Gerrymandering arms race

[VaporTrail]

Messed around with AI to get some actual data. 

The important data is the last column, which shows the difference in % of republican held seats from the % of popular vote for that state. This number essentially shows you how badly each state is gerrymandered. The further from zero, the worse your state is. Negative numbers indicate Democrat favor and positive numbers indicate Republican favor. I've sorted the whole chart by most populous state. As you go lower in the chart, the data in the last column becomes less useful because the total number of house reps per state drops. 

Of the states that have 10 or more house reps

• Virginia shows almost no difference between popular vote and house rep breakdown
• Illinois has the biggest difference

As a whole, the country sucks at minimizing the effect of gerrymandering.

2024 U.S. House Election Results and Presidential Popular Vote by State (Sorted by Population)

State	Population (2023 Est.)	Total House Seats	Democratic House Reps	Democratic % of State Seats	Republican House Reps	Republican % of State Seats	Democratic Vote % (Harris)	Republican Vote % (Trump)	Republican House % - Trump Vote %
California	38,965,193	52	40	76.92%	12	23.08%	58.47%	38.33%	-15.25%
Texas	30,503,301	38	13	34.21%	25	65.79%	42.46%	56.14%	9.65%
Florida	22,610,726	28	8	28.57%	20	71.43%	42.99%	56.09%	15.34%
New York	19,571,216	26	16	61.54%	10	38.46%	55.91%	43.31%	-4.85%
Pennsylvania	12,961,683	17	9	52.94%	8	47.06%	48.66%	50.37%	-3.31%
Illinois	12,549,689	17	14	82.35%	3	17.65%	54.37%	43.47%	-25.82%
Ohio	11,785,935	15	5	33.33%	10	66.67%	43.93%	55.14%	11.53%
Georgia	11,029,227	14	5	35.71%	9	64.29%	48.53%	50.73%	13.56%
North Carolina	10,835,491	14	7	50.00%	7	50.00%	47.65%	50.86%	-0.86%
Michigan	10,030,722	13	6	46.15%	7	53.85%	48.31%	49.73%	4.12%
New Jersey	9,290,841	12	9	75.00%	3	25.00%	51.97%	46.06%	-21.06%
Virginia	8,715,698	11	6	54.55%	5	45.45%	51.83%	46.05%	-0.60%
Washington	7,812,880	10	8	80.00%	2	20.00%	57.23%	39.01%	-19.01%
Arizona	7,431,344	9	3	33.33%	6	66.67%	46.69%	52.22%	14.45%
Tennessee	7,126,489	9	1	11.11%	8	88.89%	34.47%	64.19%	24.70%
