Before launching into my first post here at 538, let me say two things. First, it’s an honor to guest-post here, especially given the quality of content produced by the regulars and my fellow guest-bloggers this week. Second, I am going to dedicate a series of posts toward previewing the 2010 elections, some based on the Partisan Voting Index data compiled by POLIDATA, the National Journal and the Cook Political Report.
PVI refers to the House district-level partisan performance of presidential candidates. For example, in 2004 John Kerry carried 179 districts. He also won 19 states plus the District of Columbia. If the other 48 states used the electoral vote allocation formula only Maine and Nebraska do—that is, two electors for the statewide winner and one for winner of each House district—Kerry would have amassed 38 electors for his 19 states, plus 3 for DC, plus 179 for the districts he carried, for a total of 220 electors. He instead won 252.That suggests that there was either a lot of split-ticket voting for George W. Bush and Democratic House candidates, or Democrats have their core supporters over-packed into too few districts. In the final chapter of my book, Whistling Past Dixie, I demonstrated that the latter was a key factor, in part because race-minded redistricting produces certain districts with overwhelming Democratic majorities, inefficiently so for Democrats.The district borders will be in place for one more cycle, so this disadvantage still pertains. But district demography and voting patterns can change. That’s obviously true, given that the Democrats captured enough seats in 2006 to form a majority from the same set of district lines Republicans forged a majority in 2002 and 2004.All that said, what can we say about the House-level results in 2008? Taking a first cut at the data, the overall results show that:
Of the 435 districts, 352 were carried by the same party as the presidential candidate. Barack Obama and the Democratic candidate won 208 of those, and John McCain and the Republican candidate won the remaining 144.
That leaves 83 districts with cross-partisan results—what POLIDATA calls McCain Democrats (MD) or Obama Republicans (OR). There were about half again more of the former (49) than the latter (34).
This suggests Republicans have a slight overall advantage, because there are fewer districts held by Republican House members in which Obama’s performance potentially indicates GOP vulnerability, rather than the reverse. Obviously, as a party’s House majority widens, as was the case for Democrats between 2006 and 2008, the number of potentially winnable targets tends to shrink and the number of potentially marginal seats to defend grows, all else equal.
But all else may not be equal. Counting districts simply as “McCain Democrats” or “Obama Republicans” does not indicate either the margin of victory for those incumbents or the opposite party’s presidential candidate. Nor does it consider idiosyncratic factors like state and local politics, and the strength of individual incumbents.
I’ll drill down into that a bit more in subsequent posts.
I highly, highly doubt it. Nebraska is apparently already trying to change how they allocate their electoral votes so that Obama can't snag 1 or even 2 of them again in 2012.
The Maine- Nebraska system done nationally would have an extreme bias against Democrats in close elections -- not because of race-conscious gerrymandering, as Schaller suggests, but because the Democrats carry many urban districts by far larger margins than Republicans win anywhere else. For this reason, the "median" PVI is about 52% Republican.
See FairVote's good critique of congressional district allocation here: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1786&articlemode=showspecific&showarticle=2741
So much new content the last couple of days. But it's sort of like having to eat my broccoli: not so appetizing in form but I know it's wonderful for me, so I'm consuming it all. So much to think about. Enriching.
sorry, folks, have never used blogger before. took me 25 mins to write that post and an hour fiddling with it online and still can't figure out the font problems.
there will be more content to come as i get things figured out.
In regards to political minded gerrymandering, I think what happened with the congressional elections in Upstate New York showed how vulnerable the process can be if there is a general shift in support from one party to the other. When the then-Republican dominated New York state legislature redrew the congressional district boundaries, the way they did so in upstate was to very heavily pack the Democrats in blatantly gerrymandered districts (such as Louise Slaughter's "earmuff" 28th district, which connects Rochester and Buffalo with a one-township strip) while the Republican districts retained solid but not overwhelming support. That backfired on the Republicans in 2008 when the region as a whole became disillusioned with the Party's policies and what were once considered to be safe districts for the GOP started falling like dominoes to the Dems. Now, the Dems hold all but two of upstate's congressional seats in what was once one of the GOP's core areas because the Republicans redrew the lines in an attempt to retain overall dominance and failed to anticipate the backlash against them.
