METHODOLOGY
Get more FiveThirtyEight
There’s a lot of complaining about gerrymandering, but what should districts look like? We went back to the drawing board and drew a set of alternative congressional maps for the entire country. Each map has a different goal: One is designed to encourage competitive elections, for example, and another to maximize the number of majority-minority districts. See how changes to district boundaries could radically alter the partisan and racial makeup of the U.S. House — without a single voter moving or switching parties. How we did this »
Show current district boundaries
Gerrymander districts to favor Republicans
Gerrymander districts to favor Democrats
Match partisan breakdown of seats to electorate
Promote highly competitive elections
Maximize number of majority-minority districts
Make district shapes compact (using an algorithm)
Make districts compact while following county borders
← National map
Chance of being represented by either party
Usually Democratic districts | Highly competitive districts | Usually Republican districts | |
---|---|---|---|
Current |
Usually Democratic districts | Highly competitive districts | Usually Republican districts | |
---|---|---|---|
Current |
The expected number of seats controlled by Democrats and Republicans, based on their long-term likelihood of winning each district
Map | Dem. | GOP |
---|---|---|
Democratic gerrymander | ||
Proportionally partisan | ||
Majority minority | ||
Highly competitive | ||
Compact (borders) | ||
Compact (algorithmic) | ||
Current | ||
Republican gerrymander |
How the maps compare on district competitiveness, minority makeup, respect for local borders, compactness and the efficiency gap, an attempt to gauge how politically gerrymandered a set of districts is
Proportional | R+1% |
Competitive | D+3% |
Compact (algorithmic) | R+3% |
Compact (borders) | R+4% |
Majority minority | R+4% |
Current | R+7% |
Dem. gerrymander | D+9% |
GOP gerrymander | R+18% |
Competitive | 242 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 104 |
Compact (borders) | 99 |
Proportional | 82 |
Majority minority | 82 |
Current | 72 |
Dem. gerrymander | 27 |
GOP gerrymander | 21 |
Majority minority | 143 |
Dem. gerrymander | 98 |
Current | 95 |
Proportional | 93 |
Compact (borders) | 92 |
Competitive | 91 |
GOP gerrymander | 90 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 89 |
Compact (borders) | 380 |
Current | 621 |
Proportional | 659 |
Competitive | 661 |
GOP gerrymander | 734 |
Majority minority | 777 |
Dem. gerrymander | 892 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 1,660 |
Compact (borders) | 1 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 2 |
Competitive | 3 |
Proportional | 4 |
GOP gerrymander | 5 |
Majority minority | 6 |
Dem. gerrymander | 7 |
Current | 8 |
The number of districts by majority racial or ethnic group and the projected number of nonwhite representatives, based on election results since 2006
Majority-nonwhite districts | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Map | Majority-white districts | African-American | Hispanic/Latino | Asian/Pacific Islander | Coalition | All | Majority-nonwhite districts | Projected nonwhite House members |
Majority minority | 292 | 37 | 41 | 4 | 61 | 143 | 94.8 | |
Proportionally partisan | 342 | 22 | 31 | 0 | 40 | 93 | 86.2 | |
Current | 340 | 19 | 30 | 1 | 45 | 95 | 85.7 | |
Democratic gerrymander | 337 | 25 | 31 | 1 | 41 | 98 | 85.4 | |
Republican gerrymander | 345 | 23 | 32 | 0 | 35 | 90 | 84.6 | |
Highly competitive | 344 | 21 | 30 | 0 | 40 | 91 | 81.2 | |
Compact (borders) | 343 | 10 | 19 | 1 | 62 | 92 | 78.3 | |
Compact (algorithmic) | 346 | 8 | 24 | 1 | 56 | 89 | 76.2 |
Comments