CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 04, 2011 05:10 AM UTC
7 Comments
At the very least you are consistent with trying to marginalize unaffiliated voters in the redistricting process – a group that is nearly 1/3 of registered voters in Colorado. The DPI assumes two voter affiliations instead of three with the third having it’s own theoretical DPI not used in your analysis. Your stats presume voters are static. Further, the “static” data being used is incomplete. The only point not flawed in your analysis is the statement, “Nothing is ever that cut and dry.”
The Democrats have presented a map that includes compactness, common shared interests based on census population demographics and economic drivers as related to each other statewide, and national interests – reminder these are Congressional Districts – as a whole. As a bonus the Democrats map creates 7 competitive districts, because registered voters – Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliaters – are disbursed effectively based on regional interests.
Competitive is strictly a partisan term. Why aren’t you using tangible data – like census statistics and demographics – to qualify compactness and common interests within both maps? Instead you offer intangible data – DPI probability and statistics to prove/disprove competiveness; framing the discussion about redistricting into party controlled divides within the districts. Coincidence?
The Republicans have not made any public statments qualifying their maps as having any connection to compactness and common shared interests with their map beyond their own limited scope of stacking the odds. And, splitting CD3 really rains on their parade based on the lines redrawn in the metro area.
And that conversation was about partisan competiveness.
That does not detract from any of the other issues you bring up, it is just they are a different part of the conversation.
And actually the analysis does take into account the unaffiliated voter and is based on tangible date: vote outcomes. In most congressional races there are only two choices, a Democrat or a Republican. Using a DPI/RPI process measures, to the extent possible, the leanings of all of the voters, including the unaffiliated ones, to one side or the other. Of course there are many other factors that determine the final result of any given election, but for the purposes of redistricting, there has to be some mathematical basis of understanding as a foundation.
And bottom line, for the legislators who are voting on the bills, partisanship is typically their prime motivator. That part is sad, but it is the way it is.
It certainly blows Heath’s “competitive districts” talking point out of the water.
I use a slightly different method to calculate DPI, which compares D and R performance in CU Regent at Large and other low-profile statewide elections. That tells me how the unaffiliateds vote.
But getting statewide precinct-level election results might be outside of your budget and/or your available time; to do it right, at the Census Block or even Block Group level, the data are simply unavailable.
Still, a worthwhile and informative exercise.
But the legislature chose these races so I stuck with what they doing in order to compare apples to apples.
the use of the Senate race. Too much advertising. A downticket race like Treasurer or SoS would have been a better tool for them to use.
Can you provide the DPI/RPI figures for your map?
I am interested in seeing if yours is a balance between the two proposals.
My map was heavy D in CD’s 1 and 2 and R in CD’s 4 and 5 (I didn’t calculate the exact DPI but it would have been more than 15)
For the competitive ones:
CD3: -5.23
CD6: -2.65
CD7: +2.73
I am no longer pushing for my map, and supporting HB1319 instead