I think that politicians of all parties should pay very close attention to that lesson: if you redraw district boundaries for your own party's political benefit, it can seriously backfire against you if circumstances change. Gerrymandering will only hurt you in the long term.
I have to disagree with Lord Calvert; what the Republicans did in NY redistricting was optimal for them. You can't redistrict for macro trends that are unforeseeable (who in the early 2000s really thought the Dems would have successive wave elections in 06-08?); you need to maximize your possibilities. It's doubtful a reallocation of NY Republican voters would have yielded more R's in the NY delegation; instead, it would give them probably what they have now, with no hope of gains.
Gerrymandering only works at the margins; if your party's brand is heavily damaged, no amount of it is going to win you districts you otherwise wouldn't.
The Republicans have lost Jack Kemp/Jack Quinn's district (now the 27th) for the forseeable future, have lost Amo Houghton's district (now the 29th) because Houghton's successor tried to vote like a southern baptist preacher instead of a limited-government conservative and have had multiple serious scares in Bill Paxon/Tom Reynolds' overwhelmingly Republican district (now the 26th). A great deal of this (particularly in the 29th) is because of the GOP's complete transformation from a limited-government party to one that is under total domination by southern religious extremists, an ideology that simply does not sell in an area that was once called the "Burned-over district" because of all the religious strife.
If the Republicans made even a token attempt to get the limited-government conservatives back, they would not have been so thoroughly crushed in an area that was once one of their core areas. Instead, they have gotten even more extreme. Right now, they are their own worst enemies.
I used to post here months ago, but the comments were so nasty and derogatory that I had to leave. So it's nice to see people speaking with civility and comity from both political persuasions.
I think back to 1982 when the Democrats were in awful shape in terms of brand and, even with gerrymandered districts in favor of the GOP, the Dems picked up 27 seats. The Reagan wave of '80 could not keep a number of incumbents from staying in that year because the economy was in terrible shape.
As for New York state, they are down to three House Republicans (Pete King, John McHugh, and Christopher Lee) for a number of reasons - demography, scandal, loss of seats because of the census, and other local issues - that Gerrymandering could not save. I don't believe Gerrymandering is the dependent variable in that particular process. You can only look one cycle ahead to really keep a seat. Things happen. People die.
In FL, we have 8 districts that are majority D (by 20% or more), and 17 districts that are majority R (most <10%). There are more Dems in FL than reps, by a large margin. Is that gerrymandering, or what?
I'm not familiar with your book, but I would ABSOLUTELY love to read it--is it available at most Barnes and Noble and Borders locations (through order or otherwise), or exclusively at university book stores and academic-bent book stores and shops?
On other note, rather than shift to a by-district electoral system, don't you all feel that it would be beneficial for each state to shift to a voting system in which each state declares to contribute its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote (as some states, such as Maryland, have already passed legislation to enact)?
All the guest-posters are doing a great job in Nate's absence, but is there anyway you guys can coordinate it a little better so that your posts are more spread out? For example, today there were three posts between 9 and 11 am (EDT), as well as another morning post, then a 7 hour gap, then presumably no more posts tonight.
@nkpolitics1279 - That's not entirely true. The core of Kemp and Quinn's district was the Buffalo Southtowns of Southern Erie County, an area which is now entirely part of Higgins' 27th district. Reapportionment has significantly changed the borders, particularly in the Western New York districts.
When Reynolds first ran for congress this caused a considerable bit of controversy because his Springville residence was indeed in this district and not in the one that he was running in (what is now Lee's 26th district). Reynolds did not move into the district until eight months after he was elected when he bought a house in Clarence. This is one of the reasons the "carpetbagger" accusations against Hillary Clinton failed so miserably in Western New York, because the voters remembered that Reynolds not only did the same thing, he didn't even bother to move until after the election while Clinton at least moved before the election.
With the exception of my nine years in the military, I've lived in Erie County the whole of my 46 years. I was actually here when Kemp was serving and he was my congressman from the time I was eight until I was twenty-five, thanks to my Orchard Park residence.