Massachusetts	7,001,399	9	9	100.00%	0	0.00%	61.22%	36.02%	-36.02%
Indiana	6,862,199	9	2	22.22%	7	77.78%	39.62%	58.58%	19.20%
Missouri	6,196,156	8	2	25.00%	6	75.00%	40.08%	58.49%	16.51%
Maryland	6,180,253	8	7	87.50%	1	12.50%	62.62%	34.08%	-21.58%
Wisconsin	5,910,955	8	2	25.00%	6	75.00%	48.84%	49.70%	25.30%
Colorado	5,877,610	8	5	62.50%	3	37.50%	54.13%	43.14%	-5.64%
Minnesota	5,737,915	8	4	50.00%	4	50.00%	50.92%	46.68%	3.32%
South Carolina	5,373,555	7	1	14.29%	6	85.71%	40.36%	58.23%	27.48%
Alabama	5,108,468	7	1	14.29%	6	85.71%	34.10%	64.57%	21.14%
Louisiana	4,573,749	6	1	16.67%	5	83.33%	38.21%	60.22%	23.11%
Kentucky	4,526,332	6	1	16.67%	5	83.33%	33.94%	64.47%	18.86%
Oregon	4,233,358	6	4	66.67%	2	33.33%	55.27%	40.97%	-7.64%
Oklahoma	4,053,824	5	0	0.00%	5	100.00%	31.90%	66.16%	33.84%
Connecticut	3,617,176	5	5	100.00%	0	0.00%	56.40%	41.89%	-41.89%
Utah	3,417,734	4	0	0.00%	4	100.00%	37.79%	59.38%	40.62%
Iowa	3,207,004	4	0	0.00%	4	100.00%	42.52%	55.73%	44.27%
Nevada	3,194,176	4	3	75.00%	1	25.00%	47.49%	50.59%	-25.59%
Arkansas	3,067,732	4	0	0.00%	4	100.00%	33.56%	64.20%	35.80%
Mississippi	2,939,690	4	1	25.00%	3	75.00%	38.00%	60.89%	14.11%
Kansas	2,944,376	4	1	25.00%	3	75.00%	41.04%	57.16%	17.84%
New Mexico	2,114,371	3	3	100.00%	0	0.00%	51.85%	45.85%	-45.85%
Nebraska	1,978,379	3	0	0.00%	3	100.00%	39.06%	59.63%	40.37%
Idaho	1,964,374	2	0	0.00%	2	100.00%	30.39%	66.89%	33.11%
West Virginia	1,770,071	2	0	0.00%	2	100.00%	28.11%	69.98%	30.02%
Hawaii	1,435,138	2	2	100.00%	0	0.00%	60.59%	37.48%	-37.48%
New Hampshire	1,402,054	2	2	100.00%	0	0.00%	50.65%	47.87%	-47.87%
Maine	1,395,722	2	2	100.00%	0	0.00%	52.44%	45.50%	-45.50%
Montana	1,132,366	2	0	0.00%	2	100.00%	38.46%	58.39%	41.61%
Rhode Island	1,095,962	2	2	100.00%	0	0.00%	55.54%	41.76%	-41.76%
Delaware	1,030,132	1	1	100.00%	0	0.00%	56.63%	41.89%	-41.89%
South Dakota	919,318	1	0	0.00%	1	100.00%	34.24%	63.43%	36.57%
North Dakota	783,926	1	0	0.00%	1	100.00%	30.51%	66.96%	33.04%
Vermont	647,464	1	1	100.00%	0	0.00%	63.83%	32.32%	-32.32%
Wyoming	586,485	1	0	0.00%	1	100.00%	25.84%	71.60%	28.40%
Total	331,589,273	435	215	49.43%	220	50.57%	48.3%	49.8%	0.77%

