[EL] Flaws in Politico and NY Times articles about gerrymandering

[Lillie Coney]

I think I should clarify my earlier comment.

I do not dispute the data.  I am saying that a candidate can be a factor that should be considered.

There were references to districts changing party, which seemed to suggest the change was inexplicable.

There may be an explanation but to understand it all data should be considered.

I do think that Political Science is fascinating--understanding how to include relevant data with the appropriate weighted mean can yield a clearer picture of past events.

I like  the strong debates that occur on this list--it is refreshing and thought provoking.

Thank you. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 2, 2015, at 6:38 PM, Lillie Coney <coney at lillieconey.net> wrote:
> 
> I offer one more data point the candidate.  
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I think we have established that there is no definitive answer to the questions raised in this thread. There are too many variable factors and too many variable viewpoints – some to justify pre-conceived or partisan  assumptions – to state with certainty and result of the switch from legislative drawn district to commission drawn districts. So, everyone retreat to your neutral corner and hold tight to whatever view of this make you happy.
>> Thanks everyone,
>> Larry
>>  
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of David Ely
>> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 1:07 PM
>> To: 'Rob Richie'; 'Kogan, Vladimir'
>> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
>> Subject: Re: [EL] Flaws in Politico and NY Times articles about gerrymandering
>>  
>> 2008 and 2012 were both strong Dem years with a statewide landslide result so they create a weak partisan index. You should compare the by district results for a strong partisan index based on close statewide elections from the 2000’s.  Or just look at the by district results in the 2012 Attorney General contest.
>>  
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Richie
>> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 12:13 PM
>> To: Kogan, Vladimir
>> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
>> Subject: Re: [EL] Flaws in Politico and NY Times articles about gerrymandering
>>  
>> Here's some relevant information:
>>  
>> 1. California congressional districts and competition: When you look at the 2012 presidential elections and use that as a basis for measuring partisanship (the "partisan index" FairVote pioneered in the popular  press in 1997 and that Charlie Cook later that year adapted to the Cook PVI), there's actually no increase in competition in California from the districts as used in 2008 and those in 2012. My former colleague Devin McCarthy wrote this November 2013 piece about how the underlying partisanship of the congressional districts. The number of swing districts with a 50-53% partisanship (5), those lean districts with 53%-60% partisanship (16) and those landslide districts with 60%-plus partisanship (32, or nearly two-thirds of all districts) were exactly the same in both plans as applied in those two elections.
>>  
>> There was a big shakeup in congressional incumbents in 2012, however, because incumbency was shaken up -- that definitely was new to California and the clearest outcome of the commission. But things settled down a lot in 2014, when all 47 congressional incumbent won (albeit some in close races). With nearly every incumbent "sorted" into a district that matches their own partisan label, expect future incumbent defeats to be largely confined to same-party contests (although no incumbent lost for that reason in 2014).
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150702/725845f3/attachment.html>