The bit about district-by-district electoral votes raises an interesting question. Does anyone have data on what the House of Representatives would look like if each state used statewide proportional representation rather than district-by-district elections? Clearly this would be distorted by factors like districts where one party didn't put up an opposing candidate, but it would be an interesting contrast. Which states would see more Democratic reps, and how many? That would be an interesting picture of just how severe the urban packing is as a problem.
The New York State Legislature was divided (Assembly Dems, Senate GOP) since 1975 and remained that way until last year's Dem takeover of the Senate. In that time, the U.S. House districts had to be agreed on by both the Dems and the GOP.
For example, I recall one proposal from a non-legislative panel back in 2001 which suggested two "fair-fight" battles in redrawn upstate districts (NY lost 2 House seats after the 2000 census) between an incumbent Dem and an incumbent GOP House member.
This was rejected by the legislature because both parties feared losing both races, so each party agreed to eat one of their young by pairing up two incumbent House members into same-party primaries. This led to the weird district of Louise Slaughter.
Where each party had more control over districts was their own state legislative districts. The GOP drew their own Senate districts while the Dems drew their own Assembly districts. Each legislative chamber underpopulated its own incumbent's districts while overpopulated its opponents' districts, as allowed by state law (by 5% from the statewide mean, unlike U.S. House districts with in a state which must contain the same # of people or differ by at most one person).
If the Dems can control the NY redistricting process after the 2010 elections, look for them to protect their newly elected upstate U.S. House incumbents (can they win any more of those they don't have now?) and do a hatchet job on the State Senate, reversing the (GOP) incumbent protection plans in place along with reversing the population inequities.
Mr. Schaller. I read your book and look forward to your commentary. That said, I can't say I entirely agree with the fundamental premise of it - that politics is a knock-down game which should be played to win. Notably, you suggested intentionally attempting to caricature the Republicans and reduce them to their most extreme members, as if successful that might mean one-party rule, which I think would be even worse than occasional Republican domination (much as GWB tried to prove me wrong). I for one hope that the Republicans follow, say, the Tories in Britain, who moved left and are now a viable opposition party again, which is a useful safety valve to check Labour from becoming corrupt. Also, unfortunately for the Democratic party, I think a lot of gerrymandering is "natural," especially with how urban districts work. There just isn't any way to draw New York City's districts to somehow mess with who wins upstate, so there's naturally going to be a lot of Democratic votes "lost."
Lord Calvert: Eh, yes and no. First off, the Republicans shouldn't have had control over redistricting in 2000 - the Democrats have controlled the NY Assembly for ages, and with Republican controlling the Senate and Governorship in 2002, what should have resulted was a standard incumbent-protection plan. (Edit: Ninjaed by Dave, so yeah, what he said.) If that was a Republican gerrymander something disastrouly went wrong for the Democrats. Secondly, compare the gerrymanders in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania gerrymander was very aggressive, giving only light "cover" to the Republican leaning districts, hence allowing things to go dramatically wrong when the tide turned enough the other way. Ohio's gerrymander protected even crazed politicians like Jean Schmidt even after the Ohio Republican Party imploded in scandal, as they gave a good 10-point safety margin to the districts they wanted to win at the cost of collecting slightly fewer of them. If politicians take the lessons of the Oho gerrymander, than gerrymandering will have proved its worth, unfortunately.
Lord Calvert Jack Kemp served in the US House from 1970-1988. Back at the time Kemps District was NY-31. In 1988- Bill Paxon was elected to the NY-31 which then became NY-27 during 1992 Reapportionment. Paxon held onto the District until 1998. In 1998 Tom Reynolds was elected to the NY-27 which became NY-26 during the 2002 Reapportionment. Reynolds held on to the District until 2008. The District is now held by Chris Lee.
Jack Quinn was elected in 1992 to the NY-30th District which was an open seat vacated by Democrat Henry Nowak. NY-30 became the NY-27during the 2002 reapportionment. Quinn held on to the district until 2004. The District is now held by Brian Higgins.