[MLD Woody]

@vaportrail said:

Messed around with AI to get some actual data. 

The important data is the last column, which shows the difference in % of republican held seats from the % of popular vote for that state. This number essentially shows you how badly each state is gerrymandered. I've sorted the whole chart by most populous state. As you go lower in the chart, the data in the last column becomes less useful because the total number of house reps per state drops. 

Of the states that have 10 or more house reps

• Virginia shows almost no difference between popular vote and house rep breakdown
• Illinois has the biggest difference

As a whole, the country sucks at minimizing the effect of gerrymandering.

2024 U.S. House Election Results and Presidential Popular Vote by State (Sorted by Population)

State	Population (2023 Est.)	Total House Seats	Democratic House Reps	Democratic % of State Seats	Republican House Reps	Republican % of State Seats	Democratic Vote % (Harris)	Republican Vote % (Trump)	Republican House % - Trump Vote %
California	38,965,193	52	40	76.92%	12	23.08%	58.47%	38.33%	-15.25%
Texas	30,503,301	38	13	34.21%	25	65.79%	42.46%	56.14%	9.65%
Florida	22,610,726	28	8	28.57%	20	71.43%	42.99%	56.09%	15.34%
New York	19,571,216	26	16	61.54%	10	38.46%	55.91%	43.31%	-4.85%
Pennsylvania	12,961,683	17	9	52.94%	8	47.06%	48.66%	50.37%	-3.31%
Illinois	12,549,689	17	14	82.35%	3	17.65%	54.37%	43.47%	-25.82%
Ohio	11,785,935	15	5	33.33%	10	66.67%	43.93%	55.14%	11.53%
Georgia	11,029,227	14	5	35.71%	9	64.29%	48.53%	50.73%	13.56%
North Carolina	10,835,491	14	7	50.00%	7	50.00%	47.65%	50.86%	-0.86%
Michigan	10,030,722	13	6	46.15%	7	53.85%	48.31%	49.73%	4.12%
New Jersey	9,290,841	12	9	75.00%	3	25.00%	51.97%	46.06%	-21.06%
Virginia	8,715,698	11	6	54.55%	5	45.45%	51.83%	46.05%	-0.60%
Washington	7,812,880	10	8	80.00%	2	20.00%	57.23%	39.01%	-19.01%
Arizona	7,431,344	9	3	33.33%	6	66.67%	46.69%	52.22%	14.45%
Tennessee	7,126,489	9	1	11.11%	8	88.89%	34.47%	64.19%	24.70%
Massachusetts	7,001,399	9	9	100.00%	0	0.00%	61.22%	36.02%	-36.02%
Indiana	6,862,199	9	2	22.22%	7	77.78%	39.62%	58.58%	19.20%
Missouri	6,196,156	8	2	25.00%	6	75.00%	40.08%	58.49%	16.51%
Maryland	6,180,253	8	7	87.50%	1	12.50%	62.62%	34.08%	-21.58%
Wisconsin	5,910,955	8	2	25.00%	6	75.00%	48.84%	49.70%	25.30%
Colorado	5,877,610	8	5	62.50%	3	37.50%	54.13%	43.14%	-5.64%
Minnesota	5,737,915	8	4	50.00%	4	50.00%	50.92%	46.68%	3.32%
South Carolina	5,373,555	7	1	14.29%	6	85.71%	40.36%	58.23%	27.48%
Alabama	5,108,468	7	1	14.29%	6	85.71%	34.10%	64.57%	21.14%
Louisiana	4,573,749	6	1	16.67%	5	83.33%	38.21%	60.22%	23.11%
Kentucky	4,526,332	6	1	16.67%	5	83.33%	33.94%	64.47%	18.86%
Oregon	4,233,358	6	4	66.67%	2	33.33%	55.27%	40.97%	-7.64%
Oklahoma	4,053,824	5	0	0.00%	5	100.00%	31.90%	66.16%	33.84%
Connecticut	3,617,176	5	5	100.00%	0	0.00%	56.40%	41.89%	-41.89%
Utah	3,417,734	4	0	0.00%	4	100.00%	37.79%	59.38%	40.62%
Iowa	3,207,004	4	0	0.00%	4	100.00%	42.52%	55.73%	44.27%
Nevada	3,194,176	4	3	75.00%	1	25.00%	47.49%	50.59%	-25.59%
Arkansas	3,067,732	4	0	0.00%	4	100.00%	33.56%	64.20%	35.80%
Mississippi	2,939,690	4	1	25.00%	3	75.00%	38.00%	60.89%	14.11%
Kansas	2,944,376	4	1	25.00%	3	75.00%	41.04%	57.16%	17.84%
New Mexico	2,114,371	3	3	100.00%	0	0.00%	51.85%	45.85%	-45.85%
Nebraska	1,978,379	3	0	0.00%	3	100.00%	39.06%	59.63%	40.37%
Idaho	1,964,374	2	0	0.00%	2	100.00%	30.39%	66.89%	33.11%
West Virginia	1,770,071	2	0	0.00%	2	100.00%	28.11%	69.98%	30.02%
Hawaii	1,435,138	2	2	100.00%	0	0.00%	60.59%	37.48%	-37.48%
New Hampshire	1,402,054	2	2	100.00%	0	0.00%	50.65%	47.87%	-47.87%
Maine	1,395,722	2	2	100.00%	0	0.00%	52.44%	45.50%	-45.50%
Montana	1,132,366	2	0	0.00%	2	100.00%	38.46%	58.39%	41.61%
Rhode Island	1,095,962	2	2	100.00%	0	0.00%	55.54%	41.76%	-41.76%
Delaware	1,030,132	1	1	100.00%	0	0.00%	56.63%	41.89%	-41.89%
South Dakota	919,318	1	0	0.00%	1	100.00%	34.24%	63.43%	36.57%
North Dakota	783,926	1	0	0.00%	1	100.00%	30.51%	66.96%	33.04%
Vermont	647,464	1	1	100.00%	0	0.00%	63.83%	32.32%	-32.32%
Wyoming	586,485	1	0	0.00%	1	100.00%	25.84%	71.60%	28.40%
Total	331,589,273	435	215	49.43%	220	50.57%	48.3%	49.8%	0.77%

I'd think you'd have to take into account the likelihood of a registered Dem vs a registered Rep to vote. 

