Nate Silver - Exurban Growth Should Bolster G.O.P. in Congressional Redistricting

[FBaggins]

Having made significant gains in statewide races on Nov. 2, Republicans are in an advantageous position for the Congressional redistricting process that will take place between now and the 2012 elections. That process will kick off later today when the Census Bureau announces the first set of results from the 2010 Census, including which states will gain or lose seats in Congress (and consequently, votes in the Electoral College).

Even before the midterm elections, though, Republicans were poised to gain seats in the next Congress for another reason: under the old boundary lines, which first went into effect in 2002, their Congressional districts tended to grow faster than Democratic ones.

Nine Congressional districts, for instance, had populations of 900,000 or more as of 2009, according to Census Bureau estimates, while the average Congressional district has about 700,000 people. All nine — as well as 17 of the 20 most populous districts over all — elected Republicans to the U.S. House in November. That means that the Republicans will, in many cases, have the luxury of both protecting their incumbents in these districts and spreading out their excess voters to neighboring districts to make them easier to win.



Essentially all of the fastest-growing districts are in inland areas south of the Mason-Dixon line, or are west of the Continental Divide. Many are in areas that demographers describe as ‘exurbs’: newly developing areas that are located relatively far — perhaps a 30- or 60-minute drive — from cities like Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Charlotte or Atlanta, and that attract an upscale mix of commuters, families and retirees. Although most major American cities are no longer losing population — on the contrary, at least 20 of the 25 largest cities are likely to have gained population in the 2010 Census compared with 2000 — they are not growing as fast as the exurbs, and therefore stand to lose proportionally, because the number of seats in Congress is fixed.



http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/exurban-growth-should-bolster-g-o-p-in-congressional-redistricting/

[xxqqqzme]

1. Montana's first district is the entire state!

[FBaggins]

2. True.

Doesn't much impact the larger point though.

[dsc]

6. oops

[ellenfl]

3. but if northern democrats are moving south,

why would they suddenly become republicans? perhaps they will bolster the numbers of dems in red states and turn those states purple. why does this movement have to be a bad thing?

ellen fl

[FBaggins]

4. Why assume that they're northern democrats who are moving?

Why wouldn't they be northern republicans moving away from the north?

I've seen the argument made more than once here to ease the concern over this reality, but the simple fact is that these states are currently (iow, after the measured move) "red" states.

why does this movement have to be a bad thing?

Because we already know what the net result has been... the only change is that those states will now have more electoral votes AND their largely republican legislatures will be able to draw new districts to their liking.

Remember also that this isn't just a move toward red states... it's away from the blue ones. Massachusetts, for instance, is losing a seat. It doesn't matter whether it's republicans or democrats who are moving out of the state, there's going to be one fewer democratic representative from MA... and MA will have one fewer electoral vote.

[ellenfl]

5. i wasn't assuming. i was asking.

we don't know that those moving into the red states are republicans. chris hayes posited tonight (countdown) that many blacks and/or latinos have moved into districts in texas, specifically, that are already blue so dems probably won't lose any seats there. hopefully texans will eventually get tired of governor goodhair and his grinchy ways.

it stands to reason that some people moving from blue states to red states will be liberals. i was a liberal when i lived in new york and when i moved to florida and then to texas i was still a liberal . . . and i voted!

i'm just sayin' that blue staters could turn some of those red states purple. it could happen!

ellen fl

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. NC and VA have definitley become less red

Both states are growing, and Obama carried each of them.

[FBaggins]

9. Definitely?

Did the fact that Reagan won Massachusetts (twice) mean that the state had "definitely become less blue"? Of course not. Obama winning doesn't make the states less "red", it means that he was enough of a better candidate that he picked up even some red states.

I live in NC and can remind you that we just lost the state House and Senate for the first time in over a century. The president may very well win here again (at least, we'll work hard to see it happen), but we are no less "red".

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Most state-wide elected officials in NC are Democrats

[FBaggins]

14. Only because they didn't stand for election last month.

I can tell you that they're quite concerned right now (and praying that the President will win with long coattails)

Burr's seat has switched parties every time it was up in the last 50+ years... yet he held it (making him the only republican not names Helms to ever be reelected to the senate)... and he isn't even that popular.

His opponent wasn't a star candidate, but she does hold statewide office.

[Mudoria]

15. Actually I see the state turner a deeper shade of red again

As has been said, we now have a Republican legislature for the first time in over 100 years and most of the counties in my area other than Mecklenburg have elected Repubs to run county government. The President won NC by a sliver in a basically landslide election nationwide. I don't see him repeating that in 2012 unless the Repubs run a complete imbecile again (we can always hope).

[Yavin4]

8. Didn't The Republicans Make Similar Gains After the 2000 Election?

And didn't they lose big time in 2006 and 2008?

Just because certain population areas increase, that doesn't mean that their politics stay the same. In fact, that may mean that these areas become friendlier to Progressive ideas because the areas are becoming more diverse.

[FBaggins]

10. Similar, if somewhat smaller.

The shift is somewhat more pronounced this year and they are in a much better position to take advantage of it (from a redistricting perspective).

And didn't they lose big time in 2006 and 2008?

Certainly (though they also won big this year - in part because of it). Nothing in reapportionment or redistricting guarantees that a good/bad "wave" year won't ever hurt you. This shift will help them in 2012 in the House and Electoral College (which does not guarantee a victory or a net gain of seats), but they could easily lose much of any gain by 2016/2018.

It will depend on the details from the redistricting battles. Republicans could "reach" for extra gains at the expense of making many "safe" seats into competitive ones, or they could try to insulate more incumbents - cutting down on our opportunities for gains, but also putting a ceiling on their own potential gains. In practice, this varies from state to state.

[MadMaddie]

13. Bingo! They are also not talking about the

Hispanic and Black populations in those states. The Republicans are on their last leg with the Hispanic population with the defeat of the Dream Act. We know the Repubs will not talk about it over the next two years.

[great white snark]

11. Meh, the two parties are the same so why does this matter?

:sarcasm:

This is a glaring example of why elections DO matter.