In 1992 during the NY Congressional Redistricting process. They eliminated 3 seats. One Seat in Long Island-(Robert Mrazek- whose North Shore Nassau and Suffolk County district was combined with Gary Ackerman and James Schuers Northeastern Queens Congressional District. Mrazek and Scheuer retired. Ackerman ran in the newly created NY-5th District. The other district was in Upstate NY- Rochester based district of Fred Eckart.
In 2002- They eliminated Ben Gilman's District- It went to Sue Kelly/John Hall,Eliot Engel,and Maurice Hinchey's District. and They combined Jack LaFalce's Buffalo Base with Louise Slaughter's Rochester Base.
Buy your last big block V8 at the GM or Chrysler dealer this weekend for a steal! The absolutely insanely crazy California CARB board is taking over the Obama administration. Drive fast while you can!
26 comments
Is there a likelihood that other states will follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska?
@obsessed
I highly, highly doubt it. Nebraska is apparently already trying to change how they allocate their electoral votes so that Obama can't snag 1 or even 2 of them again in 2012.
The Maine- Nebraska system done nationally would have an extreme bias against Democrats in close elections -- not because of race-conscious gerrymandering, as Schaller suggests, but because the Democrats carry many urban districts by far larger margins than Republicans win anywhere else. For this reason, the "median" PVI is about 52% Republican.
See FairVote's good critique of congressional district allocation here:
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1786&articlemode=showspecific&showarticle=2741
Thanks for the great post and comments. That link is fascinating.
So much new content the last couple of days. But it's sort of like having to eat my broccoli: not so appetizing in form but I know it's wonderful for me, so I'm consuming it all. So much to think about. Enriching.
Thanks, Tom! (and others)
Nice post, but we need the meat soon...
sorry, folks, have never used blogger before. took me 25 mins to write that post and an hour fiddling with it online and still can't figure out the font problems.
there will be more content to come as i get things figured out.
tom schaller
In regards to political minded gerrymandering, I think what happened with the congressional elections in Upstate New York showed how vulnerable the process can be if there is a general shift in support from one party to the other. When the then-Republican dominated New York state legislature redrew the congressional district boundaries, the way they did so in upstate was to very heavily pack the Democrats in blatantly gerrymandered districts (such as Louise Slaughter's "earmuff" 28th district, which connects Rochester and Buffalo with a one-township strip) while the Republican districts retained solid but not overwhelming support. That backfired on the Republicans in 2008 when the region as a whole became disillusioned with the Party's policies and what were once considered to be safe districts for the GOP started falling like dominoes to the Dems. Now, the Dems hold all but two of upstate's congressional seats in what was once one of the GOP's core areas because the Republicans redrew the lines in an attempt to retain overall dominance and failed to anticipate the backlash against them.
I think that politicians of all parties should pay very close attention to that lesson: if you redraw district boundaries for your own party's political benefit, it can seriously backfire against you if circumstances change. Gerrymandering will only hurt you in the long term.
Looking forward to the follow ups, it is a nice set up.
Best post refuting the recent "pro-choice" pseudo-swing: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/about_that_gallup_abortion_pol.php
I have to disagree with Lord Calvert; what the Republicans did in NY redistricting was optimal for them. You can't redistrict for macro trends that are unforeseeable (who in the early 2000s really thought the Dems would have successive wave elections in 06-08?); you need to maximize your possibilities. It's doubtful a reallocation of NY Republican voters would have yielded more R's in the NY delegation; instead, it would give them probably what they have now, with no hope of gains.
Gerrymandering only works at the margins; if your party's brand is heavily damaged, no amount of it is going to win you districts you otherwise wouldn't.
@ Steve
The Republicans have lost Jack Kemp/Jack Quinn's district (now the 27th) for the forseeable future, have lost Amo Houghton's district (now the 29th) because Houghton's successor tried to vote like a southern baptist preacher instead of a limited-government conservative and have had multiple serious scares in Bill Paxon/Tom Reynolds' overwhelmingly Republican district (now the 26th). A great deal of this (particularly in the 29th) is because of the GOP's complete transformation from a limited-government party to one that is under total domination by southern religious extremists, an ideology that simply does not sell in an area that was once called the "Burned-over district" because of all the religious strife.
