@@BS-vx8dg I mean, it’s meant for Democrats to win 3 seats, but it would still be possible for Republicans to win all 4 seats in a good year with good candidates.
@@rolandserna7805 Yeah, I know. And yet you say it is the most unfair map you've seen. Have you seen any others? On what basis do you judge these things?
It seems the Democratic gerrymander is geared toward a scenario of a very tight midterm, one where that extra seat could make the difference between a fragile and not as fragile majority, or even the majority if it really comes down to the wire. The scenario where Republicans pick up a seat in Nevada is one where they have already secured the House regardless of how Nevada was sliced and diced.
That is true but NV is not a safe blue state. Them doing this brings in more republican money that could undo their transition to safe blue and all the work that Harry Reid put in.
@@elliot04877 It's not really trending red. It voted twice for Bush and just happened to go for Obama more than Biden. It's a consistently lean D state.
Looks like this exact scenario might end up being decisive for the House as a whole. All three seats held for the Democrats, and by rather thin margins too. It was that close to breaking but the gerrymander actually held up.
As someone who was in a Texas R+15 district designed to under-represent voters in Austin 200+ miles from me, but just got reassigned to a R+20 district..... Compared to the Texas Lege the Nevada gerrymandering looks quaint. Nevada gerrymandering also has a potential for more competitive districts and that's a good thing. Texas worked against that possibility.
It looks like Nevada Democrats' big gamble paid off big time. All three Las Vegas-area seats stayed blue, and by rather slim margins too. This may actually end up deciding control of the House, as under the old map, Democrats would have lost the two competitive suburban districts while being confined to the downtown district. Edit: It didn't. But it helped them narrow McCarthy's slim majority by one or two.
I get why this is interesting but the fact that talking about redistricting like it's sport is fucked... gerrymandering is a somewhat solved problem in other countries. Get an independent districting commission, Enforce shortest split line method, Implement Preferential voting and proportional representation measures. I lean blue but i want a fair system above all else.
That’s my reaction to this series. It’s interesting but also icky in the way it unquestioningly talks about how gerrymandering is being done. I’d prefer larger multi-seat districts. A state like Nevada would have 4 at-large reps, and each voter can select up to 4 candidates they support, top 4 vote getters are the representatives. Could also work with multi-candidate ranked choice, so you select your order and each representative position is selected by first over 50% in an instant runoff, then do it again for the 2nd position and so on.
@@less_likely Except in the US the courts have ruled "one person, one vote". So a multi-seat district is impossible barring a change to the Constitution (good luck with that).
Outwith the power of state legislatures for the US house. They could do it for state races but that probably requires state constitutional amendments in most states. They could introduce ranked choice voting or similar without that much trouble. That helps 3rd parties run without being accused of being spoilers. The 2 parties really don't have incentive to switch to PR. That breaks their single party dominations as most states are safe for one party. Even when it is a state that swings, the 2 parties are united against 3rd parties usually. The 2 parties get donations from rich donors to act as gatekeepers and enact what they want. More parties and more competitive elections endangers that.
Why doesn't this (i.e., all-or-nothing maps) happen more often? This is the first time I've heard about it, and there should be an incentive to take risks with every map. Are the people who draw them just risk-averse, usually?
There is a history to this. In the past they sometimes went balls to the wall doing this and a few % shift in the popular vote led to them losing 30% or more of their seats. Sometimes it worked out but other times it was disastrous. Republicans saw what happened last decade when populations moved plus there was a blue wave and they loss a bunch of seats. So they were shoring up seats more to limit dem gains even in a wave year. We've seen competitive seats halve this cycle. That's not really good for democracy. Where is the incentive to take risks? Those tend to be the exception. eg. NH's republican governor is vetoing the new republican passed map as it creates a safe seat for each party. For decades the 2 seats have been drawn competitive and control switches. I think people there prefer that.
@@theuglykwan Ohh, interesting! Thanks. By "incentive" I just meant the existence of the tradeoff, i.e., you do in fact get more seats if you take risks; didn't mean "incentive to choose the risky side of the tradeoff". Strongly agree that having fewer competitive seats is bad.
Think of political parties as companies. They can get a guaranteed ROI with safe seats, or they can go the start up route and gamble. If they lose, they've not only lost seats, they've lost incumbency and their best employees. Once a rep has lost they often don't run again. Given that Nevada won't get another chance until 2031, this seems like a big gamble.
incumbency advantage means that if you lose a seat in a bad year, it can be more difficult to win it back in a neutral year- when you'd need it the most
This is still gerrymandering lol. They want to maximize the expected value of the seats from Nevada. Since they expect to lose in a lot of places anyway, losing in Nevada means that they're fucked nationally anyway. This allows them to win a congressional majority in a close national race. If the GOP sweeps Nevada, national democrats don't fucking care anyway because they already lost everywhere else.
