METHODOLOGY
![Methodology](/redistricting-maps/images/gerryinteractivemethod-4x3-transparent.png?v=6b24b4dcaeea1993c3d792e5475696f7)
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 |
Party probabilities
Every district by the chance it will be represented by either party
Democratic gerrymander | ||
Majority minority | ||
Current | ||
Compact (borders) | ||
Compact (algorithmic) | ||
Highly competitive | ||
Proportionally partisan | ||
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
Compact (algorithmic) | R+2% |
Compact (borders) | D+2% |
Majority minority | D+2% |
Current | D+3% |
Competitive | D+3% |
Dem. gerrymander | D+9% |
GOP gerrymander | R+12% |
Proportional | R+12% |
Competitive | 27 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 10 |
Current | 9 |
Compact (borders) | 9 |
Majority minority | 7 |
Proportional | 5 |
GOP gerrymander | 5 |
Dem. gerrymander | 0 |
Majority minority | 41 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 33 |
Compact (borders) | 32 |
Dem. gerrymander | 31 |
Current | 29 |
Competitive | 29 |
Proportional | 28 |
GOP gerrymander | 28 |
Compact (borders) | 51 |
Current | 67 |
Competitive | 68 |
Majority minority | 68 |
GOP gerrymander | 79 |
Proportional | 79 |
Dem. gerrymander | 80 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 132 |
Compact (borders) | 1 |
Compact (algorithmic) | 2 |
Majority minority | 3 |
Competitive | 4 |
Dem. gerrymander | 5 |
GOP gerrymander | 6 |
Proportional | 6 |
Current | 8 |
The racial or ethnic makeup of each district and each district’s likelihood of being represented by a member of a racial or ethnic minority, based on election results since 2006
Share of population by race | Chance of being represented by a ... | Chance of being represented by a ... | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | District | Majority Race | 0% 50% 100% | Minority member | Democrat | Republican | ||||
1st | White | 2% | 3% | 97% | ||||||
2nd | White | 9% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
3rd | White | 11% | 81% | 19% | ||||||
4th | White | 2% | 4% | 96% | ||||||
5th | White | 17% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
6th | Minority coalition | 24% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
7th | White | 5% | 69% | 31% | ||||||
8th | White | 12% | 6% | 94% | ||||||
9th | Minority coalition | 25% | 92% | 8% | ||||||
10th | White | 20% | 51% | 49% | ||||||
11th | White | 18% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
12th | Minority coalition | 37% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
13th | Minority coalition | 40% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
14th | Minority coalition | 31% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
15th | Minority coalition | 23% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
16th | Hispanic/ Latino | 65% | 94% | 6% | ||||||
17th | Minority coalition | 52% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
18th | White | 11% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
19th | Minority coalition | 42% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
20th | Minority coalition | 56% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
21st | Hispanic/ Latino | 83% | 84% | 16% | ||||||
22nd | Minority coalition | 19% | 8% | 92% | ||||||
23rd | White | 10% | 1% | 99% | ||||||
24th | White | 14% | 89% | 11% | ||||||
25th | White | 16% | 48% | 52% | ||||||
26th | White | 28% | 89% | 11% | ||||||
27th | Minority coalition | 30% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
28th | White | 16% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
29th | Hispanic/ Latino | 91% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
30th | White | 15% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
31st | Minority coalition | 51% | 93% | 7% | ||||||
32nd | Hispanic/ Latino | 77% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
33rd | White | 5% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
34th | Hispanic/ Latino | 91% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
35th | Hispanic/ Latino | 89% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
36th | White | 27% | 62% | 38% | ||||||
37th | Minority coalition | 71% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
38th | Hispanic/ Latino | 76% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
39th | Minority coalition | 11% | 49% | 51% | ||||||
40th | Hispanic/ Latino | 99% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
41st | Hispanic/ Latino | 66% | 98% | 2% | ||||||
42nd | White | 12% | 7% | 93% | ||||||
43rd | Minority coalition | 77% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
44th | Hispanic/ Latino | 96% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
45th | White | 5% | 28% | 72% | ||||||
46th | Hispanic/ Latino | 80% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
47th | Minority coalition | 23% | 98% | 2% | ||||||
48th | White | 3% | 22% | 78% | ||||||
49th | White | 6% | 41% | 59% | ||||||
50th | White | 6% | 3% | 97% | ||||||
51st | Hispanic/ Latino | 90% | >99% | <1% | ||||||
52nd | White | 5% | 87% | 13% | ||||||
53rd | Minority coalition | 21% | 99% | 1% |
Comments