If the Republicans made even a token attempt to get the limited-government conservatives back, they would not have been so thoroughly crushed in an area that was once one of their core areas. Instead, they have gotten even more extreme. Right now, they are their own worst enemies.
I used to post here months ago, but the comments were so nasty and derogatory that I had to leave. So it's nice to see people speaking with civility and comity from both political persuasions.
I think back to 1982 when the Democrats were in awful shape in terms of brand and, even with gerrymandered districts in favor of the GOP, the Dems picked up 27 seats. The Reagan wave of '80 could not keep a number of incumbents from staying in that year because the economy was in terrible shape.
As for New York state, they are down to three House Republicans (Pete King, John McHugh, and Christopher Lee) for a number of reasons - demography, scandal, loss of seats because of the census, and other local issues - that Gerrymandering could not save. I don't believe Gerrymandering is the dependent variable in that particular process. You can only look one cycle ahead to really keep a seat. Things happen. People die.
In FL, we have 8 districts that are majority D (by 20% or more), and 17 districts that are majority R (most <10%). There are more Dems in FL than reps, by a large margin. Is that gerrymandering, or what?
Great to see you posting here, Mr. Schaller!
As a UMBC student and an avid 538 reader, my face lit up when I saw your name on the front page!
Nice first post, and im lookin' forward to seeing more.
Bruce - That's precisely what Gerrymandering is. I'd definitely expect that to change in the next two years. :)
Tom Schaller! Shit, your book was my bible this time last year in my political parties and elections class. Good to see you here!
I'm not familiar with your book, but I would ABSOLUTELY love to read it--is it available at most Barnes and Noble and Borders locations (through order or otherwise), or exclusively at university book stores and academic-bent book stores and shops?
On other note, rather than shift to a by-district electoral system, don't you all feel that it would be beneficial for each state to shift to a voting system in which each state declares to contribute its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote (as some states, such as Maryland, have already passed legislation to enact)?
All the guest-posters are doing a great job in Nate's absence, but is there anyway you guys can coordinate it a little better so that your posts are more spread out? For example, today there were three posts between 9 and 11 am (EDT), as well as another morning post, then a 7 hour gap, then presumably no more posts tonight.
Lord Calvert
The late Jack Kemp represented Bill Paxon/Tom Reynolds/Chris Lee District.
@nkpolitics1279 - That's not entirely true. The core of Kemp and Quinn's district was the Buffalo Southtowns of Southern Erie County, an area which is now entirely part of Higgins' 27th district. Reapportionment has significantly changed the borders, particularly in the Western New York districts.
When Reynolds first ran for congress this caused a considerable bit of controversy because his Springville residence was indeed in this district and not in the one that he was running in (what is now Lee's 26th district). Reynolds did not move into the district until eight months after he was elected when he bought a house in Clarence. This is one of the reasons the "carpetbagger" accusations against Hillary Clinton failed so miserably in Western New York, because the voters remembered that Reynolds not only did the same thing, he didn't even bother to move until after the election while Clinton at least moved before the election.
With the exception of my nine years in the military, I've lived in Erie County the whole of my 46 years. I was actually here when Kemp was serving and he was my congressman from the time I was eight until I was twenty-five, thanks to my Orchard Park residence.
The bit about district-by-district electoral votes raises an interesting question. Does anyone have data on what the House of Representatives would look like if each state used statewide proportional representation rather than district-by-district elections? Clearly this would be distorted by factors like districts where one party didn't put up an opposing candidate, but it would be an interesting contrast. Which states would see more Democratic reps, and how many? That would be an interesting picture of just how severe the urban packing is as a problem.
The New York State Legislature was divided (Assembly Dems, Senate GOP) since 1975 and remained that way until last year's Dem takeover of the Senate. In that time, the U.S. House districts had to be agreed on by both the Dems and the GOP.
For example, I recall one proposal from a non-legislative panel back in 2001 which suggested two "fair-fight" battles in redrawn upstate districts (NY lost 2 House seats after the 2000 census) between an incumbent Dem and an incumbent GOP House member.