@@veri745 my understanding is that anything in 5 points as competitive. So before with the +22 seat, they had one guaranteed. which would mean 1 dem, 1 rep and 2 contested. Now it is 3 contested and 1 rep. I don't see that as a 'win' for democrats. Their maximum win (3) could happen, but their maximum lose (4) could also happen which makes this like not gerrymandering at all. Meanwhile they do not 'have' a seat anymore. Where is the 'advantage'? I don't see one.
@@tropicalpenguin8446 maybe it isn't gerrymandered "well", but they've still chosen the voters and matched the boundaries to them, rather than the other way around
Depends on how you define fair. If fair means the seats are more competitive, then certainly. If fair means they more accurately divide areas into regions that better reflect population groups...that's tougher to say. Regardless, when Democrats (or Republicans) engage in gerrymandering, I kinda doubt the thought process is about fairness, but more about "how can we make the map best for us?" And that's the interesting part imo.
True but that wasn't the intent . And if they don't get at least two seats they will have screwed themselves and be unable to blame anyone but themselves . Not Fox, not trump , not nobody else .
@@richardg8651 well of course politicians have to earn their votes in the first place, so they can't blame anyone else anyway, but the gerrymander is never the whole story.
I support Nevada's map. It is not biased towards Democrats, but biased towards competitive districts (1 leans Republican, 1 leans Democrat, 2 are highly competitive). It encourages people to vote, and is proportional to Nevada's partisan makeup. Contrast that with the sh*tty district map of Utah to the east
Yes it's an attempt at gerrymandering but the result is POTENTIALLY more competitive districts. ..... This potential gives Democrats and Republicans more incentive to vote and all candidates more incentive to appeal to all voters instead of just party primary voters. Possibly...
@@michaelbirkett4932 Yes and I'm not sure if anyone has compiled partisan statistics, however, most of the outflux is from the cities, not the rural areas if I recall right. And those cities tend to be 85%+ left leaning.
@@jeremiahblake3949 I've heard though that Californians leaving are mostly GOP, republicans unhappy with living in liberal cities are leaving to areas they believe to be more conservative and in-line with their beliefs. Can't quite say for Nevada but have definitely heard from TX, TN and ID.
America needs a new political System with multiple parties and power devided. The Swiss system would be a good model. The people have much more influence and can decide on just about everything.
What they should’ve done is put the bluest parts of reno into a blue district and more of rural Nevada in the red one, which would solidify all 3 democratic incumbents if done right.
I drew a map on DRA like that, and managed to make one R+30 district, and three D+15 districts. The issue is that it requires a narrow path from Reno to west Clark County, one that hugs the California border only a few hundred feet at times.
@@zflawless1772 As a Democrat point of view you might be happy about it but from a democracy point of view it's not. Gerrymandering hinders democracy. A political party shouldn't be able to draw up congressional maps because 9 times out of 10 it leads to an unfair advantage
STILL BETTER THAN TEXAS As someone who was in a Texas R+15 district designed to under-represent voters in Austin 200+ miles from me, but just got reassigned to a R+20 district..... Compared to the Texas Lege the Nevada gerrymandering looks quaint. Nevada gerrymandering also has a potential for more competitive districts and that's a good thing. Texas worked against that possibility.
Look up gerrymandering. The party in power can strategically slice up a state to unfairly give themselves more representatives. A great example is Tennessee, who cut Jim Cooper's district into three Republican districts bringing their total number of districts from 2 Democrat, 7 Republican to 1 and 8. That's why it matters.
@@IkeOkerekeNews It literally moved to the right in 2012, 2016, and 2020. It voted to the right of the country in 2020 after not doing so since 2004. How is that not moving right over the last decade?
Isn't "this map is only very slightly tilted" another way of saying "this map is quite fair"? Why is this being called a gerrymander when it's making the map more fair?
Nobody will be shocked if all 3 of those seats fell to Republican hands in November. Also RIP to Titus’ Vegas district. No congressperson should ever be fucked over because of a bad map.
No congressperson should feel safe in their seat. I think NV is districted pretty fairly and hope NH is redistricted with two competitive districts in that same manner. Safe blue/red seats encourage complacency and corruption, NV's map seems to discourage that.
because it is more competative and encoruges voters to ingage in democracy? wheras republican gerrymandaring tend to focus on keeping all the minorities in one district so that they dont have as much voting power as white conservatives
I think one of the voting bills in congress would make non-partisan redistricting commissions a regular thing nation wide. But you can guess which party doesn't want that to pass...
@@pedanticchicken2117 Are you referring to Article I Section 4? "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators." If this is what you are referring to, how do you explain the exception made for Congress to "at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations"? It seems to indicate, to me, that nationwide redistricting commissions for federal offices would indeed be constitutional.
i don't get how it went from r+1, r+5, and d+22 to d+5, d+2, and d+4 like what happened to the 9 extra percent dems should have.. the math doesn't add up
Think of it in terms of margin, with Republican lean being a negative number to make the math easier -16 + -1 + -5 + 22 = -13 + 4 + 2 + 5, with some rounding error.
I live in CD 1 near downtown, and this is the first time I can remember in 30 years where we actually have a chance to take it back! Yippee! Dumb move, Dems!!!