It's also only based on actual party registration, not political leanings. Obviously the data can't be perfect though. --- read it wrong, that's not how the data is set up

You could try comparing it to how the state voted in the presidential election. --- nevermind, I see that's how it was setup now. Unfortunately that would add the voter turnout element. 

Or how they voted for senators. But that's not perfect either. 

Interesting though. But I am still hesitant to just use AI gathered data 

[Jax]

Kind of makes you understand why it was so important for democrats to flood certain areas with illegals.

[VaporTrail]

@mld-woody said:

But I am still hesitant to just use AI gathered data 

It's actually really damn good at parsing raw data. For now, I draw the line at letting AI interpret the data, it's still susceptible to unknown biases. But when I need to find an exact Medicare guideline for them to cover a specific service, I let AI find what I need and verify. 

[Westside Steve]

@vaportrail said:

It's actually really damn good at parsing raw data. For now, I draw the line at letting AI interpret the data, it's still susceptible to unknown biases. But when I need to find an exact Medicare guideline for them to cover a specific service, I let AI find what I need and verify. 

Well, I have no complaint with a I, and yes, I know. It doesn't know the difference between bullshit and straight up once in a while. But on the other hand it's not actively twisted toward left or right. Like google.

Of course, it's always funny to see people switch hats on gerrymandering, depending on whose side benefits.

WSS

[JAFBF]

@fairhooker11 said:

Tweet_Video

[hammertime]

@jafbf said:

Tweet_Video

Nothing ever happens to these people.

ill wait.

and hope.

[MLD Woody]

@vaportrail said:

It's actually really damn good at parsing raw data. For now, I draw the line at letting AI interpret the data, it's still susceptible to unknown biases. But when I need to find an exact Medicare guideline for them to cover a specific service, I let AI find what I need and verify. 

I absolutely would not implicitly trust whatever data it spits out. At most I use it now as an advanced Wikipedia, making sure to ask for sources, and then directly checking each source. 

Find, don't trust, and verify 

I'm very concerned about students coming through school now with the crutch of AI. This probably sounds like older generations complaining about calculators, but those calculators didn't do the thinking for you. I'm in the consulting world and I'm seeing it with the analysts right out of school excessively relying on AI. 

It's a weird situation too, because their jobs are going to be on the chopping block for AI when more sr consultants can handle client relationships, speak as experts, and do the conceptual problem solving. An AI can spit out pages and Excel models. But, if you let an AI replace these entry level roles you don't have a base to grow into leadership. 

[MLD Woody]

@westside-steve said:

Well, I have no complaint with a I, and yes, I know. It doesn't know the difference between bullshit and straight up once in a while. But on the other hand it's not actively twisted toward left or right. Like google.

Of course, it's always funny to see people switch hats on gerrymandering, depending on whose side benefits.

WSS

Depending on the AI you're using it can easily spit out biased responses. Musk's AI is a documented example of this. I would trust any of them implicitly. 

I agree, people should stay firm in their political ideological convictions. That's something not seen on this board though, and that's very clear based on those following MAGA over their supposed conservative principles. 

I oppose all gerrymandering and think all redistricting should be done by a completely independent board at the same frequency of he census. 

[VaporTrail]

@mld-woody said:

I absolutely would not implicitly trust whatever data it spits out. At most I use it now as an advanced Wikipedia, making sure to ask for sources, and then directly checking each source. 

Find, don't trust, and verify 

I'm very concerned about students coming through school now with the crutch of AI. This probably sounds like older generations complaining about calculators, but those calculators didn't do the thinking for you. I'm in the consulting world and I'm seeing it with the analysts right out of school excessively relying on AI. 

It's a weird situation too, because their jobs are going to be on the chopping block for AI when more sr consultants can handle client relationships, speak as experts, and do the conceptual problem solving. An AI can spit out pages and Excel models. But, if you let an AI replace these entry level roles you don't have a base to grow into leadership. 

