeping the vast majority of their constituents in their previous districts. As the Martin intervernor’s point out in their brief though, there is almost no chance that either of these Representatives would run in their new districts.

If you look at the numbers above though you can see what the different maps are trying to do. The Hippert map is clearly attempting to maximize Republican advantages, the Martin map is attempting to maximize DFL advantages and the Britton map, well, I don’t really know what that map is trying to do other than get rid of Michele Bachmann.

The Hippert Map

This map tries to keep the status quo in the metro area, with all of the metro districts retaining the majority of their constituents. It’s northern Minnesota that this map seeks to change the most, dramatically changing the makeup of CDs 7 and 8. I’ve already been over this map though.

The Britton Map

This map shores up Tim Walz in CD1 a bit and shifts a bunch of Democratic voters into CD6, in an apparent attempt to make it a competitive district. But in the process of doing so this map makes CD’s 2 and 3 redder and for the most part unattainable by Democrats for another ten years.

The Martin Map

Which brings us to the Martin map. I’ll try and tamper my excitement a little, but there’s a lot  for Democrats to like in this map. Tim Walz gets a little help in CD1, and CD8 loses it’s southern conservative counties, making it a point bluer. But the real prize of this map is CD3, which becomes winnable for Democrats, not only in partisan leanings, but the district incorporates lot’s of new constituents who have never before voted for Eric Paulsen.

If you’re a Democrat, there is nothing about the Martin map that should upset you. I’ll repeat that for those who may have read that line a little too quickly, the Martin map is a good map for Democrats.

So why is it then that some Democrats are complaining about this map?

Perhaps they’re just really big Johnny Depp fans.

Cause They're Cry Babies

{ 0 comments }