This was rejected by the legislature because both parties feared losing both races, so each party agreed to eat one of their young by pairing up two incumbent House members into same-party primaries. This led to the weird district of Louise Slaughter.
Where each party had more control over districts was their own state legislative districts. The GOP drew their own Senate districts while the Dems drew their own Assembly districts. Each legislative chamber underpopulated its own incumbent's districts while overpopulated its opponents' districts, as allowed by state law (by 5% from the statewide mean, unlike U.S. House districts with in a state which must contain the same # of people or differ by at most one person).
If the Dems can control the NY redistricting process after the 2010 elections, look for them to protect their newly elected upstate U.S. House incumbents (can they win any more of those they don't have now?) and do a hatchet job on the State Senate, reversing the (GOP) incumbent protection plans in place along with reversing the population inequities.
Mr. Schaller. I read your book and look forward to your commentary. That said, I can't say I entirely agree with the fundamental premise of it - that politics is a knock-down game which should be played to win. Notably, you suggested intentionally attempting to caricature the Republicans and reduce them to their most extreme members, as if successful that might mean one-party rule, which I think would be even worse than occasional Republican domination (much as GWB tried to prove me wrong). I for one hope that the Republicans follow, say, the Tories in Britain, who moved left and are now a viable opposition party again, which is a useful safety valve to check Labour from becoming corrupt. Also, unfortunately for the Democratic party, I think a lot of gerrymandering is "natural," especially with how urban districts work. There just isn't any way to draw New York City's districts to somehow mess with who wins upstate, so there's naturally going to be a lot of Democratic votes "lost."
Lord Calvert: Eh, yes and no. First off, the Republicans shouldn't have had control over redistricting in 2000 - the Democrats have controlled the NY Assembly for ages, and with Republican controlling the Senate and Governorship in 2002, what should have resulted was a standard incumbent-protection plan. (Edit: Ninjaed by Dave, so yeah, what he said.) If that was a Republican gerrymander something disastrouly went wrong for the Democrats. Secondly, compare the gerrymanders in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania gerrymander was very aggressive, giving only light "cover" to the Republican leaning districts, hence allowing things to go dramatically wrong when the tide turned enough the other way. Ohio's gerrymander protected even crazed politicians like Jean Schmidt even after the Ohio Republican Party imploded in scandal, as they gave a good 10-point safety margin to the districts they wanted to win at the cost of collecting slightly fewer of them. If politicians take the lessons of the Oho gerrymander, than gerrymandering will have proved its worth, unfortunately.
Lord Calvert
Jack Kemp served in the US House from 1970-1988. Back at the time Kemps District was NY-31. In 1988- Bill Paxon was elected to the NY-31 which then became NY-27 during 1992 Reapportionment. Paxon held onto the District until 1998. In 1998 Tom Reynolds was elected to the NY-27 which became NY-26 during the 2002 Reapportionment. Reynolds held on to the District until 2008. The District is now held by Chris Lee.
Jack Quinn was elected in 1992 to the NY-30th District which was an open seat vacated by Democrat Henry Nowak. NY-30 became the NY-27during the 2002 reapportionment. Quinn held on to the district until 2004. The District is now held by Brian Higgins.
In 1992 during the NY Congressional Redistricting process. They eliminated 3 seats. One Seat in Long Island-(Robert Mrazek- whose North Shore Nassau and Suffolk County district was combined with Gary Ackerman and James Schuers Northeastern Queens Congressional District. Mrazek and Scheuer retired. Ackerman ran in the newly created NY-5th District.
The other district was in Upstate NY- Rochester based district of Fred Eckart.
In 2002- They eliminated Ben Gilman's District- It went to Sue Kelly/John Hall,Eliot Engel,and Maurice Hinchey's District. and They combined Jack LaFalce's Buffalo Base with Louise Slaughter's Rochester Base.
Buy your last big block V8 at the GM or Chrysler dealer this weekend for a steal! The absolutely insanely crazy California CARB board is taking over the Obama administration. Drive fast while you can!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/18/MNR317MLGU.DTL&tsp=1
Post a Comment