It's going to be hilarious seeing all these boomers hiring zoomers who are comfortable with AI, but don't bother to verify. A bunch of them are going to see initially passable results, fire all the competent people they don't want to pay, and then be left with zoomie and AI who have no idea what the fuck they're doing. I have already seen a bunch of viral linkedin posts of boomer bosses touting the first half of this scenario. 

[MLD Woody]

@vaportrail said:

It's going to be hilarious seeing all these boomers hiring zoomers who are comfortable with AI, but don't bother to verify. A bunch of them are going to see initially passable results, fire all the competent people they don't want to pay, and then be left with zoomie and AI who have no idea what the fuck they're doing. I have already seen a bunch of viral linkedin posts of boomer bosses touting the first half of this scenario. 

I agree with you here completely. Companies will chase shareholder value by implementing AI and cutting entry level jobs. They'll get that short term boost. 

But long term that's a gap in developing and investing in their future managers and leaders. 

I've seen plenty of early college analysts absolutely crank out work in excel, great models, etc., and then have no idea what the numbers actually mean. AI is only going to make that worse. 

[calfoxwc]

don't worry woodypeckerhead - AI won't affect your job.

[VaporTrail]

Tough to see how getting into this race is a good idea if you're DNC leadership. 

[MLD Woody]

@vaportrail said:

Tough to see how getting into this race is a good idea if you're DNC leadership. 

I don't think they really have a choice. Trump ordered Texas to find more seats, and they did, redistricting norms be damned. I'm sure the party will continue to find ways to stack the deck mid census cycle. 

Dems either do nothing, and massively fall behind, or they do something and fall behind less. 

Reps are playing by their own set of rules and Dems need to wake up to that and fully suit. Or we'll just see more stacking the deck by stretching what's possible in favors of conservatives (gerrymandering, vote suppression, etc)

[calfoxwc]

@mld-woody said:

***FART FART FART***********

Stinking up the forum AGAIN ?

The left/dems shafted republicans in Texas, and are famous for doing the same in California, etc.

fixing it is what is fair.

[Canton Dawg]

@mld-woody said:

I don't think they really have a choice. Trump ordered Texas to find more seats, and they did, redistricting norms be damned. I'm sure the party will continue to find ways to stack the deck mid census cycle. 

Dems either do nothing, and massively fall behind, or they do something and fall behind less. 

Reps are playing by their own set of rules and Dems need to wake up to that and fully suit. Or we'll just see more stacking the deck by stretching what's possible in favors of conservatives (gerrymandering, vote suppression, etc)

Dems do nothing? Are you fucking serious? They wrote the book on gerrymandering.

[JAFBF]

@hammertime said:

Nothing ever happens to these people.

ill wait.

and hope.

Nothing ever happens   .   .   .   

Things are different this time.

[JAFBF]

@vaportrail said:

Tough to see how getting into this race is a good idea if you're DNC leadership. 

It's going to be worse than this, squaring up of Districts is just going to be "Icing on Cake" (later / elsewhere).

[VaporTrail]

@mld-woody said:

I don't think they really have a choice. Trump ordered Texas to find more seats, and they did, redistricting norms be damned. I'm sure the party will continue to find ways to stack the deck mid census cycle. 

Dems either do nothing, and massively fall behind, or they do something and fall behind less. 

Reps are playing by their own set of rules and Dems need to wake up to that and fully suit. Or we'll just see more stacking the deck by stretching what's possible in favors of conservatives (gerrymandering, vote suppression, etc)

I'm not sure how you can take a look at the data and suggest that gerrymandering is only abused by one side. These are the consequences of trying to de-ballot and imprison the guy who most voters wanted in office. 

[calfoxwc]

@vaportrail said:

I'm not sure how you can take a look at the data and suggest that gerrymandering is only abused by one side. These are the consequences of trying to de-ballot and imprison the guy who most voters wanted in office. 

 yet, only one party has allowed our  border to be flooded by millions of UNvatted illegal sombitches, to have a new totally dependent demographic vote-wise.