That also assumes that Nevada stay a lean Dem state it could also trend 1-3 points right on the presidental level would could make the Dem leads narrower like 3-5 points and Republicans would likely Nevadas 3rd making it 2-2
Titus should hold her current seat, but the outlying 3 & 4 (she actually represented an earlier version of 3 from 2007-2011) may be more iffy if Democrats face a strong enough headwind.
I think many rural voters see no point in voting now. Reno and Vegas basically own the state and whatever they want is what the whole state gets. I hope this incentivizes them to vote 😭
they did something similar in New Mexico, eliminating the 1 Republican seat leaving 2 competitve and 1 lean blue seat. I feel like that made more sense when Biden's approval rating was positive and now it looks like they fucked up. Although over the course of the decade it could pay off who knows.
One upside is that is may force fewer radical candidates. They can't just try and out crazy the other candidates in their party like what happens in "safe" districts since they actually have to compete across the aisle.
@@coreyeverett5500 I agree with this as a matter of principle, just saying tactically it is risky when every seat counts in trying to keep control of the House.
@@johnberk9315 Oh definitely. I think NM specifically designed their districts around the idea of a very close call. As in, if their slightly-D leaning districts fall to Republicans, there won't be a majority anyway.
@@isairodriguez2275 California is drawn by independent commission, New York and Illinois has less influence on the house than Texas, it makes sense to talk about Texas more than the other two if you have to choose one as an example of bad gerrymandering
@@fos1451 Yes, they have less influence, but Texas gives a closer representation for democrats than Illinois or New York does for Republicans. 34% of Texas' representatives sent to congress will be Democrat, since they did win 46% of the vote in 2020. While Illinois 17% percent will be Republican even though they won 40% of the vote in 2020. Thats a 23% difference. Same with New York, only 15% of the representatives will be Republican while 38% voted Republican in 2020. Thats a another 23% difference. I just want to point out that FiveThirtyEight is biased for the left. So nobody should feel like they a neutral source of information.
I like how on the Texas video, you attacked the gerrymandering and explained how bad it is, but in this video you're acting like it's a good normal thing
Because while it is a gamble, as the theme of the video highlights, to benefit Democrats it still gives Republicans a fighting chance. The video also points out how it negatively affects Latino voices. Texas and Republicans are worse because their goal has been to squash and dilute as much opposition as possible with the effect of creating fewer and fewer competitive districts. Competition is healthy. Lack of competition pushes parties further to their extreme since there's no incentive to appeal to more moderate voters on both sides of the aisle.
I don't understand why they drew it such that the rural northern district has *less* Republican lean than before. Like, that's where you're supposed to put Republican votes in order to be wasted.
@@devy2 So you'd then have one of the districts snake across the California border to connect Reno and part of Las Vegas? That's honestly what they could have done if they were gonna gerrymander the state anyway.
@@devy2 the votes didn't exist for that in the legislature. Reno and Las Vegas may be in the same state, but they are worlds apart, which breeds parochialism. I doubt Reno Democrats would have voted for that.
Lol they don't need to But I could imaging if a party to the left of the Democrats emerges as a serious threat in Cali they could try and dilute their votebase so they can't win any seats.
Efficiency gap goes down, and these clowns at Five Thirty Eight are criticizing it? Producing dumb podcasts with Galen asking inane questions and now making dumb videos where the efficiency gap is actually going down (something we think is good normally) but saying it's somehow bad?
The popular term for being overly ambitious with a gerrymander is "dummymandering." All districts are drawn with purposes in mind, whether they're shaped like dragons or not.
That's not considered gerrymandering, that's called drawing the map the way it's supposed to be drawn. Democrats are taking a gamble in states where they do this because if Republicans gerrymander the heck out of the lines like they did in Texas and Florida, Democrats risk losing seats to moderate Republicans while Republicans steal seats in heavily gerrymandered areas. I feel bad for Dina Titus now she's going to have to work for a living instead of living on easy street like my Rep does.
I feel you on that. I saw a black woman whining about Wisconsin because she was no longer going to be living on easy street but now her wish came back true when the Supreme court struck down 7 black districts. People like her love to throw red meat at black community and her kind have no intention whatsoever to talk about real issue in black community. So when she realized that she is going to talk about really issue she start to whine about being gerrymandered. Gerrymandering exist because of people who want to secure their districts at the expense of the rest and outright lies. Same people who turn around and throw red meats at people that if it was not because of Gerrymandering we would have pass this and that are the problems. I like Nevada map and New Mexico maps. If Democrats win those seats it mean those people take their job seriously and if they lose they do not deserve to be in congress in first place. I am in Virginia where a dude run on Bernie Sanders platform and won in red state house districts. How did Biden won Florida districts and the woman over there lost her congressional seat? It mean those did not like you and it have nothing to do with crazy shit AOC said about defunding the police. That did not stop DNC blame games. So Gerrymandering is a less issue. Corporates money is the issue.
