Expanded Take on State Reps
More State Rep maps by state. This is probably as far as I'm going to take the mapping of these, even though there's still several more states of interest and I'm sure that the Midwest is likely to have many points of interest if I were to go whole hog. But this the states below cover more than enough turf for my interest in the topic.
A few notes since I don't detail the graphic:
1. The big white splotches in VA, like the smaller ones in LA, are independent State Reps. In each case, there are two such districts in each state.
2. Gray splotches mean there's a vacancy. Coincidentally, the two states with such districts are VA & LA. I realize these don't contrast much with the white splotches and can be difficult to identify. What did you expect for free?
3. Purple in WV ... sheesh ... this state is messed up in more ways than one. Apparently, the lower house districts in this state have varying number of representatives. Most have one, some have two or three ... the maximum is seven. Very weird. Very strange. And, naturally, all in the interest of protecting the Dem majority there. According to Wikipedia, the WV GOP is pushing for 100 single-member districts. I'm more than a little shocked that this setup has survived this long. Oh, and the purple indicates districts with a mixture of D & R representation. It's also worth noting that there are several districts with multiple Ds and multiple Rs that are painted blue or red, accordingly. I've made no effort to distinguish between single-member districts and multi-member districts in this state.
Once again, if you really want to go nuts looking this over, a click below gets you the blown-up version. For even more fun, the Google Earth file is here (7.4M).
(UPDATE: Correction made due to what should have been a glaring error on my part: Tracy King's HD80 here in Texas was colored red prevously. The Texas border is now solidly blue ... as it should be.)
ADD-ON: A tip of the hat to Karl-Thomas for the linkage. I'm not sure this post has the best explanation of "why" I created this, so for the sake of thoroughness, feel free to read this post and the sidenote on this post for more on "why."
Categories
Politics-20097 Comments
Leave a comment
Great work! To increase contrast, how about using green for independent and white for vacant?
Not a bad idea. I'll touch up the GE file once I get to the office in the morning.
Interesting, but deceptive because of popluation distribution unless you adjust each district in each state to be equal in size (assuming each district has approximately the same number of people, as in Texas).
You must be young becuase you obviously do not know poltical history.
Fifteen years ago this map was decidedly BLUE. Itis far more in balance now than it ever was before.
May of the blue areas are havily minority have have been that way seemingly forever, especially in Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama.
Pickles,
I'm not sure why you choose to start off with both a faulty assumption and an insult. The map is designed to be self-explanatory and I make no claim that that contradicts the "solid Democratic south" that many of these states constituted previous to 1964.
For the record: I'm 41, have been politically involved for over two decades, and I'm more than happy to compare my grasp of political history with anyone in the blogosphere, save for Ed Kilgore (though I do think I could give him a good run).
As for the bulk of these districts being "havily minority," I think it's a contentious point, particularly in the very states you identify. Generally speaking, the states where the GOP have consolidated their hold on State Rep seats are far more likely to see the remaining Dem seats held by minority Dems. That's certainly the case in Texas, and I don't doubt it will show in the case of Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. But in the case of Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas, I think it's a safe bet that you'll find a remaining sizable portion of Anglo Dems, many who may not even be representing majority-minority districts. Besides, if we're going to base the claim that the expanse of geography predestines a region as Dem-friendly, then there's a very curious case of why Mississippi has so many GOP statewide electeds despite the 2000 census results.
Just so you know, my point in beginning this research wasn't to show that the situation today is better for Democrats than it was in 1960 or 1970. The purpose is to show how the higher-level success of the GOP in larger districts masks the remaining strength of the Democratic Party in the south. In other words, I expect to see that much of the geography represented by Dems in the lower house will have GOP State Senators and/or Congressmen.
Another takeaway from this research, I think, ought to be the realization that what constitutes the Democratic Party isn't the same thing that many urban liberals are likely to think of in terms of who's a Democrat. The party still has some evidently deep roots in moderate, and even conservative areas, that don't look like they've completely evaporated. And it should also be noted that many of these states have term limits, which eliminates the ability of a long-term incumbent to hold a district ad infinitum.
To a point, you're correct. Typically, the "population distribution" mask favors the GOP due to greater support in rural/small town areas. That would leave the more compact, likelier urban districts to be packed with Dems. Eyeballing the DFW region, you get a sense of that.
But the expanse of blue throughout many of the SEC states doesn't fit that model. The compact urban seats (Dem) correlate with the compact suburban seats (GOP) while the two parties trade off rural areas depending on historical support and demographic settlement patterns of years past (think German settlement between Houston & Austin or the Union-friendly/GOP-preferred areas around Appalachia).
The fact that there isn't a greater amount of red on this map is very telling for those reasons.
Awesome map! Thanks! Would've never guessed Northern Kentucky would be solidly democrat. I thought that was always one of the few solid Republican areas in the state. Haha also kinda interesting how all the Arkansas democrats just suddenly end at the Missouri border